President Carter Faults Obama On IS!!!

ABC Source!!!

Former President Jimmy Carter believes the Obama administration “waited too long” to act on ISIS, allowing the group to shore up the funding and resources for its success in taking over parts of Iraq.

“First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic state build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” Carter said in an October 7 interview with the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, “Then when [ISIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.”

Making a scapegoat out of Sunnis...
Pretty predictable...

Carter said ground troops could enable the mission to succeed, but that troops would only help Iraq, not Syria, where ISIS originated.

Why wouldn't ground troops help in Syria?

Carter's dissatisfaction with Obama's ISIS strategy may be indicative of his feelings toward the president's Middle East policy as whole, which he implied lacked focus.

“It changes from time to time,” Carter told the Star Telegram. “I noticed that two of his secretaries of defense, after they got out of office, were very critical of the lack of positive action on the part of the president.

Hmmm...
Leading a coalition & Airstrikes is hardly a lack of positive action!
International Law has to be observed, so he cannot just send in troops...

Then again, being a 90yr old Hamas supporter, maybe old age is affecting his ability to use logic & rationale!

Then again, being a 90yr old Hamas supporter, maybe old age is affecting his ability to use logic & rationale!

Well, Obama does have that going for him when facing criticism from one of the weakest Presidents (especially on foreign policy) the US has ever had.

He's right. And they did drag their heals to allow this horrendously brutal primitive group of jackyls and gargoyles from lower diminsions to try and overtake the rights of others, to force their pyschopathy on them.

And Obama and all his overlords, who he answers to, planned every move of this.

Jimmy Carter slamming Obama!! I just had to wipe coffee off my monitor. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Carter...strange man, even more bizarre rise to power. He was no William Jeffferson Clinton (Rhodes scholar from nowhere Arkansas).

Carter was around for the whole Council on Foreign relations formation among other things. Just a navy guy who was a good Christian that was governor of Georgia. A state which since has exploded in commerce and population yet is always in debt.
Carter also has been outspoken about peace...this isn't like him at all.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

That is not what he said. He said that ground troops "Would only help Iraq, not Syria". That is, they would assist the Iraqi government, but not the Syrian government, because for all that ISIS are a (CIA sponsored) threat to the region, the Syrian government deserves no ones help, in any matter, and although I am no fan of the regime change culture we have been living in for some time, I am also not a fan of the cold, calculating and compassion free bastard, Assad.

For all I care, both he and the entire militancy in his region, whether government or ISIS aligned, can be shot into the heart of the sun, there to be consumed by fire.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Too bad Jimmy Carter is just another 33dgree Masonic As*Hole who won't say it like it is.

Ron Paul on the other hand, just tells it like it is.

US government funded and created ISIS, they were the "moderates", who became non-moderates

Don't you just hate that, when moderates become extremist LOL with your guns and MREs

a reply to: TrueBrit

Like I said in a previous post. Assad and Ahmadinejad are (some) of the only leaders in the world challenging the NWO and the elite Cabal. This why the west hates them so much. Assad him self said he would never be a "western puppet"

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Too bad Jimmy Carter is just another 33dgree Masonic As*Hole who won't say it like it is.

Ron Paul on the other hand, just tells it like it is.

US government funded and created ISIS, they were the "moderates", who became non-moderates

Don't you just hate that, when moderates become extremist LOL with your guns and MREs

Ron Paul wouldn't have done anything...he would have voted No if in the House to any action. If president, we would all be fighting domestically over potatoes since businesses could pay $1/hr with no minimum wage. Ayn Rand books might make good fiber but are bad nutritionally.

originally posted by: Unity_99
He's right. And they did drag their heals to allow this horrendously brutal primitive group of jackyls and gargoyles from lower diminsions to try and overtake the rights of others, to force their pyschopathy on them.

And Obama and all his overlords, who he answers to, planned every move of this.

No, "they" didn't...

Where do you think they got all of those nice white Toyota trucks from? The initial weapons? U.S. and Saudi allies to battle the Shiites. Poppy Bush was head of the secret police (and we elected him president) and made a lot of connections and even more money. His boy held hands with Prince Bandar...the Kingdom of Saud spends 2 BILLION a year to promote Wahhabism in islamic countries. It doesn't all go to books and prayer mats.

We created the Taliban, we created these guys...

Buy stock in military companies. It's better than a savings account, even if you can only afford a share or two.

Eta: your last lines are right. Obama wanted to change the country...then the boys in charge probably showed them pictures of Kennedy's skull lacking brains for wanting change as well.

a reply to: MGaddafi

Whatever Ahmadinejad and Assad might be challenging, they also prevent free speech, deny the people who live under their rule the right to decide who their leader will be in a free and fair manner, in the case of Ahmadinejad he is an anti-semite, and Assad is a murderer of his own people.

I do not care whether the pair of them want to legalise pot world wide, and turn their entire nations GDP toward setting up a never ending metal festival, they are STILL bastards.

a reply to: MGaddafi

The reason being he is a educated man, He is nothing like Gaddafi or Saddam.

when one takes a look at the worldwide banking system and, in particular, the amount of countries with government-owned, non-Rothschild affiliated central banks, one easily sees a monopolistic system coming into view. In addition, when one takes a closer look at those countries with government-owned central banks, independent of Rothschild and major financier control, it becomes even clearer that maintaining a government-mandated structure of currency and central banking places a nation on a very dangerous list.

Follow the Money.......

a reply to: TrueBrit

And our "Free" country doesnt. Our Gov is worse than anthing IRAN or SRYIA has. We only have the media to suger coat for us unlike them.

You say Anti Semite ?? Are you a Zionist by any chance. Whats your thoughts on Israel ?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: MGaddafi

Whatever Ahmadinejad and Assad might be challenging, they also prevent free speech, deny the people who live under their rule the right to decide who their leader will be in a free and fair manner, in the case of Ahmadinejad he is an anti-semite, and Assad is a murderer of his own people.

I do not care whether the pair of them want to legalise pot world wide, and turn their entire nations GDP toward setting up a never ending metal festival, they are STILL bastards.

Brit...love you, man...but Ahmadinejad isn't in charge anymore. He barely was to begin with. The ayatollahs and the mullahs are the real power.
The "government" only exists by their will. If the west would open up real relations, I'm sure a Magna Carta type thing would happen in that great ancient land...

a reply to: MGaddafi

Oh it is?

Huh... interesting, because, just recently there was a raid on a location where suspected terrorists were, and arrests made. Armed officers were the ones to take control of the scene. One suspect was Tazered.

When Assads law is handed down however, it involves SHELLING AN ENTIRE TOWN! SOME TIMES WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS!

Believe you me, I am under no false impressions about the great wrongs my nations government has been responsible for down the ages, and all of those things are a stain upon our honour as Britons. But there has not been a scenario where entire British towns were flattened by British forces, purely to maintain the safety of the reign of the current leadership, not since we gained the ability to at least PRETEND to be living in a democratic nation back in times gone by.

Comparing the two therefore, is perhaps the most foolish thing one could be doing, short of jumping in the shower fully clothed, and then licking a poorly fitted power socket until your tongue connects with something behind the plastic cover!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
The sane Carter called on having troops in Syria yeah that would really work and piss of Iran and Russia in two ways.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Who are writing these reports. The UN ?

a reply to: TrueBrit

hey also prevent free speech, deny the people who live under their rule the right to decide who their leader will be in a free and fair manner, in the case of Ahmadinejad he is an anti-semite, and Assad is a murderer of his own people.

This is quite comical. Assad is a murderer of his own people based on whose claims again? the Westren Mainstream outlets i cant believe we are still having the same arguments on this.

they also prevent free speech, deny the people who live under their rule the right to decide who their leader will be in a free and fair manner

This is again quite comical, you do know terrorist FSA backers arent even Democratic?

a reply to: MGaddafi

The reports?

All manner of people, journalists from within the country, UN people, individuals who have escaped the crapstorm and taken shelter in my country, and a plethora of other unfortunate buggers who have been caught up in events.

You wish to offer an alternative explanation? Go ahead, but if you cannot give at least as much proof for where YOU think the shelling came from (because towns were destroyed by shelling, that is not up for debate), as you would wish from someone arguing against you, I would save your breath if I were you.

It doesn't take a political science expert to know that the US action against ISIS was delayed.
I myself believe that the delay was in part due to the embarrassment of them being recently supported when the boogeyman was still Bashar al Assad.
I suspect Obama's personal beliefs also played a part - since in his stance against Iran and Syria he seems to agree with Sunni Geopolitics.