Reactions to President Obama's Speech "The Way Forward on Afghanistan" June 22, 2011

Reactions to President Obama's June 22, 2011 Speech on Afghanistan

Cain Responds to President Obama's Plans for Afghanistan

(Stockbridge, GA)- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain responded to President Obama's address regarding his plans for American military efforts in Afghanistan, saying:

President Obama's statement tonight is a stark reminder that while one might campaign in poetry, one must govern in prose.

While all Americans hope and pray for a speedy, victorious resolution to the war in Afghanistan that prevents the continued loss of our national treasures--- our men and women in uniform--- and our national treasury, how we define an honorable exit remains to be seen.

The President suggested that we cannot become isolationist or engage in every international conflict, but instead, we must charter a "middle course." How does he define this? It seems to be yet another foggy foreign policy coming from this administration.

Instead of providing the American people with clarity, President Obama proposes an abrupt withdrawal of our troops that could potentially compromise the legitimate gains we have made in Afghanistan. Sadly, I fear President Obama's decision could embolden our enemy and endanger our troops.

President Obama is correct on one account: it is time for nation-building at home and high time the Afghan people take more responsibility in bringing peace and stability to their own country.

###

Statement by Jon Huntsman on the President's Afghanistan Announcement

Jon Huntsman released the following statement about the President's announcement regarding troop levels in Afghanistan:

"With America mired in three expensive conflicts, we have a generational opportunity to reset our position in the world in a way that makes sense for our security as well as our budget.

The war in Afghanistan is an asymmetrical war, and our approach ought to adjust accordingly. Our troops have done everything we've asked them to. They've routed the Taliban, dismantled Al Qaeda, and facilitated democratic elections.

Now it is time we move to a focused counter-terror effort which requires significantly fewer boots on the ground than the President discussed tonight.

We need a safe but rapid withdrawal which encourages Afghans to assume responsibility, while leaving in place a strong counter intelligence and special forces effort proportionate to the threat. The War on Terror is being fought against a global enemy, and it is critical that we have the resources to fight them wherever they're found."

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GARY JOHNSON ISSUES STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AFGHANISTAN ADDRESS

June 22, 2011, Sante Fe, NM – Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson released the following statement in response to President Obama’s Afghanistan address:
"While bringing any of our troops home from Afghanistan is a good thing, the President's plan is not much more than lip-service to his pledge to begin withdrawing by this summer. Only reducing troop numbers to pre-surge levels, and taking a year to do it, is not acceptable to the growing number of Americans, like me, who get the reality that there is no compelling reason to risk another life or another dollar in a conflict that has no end -- and no remaining national security justification. Thanks to our quick and totally justified action in 2001, al Qaeda essentially left Afghanistan nine years ago. We should have done the same."

Please contact Lizz Renda at media@garyjohnson2012.com or 801.303.7924 to schedule an interview with Gary Johnson. For more information, please visit www.garyjohnson2012.com.

# # # #

Ron Paul Campaign Issues Statement on Obama Afghanistan Speech
“This move is too little, too late.”

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The campaign of 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement remarking on President Obama’s speech announcing the scheduling of a drawdown of the surge troops sent in to Afghanistan after he took office. See comments below.

“This move is too little, too late,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “When candidate Obama was running for the presidency, he campaigned largely on bringing our troops home, yet we are not only still in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we've expanded into Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. Despite this purely political move, there will still be thousands of American soldiers in harm’s way by the end of this drawdown.”

“Osama Bin Laden was very clear about his desire to suck America into a no-win war in the Middle East so they could pick us off over there,” continued Benton.

“We shouldn't allow Bin Laden to win from beyond the grave; we have fallen precisely into the trap he set for us - stretching our forces thin trying to nation-build and sending our men and women to fight without clear objectives. Afghanistan was the downfall of the Soviet Union. We must act now so it is not the same for America. It's time to bring our troops home to defend this country.”

For more information on Congressman Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign visit www.RonPaul2012.com.

###

Gov. Tim Pawlenty Discusses President Obama's Speech on the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan on The O'Reilly Factor

"I thought his speech tonight was deeply concerning. Look how he phrased the outcome of this war. He said we need to end the war 'responsibly.' When America goes to war, America needs to win. We need to close out the war successfully. And what that means now is not nation building. What it means is to follow General Petraeus’ advice and to get those security forces built up to the point where they can pick up the slack as we draw down. ...

"This decision should be based on conditions on the ground and success, not some vague notions of a responsible wind down and then jumping over what the real mission is now which is stabilizing the security of the country."

In case you missed it, watch Gov. Tim Pawlenty discuss President Obama's remarks here

FULL TRANSCRIPT

O’Reilly: ... Now, you heard President Obama basically say that he has control of the Afghan situation. That what he’s doing is a methodical disengagement that the American people want. Do you support it?

Pawlenty: Bill, I thought his speech tonight was deeply concerning. Look how he phrased the outcome of this war. He said we need to end the war “responsibly.” When America goes to war, America needs to win. We need to close out the war successfully. And what that means now is not nation building. What it means is to follow General Petraeus’ advice and to get those security forces built up to the point where they can pick up the slack as we draw down.

O’Reilly: If you were elected president, would you put more people military people in there?

Pawlenty: I supported the surge and I would have supported it even at a higher level as General McChrystal originally recommended. And I supported President Obama’s decision to surge it even at the level that he did. But it shows you a window in his thinking that on the very night he announced the surge, he also quickly announced the deadline for withdrawal to placate the left wing of his party.

O’Reilly: Well, that was a tactical mistake and I think most people agree.

Pawlenty: But Bill, he’s doing it again. He’s doing it again tonight.

O'Reilly: Why is he doing it? Is he doing it because he sincerely believes, as 56 percent of the American people do? We have to get the heck out of there. Because all the polls show the majority of the people want out of there. Does he sincerely believe that or is he doing it to play to his base to get votes for his reelection campaign?

Pawlenty: The latter. I have been there three times - late last summer - and met with General Petraeus. He said 'Look, we've stalled out the insurgency. We need about two years to get this thing to the point of security, stability and we can draw down the troops responsibly.' And I think that's what he told the President. And now you have the President saying to General David Petraeus, I think the smartest and the most insightful guy in this debate, 'You know what, I know better, and I'm going to put artificial timelines even within the next year and half.' This decision should be based on conditions on the ground and success, not some vague notions of a responsible wind down and then jumping over what the real mission is now which is stabilizing the security of the country.

O'Reilly: How do you sell your point of view to a very skeptical American public? Colonel Hunt said even after 10 years we only have 10 percent of the Afghan provinces under control. We have a corrupt guy running Afghanistan, Karzai. By all accounts, this guy is a nasty piece of work. He can't even rally his own people, Karzai. They hate him. So how do you sell after ten years, a half trillion dollar investment. We got 1,500 dead, and thousands more maimed in Afghanistan. How do you sell that to the American public who said we've had enough?

Pawlenty: Two things, keep in mind where most of the people are in Afghanistan. You know from your trip there - Kabul and Kandahar. So you can't count the provinces.

O'Reilly: You can't tell and you can't pacify the whole country, no matter how many troops are there.

Pawlenty: You could have swung those surge troops from the south where great progress had been made to the east to the hinge to Pakistan and it would have been a good next move.

But here's how you sell it: we’ve been there ten years. Everybody knows we are there for justified reasons but now we had so much money so much treasure so much sacrifice so much blood so much loss of life, to leave now when we’re so close a successful completion of what I described earlier I think is a grave mistake It not only dishonors that commitment that people have made.

O’Reilly: Did you notice that he stuck in the clean energy resources deal? Where did that come from? And like the clean energy stuff? I think we all want clean energy but in a speech about Afghanistan?

Pawlenty: It goes back to the political point and then he throws in this idea that Libya and an international approach is the centralized way forward for us. If he would have acted promptly and decisively in Libya, he’s the one who has now created the vital interest in Libya, which is if you leave Moammar Qaddafi sit there and become a renewed terrorist, guess who his number one target is going to be as he thumbs his nose at the United States of America. You can’t let Qaddafi stay now and it’s President Obama who’se created the new and different vital interest in Libya, which means you can't let Qaddafi stay there now.

###

MITT ROMNEY RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AFGHANISTAN REMARKS

Boston, MA – Mitt Romney issued the following response to President Barack Obama’s remarks on Afghanistan tonight:

“We all want our troops to come home as soon as possible, but we shouldn’t adhere to an arbitrary timetable on the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. This decision should not be based on politics or economics. America’s brave men and women in uniform have fought to achieve significant progress in Afghanistan, some having paid the ultimate price. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our military commanders in the days ahead.”

###

Santorum Response to Obama Afghanistan Address

Verona, PA - Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) made the following statement in reaction to President Obama's speech regarding the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan:

"President Obama speaks of winding down our engagement in Afghanistan, but he does not emphasize the need for victory," said Senator Santorum. "Every American wants our brave men and women home safely, but we cannot let those who've given the last full measure die in vain by abandoning the gains we've made thus far. We must be squarely focused on succeeding in Afghanistan rather than on politically motivated troop withdrawals. Sadly, President Obama doesn't seem to share that commitment."

To learn more about former Senator Rick Santorum, please visit www.RickSantorum.com.

###

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle responded to President Obama's June 22 speech with the following comments today:

"President Obama's speech was disappointing, but not surprising. The withdrawals he announced are painfully inadequate. Obama's withdrawals, even if they are carried out as he described, will still leave about 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, probably for years to come. The president is commander-in-chief of the military. He has the power to end the war now, and withdraw all American troops, and that's what he should do.

"The U.S. has no business fighting a war in Afghanistan. Nearly three years ago, our Libertarian National Committee adopted a resolution calling for the withdrawal of our armed forces from Afghanistan. We are saddened and angry that there are now more troops there than ever.

"Obama talked about 'ending the war responsibly.' I think the word 'responsibly' is a weaselly escape hatch in case Obama doesn't want to withdraw more troops later. He will just say, 'That would be irresponsible -- I need to keep the war going strong.'

"This war causes the Afghan people to justifiably feel a greater hatred toward America. It makes American taxpayers poorer. And it emboldens other would-be aggressors, who can point to American intervention in Afghanistan whenever they feel like doing the same elsewhere.

"There are two big winners from the continuation of this war: Our military-industrial complex, which seems to have the president in its back pocket, and the Afghan government, which continues to enjoy tremendous benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

"If anything, Republican reactions to the president's speech were even more ridiculous than the speech itself. Republican Senator John McCain fretted that this withdrawal was not 'modest' enough. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, feeling the need to criticize Obama despite the fact that they basically agree on everything, complained of an 'arbitrary timetable.' Republican House Speaker John Boehner worried about losing our 'gains' in Afghanistan. All these comments show an inability to comprehend an intelligent, modest foreign policy, as well as a serious lack of respect for American taxpayers."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following: