Republican lawmakers denounced Democratic President Barack Obama’s plan for winding down the U.S. war on terror, calling it a misguided approach that undermines national security.
Obama’s May 23 policy speech, which urged an end to the broad war powers Congress approved to fight al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was portrayed by Republicans as a lack of resolve in the face of terrorism threats worldwide.
Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?
“At a time when we need resolve the most, we are sounding retreat,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on the “Fox News Sunday” program. “Our enemies are emboldened all over the planet. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is coming back with a vengeance.”
The president said he would curtail drone strikes and push for an eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The speech called for a ratcheting-down of the war on terrorism, with Obama saying that the U.S. may be drawn into more wars unless the nation moderates its stance.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Obama, as well as the Republican Bush administration, failed to talk honestly about the scope of the global threat posed by terrorism. The president’s speech missed the mark, he said.
“I think it’s just stunningly, breathtakingly naive,” Gingrich, a Republican, said on CNN’s “State of the Union."
"He says at one point, wars have to end," Gingrich said. "Well, (Leon) Trotsky said, 'You may not care about war, but war cares about you.'"
Gingrich added that both Obama's and President George W. Bush's administrations have refused to admit radical Islam is on the offense across the planet. "It is what killed people in Boston. It is what just killed a soldier in London," he said.
"The president announces cheerfully, 'The war's going to end because I'm not happy being a war president,'" Gingrich said. Pointing to problems in northern Nigeria, the Chinese volunteering to send troops to Mali, and problems in Libya, Gingrich said the United States will never again see the pre-1941 sense of peace that it isn't being threatened.
"No one wants to talk honestly about how big the threat is, how widespread it is, how fanatic it is, and how in its own mind, it's totally legitimate," he said.
Calling it the most significant foreign policy address ever given by Obama, Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said on “State of the Union” that he couldn’t disagree more with the president.
“I found many parts of it disturbing for many reasons,” McCaul said. “I think the rhetoric sort of defies the reality in terms of the threat level that we’ve all been briefed on.”
Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, backed the president, saying basic values and freedoms may be compromised in a never-ending war-like atmosphere.
Latest: Is Benghazi a Cover Up? Is Obama at the Heart of It? Vote Here
“I’m not going to take lightly the terrorism threat against the U.S.,” Durbin said on the “Fox News Sunday” program. “But if we are constantly thinking of this in the context of war, we stand at risk of doing things which compromise our values and freedoms.”
The president said he will tighten the rules governing who can be targeted in strikes by U.S. drones, which are unmanned aircraft. He said he’ll also ask Congress to lift restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees to other countries and lift a moratorium on transfers to Yemen. The speech came weeks after Obama renewed his 2009 pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, in the face of objections from Congress, and as a hunger strike at the facility has led to the force-feeding of 30 prisoners.
© Copyright 2016 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.