Romney on ‘Skeptical’ Obama: ‘This is Not the Time for Hamlet’
EmailResponding to comments that President Obama made about Afghanistan on Sunday, Mitt Romney says: "This is not the time for Hamlet in the White House."
My colleague, ABC's Teddy Davis, has the story:
President Obama's skepticism about a troop build-up in Afghanistan came under fire on Monday from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who ran for president in 2008 and is actively laying the groundwork for a second run in 2012.
"This is not the time for Hamlet in the White House," said Romney. "How in the world can he be saying at this stage the things that he is saying?"
Romney's remarks were made to the conservative Foreign Policy Initiative in Washington, D.C., as part of a conversation with Dan Senor who sits on the organization's board.
After invoking the skepticism expressed by President Obama when he appeared on ABC's "This Week," Senor asked Romney: "What's wrong with that? Why not take time?"
"You, of course, hope a president would be deliberate," said Romney.
The former governor added, however, that he hopes that Obama was thinking about Afghanistan during the campaign and during his first eight months in office.
Romney noted that Obama has put his team in place in the region and urged him to heed the advice of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
As first reported in today's Washington Post, Gen. McChrystal has sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a confidential assessment which states that he needs more forces in Afghanistan within the next year and that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure."
Romney, who believes Obama has converted the US from a champion of freedom to a neutral arbiter between nations, said that the president appears as if he is laying the groundwork for the US to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Romney warned that such a pullback would destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Senor, a former advisor to the Coalition in Iraq, served as an informal foreign policy advisor to Romney's 2008 campaign.
Invoking the aggressive political schedule that Romney has maintained since last year's campaign, Senor quipped during his introduction of Romney that "he's here to announce that he is running again–" to laughter from Romney and several in the lunchtime audience at the W Hotel.
ABC News' Elizabeth Gorman contributed to this report.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Whose advise should we listen to…a Gov., a team of “experts”, or a military commander?
Posted by: On the Ground | September 21, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
What’s the goal in Afghanistan? What’s considered a win? How long should we be there? Forever? Until every Taliban is gone? Send more troops, sure. With what goal? You have to send more troops, otherwise we’ll loose! How can we win? What’s the game plan? It seems very vague to me, and has been for a long while.
Posted by: What's the goal? | September 21, 2009, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
Why doesn’t Romney compare himself to A Mid Summer Night’s Dreamer? The Mass. electorate saw right through him during his “term” as Governor. Like Clay, Calhoun, Bryan, Nixon, Kennedys, et al., he’ll say and do anything to be elected Pesident. I hope Romney isn’t being “brainwashed” on Afghanistan as his hapless daddy was on Vietnam.
Posted by: jd | September 21, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
NEWSFLASH Headline: While President Obama fiddles Afghanistan burns
Posted by: LEE | September 21, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
I say, let our Commander-in-Chief do his job. He doesn’t have all the answers, but at least he’s listening to the voters AND the military commander. I say, let’s get some REAL help from our Allies. Let’s not just send our Troops alone to handle this dangerous business. Mitt Romney is just resentful that he’s reduced to being an arm-chair quarterback, like McCain is. Nothing President Obama does will ever be good enough. Where was Mitt when Bush was making all the blunders?
Posted by: TexMex4Obama | September 21, 2009, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
I think a good question is brought up here. What exactly does “failure” mean?
What, for that matter, does “success” mean? How will either be measured? It seems to me that any just war should have measurable objectives. Thomas Aquinas too. And St. Augustine. And lots of other people. Why have the objectives been kept “secret” from the citizenry? I understand the need for tactics and specifics to be held in confidentiality, but OBJECTIVES?
Posted by: nik | September 21, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
What’s, and nik: read General McChrystal’s unclassified assessment. It is available on Small Wars Journal.com, a military website, and includes discussion between officers who are (some, anyway) expert in counterinsurgency.
Basically, McChrystal is saying if the president’s goal is to focus on securing the populace, the troop to population ratio necessary to do that is inadequate right now.
Posted by: mr | September 21, 2009, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm
Honestly, these people will miss no opportunity to get their names in the headlines. From listening to Obama, it sounded to me as if he is gathering information, conferring with his military advisers (met with Colin Powell too) and is making a thoughtful decision. I mean…really…not every president can just yell WMD, and have the soldiers lined up to fight a war. Some of them actually listen, think, seek input and then jump in.
Posted by: Myra | September 21, 2009, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
Obama said Afghanistan is the central front on our war on terrorism and now waffles. Jimmy Carter ruined the economy and foreign policy as I think Obama is the reincarnation of Carter’s hell. George Steph needs to get off his knees from in front of the White House and try to be a journalist.
Posted by: barry ocarter | September 21, 2009, 9:06 pm 9:06 pm
Romney needs to keep his mouth shut and so do the republicans for a change. I would not be surprised if Karl Rove had some friends in Washington who sneeked the memo to the press just to damage Obama’s agenda. President Obama is handling this situation correctly even President Clinton agrees. He needs to define the objective. When we went to Afghanistan, it was to get the taliban. Now there is some doubts if they are there and have moved to Pakistan. If this is our agenda…then to send in more troops to die with this objective is wrong. We will never win ths war and most correspondents agree but do we want to continue to spend money and send troops for that reason or do we want to establish a new objective? That is what Obama is pondering and with information from all….he will make the decision. No matter what decision he makes, he will be criticized….if he sends troops he will be criticized for spending more money and sending more troops….if he does not..he will be criticized and called a coward but some will feel pulling out is the right answer. I would rather he take some time to consider the facts and then decide rather than to rush into something we could be tied up in for 10 years or more. We all need to step back and support him no matter what he does. He understands what is going on here and he has the courage to do what he thinks is right just like he is doing on health care. It is unbelievable that after crying for years about health care the nonesense that is going on because someone is finally trying to get it for all.
Posted by: talmag | September 22, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am
And WHY are we listening to Mr. Mitt Romney who has ABSOLUTELY NO (Nada) military experience???
At least Obama is listening to the PROs and not this idiot (and all those others of his ilk)!!
Laughable!
Posted by: ltl lulu | September 22, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
Romney makes a valid point. Obama focused on Afghanistan throughout his presidential campaign. He’s also had eight months to come up with a plan. When you’re Commander-in-Chief, you need to have a plan in place – NOW.
Posted by: Eric | September 24, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am