Ron Paul's Call For Afghanistan Withdrawal Draws Cheers At Fox News GOP Debate (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- With the death of Osama bin Laden dominating the news cycle and captivating the public this week, the five Republican presidential hopefuls who showed in South Carolina Thursday for the Fox News debate were asked to explain their position on the war in Afghanistan.

Fox News host Brett Baier brought up the issue in one of the first questions of the night, asking former senator Rick Santorum about his claim that President Obama has made America less safe.

"When it comes to going after terrorists, for example, drone attacks in Pakistan have more than tripled under President Obama. He just sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan last year, and he just authorized, as we talked about, this mission to kill bin Laden. How much more aggressive could he be?" asked Baier.

Santorum replied that when Obama has done well on foreign policy, it's been because he has continued President George W. Bush's policies, such as "keeping Gitmo open" and "trying to win in Afghanistan." In recent days, many Republicans have rushed to embrace the former president, a man barely mentioned during the last election cycle.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), however, received the first applause of the night when he forcefully called for withdrawal:

[Bin Laden] wasn't caught in Afghanistan. Nation-building in Afghanistan and telling those people how to live and getting involved in running their country hardly had anything to do with finding the information where he was being held in a country that we give billions of dollars of foreign aid to, at the same time we are bombing that country.

So it's the policy that is at fault. Not having the troops in Afghanistan wouldn't have hurt. We went to Afghanistan to get him, and he hasn't been there. Now that he's killed, boy, it is a wonderful time for this country now to reassess it, get the troops out of Afghanistan and end that war that hasn't helped us and hasn't helped anybody in the Middle East.

Businessman Herman Cain's answer on Afghanistan was less clear. He said he doesn't have a plan, because it's not clear what the mission is, what the U.S. interest there is or what the "road map to victory" is. At the same time, Cain did not outline his own vision, simply saying he would "revisit the issue."

Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has been an advocate for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and he repeated his position during the debate.

"Are you worried about providing a specific end date and that possibly would enable the Taliban to move in the day after the U.S. troops left?" asked Baier.

"First of all, I'm not in favor of a timetable. I'm in belief that timetable should be tomorrow. I realize that tomorrow may involve several months," said Johnson.

He added that unlike the Iraq war, he originally supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

"We were attacked. We attacked back," said Johnson. "That's what our military is for, and after six months, I think we pretty effectively had taken care of al Qaeda. But that was 10 years ago. We are building roads, schools, bridges and highways in Iraq and Afghanistan and borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar do that. In my opinion, this is crazy."

While foreign policy barely popped up during the 2010 elections, and pundits widely predict the struggling economy will once again dominate in 2012, bin Laden's death has put Afghanistan on the front burner and forced candidates explain their stance on the decades-long war.

While many have called to reassess the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan in light of bin Laden's shooting deep within Pakistan, the White House said on Thursday that it will not be changing its policy on the war.

WATCH:

Comments

[aveindustries]

09:04 PM on 05/16/2011

Ron Paul clearly won the debate. He is consistent and reliable. I've been hearing him say the same thing for years. He doesn't care about public opinion he does what he thinks is right and the people love him for that quality, the sign of a true leader. Everything that Gov. Johnson was saying at the end are also things I've heard Ron Paul say on multiple occassions i.e. borrowing money to finance a war we can't afford.

Congressman Vietnam War Veteran Ron Paul M.D. 2012

[gggeorgewashington]

10:04 AM on 05/22/2011

Please, let’s bring America's Troops home. They deserve it. We could have fought 2 WWII in the time it has taken.

Leave the Middle East, and all other Nations that are agreed to be sovereign, ALONE with regard to DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.

American Lives are NOT toys.

Bring our Troops Home
Mr. Ron Paul 2012

[Stevede]

11:44 PM on 05/14/2011

Will be great to get someone in office who actually will end the wars, actually stop the bailouts and stealing from the lower and middle class to pay the bonuses of the ultra rich.

Oh and audit the fed, they crooks should be facing life in prison!

Ron for 2012 for sure!

[andresfusion]

11:27 PM on 05/11/2011

RON PAUL 2012! Finally an honest politician!

[Stevede]

11:45 PM on 05/14/2011

Actually not a politician!

A Statesman!

[Zak Carter]

04:32 PM on 05/11/2011

Great article - "Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis04282011.html

[leftLibertarian]

10:34 AM on 05/15/2011

thanks Zak!

[bevfordems]

06:10 PM on 05/10/2011

Let's try this again: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/more-ron-paul-racist-newsletters-and-admissions-surface/.

[Nick Lyons]

12:55 AM on 05/15/2011

It's only racist if you don't understand what he's trying to say

[Nick Lyons]

01:20 AM on 05/15/2011

It's only r4c1sm if you can't understand what he's trying to say, and you only pick the bad words to read.

[bevfordems]

06:09 PM on 05/10/2011

You my friend, have some explaining to do: http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2011/05/unanswered-questions-why-ron-pauls.html.

[marind]

04:07 PM on 05/09/2011

Just watch. Once we finally DO get out of these quagmires, the GOP will congratulate itself on "ending the Democrat's wars."

Can anyone think of a new, more extreme word for "chutzpah"?

[leftLibertarian]

10:35 AM on 05/15/2011

Obama has had 2 years to end the wars that are still going on!

[Darwan Winkler]

08:10 AM on 05/09/2011

Personally, I wouldn't pay 2 cents for a South Carolina opinion, home of "You Lie Wilson"

The state is full of Kracks ! worse the Bama and Texas.

If it wasn't for Federal money and military operations conducted in the South Carolina 90% of the state would join the ranks of the 40 million Americans presently on welfare while they claim a desire for a smaller FED.

These people don't know which side their bread is buttered on.

Cain spoke and carried himself well, but like he said , he's a business man, not a politician.

What ever! ~ We need a thoughtful statesman that can ask the right questions and properly weigh council and information. Someone that can resist the pressures to appease noisy special interest.

We have that with "O" today like never in recent history.

This selection efforts should provide us entertainment.

[mjc]

11:01 AM on 05/09/2011

With "O" we do have a thoughtful spokesman, eloquent and understandable, but we don't have someone who can resist "noisy special interests"...and no one grieves about that more than I do. And his policies change nothing, fulfilling Bush's third term in many respects rather than the promises he made during the 2008 campaign. You mentioned in a response to one of my posts that he didn't take PAC money. True, he knew he didn't have to worry about the limitations on what his advisors were sure he was going to get in campaign funds.

[Stevede]

11:50 PM on 05/14/2011

I have been saying he is Bush 2.0 since he didn't close down Iraq and even started another war.

Yeah will not vote for Bush 2.0 in 2012

[Desnoxvu]

11:44 AM on 05/08/2011

It is interesting that Herman Cain's involvement with the Federal Reserve is not brought up.

Maybe the HuffPo can do some research on his access to the discount window.

[TimeMaster]

06:06 PM on 05/07/2011

Very interesting ... Herman Cain is the perfect candidate to run for his party.
"Businessman Herman Cain's answer on Afghanistan was less clear. He said he doesn't have a plan, because it's not clear what the mission is, what the U.S. interest there is or what the "road map to victory" is. At the same time, Cain did not outline his own vision, simply saying he would "revisit the issue."

Now that says a lot about him. He doesn't know anything, he doesn't plan to know anything, and he is not saying that will know anything in the future. Last but not least, he does not have any answers. Wow, what a guy!

Here's the answer Herman, we should leave Afghanistan at the earliest possible time that is reasonable after all else quiets down. Anyone remember Iraq? You don't hear much about this country in the news lately and either the country is doing fine or not. But then, who really cares at this point? It seems talking about Iraq does nothing to help the ratings of the cable news programs.

[Stevede]

11:54 PM on 05/14/2011

Yeah Herman Cain is nothing but a fed insider, but because he is black and has a few talking points and is a decent speaker were supposed to Ignore that he is just another Bernake.

[VoluntaryMan]

02:12 AM on 05/29/2011

"Revisit the issue" is politician talk for "I won't clearly answer the question because I want us to stay in Afganistan."

[Chingatch Croute]

03:22 PM on 05/07/2011

Cain will "revisit the issue"???

Where in the H477 has HE been!
This "war" has been on for over 10 years and now he needs to study the issue?

Good-Bye!

[kit1544]

01:00 AM on 05/08/2011

Do you know everything there is to know about the Afghanistan War? Are you privy to the intelligence of our government agencies, military, etc.? Do you not know things have changed over 10 years? We have troops invested and we have changed their society. We have some responsibility toward the common people whose lives we have distrupted and it is a matter that has to be studied!

[thingsucks]

02:17 PM on 05/09/2011

It seems to be pretty clear. Afghanistan people wanted us out many years ago and in some of the first votes in the new Iraq government, they voted they didnt want america to occupy them anymore.

So we need another excuse, other than, we are doing it for the innocent people we are bombing.

[Jonathan Martin]

01:30 PM on 06/11/2011

The mountains of Afghanistan are filled with $1 trillion dollars worth of mineral resources. Ranging from iron to gold. That is what the Afghanistan War is about...

[barbra1971]

01:32 PM on 05/07/2011

Listen carefully to the first candidate: does he say that Obama stopped republicans from attacking Iran 18 month go? Is that is true bless his heart!!!

Please pay attention to each of them the truth will come out.

[windwolf]

01:30 AM on 05/07/2011

Who wants to watch this over the hill, old curmudgeon spout misinformation about why Obama went into Afghanistan. Hey Ron, we went into Afghanistan to destroy Alqueda's and the Taliban's safe havens to prevent them from doing their destructive acts on us and our allies from there. - Not to specifically get Bin Laden. You and your Republican cohorts create a distorted reality for only one purpose - to discredit Obama. Your buddy Santourum who spouts praise of Bush's failed foreign policy as the lynchpin for Obama's efforts, is such distorted nonsense. What Obama did was to correct the gross policy mistakes that bush made over and over, and set us back on an effective foreign policy course. Healing the rift between us and our allies that Bush's cowboy policies created. By alienating our allies, and literally going it alone in Irac, etc. we spent over a trillion dollars in not only a needless war, but in a vain attempt on Bush's part to nation build. Bush was the architect of that folly, not Obama. Let's get our facts straight and quit telling the big lies, which is characteristic of the far right.

[esoteric10]

01:36 AM on 05/07/2011

Ron voted for the authorization for us to go into Afghanistan to dismantle Al Queda and go after Bin Ladin. We are now nation-building, and even after Bin Ladin has been assassinated, they will STILL try to justify our presence in Afghanistan in order to feed the defense contractors. Wake. Up.

[Isaac Karjala]

04:21 AM on 05/07/2011

well, Ron Paul is more or less equally critical of both Democrats and Republicans when they take actions that are more or less the same. Amazingly, you can't do that. Democrats vs Republicans, Demons vs The Repugnant, Blue vs Red, Crips vs Bloods.

[dieselis]

11:47 PM on 05/06/2011

Ron Paul may have some lofty ideas and plans as Obama's lofty "change we can believe in"but in essence when elected your obligated to the high rollers that bankrolled you. So just as Obama can only do so much Paul's agenda will fall far short of what he's promising and as Walter Cronkite would say"and that's just the way it is"the average voter is only good for his vote which they know through the media those votes are easily manipulated.

[esoteric10]

01:38 AM on 05/07/2011

Ron Paul is bankrolled by micro-donations and "moneybombs", like when he raised $1million two days ago solely from individuals. No corporations. If you look at Ron's record, he is one guy you can be confident will NOT sell out, to anyone, for financial gain or otherwise.

[dieselis]

06:59 PM on 05/07/2011

Lets say Paul beats the odds and gets elected, then these bankers will simply gut the markets until he complies to their commands. Ending the FED is the only thing that will bring America back to solvency. Were still looking at 50 plus years and undoubtedly it would be a very painful process,but well worth it. The FED won't go do without some terrible fights.

[Isaac Karjala]

04:29 AM on 05/07/2011

Obama's actions as President are consistent with his voting record in the Senate...... people being disappointed in Obama isn't because he's bankrolled by high rollers but because people supported him without fact checking to see that what he says almost never matches up with what he does. But anyway, Ron Paul had the lowest average donation size of any semi-mainstream candidate in the last election, he doesn't have much if any corporate support.

[mjc]

02:30 PM on 05/07/2011

Wonder where you get the idea that Obama wasn't "bankrolled by high rollers". The stuff about small donors is just propaganda. Mostly, Obama got a lot of money from certain drug companies and from corporate interests like Goldman-Sachs.

[dieselis]

06:48 PM on 05/07/2011

Who's been elected president without corporate dollars and/or authorization in the last 100yrs or since the Federal Reserve Act of December 23,1913 the thinly vialed private bank that owns Washington,D.C. They virtually hand pick the president and control the house and senate. Disobey them and reelection is unlikely.

[Darwan Winkler]

08:25 AM on 05/09/2011

Yes, it's time to wrap up and go home with a warning, "I'll be back".