The drumbeat of Republican presidential candidates skeptical of President Barack Obama's Iraq policy continued Friday night.

Here's the statement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry:

"I’m deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end. The President was slow to engage the Iraqis and there’s little evidence today’s decision is based on advice from military commanders.

“America’s commitment to the future of Iraq is important to U.S. national security interests and should not be influenced by politics. Despite the great achievements of the U.S. military and the Iraqi people, there remain real threats to our shared interests, especially from Iran.

“The United States must remain a firm and steadfast ally for Iraq, maintaining an ongoing diplomatic, economic, and military to military partnership with this emerging democratic ally in the Middle East.

“As a veteran and commander-in-chief of national guard forces, I cannot express enough appreciation for our military service members who have protected and defended American interests in Iraq. Our Iraq war veterans made enormous sacrifices to make our nation and world safer, and I know all Americans will welcome them home with great pride and appreciation.”

While a large group of reporters and photographers assembled at the White House Thursday, a string quartet played, bartenders poured glasses of champagne and the staff prepared to welcome a group of honored guests. But these weren't heads of state. Rather, these were ordinary Americans who had helped their fellow citizens, and President Barack Obama thanked them personally in the elegant East Room.

Half a world away Thursday, Libya closed a painful chapter with the capture and death of Moammar Gadhafi at the hands of Libyans who shed blood to end 42 years of fear and brutality. Despite the violent conclusion to the months-long struggle for Libya's heart and soul, it seems clear that the rebels wanted, among other things, simple respect from their leader. Inspired by relatively peaceful revolutions in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, it was only a matter of time before Libyans 'voted' Gadhafi out.

Most Americans never get the chance to meet their president or see the inside of the White House. But that doesn't mean they can't. As Americans, we have the freedom to choose our leaders. Not every citizen has direct access to members of Congress or the president, but all of us has a vote. We have the freedom to criticize our leaders, and we have the freedom to choose someone else. The frustrated citizens of Middle Eastern countries might not want democracy exactly the way we think of it, but they crave leaders they can respect, and who respect them in return. Let's hope they succeed.

Herman Cain acknowledges that he's not that experienced in foreign policy. His general philsophy is peace through strength with clarity.

But the Georgia businessman, who's vaulted to the top of many national polls as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination, scoffs at critics.

"I've been criticized for not having any foreign policy experience," Cain told an audience of Las Vegas activists Wednesday. "And the guy in there now does?"

President Barack Obama was in his first term as a U.S. senator from Illinois when he was elected president in 2008.

President Barack Obama Thursday urged Syrian President Assad to step down in the wake of his violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations.

"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way," Obama said in a statement.

"His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people.  We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way.  He has not led.  For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."

President Barack Obama faces a tough audience in the Muslim world when he makes a major speech Thursday on the fast changing landscape in northern Africa and the Middle East.
Despite his outreach to the Muslim world, and despite the pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, both Obama and the United States are unpopular in several key Muslim countries, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.
 Pew found that Obama is unpopular in all of the Muslim countries surveyed except Indonesia, where he spend part of his childhood. In Jordan, a U.S. ally, only 28 percent trust that Obama will do the right thing in world affairs, the center said. In Turkey, another U.S. ally, it’s just 12 percent.
Also, some of the keys of anti-U.S. sentiment remain strong in the region, including the belief that the U.S. acts unilaterally and poses a military threat.
The survey was conducted March 21-April 26 in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel and the Palestinian territories. It’s available at http://pewglobal.org/2011/05/17/arab-spring-fails-to-improve-us-image/.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Monday sharply criticized President BArack Obama for his handling of the Libyan mission, saying many Americans "view our military intervention in Libya with anxiety and uncertainty."

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell said, people are "wondering when this operation will end, and when they're loved ones will return. And they're asking another reasonable question: What is the mission?"

Even as NATO assumes command, he said, "It's fair to ask, what is the role of our military and military alliance in providing support to an opposition that we are only beginning to understand?"

McConnell also blasted the president for not properly consulting Congress. Obama has held meetings with congressional leaders.

One person McConnell did praise was Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who also ran the Pentagon during part of President George W. Bush's administration.

"The president is fortunate to be able to call upon the wisdom of this seasoned national security expert in considering our operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Libya," McConnell said. "It was Secretary Gates who reminded the American people of the risks inherent in military intervention." 

How much does U.S. involvement in Libya cost?

Rep. Bruce Braley, R-Iowa, wrote President Barack Obama earlier this week, asking that question. "I firmly believe American taxpayers deserve a full accounting of the additional burden of a third conflict," Braley said, referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: "I don't have numbers for you. I can tell you that this is what we believe, that there are contingency funds that are built into the Defense Department budget for this sort of thing."

Friday, Braley still was not satsified.

"Yesterday I asked for accountability on the question of how much this conflict is costing us, and I have yet to see a clear response from the White House," he said. "The fact that funds for contingency military operations exist doesn’t answer the question of how much we’re spending, and will continue to spend, in Libya.

"I’m not the only one asking these questions – the American people are demanding answers too. And the President must give Congress and all taxpayers an accurate answer."

House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday wrote a strongly-worded letter to President Barack Obama, asking the president to provide more detailed answers about the U.S. mission in Libya.

"I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief and support our troops as they carry out their mission.  But I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission,"Boehner wrote. Republicans have a 241 to 192 seat majority in the House of Representatives.

"In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered.  At the same time, by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League. 

It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."

He then asked Obama to answer these questions:

           -- A United Nations Security Council resolution does not substitute for a U.S. political and military strategy.  You have stated that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi must go, consistent with U.S. policy goals.  But the U.N. resolution the U.S. helped develop and signed onto makes clear that regime change is not part of this mission.  In light of this contradiction, is it an acceptable outcome for Qadhafi to remain in power after the military effort concludes in Libya? If not, how will he be removed from power?  Why would the U.S. commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?  

• In announcing that our Armed Forces would lead the preliminary strikes in Libya, you said it was necessary to “enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.”  Do we know which partners will be taking the lead?  Are there clear lines of authority and responsibility and a chain of command?  Operationally, does enforcement of a no-fly zone require U.S. forces to attack non-air or command and control operations for land-based battlefield activities, such as armored vehicles, tanks, and combatants?

• You have said that the support of the international community was critical to your decision to strike Libya. But, like many Americans, it appears many of our coalition partners are themselves unclear on the policy goals of this mission.  If the coalition dissolves or partners continue to disengage, will the American military take on an increased role?  Will we disengage? 

• Since the stated U.S. policy goal is removing Qadhafi from power, do you have an engagement strategy for the opposition forces?  If the strife in Libya becomes a protracted conflict, what are your Administration's objectives for engaging with opposition forces, and what standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by our government?

• Your Administration has repeatedly said our engagement in this military action will be a matter of “days, not weeks.”  After four days of U.S. military action, how soon do you expect to hand control to these other nations?  After the transition to coalition forces is completed, how long will American military forces remain engaged in this action?  If Qadhafi remains in power, how long will a no-fly zone will be enforced?

• We are currently in the process of setting priorities for the coming year in the budget.  Has the Department of Defense estimated the total cost, direct and indirect, associated with this mission?  While you said yesterday that the cost of this mission could be paid for out of already-appropriated funds, do you anticipate requesting any supplemental funds from Congress to pay for ongoing operations in Libya?

• Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East.  The American people deserve answers to these questions.  And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?

Top Senate Democrats Wednesday praised President Barack Obama's handling of the U.S. mission in Libya, comparing him favorably to President George H. W. Bush.

"I might say that I think this was a very wise course," said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., of Obama's actions.

"It is reminiscent of George Herbert Walker (Bush)'s effort before our involvement in Kuwait where he lined up support across the board and through the United Nations before any military action was commenced," he said in a conference call with reporters.

Bush put together a coalition to fight Iraq, after it invaded Kuwait in 1990.

The leaders were uncertain whether Congress should give its formal consent to the operation; Bush eventually sought and got congressional approve for the Gulf War in 1991.

"None of us can say with any certainty what will happen when we return," said Durbin. Congress returns Monday from a 10-day spring recess.

He said "it is consistent with our constitutional responsibility to take up that question," but it's uncertain what the status of the conflict will be next week.

The U.S. Senate late Thursday strongly urged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to "immediately begin an orderly and peacful transition" to democracy.

The bipartisan resolution, adopted by a process called "unanimous consent," puts the Senate firmly on the record that Mubarak act quickly. It does not, however, call on him to step down immediately. Mubarak has said he will not seek re-election.

"It is important the United States stand with the Egyptian people and speak with a bipartisan voice in condeming the violence," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "This resolution makes clear that President Mubarak needs to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system.."

The Egyptian people, Kerry said, "are demanding a new political structure, and President Mubarak has a responsibility to respond with actions that will bring an end to the brutality on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere, and put his country on a path to genuine political, economic and social reforms."

Echoing that view was President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential rival, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

The Egyptian people, McCain said, "are demanding a democratic future, and they deserve nothing less."

Here's a text of the resolution:

Supporting democracy, universal rights, and the peaceful transition to a representative government in Egypt.

Whereas the United States and Egypt have long shared a strong bilateral relationship;

Whereas Egypt plays an important role in global and regional politics as well as in the broader Middle East and North Africa;

Whereas Egypt has been, and continues to be, an intellectual and cultural center of the Arab world;

Whereas on January 25, 2011, demonstrations began across Egypt with thousands of protesters peacefully calling for

a new government, free and fair elections, significant constitutional and political reforms, greater economic opportunity, and an end to government corruption;

Whereas on January 28, 2011, the Government of Egypt shut down Internet and mobile phone networks almost entirely and blocked social networking websites;

Whereas on January 29, 2011, President Hosni Mubarak appointed Omar Suleiman, former head of the Egyptian

General Intelligence Directorate, as Vice President and Ahmed Shafik, former Minister for Civil Aviation, as Prime Minister;

Whereas the demonstrations have continued, making this the longest protest in modern Egyptian history, and on February 1, 2011, millions of protesters took to the streets across the country;

Whereas hundreds of Egyptians have been killed and injured since the protests began;

Whereas on February 1, 2011, President Hosni Mubarak announced that he would not run for reelection later this year, but widespread protests against his government continue;

Whereas on February 1, 2011, President Barack Obama called for an orderly transition, stating that it ‘‘must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.’’ He also affirmed that: ‘‘The process must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties. It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that’s not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.’’;

Whereas despite President Hosni Mubarak’s pledge in 2005 that Egypt’s controversial emergency law would be used only to fight terrorism and that he planned to abolish the state of emergency and adopt new antiterrorism legislation as an alternative, in May 2010, the Government of Egypt again extended the emergency law, which has been in place continuously since 1981, for another 2 years, giving police broad powers of arrest and allowing indefinite detention without charge;

Whereas the Department of State’s 2009 Human Rights Report notes with respect to Egypt, ‘‘[t]he government’s respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas. The government limited citizens’ right to change their government and continued a state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1967.’’;

Whereas past elections in Egypt, including the most recent November 2010 parliamentary elections, have seen serious irregularities at polling and counting stations, security force intimidation and coercion of voters, and obstruction of peaceful political rallies and demonstrations;

and

Whereas any election must be honest and open to all legitimate candidates and conducted without interference from the military or security apparatus and under the oversight of international monitors: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1)   acknowledges the central and historic importance of the United States-Egyptian strategic partnership in advancing the common interests of both countries, including peace and security in the broader Middle East and North Africa;

(2)   reaffirms the United States’ commitment to the universal rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of access to information, including the Internet, and expresses strong support for the people of Egypt in their peaceful calls for a representative and responsive democratic government that respects these rights;

(3)   condemns any efforts to provoke or instigate violence, and calls upon all parties to refrain from all violent and criminal acts;

(4)   supports freedom of the press and strongly condemns the intimidation, targeting or detention of journalists;

(5)   urges the Egyptian military to demonstrate maximum professionalism and restraint, and emphasizes the importance of working to peacefully restore calm and order while allowing for free and non-violent freedom of expression;

(6)   calls on President Mubarak to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government, in coordination with leaders from Egypt’s opposition, civil society, and military, to enact the necessary reforms to hold free, fair, and internationally credible elections this year;

(7)   affirms that a real transition to a legitimate representative democracy in Egypt requires concrete steps to be taken as soon as possible, including lifting the state of emergency, allowing Egyptians to organize independent political parties without interference, enhancing the transparency of governmental institutions, restoring judicial supervision of elections, allowing credible international monitors to observe the preparation and conduct of elections, and amending the laws and Constitution of Egypt as necessary to implement these and other critical reforms;

(8)   pledges full support for Egypt’s transition to a representative democracy that is responsive to the needs of the Egyptian people, and calls on all nations to support the people of Egypt as they work to conduct a successful transition to democracy;

(9)   expresses deep concern over any organization that espouses an extremist ideology, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and calls upon all political movements and parties in Egypt, including an interim government, to affirm their commitment to non-violence and the rule of law, the equal rights of all individuals, accountable institutions of justice, religious tolerance, peaceful relations with Egypt’s neighbors, and the fundamental principles and practices of democracy, including the regular conduct of free and fair elections;

(10)     underscores the vital importance of any Egyptian Government continuing to fulfill its international obligations, including its commitment under the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty signed on March 26, 1979, and the freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal; and

(11)      

ensures that United States assistance to the Egyptian Government, military, and people will advance the goal of ensuring respect for the universal rights of the Egyptian people and will further the national security interests of the United States in the region.