Hastings criticizes Obama on Libya

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Palm Beach Post

U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, says President Obama has failed to offer a clear rationale for bombing Libya this month. Hastings, who hadn’t weighed in on the military action there until tonight, issued a statement calling it “troubling” that Obama had not offered a “clear strategy” for the U.S. mission there.

Read Hastings’ entire statement after the jump….

Statement by U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings on U.S. involvement in Libya:

Read more: http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/03/hastings-criticizes-obama-on-libya/

---

Please keep in mind that Hastings is a former Federal Judge who was impeached and removed from office for bribery and perjury.

[tiny elvis]

1. forget hastings. how is the house cut out of nato?

why should reps need to ask what the deal is?

[No Elephants]

3. Please tell us you're kidding.

[bhikkhu]

2. A rationale is different from a strategy

Perhaps the two words were used sloppily, simply to avoid repetition, but Obama gave the rationale very clearly last night. If one had listened to the president and Clinton's statements all along, the identical rationale had already been given before. There has been a lot of news to keep up on lately, but this sounds like an "I wasn't paying attention" excuse from hastings.

As far as a strategy, that's a similar issue; there doesn't have to be a strategy where the objective is strictly limited. In this case, it was to end the Libyan Army offensive against civilian centers, and it was basically a rapid success. One might wish for a strategy to get rid of Gadhafi, but Obama has explained several times how that is a policy objective, but not the objective of the current operation.

[No Elephants]

4. You as well: Please tell us you're kidding.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Our objective is far beyond protecting civilian centers

Our objective is to support the rebels, clearing the way to and through Tripoli.

If that's not enough, and the rebels appear to be failing, our strategy will be to escalate. The first step will be to supply arms. Later, who know? Advisers? Trainers? We will justify going in step-wise, each step necessary to show the previous step was not "in vain".

It may not be Obama's strategy to directly get rid of Qaddafi, not wanting our bootprints in Libya or Qaddafi's own blood on our hands, but that appears to be the endgame. Have "someone else" get rid of Qaddafi, and be able to deny direct involvement.

Once Qaddafi's gone, then the real fun begins, building coalitions among the rebel factions.

[bhikkhu]

7. Because you say so?

It seems so much cynicism and bloody long-term plans are attributed to Obama and the US, based on nothing that has actually been said or done or planned, but on the speculative fear that the whole Iraq mess might happen all over again.

If you just pay attention to what the president says, you have a good basis for what is likely to happen. Aside from that, there seems to be a whirlwind of fear and loathing, second-guessing and echo-chambering by crowds that have nothing to do with any of the decision making.

[Doctor_J]

5. And there lies the difference between the Repukes and Dems

:-(

[RedCloud]

8. Senate already agreed early March according to LO to Libya action.

So if Senate did not tell House...