Obama Libya speech 'in development for weeks'
March 28th, 2011
09:16 AM ET

Obama Libya speech 'in development for weeks'

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Obama’s Libya speech began taking shape late last week, but the “themes have been in development for weeks,” according to a senior administration official.

Those themes “have been reflected in what the president and others have been saying about Libya all along,” the official added.

Pressure had been mounting on the president to deliver a speech on Libya that would provide more clarity to the mission and a reason for the U.S. engagement.The president authorized U.S. involvement in the military action on March 19th.

The speech comes just days after NATO agreed to assume command and control of the coalition effort in Libya.

The timing is not by accident.

“It’s fair to say we thought this transition moment presents a good opportunity to explain why the President took the approach he did, how he’s doing what he said he would do, and why we believe it serves U.S. interests to take the approach he did," the official said.

“He said 'days, not weeks' – and he meant it.”

Topics: Libya • NATO • President Obama • The News

soundoff (80 Responses)
  1. all the news that's fit to omit

    Come on leftists, wake up and explain away you're hero.

    NO Congress, the UN instead is the arbiter of who we need to request military actions with?

    Only in the eyes of leftist liar.

    How about Biden stating if Bush did this he would have had immediate impeachment hearings for him or Obama saying a President DID NOT have the ability to do EXACTLY what HE DID HERE?

    Facts, leftists and the Lame stream media, we don't NEED no stinkin' facts.

    March 28, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Cindy

      The UN prevented a bloodbath. Congress can't work out a budget. If you were the President, what would you do?

      March 28, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
      • Gaylon Barrow

        What is IT about the Constitution you don't understand? Do you think just because a man becomes President he can do what he wants when he wants it? Do you think the UN can tell us what to do? That is not what the UN is all about. The Constitution of the U.S. governs that is why we have a Congress to insure that the President does the peoples will. The Constitution sets rules of engagement and your Obama nitwit went by none of them. AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, THAT OUR DEMOCRAT CONGRESS WILL DO NOTHING ABOUT. GO AHEAD AND GIVE THIS COUNTRY TO THE MUSLIMS IT HAS ALREADY GONE TO THE MONGRELS.

        March 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
      • Cindy

        Mongrels... wow. That right there says alot about where you're coming from.

        I vote for leaders based on their ability to make decisions. Be he white or black, or mongrel, as you put it. His decision to use his constitutional right as President was correct. The way Congress is acting these days, waiting for them to come up with a decision, would have been too late. Congress is way too partisan to decide anything these days. They can't even figure out how to get along to decide a workable government. I for one, am glad our president can make intelligent, well thought through, decisions, and not sit around and twiddle his thumbs like Congress continues to do. Yes, if I was in Congress, I'd feel miffed that he bypassed me. But then I'd look introspectively at myself and ask, why had I become so inept that the President felt he had to bypass me? If you were in harms way, I'm sure you'd appreciate a thoughtful decision and action being made, instead of leaving yourself hung out to dry by a disfunctional Congress.

        March 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • Josh

      Are you 12?

      March 28, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • JS

      Reagan bombed libya and missed, did reagan conult congress ..Obama is continuing that action.

      March 28, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Dennis Shumaker

      Whoever selected this venue; the most powerful political leader in the world standing front of a room full of suits, distracted by audience, shifting his eyes from teleprompter to teleprompter left-right s venue should be stripped of the West Wing ID and sent to a regional office of the USDA.

      The president should have been given the privilege of looking the American people in the eye from his chair in the Oval Office for this entire exchange.I

      The possibility that the Saudis evaluate the content of his remarks to justify an oil embargo. I'm good with that.

      March 28, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
  2. Mike

    I initially was against the intervention, considering it could embroil us in another civil war, and I still have reservations. But the way things are going, it looks like the rebels are taking up the challenge and doing their part, and there is a realistic possibility of Gadhafi being removed. The move was a tremendous gamble on Obama's part, but if it actually tips the scales and the rebels win, well, all I can say is "Well played, sir". We might even end up with a grateful Arab nation in northern Africa rather than an enemy.

    March 28, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Gaylon Barrow

      I am a military man and all for the removal of Gadaffi. But there are rules of engagement set by the Constitution that govers us not the UN or the President. if he steps around the Constitution then he is a war criminal and Congress must do something with him. BUT NOT THIS CONGRESS LED BY PELOSI, REID, AND BIDEN IT WILL NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE. HOWEVER THIS WILL ALL CHANGE ONCE 2012 COMES IF WE STILL HAVE A COUNTRY.

      March 28, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
  3. Larry L

    The strategy was brilliant. He allowed a coalition to develop and got the job done without the US appearing to attack yet another Arab state unilaterally. The trip to South America added to the illusion, allowing the President to appear somewhat detached while he monitored the situation remotely. If George senior's idiot son had these skills we wouldn't be mired down in Iraq now. Still, the very Republicans who howled about the President taking too long to respond are now finding fault with Congress not "declaring war". The leaders were of course present in all planning meetings. Weasels...

    March 28, 2011 at 10:03 am |
    • Gaylon Barrow

      aRE YOU PEOPLE IDIOTS. i NOT DISAGREEING ABOUT gADAFFI tHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED 30 DAYS AGO. do you not understand we have laws governed by the constitution and obama dishonored them by not following one. the un can not give permission nor can a coalition that he had nothing absolutly to do with in building you fool. this was england's and france's ballgame not his. but when he was told if he allowed them to go in first he had turned world power over to the french. this scared the muslim son of a pistol eater so he got on the ball and ordered our air force into action unlawfully. congress you better do your job. impeach this war criminal.

      March 28, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
      • Phil Carney in Colorado

        What does you name calling accomplish? Speaking only for myself, it makes me ignore your opinion.

        March 28, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  4. FedUp

    How many polls did he take? How many times did he change his mind as to what he was going to say based on those polls? This man can't make a quick decision and stick to it!

    March 28, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • john

      Here is the big question. Will he come clean about "boots on the ground". How many are actually on the ground in Libya now? You say none? Who is actually directing the strikes? Are our pilots just guessing where the bombs will be dropped after they take off?

      March 28, 2011 at 11:26 am |
      • anthony

        You do realize there is this little thing called satellite imagery, do ya? Heck, even google utilizes it.
        You do realize we have the intel and cooperation of the Libyan rebels, yeah? I believe they are on the ground, and i believe they are wearing boots as well.
        Not to mention our missiles dont need to be pilot-sight based. Hence the terms "guided" or "cruise". Our missiles are probably smarter then you...
        I believe a lot of folks are in denial that after two full fledged wars with no results, and a 1 trillion dollar price tag, our current Prez can actually launch such an efficient strike, while walking and chewing gum at the same time .

        And Steve in Denver.. I couldnt have put it better myself.

        March 28, 2011 at 11:53 am |
      • john

        Actually, precision strikes happen with targets being tagged with lazers from ground forces. Are you saying our military trusts the rebels to do this for us? As far as being smarter than? I speak to military experts who give me basic information of how strikes actually occur. As far as this president – get your head out of you as* and start doing a little research. Itis one think to support it is totally another to support blindly.

        March 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
      • Gaylon Barrow

        Anthony – I can tell you've never been in the military before. Someone has to set the coordinates and deflection in the missles then A MAN OPERATED COMPUTER MUST KEEP GUIANCE ON IT. THE satelite comes into play here but does not call in coordinates and deflection this has to be done by forward observers. So certainly boots are on the ground, military boots. First place your missing the point Obama does not have the authority to have our missiles there. He could have if he hadn't been AN OUTLAW THINKING IN HIS SCREWED UP MIND THAT HE IS PRESIDENT AND CAN DO AS HE LIKES. Another thing this man can not chew gum and know which hand to use in wiping his azz. Futher more the satelite can only show the building at an address but not what type of building it is. it could be a hosp[ital, a school or a mosque. Thanks for your imput but you'd be better off keeping your mouth shut.

        March 28, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Steve in Denver

      Why would you want a "quick decision?" We had that in our last president, that would be the president who lied us into one war, let bin laden escape to Pakistan, pulled a circus stunt landing on an air craft carrier under a "mission accomplished" flag, ignored the 8/6/2001 PDB then did everything he could to obstruct an investigation into how we missed the "system blinking red" as Richard Clarke said.

      I'll take the considered response over the "god told me what to do" response to everything the last president had.

      How many have been killed in Obama's illegal wars? None. He hasn't started one.

      March 28, 2011 at 11:38 am |
      • john

        Our last president had support from congress and the UN as well as a much larger host of nations who supported the actions. I love the way you libs/anti Bush folks support and encourage each other. It doesn't matter what the facts actually are. Gas at $4.00 a gallon, unemployment at 9+%, new home starts at their lowest leves ever, inflation worse that ever (if you look at the actuals, i.e. food and energy). If Bush was in office now who would folks like you blame? When are you folks going to look at the .com boom/crash being a major part of the unemployment problem.

        March 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
      • Will

        John, when Bush took office a barrel of oil cost 20dollars and then skyrocketed to over 140 dollars a barrel. Don't you find it just a little coincidence that the President was an oilman, vice-president was an oilman, Rumsfeld oilman, yep,even Conde Rice Sec of state oil woman.the US has high oil prices because od the Greedy Oil Party aka GOP.

        March 28, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
      • Steve in Denver

        He did not have support from congress. His case for war was fraudulent. I still will hold it against congress members individually for failure to perform due diligence in checking out bush's WMD claims (especially when saddam couldn't throw a paper airplane across the street without it being shot down, and Cheney saying not two years before saddam was an imminent threat to us that he was well contained), but it was Bush who told the lies. Congress, therefore, passed the use of force resolution based on fraud. There was no congressional approval; congress, as well as the rest of the country, was lied to.

        March 28, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
      • Steve in Denver

        John, why are you bringing up gas prices and unemployment in a story about Libya? Trying to distract from the facts? Auditioning for Fox News?

        March 28, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
      • Gaylon Barrow

        Yeah and he flew one of the Planes that strucki the twin towers too you dadburned Repukelicans. Boy I'm glad that I'm not a Republican and better still not a dang Democrat.

        March 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • Beverly NC

      He did not take polls. He saw a genocide going on in Libya and morally could not stand by and just let it happen. Unlike Republicans, President Obama does have morals and values and character and integrity. He did the wise thing and went to the UN, as nations are supposed to do before getting involved in other countries' business, and the UN countries agreed that no one could stand by while an insane Gadhafi killed his own innocent people. The UN went in – the US, France, and England initially and took out Gadhafi military sites being used to attack the Libyian citizens. Now NATO is involved and in charge and the US will be pulling back and letting them handle Libya.
      This was how it should have been handled and it has been very successful. President Obama did not want to go in because he already has 2 Bush wars to clean up. He also knows we need to be helping our own People and protect them from the Republican destruction of our working people so corporations can have everything.
      The hate in you comes from the Republicans who have done NOTHING for this country but stir up hate, racism and lies for the past 2 years. They have done NOTHING to help restore the country they destroyed through greed and fraudulent wars. They have not created a single job, solved a single problem, nor helped a single American (unless they were wealthy). Your hate is ugly and just what the Republicans want from you so they can control you. Say no to their hate, lies, and ugly racism. They are desperate and willing to do and say anything.

      March 28, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
      • Gaylon Barrow

        Beverly have you let your car run in the garage too long sniffing the fumes. Certainly something had to be done with Gadaffi. but you don't come out a week earlier and state that your not committing our military to Libiya then a week later without any authority send our Air Force into combat. Something is loose in this man's head. Congress better get him gone and quick. Just advice from a former Democrat.

        March 28, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  5. Angus001

    It has been taking shape over the last weeks to make sure Obama is speaking to the right poll numbers.

    March 28, 2011 at 10:12 am |
  6. Dave

    This man is smart enough to think things through, unlike the prior president. This "Man" thought this through and built a coalition, he did not go in along and we will not be in this location for the next ten years. If only Bush placed the same amount of effort in the leadup to Iran. Bush did not even give the British intelligence any creadence, the dumb hick

    March 28, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • Gaylon Barrow

      I see absolutely no thinking done here. Granted Gadaffie should have been squashed 30 days ago. But Obama took it upon himself with out authority to commit our troops unlawfully. An impeacheable offense that Congress must answer for. If not then they better conme up with a darn good excuse. Being a Democrat Congress I'm sure they can lie up something. THIS IS FROM A FORMER 50 YEAR DEMOCRAT. BESIDES I DON'T SEE WHY YOU PEOPLE ARE GETTING YOU PANTIES IN SUCH A WAD FOR. IT IS YOU THAT HOUND PALIN TO DEATH. YOUR NOTHING BUT JACKALS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WORD STANDS FOR OR MUST SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU ALSO.

      March 28, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  7. JAS

    I hope Obama has better luck with his Libyan policy than he did with his NCAA brackets!

    March 28, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • Cindy

      He probably did not take weeks to decide his bracket... 😀

      March 28, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  8. Ernie

    What everybody is missing is all the congressmen/women don't know how the "Constitution" works, if they did "Congress" would have stopped Obama in his tracks. But they didn't. Obama used a "Back Door" to get what he wanted. All Presidents before Obama have consulted with Congress before using military action. Obama felt that he didn't need to consult with Congress, he consulted with the U.N. and NATO. This goes to show that Obama side step Congress and the Constitution. All these Senators who are on the "Arm Services Committee" were completely blind sided and acted like they knew nothing and turn a blind eye on Obama. According to the way I read the Constitution the President has to consult with congress first. But the President has a loop hole he has the "Wars Power Act" to fall back on, but still Obama has to consult with Congress for funding. Obama is acting like he doesn't need Congress to conduct military action anywhere he wants. This should be a red flag when Obama consulted with the U.N. and NATO. According to Obaama Congress is a thorn in his side he feels that he could do better without Congress he believes Congress is only in his way. Well this is to all the people who will read this comment, this is a prime example that shows that Congress dose not follow the Constitution because they have no idea what's in it. Everybody better wake up on what Obama is doing. We the People of the United States have to follow the Constitution but Obama feels that the Constitution does not apply to him. In his speech tonight don't believe a word he says and as for Congress they better start learning about the Constitution because they are going to be on the outside looking in come November 2012.

    March 28, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • phoenix86

      Did you hear Hillary this weekend? She justified the lack of Congressional participation by saying that it was sanctioned by the "international community". It seems that no one in the administration knows of the Constitution nor of their constitutional duties. What a joke.

      March 28, 2011 at 10:55 am |
      • Steve in Denver

        Ah, Phoenix86. Good to read your ignorance again. I've missed you.

        The "congress approves wars" argument might have worked before 1960. Since then, Presidents have led undeclared wars in Viet Nam, Grenada, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. A little late for that argument. About 50 years.

        And, I read all you neocons chatter in the early 2000s about how Clinton could have killed Bin Laden. Aren't you a little hypocritical to suggest that Clinton should have acted then without Congress, and now Obama should have gotten congressional approval?

        I'm so glad we went with the smart one.

        March 28, 2011 at 11:43 am |
    • SoCal Patriot

      Actually, Ernie, Congress has the power to "declare" war, not commit war. If any of the early Presidents had to consult Congress to commit war, it would have taken months for them to even convene (travel being what it was back then). And the Congress has the power of the purse and can defund any military action they deem unnecessary or not in our national interest, and so far, there hasn't been a single bill introduced to address the funding of this action. He should consult Congress, but it is not Constitutionally mandated that he do so as Commander-in-Chief. That said, this President has had a very incoherent approach to this and other international crises and his administration is constantly contradicting themselves at every turn. He has time to golf, but not address the nation? He has the time to vacation (I know, I know, it was a working vacation) and not consult Congress on his actions? He defers to FRANCE for leading military action – what will they teach us, how to eat cheese and surrender?????

      March 28, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • anthony

      Here we go again.. another constitutional scholar, letting us all know what we dont and he does. He genius.. how about cowboy bush over drafting on his political blank check, without the international communities blessings, and the mess he left behind? But he was within the rights of the constitution to you, so thats ok.

      I swear, you people spend more of your time trying to figure out ways to discredit the President, versus trying to figure out ways to improve society.

      I'll take the community leader over the cowboy 7 days a week. The world is a macrocosmic community, to think otherwise is foolish, and I'll take someone who knows how to lead logically, not impulsively.

      March 28, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • Beverly NC

      CONSTITUTIONALLY, President Obama did not need Congressional approval because we are not engaged in a war. We are part of a humanitarian effort to stop a genocide. Same as Bosnia and other genocide situations where we intervened on behalf of their people.
      Republicans are liars. They were consulted about what President Obama was considering and why. They knew he was going to the UN, as he is supposed to do, and the Allies all agreed this was the right thing to do. ALL have participated.
      What Republicans don't want you to remember was a week before President Obama went to the UN, they were all screaming at him and criticizing him for just not rushing into Libya and bombing everything with no Allied or UN agreement or approval and starting a REAL WAR. Republicans are WAR MONGERS who wanted President Obama to be like Bush and just go start bombing with no plan, no mission, no UN agreement, and no end game.
      President Obama handled this wisely and perfectyl and that is why Republicans are whining so much. They were for bombing Libya and starting a real WAR until President Obama did it the legally correct way and got the UN involved. Now we are ready to pull back and let NATO handle Libya. Republicans are now flip-flopping and being hypocritical and lying as usual – they WANTED A WAR and President Obama just wanted to stop a genocide and not get us into another useless costly war.
      How about understanding the facts before writing Republican propaganda? FOX does that for them already.

      March 28, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        If another country was doing this to us, would you call it war?

        March 28, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • Gaylon Barrow


      March 28, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
      • williefloyd

        G.B. If you think anyone on this site thinks you were ever a Dem.. you're crazier than you sound even. NO DEM. willl ever support or defend the likes of Failin Palin. The horrible comments made about her are not really personal so much as her total ignorance of most things anyone running for POTUS should know.

        March 29, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • steve

      Here is the thing. Congress declares wars – it's in the consitution, its nice conceptually but it never will happen again. By your logic the president would have to advise Congress in the event of a nuclear strike by a foreign government before retaliating to protect the country. Wiser politicians than those currently in office understood sixty years ago that the world had fundamentally changed. At the time the Constitution was written, it took a month to cross the Atlantic, now it can be crossed in a few hours or in minutes by missiles. Nixon spoke about the power of conventional weapons – warfare has changed too, we're not fighting with single shot muskets. It’s time for a constitutional amendment to clear up this situation.

      March 29, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  9. Howard

    Obama got elected, and governs with speeches. It's all he knows how to do, for he certainly doesn't know how to lead !!!

    March 28, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • Cindy

      The cries for democracy in the Middle East was hatched from Obama's speeches. Not by bombs, but by speeches. That's kinetic energy at it's finest.

      March 28, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
  10. phoenix86

    Obama is pathetic.

    March 28, 2011 at 10:53 am |
    • Beverly NC

      NO, you are. You are a pawn of Republican hate and lies and racism. It was the Republicans were screaming and criticizing President Obama for not acting like cowboy Bush and rushing in and just bombing Libya. Republicans wanted ANOTHER WAR. They LOVE TO PLAY WAR, spend billions on war, and kill our soldiers so they can play useless military games. Bush LIED to get us into Iraq and Republicans did nothing or said nothing about that crime.

      President Obama did this wisely, correctly and with the proper international agreement and cooperation. This has been a united ALLIED effort of both European and Arab nations to stop a genocide by an insane Gadhafi. It is not a war, did not need Congressional approval, and Congressional leaders WERE consulted. The Republican leaders are lying so you will hopefully forget they were for ANOTHER all-out war in the middle east. They did not care what is cost, had no plan, no mission, no end game. President Obama has had a total mission plan from the beginning and he outlined it for the American People BEFORE we went into Libya with France and the UK. I watched it on CNN so somebody knew enough about it ahead of time.
      Stop being part of the Republican hate and lie machine. They are desperate hypocrites who have done NOTHING for this country in the past 2 years but just be against whatever President Obama. They were for a FULL WAR in Libya until President Obama went in properly with the Allies and then they were instantly against it and have lied about it ever since.

      When are Americans going to ever learn that Republicans are expert liars but have not a leader among them??

      March 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
      • Gaylon Barrow

        It's funny to me Beverly that it has been the DEMOCRATS who have committed us to every war except the Revolution, the Civil War that shouldn't have ever happened and of course the 9/11 episode that was totally neccessary. But then I guess over 2,000 people dying for nothing didn't bother you. since we have been a country. Now please take a history of America class and one on Goverment out at the good old Community College so you might, just might have a clue as to what takes place when war is called for.

        March 28, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • itsa

      Nope. Your lack of substance outlining your vague blanket statement insult is very telling about you. Either you don't have a real reason, or can't explain your anger and/or hatred publicly, ie bigotry.

      In either case, your unexplained blanket statement actually discredits your opinion.

      March 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  11. Gregg

    I support the President and the action he has taken.

    Sorry to call out a blogger but Ernie is wrong when he says " all presidents before Obama consulted Congress before military action". Those among us with accurate knowledge must correct the "mis-speaking" of presumably well meaning people. [I won't call him a liar, like I would Huckabee or Gingrich]. Reagan didn't consult Congress in Lebanon, Grenada or in going after Norriega. Every President D or R always has a running battle over the "War Powers Act". To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

    March 28, 2011 at 11:00 am |
  12. macon

    I have read the comments, and Gregg is correct. The Newt was moving so fast in time he forgot to stick to one position on the issue, so did a lof of his fellow republicans. I can remember when Regan, Bush Senior, and Clinton all did the same thing. And to think the president didn't talk to someone within the Congress is a flat out lie. Someone in the White House and talk to someone. And let's not talk about not knowning the constitution. He talk that as a subject. Hopefully the Repubs canidates read it versus saying what is not there... Michaelle Bachman comes to mind....

    March 28, 2011 at 11:20 am |
  13. Gregg

    The President's position is clear and always has been for anyone willing to observe, listen and think a little bit before shouting off a DSYFUNCTIONAL mouth.

    1.) The US interest in removing Kadafhi is secondary. Sanctions and the poeple's dissatisfaction with him is the best way for him to leave office in concert with our principles. We will not assasinate him and if he is smart, he can avoid being killed when we bomb command and control assets. Our allies in that neighborhood (France, Italy, Britain, Turkey, Spain) have a primary interest in preventing refugees from pouring into their countries from Northern Africa and having their oil supplies from Libya disrupted.

    2.) Others must "Put Skin In The Game" when the US interests are not PRIMARY. Moreover, given the view of the US worldwide, before we act in an Arab country that is SECONDARY to us, we want at least 1 ARAB government or political organization to MAN UP and condemn the actions of the target of our action. The Arab League did with Kadafhi.

    3.) In the wake of his Cario speach calling for freedom and self determination for muslims, President Obama has helped to cause protests in Iran following their election, peaceful overthrow of repressive leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, and protests which have yet to play out in other Islamic countries. It would seem that the Nobel Peace Prize may have been an prescient award for this man. The US interest is advanced by having a peacefully originated, potentially democratic triumverate of countries across the southern Mediterranian coast. Israel's security is bolstered by less beligerent and stable Egypt / Libya / Tunisia.

    4.) To save lives, the US [ as a SuperPower] will step up and, for the short term, bring it's heft to quickly stop Kadafhi's planned massacre – which he PRE-ANNOUNCED. We will do this with air power for a short period of time but we will not bear the financial cost or the risk of American boots on the ground.

    5.) When democratically inclined movements need help, America will have their back.

    6.) The exit strategy is complete – French & Britain are in harm's way – less so for Americans this time. . Kaddafhi can't massacre his oppositon. Sanctions will squeeze him. Libyans will become aggitated with him. His military and governement ministry supporters likely will see a brighter future for themselves without him than with him and will abandon him as things tighten. Allow Kadhafi to leave the country with some of his ill gotten gains and his closet family members. (Presidents as far back as Nixon/ Reagan allowed him to plunder).

    7.) America will stand with those [ France, Britain, Turkey, Spain, Italy, etc.] that stand with us but we won't be used.

    March 28, 2011 at 11:32 am |
  14. lolo

    It does not matter to these naysayers on here. They will try and come up with something to discredit President Obama no matter what. They need to tell the truth as to where they are getting all of this foolish rhetoric from. They will condemn him no matter what happens. They hate this president and that is the bottom line because he is a black man. He is wrong to them no matter which way it goes. Their main concern is for him not to get re-elected, but I do not pay attention to them, because if they think that Palin , Bachmann or any of the other idiots can become president we have a real problem in America. And to think that the republicans want to cut the budget for education? LOL!!!!!!!!!! Lord help us.

    March 28, 2011 at 11:35 am |
    • Beverly NC

      You are absolutely right. Republicans have brainwashed the ignorant and they all claim to hate our President but not one even knows why – except the racists.

      You cannot reason with these People and get them to see reality and the truth.

      YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID – the only reason Republicans have any power at all.

      March 28, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
  15. Shawn

    I'm so thankful that we have a rational, balanced, moderate Commander-in-Chief who believes in cooperation, international law and multilateralism. The extremist, hyper-nationalistic worldview of Republicans and US conservatives is truly dangerous and also very embarrassing to America. We are safer and better off with Obama.

    March 28, 2011 at 11:42 am |
  16. Liz Carter in Georgia

    So now, the flip-flopping, double-talking naysayers, including the media, is 'spinning' fake concern as to whether or not this is a 'war' in LIBYA! First off, what difference does it make? Operation, Mission, Excursion, Sanctions, or whatever you want to call it, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Had OBAMA sat on down and not done anything about the humanitarian crisis in LIBYA, you clowns would be sitting up here on TV crying about that! Have you folks not heard of SPECIAL OPERATIONS? DELTA FORCE? MISSIONS?

    March 28, 2011 at 11:56 am |
  17. williefloyd

    Lolo-you hit the real reason-he's black. None will admit it, but having grown up in the South, I know it when I see it. Does anyone remember former Pres. Carter when he said this same thing? He was criticized unmercifully. I thank my good Lord daily that I was not reared by racists parents. BTW-I am white, and I fully support our Pres. I still contend that the public can't accept the fact that for now we have a LEADER who thinks. Our last one obviously didn't have the ability to do that.

    March 28, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • Beverly NC

      Amen to that. I have been saying the same thing since the campaign in 2008. Republicans sent the ignorant Palin who knows nothing about the South and got her to fire up the finally underground racists. They brought the redneck racists back into the open and made it acceptable to be against our brilliant, good and decent President just because he is BLACK. Why do you think they started all this "birther" stupidity and lies? The Republican leaders STILL will NOT denounce the birthers. That shows no character, no integrity, no morals, and total desperation. I have no respect for ANY Republican for NONE will stand up and tell the truth about this nor will they ever support any of the GREAT SUCCESSES President Obama has delivered for the recovery of our nation or for the benefit of the PEOPLE.

      It makes me sick to see the racism alive again in the South just when I thought we were finally on the verge on getting past it. I grew up in a white family who taught me to respect ALL people. You judge people by their CHARACTER and not by their color, their ethic origin or how much money they have. President Obama got a double dose of CHARACTER and has done an putstanding job as a our leader. Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists are Republicans!

      March 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Let's talk about Barry's character. On Jan 22, 2009 He signed orders to close GITMO within one year. Said he was returning America to its moral high ground. More than two years have passed. GITMO is still open, recently Barry said that do not expect it to close anytime soon. Where is the character? He lied on the campaign trail, he lied two days into office.

        March 28, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
      • steve

        Jay, don't try to rewrite history. Obama tried like hell to close Gitmo and it was the Republicans who objected and threatned to defund any effort to do so. They even claimed that the terrorists were too dangerous to hold in U.S. prisons. Republican obstructionism is the reason that Gitmo still exists.

        March 29, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  18. Liz Carter in Georgia

    This UNITED STATES MILITARY has participated in missions of this sort since forever! And especially if there is any inkling of humanitarian unrest! PEOPLE BEING KILLED! What is the big problem now? Is it because this particular president is the one who had the presidential powers to call this directive in, this time? You people are letting it show so much, that you resent him using his full presidential authority, period; and on everything he sets out to do! You want him 'limited' and subordinate to you!

    March 28, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
  19. Bangkok Press

    What changes ??? After Iraq, Egypt and Bahrain, the history repeats itself.

    Today thief calls for saving the natural resources (for whom), leaders is corrupt, third parties works on papers and words. Well!!! Pigs propose how to fix FAT, reinvent FAT, and unleash a budding wave of FAT, while Dogs continue consuming unlimited and no boundary.

    Only Thailand can make a change. Changing the law for my world (Thai government only is led by MR.BEAN)

    March 28, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
  20. Liz Carter in Georgia

    We were in Vietnam from 1954-1975, calling it a CONFLICT! If my memory serves me right it was in the late 80s or sometime in the early 90s, our government decided to go ahead and officially call it a WAR. Same thing happened with KOREA! It was called the KOREAN CONFLICT for a long time! So what's the BIG rush on locking down a title of this LIBYAN mission? EXIT STRATEGY? Whatever strategy it was, it wasn't put together until after NIXONS' 'HOLIDAY BOMBING' in NORTH VIETNAM, and then the treaty was signed!

    March 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
  21. Liz Carter in Georgia

    My husband is a disabled US MARINE veteran of the VIETNAM war. EXIT STRATEGY? He told me it seemed like some strategy! When their time was up, they just sent them back home one plane load at a time; they sneaked them back in sometimes one by one, and two by two! No bells and whistles, no crowds and ticker-tape, no real thanks, honor, allegiance, nor respect for all they lost and sacrificed! AND FOR WHAT? So at least we know one of the big reasons we went to LIBYA is to try to help to protect the people!

    March 28, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • Jay in NC

      Barry killed African.

      March 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Gaylon Barrow

      Well thank you husband for me for his service. I also spent two tours in Vietnam. I'm sure with his service he can tell you what it takes for a President to send troops into war and nothing you've said fits. I am not trying to be smart with you. I am not a Republican but I am a Patriot. Now what Obama is doing is great. But the manner in the way he has gone about it is wrong. He can not except by one resolution commit troops to war on his own. And that is for our nation to be attacked. That is the, "WARS POWER ACT". OTHERWISE HE MUST HAVE CONGRESSIONAL PERMISSION. BEING PRESIDENT DOES NO GIVE HIM THE POWER. TO TAKE IT UPON HIMSELF WAS WRONG. AFTER ALL WE ARE A DEMOCRACY. WE'RE NOT UNDER a dictator. The sad thing about Obama and the people not being behind us. I really think that the people will not get behind any war anymore. But to Nam we should have never been in that war. That was France wanting their povinces back. The US told them to go get them and the allies would back them at the peace accords after WWII. France folded as did England. The sad thing most people don't know which I'm sure you husband does we had troops on the ground in Nam in 1946. John Kennedy would not commit so he was asasinated then LBJ sent in the largest force of American troops every airlifted up to that date into Nam in 1965. Ten years later with 58,000 troops dead and over 3 million wounded we ran from Vietnam because we could not bomb anymore. However Nam said later if the bombing had lasted 30 more days they were ready to surrender. See how stupid America is at times.I call this one of those times. When we need to come together we can't because too many people have personal grudges against each other. I spent 30 years in the Army Infantry and I'm sure your husband can tell you there is no place for racism in the Military. It exists I am sure but not like what is happening today. All of us need to back off and quit calling each other names and hating. I have got caught up in it and I apoligize. From this moment on I will strive to change. Tell your husband I am proud of him he is a hero. I was over there during the years 1966-1970. Two different tours during that period. We migrated into the Marines during the Tet Offensive outside Saigon. He may remember. Boy was I glad to see them. REMEMBER HOLD ME TO MY PROMISE AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU. OUR POLITICAL DIFFERENCES SHOULD NOT ENTER INTO WHO WE LIKE FOR PRESIDENT. THAT IS STILL EVERYONES OWN BUSINESS.

      March 28, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  22. Sue

    Kucinich is right.... ..Obama should be impeached for starting a war without Congressional approval. Bush got approval for both Iraq and Afghanistan. IMPEACH HIM

    The pro-Obama, puppet media might get the blind, clueless and gullible Obama drones to believe their lies/spin/coverups--but it will not work on the Republicans and the majority of Independents.

    And, to think that the national security of our country-and the safety of our troops- is in the hands of this weak, corrupt, clueless idiot that is renting our White House until 2012.

    March 28, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  23. Phil Carney in Colorado

    Here are the questions I hope is asked of Obama tonight. 1 – With unemployment in this country so high, the economy so fragile, and >$1T annual deficit spending, how does he intend to pay for his attack on Libya? Increase our taxes, greater deficit, or cancel (which ones) other military spending. 2 – Why does it make more sense to spend American dollars making war instead of using the same money to improve our economy?

    March 28, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • steve

      Phil, did you worry about spending before the Iraq war? Didn't think so. The country was just as broke then and had to borrow a hell of a lot of money from China to prosecute it.

      March 29, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  24. egore

    Concur completely with @Gregg. It is truly amazing how many people, especially from the right fringe, spout off without having the slightly idea what they are talking about. Further, it appears that many have never bothered to read history or even a newspaper for that matter. A great country is not served well by an ignorant citizenry.

    March 28, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  25. JS

    Reagan bombed libya and gaddafi's kid was killed. Did Reagan consult Congress?

    Everyobe forgot that? Obama is just finishing what Reagan failed in.

    March 28, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  26. Sue

    Phil Carney in Colorado:

    You do realize.....Obama will probably not allow any questions-except for preapproved questions provided before hand, so that his teleprompter can be loaded with the answers.

    And, the pro-Obama puppet media will be satisfied with this--and continue to provide cover/spin/lies for him.

    March 28, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  27. Phil Carney in Colorado

    It is discouraging to see so many comments posted as views of the left/right or Democrat/Republican. Obama appears to be directly going against his own policy he stated in 2007, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." And Republicans can hardly be proud of the way Bush unobjectionably evaluated the threat of Iraq.

    It is better to deal with facts. There are many dictators around the world that brutalize their citizens; Iran, North Korea, Bahrain, Yemen come quickly to mind. Is it U.S. policy to over throw each? And if so, what is the economic impact to America to carry out this policy? Each of the current U.S. wars in the Middle East cost about $1B per week. And changing the name from U.S. to NATO leadership does not change the economics. Afghanistan is a NATO operation but the U.S. supplies 70% of the troops, incurs 70% of the casualties and by deduction carries 70% of the cost.

    With our economy so fragile, our unemployment so high, our trade imbalance so lopsided, and our infrastructure so rapidly decaying – what is the balance between making war and meeting the basic needs of Americans?

    March 28, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  28. Sue

    Phil Carney in Colorado:

    I am an Independent. You are missing a big point here........The media has no problem pointing out the lies/corruption/hypocricy when it involves a Republican.

    However, when it involves the Democrats--especially Obama--they provide cover/spin/lies to protect them. Even Hillary would not have gotten away with the same things that Obama is getting away with.

    March 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  29. Liz Carter in Georgia

    Hey my folks! Just to mention a few, and the rest know who you are; thank you for you intelligent comments observing the wisdom and constitutionality of the steps recently taken by our PRESIDENT and his powers, as well as your discernment of the 'reasons' or excuses the right continues on it's mission to try to denigrate and demean BARACK H OBAMA @lolo, @anthony, @Gregg, @Beverly NC, you go girl! @Steve in Denver, @egore, @Will, @Dave, @Shawn, @Larry L, @macon, and of course @Mr Willie Floyd, I agree 100%!

    March 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  30. California Conservative

    So the president (liberals call great with words) spends WEEKS coming up with a speech on this? Is it realyl that dificult to tell the truth or is it that hard to lie to the public? Is transparency that hard? Please do tell us O wise one.

    March 28, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  31. T.K.

    Watch and learn...

    March 28, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
  32. Sue

    I told you that Obozo would not allow questions.......

    If he allowed questions, he would then have to answer them!!

    March 28, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
  33. Liz Carter in Georgia

    I know that's what one group of people in the US thinks and is accustomed to it! They think he's subject to their every whim; but he does NOT have to answer questions to the AMERICAN public everytime he opens his mouth to explain to you, his actions! OBAMA answered everything that you folk have thrown at him through the media, the blogs and even the CONGRESS anyway! Leave that man alone, will ya?!? You harrassers are teatering on 'intellectual treason'! I should say 'rhetorical propagandist treason'!

    March 28, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
  34. Independant Fellow

    all I know is... We have bad leaders in both parties and no solutions for what is really happening to our country. The wealthiest control both parties and we are just the ignorant voters drinking the kool-aid. On a more important note.. Reeses egg-shaped cups are coming out for Easter. This is real....unlike our two political parties.

    March 28, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
  35. Sue

    "Leave the man alone"--"He does not have to answer our questions"................

    I'm sorry, but he is the President of the US....We have every right to ask questions, and he is supposed to answer them.

    And, if he wants to be left alone, maybe he should resign.

    He is the President of the US, NOT a king

    March 28, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
  36. williefloyd

    I think anyone who actually LISTENED to his speech should have most of their questions answered. He has far more important things to do than answer what would probably be dumb questions, if some of these comments are any indication.

    OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

    March 29, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
  37. Liz Carter in Georgia

    @steve, you go Steve! Jay has run that GITMO thing into the ground. I asked him on another one of his 'Barry' hasn't closed GITMO, so he lied' postings would he take the GITMO prisoners over there in the NC prisons! I hadn't gotten an answer yet.

    March 30, 2011 at 10:03 pm |