I'm surprised he had the time. It must be half time during one of the basketball games.

The bravery of being out of range.....

...or the 7th inning stretch of a spring training White Sox game...

The irony to me is it always seems to be countries that have oil are more likely to have this sort of 'help'.

Think it might sound anything like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xx1J5FdNE
4/14/86

touche:salute:

The irony is that I *may have* supported Obama's decision to intervene in Libya - if I could ascertain a purpose behind it.

At this point however, all I can glean from our actions there is that he wants to be involved in case something goes well, but he wants to be able to distance himself if something goes wrong.

This is leadership at its worst. If he were really committed to a goal regarding Lybia, he would define said goal and take steps towards achieving it. Rather, like everything else these days as election time approaches, he's more interested in punting the responsibility in order to either claim credit or shirk failure later.

The real reason why HE is giving the speech...
(earlier in the week at the whitehouse....)

BO: Stop bothering me, I'm watching the game. Hillary, could you give that speech thingy again?

HRC: Shove off, do it yourself.

BO: Michelle, could you...

MO: Barry, turn the damn TV off and give the speech! We've going to miss our flight. Mother will be upset if we're late.

Well, can you blame BO? After all it is March Madness and we are down to the final four. I was thinking post game speech was in order.

Libya: Obama defends war, insists US role is limited
 

US President Barack Obama has defended the first war launched under his presidency, insisting US military involvement in Libya will be limited.

Addressing Americans, he said US intervention had saved "countless lives" threatened by the forces of the "tyrant" Muammar Gaddafi.

But having led the initial campaign, the US would hand over to Nato allies on Wednesday, he said.

Meanwhile, the rebel advance inside Libya has been slowed down near Sirte.

'Regime change' ruled out

"Tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance," Mr Obama said, speaking from the National Defense University in Washington DC.

But the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone "and protecting civilians on the ground" would now move to US "allies and partners".

"Because of this transition to a broader, Nato-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation - to our military, and to American taxpayers - will be reduced significantly," Mr Obama said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12888826


Note: Update Record,29 March 2011 Last updated at 00:28 GMT

I watched his speech. Actually, I thought he did a rather good job of explaining himself for the most part. I remain concerned about just who it is who will be in power afterwards and what they will do, though.

Here's his speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...s-speech-libya

The current council is mainly lawyers, diplomats, businessmen and ex officers with a teacher and a "royal" thrown in for good measure.
Several are US educated.
If they stay in power or not is another matter, then again the country may well be split up

What impression did he make you,good or bad?

Good. I understand what he was trying to do and I think he was trying to do the right thing. I don't agree with all of it, and I have tactical concerns about this operation, mostly because the pace of events is now being dictated by the rebels since we don't have troops on the ground. A battalion of Marines would make the goal of removing Qadaffi much more certain much more quickly.