to focus on putting money into technical collection programs such as the u-2 and drawn capabilities to take over from it eventually -- drone capabilities to take over from it eventually. in the places where you are lacking the human intel being able to fill in the gaps, being able to understand what is going on on the ground through the use of amazing satellite and photoreconnaissance capability is absolutely critical. does not replace the need for human sources, never will. that understanding of what is moving on the ground and facilities being developed things that you can study through photoreconnaissance -- it still will not tell you what the key players are saying, thinking how they look when they sit in a meeting across from someone and they are talking to to be able to have someone who can report on that, someone inside those circles

will always be of the most of you. the real weary -- real world being what it is, you often have insignificant -- inadequate intelligence in that regard. caller: good morning. my late father-in-law was involved in the silencing the cameras on the u-2. my comments and questions do with the cia term "loebsack." my understanding is the cia first used it -- term "blowback." my understanding is the cia first use it with the shah of iran -- used it with the shah of iran. 9/11 was "blowback." ny of us know that. americans are certain that nonsense -- are spoonfed non

sense. the recent killing of two -- i believe there were pakistanis -- they were pakistanis -- agents spooks they turn around and say diplomatic immunity. what you have to say about our meddling in libya and pottial blow back? host: mike baker guest: that is a pointed question. the idea of pullback -- blowback unlike how would is portrayed in movies and popular culture -- how it is portrayed in movies and popular culture the agency is not a cowboyssssss urces indians operation -- cowboys versus indians

operation. what could happen if this thi goes south, if it turns into a go-blow, what are we lookin gat? -- looking at? are we looking at regional instability, tit-for-tat? it's a constant oculus within the organization, within any -- constant calculus within the organization within any intel agcy. i would argue that the agency is not in the habit of touting its successes. it is not in the habit of going up on the hill to defend itself. it gets on with the tasking it has from whatever administration is in place, whether it is

obama, bush, clinton carter, reagan. it does not matter. the cia doewhat it is told to do to the best of its abilities working with the other components of the intel community and with our liaison partners. there is a lot that goes on. there is a lot of success. it is not just hammond stance -- happenstance or luck. sometimes, it is frustrating for people who have been in or those who are still in the outfit did they cannot beat their drums more. obviously, i am subjective. i would take a win people slide off on the agency -- i take umbrage when people slag off on the agency. host: finish your thought. guest: he mentioned those

shootings in pakistan. again, that was a very unfortunate -- that was very unfortunate. there was an agency-associated individual on the street, approached by two locals who pointed weapons at him frankly, if you are in pakistan, if you are in lahore, if u are there on behalf of your government, if y're carrying a weapon and you are approached by locals who then point weapons that you -- at you i do not know about you but i do not think i am going to stop and ask what their intentions are. you react and hope that your training kicks in appropriately. the only reason there was a car full -- kerfuffle is because of the great deal of pressure from the public. it is a very nationalistic

country. the pakistani governmen was very keen to make this thing go away and get it over and done with but they had to play it out, to some degree, to pander to the public. host: let's go to dallas, tx exas. caller: [indible] i guess that this mike baker is very important. i had this day on the line before i could even ta to you. i hear you -- i had to stay on the line before i could even talk to you. heard you say that we were diverting attentio from the mustard gas and nuclear warheads. that is fine and dandy. i appreciate bush for doing that. it seems like, to me, that the

cia and everything that has been going on over there, that you guys have intelligence, letting the president know, this is about to go off over there and all over the mideast may be tipped his hand. i know you all got people all over the world with intelligence. my point is this -- if the cia is as good as you say it is, why do we have so many problems? why does everything have to come to war? host: mike baker. guest: i wish that was the case. i wish -- any intel service would like to have 100% information and have sources everywhere. everything would be goodness and light. unfortunately, that isn't the way it works. we have been conditioned to think that it is an easier process than it is. the agency isn't always right. no doubt about it. they have had their share of

difficulties and problems often times associated with this issue of the difficulty of developing real, quality sources right within that very small, of where the relevant information exists -- small confine of where the relevant information exists. overall =-- to your point you talk about 2001 and the lead up into iraq -- that ia good example of imperfect intelligence. the french, the germans the brits, ourselves -- most of our allies were on the side of this notion that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction in country. they were operating with a what, at that time, was the best

information we had. you could argue -- clearly, it was not perfect it was not as accurate as it needed to be. yet, at the same time, there were voices of dissent within the intel community saying, this is imperfect information. the agency was making clear what they did and did not know. at a certain point in time, whether you talk about the cia or any other intel service, your ability to influence policy and the direction that the military or government might move is limited. the administration will take that information but if there are other elements and factors and voices around the table that are louder or more influential then that is where they're going to go. host: speaking of other voices around the table, in "the guardian," they have a headline

a -- "turkey offer to broker libya cease-fire as rebels advance." how would you describe turkey? are they more our friend or more libyas friend -- libya's friend? guest: you never want to make too much of who is your ally and friend anymore because the land ships if -- landscape shifts very quickly. it is always better to say what are their best interest? what are the saudis' best natural -- national interest? turkey has been very interesting in this situation with libya. they have been -- have not been keen to see this thing move

forward. they have not been keen to have nato involved. they are now making some real demands on nato's actual involvement in the military operations. they are keen to see an ending to this. using the real-world dynamic if turkey has a better connection within libya, better access, better insight into that small little group of players includin gaddafi we should take advantage of that. we should use them to promote our own best interests. host: our last call for mike baker. go ahead. caller: i was just saying, the insurgents -- intelligence service was not developed or designed to make things come out peacefully in any region.

intelligence services are always very destrucve. i can see that because [unintelligible] host: we will leavet there because we are running out of time. mike baker you get the last word. gue: i would obviously disagree. being what it is, there are few things that the motive, talking about cia intelligence operations -- the intelligence service for the u.s., the intel community, works very hard to provide the administration, whatever administration is, with the best information possible and available at that moment. whoever has the best information likely is going to make the best decisions in the best interest of the u.s., which is not to engage in war overseas.

there is a tendency to think that is what we're doing, that are warmongers. the real world is, unfortunately, more difficult. i would argue that thegency, you know, is a tool used by any administration to enhance transparency, to minimize the risk that people face overseas, that the government faces overseas. then again people will be watching this. ey will think hey that mike baker is pretty subjective. hostmimike baker a >> president obama is speaking about libya later today from national defense university. ahead of the speech, the associated press wrote that the

white house made it clear that it was not a precedent for involvement in other nations that hold strategic interests for the u.s.. we will have the president's speech live at 7:30 eastern and we will take your calls afterwards. >> tonight on "the communicator's." at&t and t-mobile. the discuss the impact on the wireless industry, what the deal faces in the justice department and the fcc and the impact on consumers. >> tomorrow, the senate energy committee held a meeting on the energy crisis and what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future.

we will hear from scientists and the chief officer at the nuclear energy institute. and also tomorrow, a hearing examines the protection of civil and human rights for muslim americans. we will hear from the attorney general of the civil rights division and the executive director of advocates. >> throughout the month of april, we will feature the top winners of this year's c-span student cam winners. watch the wedding videos every morning on c-span. just before washington journal. beat the students who created them. you can see the videos online at studentcam.org. >> minority leader mitch

mcconnell delivered a speech on the senate floor earlier today when he explained why president obama needs to clearly define the u.s. role in libya operations. he delivers his address today at 7:30 eastern. live coverage here on c-span. senator mcconnell says that the president notified congress of his actions but received no permission. the american naval aviators in the mediterranean wait offshore to fly combat missions against the libyan army asthma reasons wait for the call to go -- as marines wait the wall to go ashore to rescue a downed pilot or as rescue pilots fly combat air patrol, we are confident that all military orders will be met with the same professionalism and skill we have come to expect of our all-volunteer force. the valor and loyalty of our

armed forces have never been in question. and yet despite that certainty many americans view our military intervention in libya with anxiety and uncertainty. they're wondering why u.s. forces are once again engaged in combat action against an arab regime in the middle east. they're wondering when this operation will end. and when their loved ones will return. and they're asking another reasonable question: what is the mission? if the american people are uncertain as to our military objectives in libya, it is with good cause. mr. mcconnell: the president has failed to explain up to this point what follows the evident establishment of a no-fly zone over libya as it was originally described. further, the president has articulated a wider political objective of regime change in libya that is not the stated objective of our military intervention nor is it the

mandate of the u.n. resolution that the president has used as a justification for our military efforts there. so now that the objective of establishing a no-fly zone has been reached and our nato allies are ready to assume the command and execution of this mission 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 now beginning to understand? these concerns and questions are equally relevant here in the senate and in the congress since it is the responsibility of congress to declare war. mr. mcconnell: if it is war and, of course, to fund our military operations. now, the president has stated there is no decision i face as your commander in chief that i consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force particularly at a time when our military is fighting in

afghanistan and winding down our activities in iraq that decision is only made more difficult. and yet this latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with congress or sufficient explanation to the american people. since returning from south america, the president has begun to talk in greater detail about our involvement in libya. for the second time, he's discussed our operations in and around libya with the congressional leadership. over the weekend he devoted his entire address to the topic and he'll speak to the american people tonight about our operations in libya. all of this is welcome and in my view, overdue. before addressing what answers i hope to hear from the president this evening let me address the notifications to congress that the president has made. prior to the initiation of combat activities in libya the congressional leadership received two forms of notification of the president's

decision to order americans into harm's way. prior to departing for his overseas trip, the president notified the congressional leadership of his plans to send american forces in to combat in action a limited discreet role to destroy the integrated air defenses of the libyan government and to enable our allies to establish a no-fly zone over libya. the second notification was a written communication, as part of his responsibilities under the war powers resolution. throughout his communications with the congressional leadership the president has emphasized that the united states military would not undertake ground combat against the libyan army and that the american combat role would be limited in time scope and would be used simply as a means to set the conditions for our european allies and arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the u.n. security council resolution. the president his mail terry

advisors and commanders -- his military advisors and commanders have explained that the overwhelming american capabilities to destroy enemy air defenses, target command-and-control structures, jam communications signals and monitor the battlefield would all be employed to allow nato and the coalition to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone. it was the limited nature of our combat role that encouraged me that the president was acting within his article 2 authorities as commander in chief. and the actions by nato over the past few days to take over command and responsibility for the no-fly zone are consistent with the president's commitment that limited u.s. actions will set the stage for further action by our coalition partners. here i'm reminded of the important contribution of secretary of defense robert gates in advising the president since he came to office. 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. it was secretary gates who reminded the american people of the risks inherent in military intervention. i know his views will be critical as we transfer further responsibilityies to the coalition and i hope the administration pays close attention to what he says. this week, nato will consider the last part of the mission that must be transferred. what the united nations resolution refers to as "protection of civilian personnel" has included attacks on libyan ground forces and strike missions conducted by american war planes. if u.s. military forces were to have responsibility for close air support or execute additional strike missions in support of opposition forces then that, of course, would exceed the president's definition of a limited supporting role.

such a mission could last indefinitely and would trigger congressional consideration of our larger role in the war. now, my expectation is that the president will explain this transfer of responsibility in his speech tonight and that nato will resolve this issue this week. ending our efforts there as the primary force. as the commander of u.s. africa command, general carter hamm has said our "mandate, again our mission is to protect civilians from attack by the regime ground forces. our mission is not to support any opposition forces." general hamm has also said we do not operate in direct support of the opposition forces. so so as president obama addresses the nation, i'll be listening for answers to the following

questions: when will the u.s. combat role in the operation end? will america's commitment end in days, not weeks, as the president promised? what will be the duration of the noncombat operation and what will be the cost? what national security interests of the united states justified the risk of american life? what is the role of our country in libya's ongoing civil war? the president made clear that our combat forces' role in libia will be limited in scope and duration. tonight i hope he will reiterate that pledge or ask congress before extending the duration or scope of our mission there. and, as always, our thoughts are with the brave young americans in laces places like helmand province, baghdad, those in japan helping the people recover from

>> at a town hall meeting earlier today, president obama said that u.s. involvement in libya would be limited in both time and scope. the president will speak to the nation about libya and washington d.c. later today. we will have that live at 7:30 eastern and take your calls. the senate is back from their spring recess this afternoon. members gavel then to talk about a technology bill. more on that tomorrow on the legislation. also, a u.s. district court judicial nomination a vote on the nomination is expected shortly in the senate. in the house returns tomorrow for legislative and business a bill that would temporarily extend the airport programs.

the federal aviation commission programs bill. >> tonight, perspectives on the deal between at&t and t-mobile. and from the communications workers of america and consumers union's discuss the impact on the wireless industry, what the deal faces in the justice department and the potential impact on consumers. >> on saturday, the former u.s. ambassador to the united nations criticized president obama for the timing of the u.s. mission in libya. he spoke about the 2012 election and the before and policies of the obama administration. from the conservative principles conference, this is 20 minutes.

>> it is an absolute honor for me to introduce our next speaker. ambassador john bolton. [applause] you can trace his conservative roots to the students goldwater campaign [unintelligible] it was during this time that he was tasked with shepherding justice scalia through his confirmation process. he also served in both the bush administration'sns. it was during the tumultuous senate confirmation hearings that senator joe biden compared sending him to the un as sending able to a china shop. -- a bull to a china shop. it might be the nicest thing ever said about ambassador john

bolton. at a time where we haven't even had a full discussion -- got we have to have a discussion of whether america is in decline. it is clear that it is part of our greater debate. we have no one better to discuss these issues that our next speaker. please welcome ambassador john bolton. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank all of you first day in all day and having patience for being here. i want to thank steve cain for having the opportunity to join you today. -- steve king for having the

opportunity to join you today. i would like to joiturn the discussion to national security. ou that i am acutely aware that me and thad are the only ones standing between you and a well-deserved dinner. national security is absolutely critical as we look toward 2012. the political commentariat like to say it does not affect their lives. it has direct and tangible a facts on our independence, our freedom, on peace and security, the independence we need to preserve our constitution and our sovereignty freedom against foreign economic domination, and peace and security through protecting ourselves from

international terrorism the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other threats. it is true that foreign policy and national security on told differently than domestic policies and the bay. things do not wait on our schedule -- differently than domestic policies and debate. it is like humphrey bogart said in open with casablanca." . it seems that fate has taken a hand. on january 20, 2009, when it came to national security matters when president obama took the oath of office, he was not qualified to be president of the united states. [applause] today, more than two years later, he is still not qualified

to be president of the united states. this reflects a crisis in american international leadership. we ask ourselves why does the president perform this way? there are a couple reasons. first, he does not care much about national security. it is not what motivates him. it makes him the first president, republican or democrat since france and roosevelt woke up on december 7 1941 -- since franklin roosevelt woke up on december 7 1941 not to put national security first. he did not want to talk about the global war on terrorism. he did not want toalk about the threats we face. he called iran, a tiny country if a tiny country with a few nuclear weapons cannot to ruin your day. [laughter] he feels comfortable with the

notion of america in decline with america and not taking the leading role to protect its own interests. this does mark him as a different kind of president. in the days gone by, a president with those characteristics might have become an isolationist. not to this president. he is the oldest example of multilateralism in the operation. we can see it today in the way he is handling the crisis in libya. this is an attitude that very gravely threatens american sovereignty over the long term. sovereignty is a concept people debate over. a lot of people think it is abstract. in the united states, we understand exactly what sovereignty is. it is not an attack -- not an abstraction. our constitution says, we the

people. we are a sovereign here. you hear suggestions that we share sovereignty or cede sovereignty to international organizations. it is like saying, you have too much control over your own government. that is a truly rarkable statement that everyone in this room rejects. not barack obama. he is fascinated by international law. he talks about it all the time. on monday, you will hear more about it. it is something that does not receive the kind of attention it should. a lot of it is said by academic law professors. get the connection -- who like to theorize about these things. let me give you an emple. in 1999 during because of low prices the secretary general of the -- kosovo crisis, the secretary general said the following -- and less -- we are

on a dangerous path to anarch i would like to hear our president say whether he agrees with the fmer u.n. secretary general or not. think legitimacy or the united states comes from itself. we do not need to ask anyone else if we are permitted to use force. [applause] all this talk about international law -- we need a president that will say unequivocally that in the secular matters for americans there is no higher authority than the united states constitution. [applause] our present it seems to have trouble with this. i think that is because he is our first post-american president. it is a careful chosen phrase. i did not say unamerican or

anti-american. i said post-american. he is beyond all that patriotism stuff. he is a citizen of the world. heoesn't believe in american exceptionalism. he does not accept the unique role for america. he was asked on his first trip to europe if you believe in american exceptionalism. he said, yes i belve in american exceptionalism just as the british believe in. exceptionalism and the greeks believed in greek exceptionalism. carefully done. when he gets in the first third of the sentence he took back in the second 2/3. he could have continued. just as the new guineans believe in new guinean

exceptionalism. if everybody is exceptional nobody is exceptional. that is the obama approach. this is not the first major leader in the democratic party to hold this view. it is the first major leaguer to become president it is similar to what george h. w. bush said in 1988 about his democratic opponent that year, governor michael dukakis. bush 41 said my opponent sees america as a another pleasant company on the united nations role call. you could say the same thing about barack obama. what should the republican rethought -- republican response be? certainly it is not doing nothing in the international sphere. it is not isolationism. but neither is it succumbing to

the woodrow wilson in view of the president or others in our political debate. the answer is not multilateralism. protection and security for the united states are not going to be thought in the united nations system. nor is it and in this wi-- endless wilsonian crusade. let's not or get bitter roosevelt's response to wilson. he said, first we are to make the world safe for ourselves. that is the policy we should be pursuing. on a subject i know is a sensitive one i want to be clear here. the way we do that is to pursue the policy of peace through strength. that means sufficient budgetary expenditures for our military that no adversary dared to challenge us anywhere in the world.

-- pudares to challenge us anywhere in the world. there is waste and fraud in the defense department. of course there is. it is part of the governments. we should find the waste and fraud and root it out. we need to plow that money back into our dispense expenditures. the obama administration has already cut $300 billion, our defense base line. a couple of months ago the secretary of defense proposed $78 billion more expenditures. t will have to keep that level of defense spending up, i am privately happy to find offsetting domestic programs that cut even more deeply than some have proposed. -- deals look perfectly happy to find domestic programs that cut even more deeply than some have proposed.

-- perfectly happy to find domesticrograms that cut even more deeply than some have proposed. let's run through some important issues we are facing now. how about the war in libya that our nobel peace prize-winning president announced last week. of course it is not war. how could it be war? he cannot keep that nobel peace prize. this is theerbal nonsense that reveals the utter lack of clarity in the president also thinking. i believe that the united states has a strategic interest in removing muammar gaddafi from power. if we do not, there is every prospect he will return to international terrorism of the kind that brought down pan am 103 over lockerbie scotland that

killed many americans on their way home for christmas vacation. he would aost certainly return to his pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons. we cannot allow that to happen. had we intervened early promptly, and decisively, we could have tipped the balance of power to the opposition side. this thing could be over by now. his inability to understand that risks a long-term involvement with no clear conclusion. for what reason? we do not know what his objectives is? protecting innocent civilians? how can you protect innocent civians when you cannot use military force to remove the thing that is the greatest threat to the innocent civilians? he said in el salvador -- he said referring to the international coalition, it means we have confidence we are not going in alone.

it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are importantnternationally. our military is being volunteered by others? who is the commander in chief here. i think the answer going forward is to do what ronald reagan did in 1986. our military has a wonderful euphemism called national command authority. it is a legitimate military target. in libya muammar gaddafi is national command authority. i think that is the answer right there. [applause] libya certainly has our attention. there is came out in the rest of our middle east policy as well. the president had four different positions on hosni mubarak before he finally left. the idea that we are on the easy path has already been defeated

by ebay in the last few days. let's not lose -- it he did by the events in the last few days. -- defeated by the events of the last few days. this is not an abstract strategic argument. if you have been to the gasoline station recently, you can see the forecast of what would happen if iran got complete control over those oil-producing regions. a company that serves as the world's central banker of international terrorism, that is close to achieving is 20 year- long objective of deliverable nuclear weapons -- we have no policy on iran. we cannot find ws to support the opposition forces to mop mood, then a job -- to mahmoud ahmadinejad.

if iran can get a pro-anian regime in that country it can threaten saudi arabia and our other arab allies in the gulf and our economy will be held in complete jeopardy at mahmoud ahmadinejad's discretion. the instability in the middle east that is to undermine the stability we have saw for decades, which is peace between israel and its arab neighbors. there is every likelihood a new egyptian government will revise the camp david accord and israel's security will be threatened once again. our forefathers, when they came to this country often referred to america as a city on a hill, quoting scripture. they referred to america as the new jerusalem. i think it is critical that the new jerusal not forget the old

jerusalem when it com under pressure. that is exactly what we see today. look at the other threats, the continuing threat of north korea's nuclear weapons program, the increased belligerence of china its territorial claims in the east and south china sea that threatened the nations of southeast asia, its continued protection of north korea and the nuclear weapons program there. look atussia and its increased assertiveness. when he was still president vladimir putin said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. most of us think that was a great way to end the 20th century. he has a different point of view. he haseen pursuing that policy with great vigor threatening our friends in western europe enough their oil and natural gas supplies. we have only a few months when

we think about it until the 2012 election. we need a sustained and on limiting discussion of th failures of the obama administration -- unlimiting discussion of these failures of the obama administration -- unremitting discussion of the failures of the obama administration. wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been our shall be uncurled -nfuer led. she is the champion and indicator only of her own. thank you very much/ . [applause]

>> president obama giving an update on libya not far from the white house. the national defense university is funded by the defense department. the trained leaders have command responsibilities. the president's speech will be live at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. earlier today an al jazeera reporter discussed his experience on reporting in recent events. he talked about the arab world's perceptions of military operations and what president obama should tell the american public in his speech tonight. this is an hour.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the council on foreign relations. we will have a terrific conversation today. you have all been to council meetings before. please turn off your cell phones and blackberries. this meeting is on the record today. we will spend a little bit of time visiting with our guests and will have a chance for you to ask questions at about 1:00. today is a timely moment for us to be visiting with our guests. he is the al jazeera english correspondent based in cairo but covers the entire middle east. he had a fascinating couple of months.

he was in tunisia during the revolution. he was there when the revolution in egypt began and had to make their way back into egypt. i am fortunate we have a cnn colleague based in atlanta in 2003 and then went to our baghdad bureau. i am glad to be with you also as a former colleague. he has also covered the entire middle east story from gaza to the west bank to libya. he has reported on libya's decision to give up its nuclear program and -- what i would love

to do is visit for a few minutes and talk about the last couple of months of your life. an interesting 2011? >> the year has gone off the way very few people have predicted. 2011 has been described so many different ways. the arab awakening the arab spring. the it is safe to say what we are witnessing in the middle east is a change in the relationship between the citizens and the state. it is an awakening of the arab street. >> go back to the beginnings of the arab spring.

what brought you to tunisia? what did you see? >> when the events happened in tunisia it started in a small village where a young vegetable seller set himself on fire out of the disgust he had been living. his life had been degraded so much that he took it upon himself to do this. it ignited the protests in tunisia. i was in egypt at the time. we were struggling with the sectarian tension between christians and muslims following the church bombing which triggered weeks of riots. we got a call from our bosses on the day the protests had reached the capital. everyone will be participating -- expecting a monumental shift

-- the way he was conceding every speech more and more reformed and ultimately stepping down. they asked me to go to tunisia. al jazeera at that time was banned. >> did you get in? >> we were all saying let's see what happens when we get to the airport. >> you flew to tunisia without permission. >> whatsoever. a lot of the equipment we traveled with would have just been confiscated. their attitude towards journalists have completely changed. even the streets had change. every time we were interviewing people they would see we were journalists and speak to us. it was a very different dynamic

than 24 hours before. >> clearly everything is changing in tunisia. how much of your brain was also occupied with the possibility that this was going to expand well beyond tunisia? thinking about jordan, elsewhere in the arab world? >> they would say egypt is next. i would be somewhat suspicious of it. they calls for the protests on january 25 at already begun shortly after i arrived in egypt.

i am going to make a concession. one of my friends said he will go back to the protests on january 25. i said there will not be anything big. but i will admit that. as soon as january 25 happened i was on the first flight at. i hopped on a flight from tunisia to cairo because i knew this had changed the rules of the game. they had already called it the day of rage. we knew that was going to be a monumental show. >> after the 25th it will not be anything significant? >> we have people on the ground but when my friends said should you be back in egypt for its i was like tunisia is still the big story. and i was wrong.

>> that you are in egypt. where did you go? >> i arrive that night. from the 25th until the 28th the protests were still on going but there were knightly skirmishes with the police. they were low intensity. the calls for a day of rage for them time had gathered momentum. we all anticipated it will be very big. the most troubling thing was the announcement by the egyptian minister of interior who found that never again would protesters take control of tahrir square. instantly the second you heard him say that the dynamic changed because everybody was about january 25 we have to go back to tahrir square. on the 25th ever buddy marched onto tahrir square.

the egyptian government announced it was cutting off the internet and cell phone connections went down. egypt was taken off the information grid. this was really unprecedented. like any other news organization we had begun preparation. we had deployed teams across the city. i went to friday prayers and to see what he was going to be treated he himself had flown into the country a few hours earlier when everyone was beginning to build up these protests. >> give me a little bit on how you operated during the egyptian revolution. al jazeera has a full-time bureau but at some point it was closed. who closed it?

how did you do your work? >> al jazeera was shut down. we were subject to two different campaigns. the official campaign from the government -- they jammed our signal and confiscated our equipment. they took off our accreditation and said we could not prove we were journalists. that was the official campaign. the unofficial campaign which is slightly more dangerous is an incitement that happened. you have senior officials coming out and blaming what is happening in egypt on satellite channels belonging to friendly countries. and having people call in and create this incitement against al jazeera which spills over into violence.

people come to our offices with sticks and knives thinking we had become legitimate targets. our offices were attacked. we had people show up outside they showed up to many security turn over al jazeera staff. >> how did people know where you were? >> when we left our office everyone took refuge in this hotel next to the bureau. most of the media is concentrated in one block in cairo. i think it became apparent where al jazeera was. the pro-mubarak protesters when they gathered on that day just came over to the hotel where a lot of the journalists were and demanded staff be brought out. >> how much time did you and

your teams spend versus wandering around knowing other journalists were injured? were you inside or outside? >> i never stayed at the hotel and i never worked out of the hotel. i stayed street level. our bosses when they were anticipating this attention really made the decision to keep as many of us in safe areas. we put some of our equipment in tahrir square. that became one of our live shot positions for the entire revolution. we were always out in the field. i don't think we ever reported from the refuge of the hotel. we would use ed just as a place to actually stay. we had to prove -- never once

did we operate out of the hotel. >> was a frightening knowing that there were pro government thugs who would have liked nothing more than to arrest you and perhaps worse? how did you feel moving around? how did you feel going in and out of the hotel? >> it was extremely frightening. i have been in a lot of difficult situations but i think this one was slightly different. it seemed almost personal. in other situations you are a product of the environment you are in. you are always looking over your shoulder knowing you are al jazeera and you could be in one pocket at one point where this people are not fans of al jazeera. it was extremely frightening but i looked at it very much

like ordinary egyptians which is these are the tactics of the regime ordinary egyptians have suffered from four decades. this was something that ordinary egyptians had been accustomed to. accustomed to. we had seen it at political rallies and during protests, and we knew that as a credited journalists with the ministry of information, it would not be hard for any official to take our information to pro-regime bugs and have them knocking at our door. this was part of the environment we had grown used to. >> it's always an awkward position for the journalist to be the story rather than just covering the story. certainly in egypt, al-jazeera became part of the story. when the government was talking about other arab language satellite networks, there was

not much of a code. they were talking about al- jazeera. how does that affect the way you are doing your job and all of the sudden your part of the story? cnn covered the al-jazeera part of the story. give me your thoughts on that. >> the way i look at is this was not by al-jazeera's design, this was the government's design. the government was putting al- jazeera in the cross hairs. that's a testament to the quality of journalism i was coming out. these are governments that existed on the ability to control information. these are the first revelations we have witnessed in the information age. information was a catalyst behind these revolutions. whether it was satellite television, the internet, cellphone technologies, really shrunk the space and time from how this information went all the way to egypt.

the fact they can go from yemen to syria to morocco the ability to carry that message is what is so powerful and that's why governments are extremely afraid. in that sense, al-jazeera is no different. they looked at the internet as a threat just like al-jazeera. the difference is al-jazeera was singled out. for me, it's unfortunate, but as a journalist, i have to stay focused and not get sucked into being part of the story, whether it's the egyptian government or other media of reporting on it. >> when the egyptian government shutdown the internet and sell funds, how did you operate? -- shut down the internet and sell phones, how did you operate? >> we use a lot of small

technology satellite equipment we have with us in the country in order to circumvent the limitations of relying on local information infrastructure. that's one way we were able to get pictures and video out and we were able to do our live shots. one of the most important components was the internet because the internet had become a personal tool. here in the u.s., we do the internet was going to be very important. one of the things i did going into the revolution and we do the internet was going to be cut off, i gave access to my twitter account to a very good friend of mine and told her to constantly update whatever she sees on al- jazeera on twitter. i went from 3000 followers to $20,000 in the course of three days. >> and you don't even get credit for it because it wasn't even you. >> i confessed to set on lines

of people would know i wasn't trying to take credit for it. but it was important because people were not getting their information exclusively from television. there were getting it from alternative means. from our end as journalists, we were relying heavily on the internet for a viewer-generated content. a great portion of the footage we were getting, whether libya or to any ship or from egypt was generated by viewers standing in tahrir square with their own self phones sending images back to al-jazeera. >> let's talk about libya. i'm curious about your impressions. it is worth noting that the coverage of libya has not been easy for al-jazeera. tell me about what has happened to your staff. >> unfortunately, we have had one of our cameramen killed. i had the privilege of knowing and working with him. he was killed in libya a few

weeks ago. we have had some of our staff detained and currently, we have had others who have been shot at and vehicles have been ambushed. it is safe to say that al- jazeera has paid a very heavy price for its coverage in libya along with some of the other journalists. like "the new york times" and other journalists who are there. it goes to show the degree of violence this regime will use to silence reporters in libya. >> is al-jazeera able to report from libya? >> we have teams in benghazi and teams in tripoli who are constantly moving with the flow of the front line. depending on the security assessments, they constantly revisited. they are operating freely in the sense that they are on one part

of the story. the team in trip deal -- team in tripoli have the same restrictions and in paton's you would expect. there are only allowed to see a certain part of the story. >> let's talk about the president's speech tonight. it's obviously a significant moment. he has worked hard to point out or to suggest the united states is not taking the lead in the libyan operation and as quickly handing over command and control to nato, that this is a coalition, this is not the u.s. driving it. i'm curious about your thoughts on that and if your viewers -- and no outages era does not take a position -- i know that al- jazeera doesn't take a position, but if people in the arab world

believe that? do they see this as a u.s. operation? is it a truly -- is it as much france qatar or britain? >> i don't think anyone looks at it as an american operation. i think they look at it as a western operation. you would be surprised to know i don't think a lot of people think it's a bad thing. for the first time in a long time, there's a convergence of interests and a big part of the arab street is in favor of military intervention to protect the libyan people. you would be surprised to think that even though right now there's an extreme caution on the part of the united states as not being perceived a certain way, this is one of the unique opportunities in the history of

american military involvement in the middle east where the arab street is not looking at what is happening in libya as an attempt by the united states to impose its own objectives on to the region. that's at this stage in the process. there is always the skepticism -- skepticism because of america's large military footprint in the region. what add more fuel to the fire is the fact that will be as large as natural resources oil. had been bananas that would have been different. but it's not something people are necessarily upset about. one of the biggest evidence of that is for the first time in the years we have spent covering the middle east, in that 18 days of the egyptian revolution, i never once saw an american flag being burnt in tahrir square neither in tunisia, neither in

libya. the united states supported so many of these regimes but they did not hold that resentment as they were crumbling and fleeing in different areas. that is to the credit of the people making the distinction between the policies and the united states as a country. >> contrast that with some of the protests you have covered in the arab world. you are an american citizen and work for al-jazeera english. give me a sense of what yet seen before and now. >> there was a huge amount of animosity toward the american government for its policies, particularly not just in iraq and elsewhere but one of the biggest problems is the israeli- palestinian conflict and america's perceived bias in addressing that conflict. that resentment over the years has created a sense for ordinary

americans don't trust the intentions of the united states government. they see their foreign-policy as an interest-driven foreign- policy and not a value-driven foreign-policy despite the fact the united states a spouse's these values. the actions don't add up with their rhetoric. in this particular case, as i was saying, there is a conversion of interests which means ordinary arabs, particularly in libya want the ouster of muammar gaddafi because he's demonstrated a type of violence he's willing to use to achieve his aims. they believe in the absence of any type of interference from arab states, which are really incapable of imposing a no-fly zone or defending the libyan people, the only option was western military intervention. this is why this unique situation has arisen where by the west can military -- militarily intervene in libya and not be seen as part of an

imperial of operation. the question is how big the military operation as, are we going to see boots on the ground? what are the long-term attempt to shape the rise of a new libyan government that does happen and to what extent there's going to be an engagement with the emergence of a new libyan government. >> use your expertise as an american and observer of american politics and an observer of global politics. who do you think the president's audience is tonight? >> i will have to wait and see what he says. but i think his immediate audience is the united states. i think there's a great deal of concern. just from watching and reading the commentary in american medium there is a great sense of concern. i keep hearing these questions -- who are the liberals? >> who are the libyan rebels?

>> their libyans. i know that sounds simple, but you should not dismiss that. there's a tendency to over analyze the situation to the point where we are talking about libyans as of this revolution was somehow not organic. let's not forget where these revelations began. they began with ordinary arabs and libya is no different. the libyan revolution began as a peaceful protest and turned violent when muammar gaddafi opened fire to suppress the protesters' colleges own army refused to do. it's not what we saw in iraq or afghanistan where there was an injection of foreign fighters and people coming to fight in iraq people ideologically driven by -- even though i don't like the term, but this jihdi mentality. i was watching a sunday talk show and the question was we don't know whether these are

going to be good muslim extremists or bad muslim extremists. i was surprised nobody thought to say how we know they're not muslim extremists? is there a possibility they could just the ordinary libyans? it's a sense of hysteria. i think president obama the first thing he should try to do is play the concerns of ordinary americans about what's actually happening in libya and i hope he has more intelligent and information than what being discussed in that mainstream american media because it's sometimes a little shortsighted. these people leading these revelations, particularly in libya we may not have all of the answers but that's not a bad thing. we're trying to rush to find out who's the national council. these are people used to be in the libyan government. we knew who they are and what they stand for and have given a time line for a transition like to impose. the limitation is they don't have the weapons or ability to

push on to tripoli. they're trying to address those with whatever diplomatic maneuvering they're trying to position. president obama needs to address that concern within the american domestic arena and needs to deliver a message to the arab street that the united states is not intervening in libya for imperialists objectives or its own interest but because of humanitarian and value-based judgments. >> perhaps there taking notes at the white house right now. i want to take a few minutes and get questions from you all. raise your hand and wait for the microphone that will find you. >> if i could play on your broader experience in iraq and

israel now in tunisia and egypt, the landscape has changed significantly in the region. i think what we are seeing for the first time in my lifetime, you see the empowerment of arabs in the street. these are arabs who have been victims of the repression of their government for generations, certainly throughout my lifetime. the object of indifference from foreign governments for the most part. if this empowerment continues what are the arabs in the street saying about what they expect from two key actors -- the united states, you talked about their immediate reaction, but what to do what from the united states and israel? how come they latest changed landscape, do these newly empowered arabs expect from these two actors questor >> i don't think they want anything from israel.

if there is a divergence of governments from the arab world accurately reflect the will of the arab street and respond to it, you're going to see a different level of engagement. the arab street once their government to interact with israel differently not a necessarily want anything from israel. you are going to see, like in the case of egypt, they want to see the interest of egypt take precedent over the issue -- over the issue of israel. they want to see natural-gas not sold at subsidized prices. they want to see that priority of let's see this siege on gaza lifted because there's a greater sense of empathy with the people of gaza and palestinians in general. they wanted the foreign-policy to reflect that. they want national security to take precedent over both israel and the united states. most egyptians will tell you the

national security interests took a backseat to ever washington and tel aviv wanted egypt to do. when israel wanted the united states or egypt to engage with a mosque, you would see a spike. -- engage with half loss, you would see a spike. -- it was at the behest of international pressure to do more to stop this bundle in despite the fact ordinary egyptians wanted to see john cause of lifted. a free-flowing of people between gaza and egypt. those are some of the quick examples of the top of my head. with the united states, they want the united states to engage the arab street and the arab government on a foreign policy that is more value-based and not interest-based. they want to see the united states in gauge egyptian civil society universities, think

tanks, bring the know-how of america has to the region but not impose a model of government on the egyptians. if the muslim brotherhood emerges as a political player in a new egypt, they don't want to see the united states hanging a veto over the fact it will deal with an egyptian government with members of the egyptian -- members of the muslim brotherhood in it. the muslim brotherhood like any political party is no difference. it's no different from turkey or christian democrats in europe. there can be political parties that drive their base but play with in the secular rules of the game. they don't want to see this western position saying of the muslim brotherhood once a certain but bridget certain number of seats, we will deal with them. that's kind of tone is what egyptians want to see.

>> do you have a sense now as the political process moves forward and political parties began to form that the muslim brotherhood has a significant amount of support? >> during the revolution, even the muslim brotherhood tried to downplay the amount of support they might get. but now the political process is open -- >> i think that muslim brotherhood was surprised. this was not a muslim brotherhood revolution. no one in egypt can take credit and say this is a muslim brotherhood revolution. never once was the muslim brotherhood flag-waving over tahrir square. >> not by accident. >> the people there were not part of the muslim brotherhood. this was not a muslim brotherhood-lead additive for event. the muslim brotherhood is a part of the political fabric of egypt. that cannot be ignored.

>> is it a little, medium-size or big part? >> they themselves say they will not field a presidential candidate. they say they will not feel themselves more than 30% of the seats, because that's what they've given themselves. it will only compete for 30% of the seats. if they win everyone, they will have more than 30% of the egyptian parliament. i think we can safely say that the muslim brotherhood anticipate and they know their popularity was a large part due to the fact they were the only game in town besides the mubarak regime. president hosni mubarak was the power and the legitimate opposition in town where the muslim brotherhood. nobody took any opposition party seriously. even if you are not in the ideological support of the muslim brotherhood, you tended to support the just because they were the ones willing to go to

the street and oppose the regime of causing the mark, and paid dearly for that over the years. i cannot quantify, but i suspect the muslim brotherhood will not be that type of party that is all or nothing. they will not control everything and certainly will not be in the fringes as some other political parties. they will be very visible, but not necessarily dominant. >> state your name and affiliation. >> i'm from the lead the council -- atlantic council first. may i say thank you as someone riveted to my computer watching you day after day, wondering how you are managing continuing to broadcast to all of this. can you talk about the secular

parties and young activists? can they get their act together in time to participate in the parliamentary and presidential elections? we have seen some push back against mohamed elbaradei . do you see somebody emerging or should we wait to see a new personality? >> there's no doubt there have been six or seven prominent egyptians who have thrown their name into the ring. . there are people emerging, but i'm speaking more analytically than as a journalist, but i don't necessarily think any one of these individuals has a great deal of attraction particularly with the revolutionary groups. one of the most unique things about these groups is they are organic and leaderless. nobody can claim credit for the egyptian revolution in the sense that nobody came rolling from

the countryside on the tank or nobody that was in exile that flew in. it was ordinary people who took to the street. that's a good thing and a bad thing. it presented an opportunity for a new generation of egyptian leaders to emerge. this grouping of revolutionary groups which we can safely say are in the ballpark between 12 or 13 groups are not traditional political players in the egyptian political arena. none of these parties are part of the core revolutionary groups. many of the kids belong to them and support that ideology, but they are not part of it. what we are witnessing now is going to be an emergence of a new egyptian generation. if the elections happen in six months, the key to whether they will be ready to participate is whether they banned the ndp. if the ndp is banned, the lobby

a great opportunity for you to organize on a street level. with their institutional knowledge, they may find themselves involved with helping these groups. if the ndp stays, it's a recipe for a problematic election because the two strongest parties will be tough ndp and of freedom and justice party which is an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood. we are expecting the decision relatively soon, perhaps in the next week or so. the prosecutor general in egypt i think it will be his call. that's done with close consultation with the military as to whether or not they will band that party. i suspect within the course of the next two weeks we can expect a decision. it's been one of the demands of the revolutionary groups. they have announced elections to take place in september and expect to announce a new

formation. >> do you have a feeling of whether it will be banned or not? >> i think indications are it will be banned. the demands of the protesters are if you are genuine about creating a new political atmosphere, the have to. it's not so much you banned the party but to ban them from the elections. they could defer to the president or parliament and may pose a ban on them for the time being. >> thank you. to expand the focus a little bit, at the moment, is there more press freedom in egypt or turkey? are you optimistic or pessimistic about the development of press and government relations in turkey?

>> what i have seen in egypt has been very promising. egypt has gone from -- has gone 170 degrees -- at want to say 180 because i don't think they're willing to criticize the military and tackle some of the fundamental issues that are still problematic in this transitional time which have to do with the military the constitution and a few other things. i think the media in egypt is at a huge advantage in the sense there are plenty of news outlets, whether television or print -- for many years, they were usurped by the regime and i do see a purging of these regimes. i think that's a huge advantage compared to to asia which had a few channels and newspapers where they will start from scratch. egypt has a long history of opposition newspapers,

broadcast, and even in this day and age, they have plenty of news channels and entertainment channels. the key is getting them up and going and vibrant and not being afraid. that's an advantage. i think turkey is a good model. in terms of its journalism, turkey has huge amounts of newspapers and channels. it's a good model for the kind of engagement you can expect from media and the political environment. the media in turkey is extremely vibrant and very opinionated. the lines are very clearly drawn in terms of the newspapers and affiliation to the political establishment. that's one criticism i have compared to what it is like in egypt. egypt should try to shy away from having every party has a newspaper, every political ideology has its own news channel and try to break beyond those limitations.

>> i'm with the naval postgraduate school and this has been a fabulous session. thank you for what you're doing. i'm interested in the whole question of the public's expectations about how quickly things are supposed to happen. i keep going back and saying to my friends was 13 years from the time the week declared independence to the time we had a president and constitution. how do you think this is going to get crammed into a short time to meet the expectations of everyone wanting to get into this new space? >> i think that's a really good question. even more recently -- and i'm not a latin-american expert, but a lot of people have made comparisons to the transition chileans went through with its problems to more democratic process. that took 15 years. you have to look at egypt's

progression through different lenses. one capacity built the of to -- one is capacity building, freedoms, have to look accountability but justice reform. there are a lot of people who say it's not as important right now to try to bring elements of the regime to justice. you are spending all this time and some analysts say it's more politically motivated and the general prosecutor in egypt to was reported -- who was promoted by mubarak and is now bringing all these former regime officials, people think he's doing that only to buy himself time. people are questioning whether these are actually going to be fair and legal process these with do justice. that's a legitimate concern. you want to make sure the institutions and processes you are building are capable of bringing about the genuine reform. there is a huge concern on trying to impose a time line.

the biggest division in egypt right now is between those who think the six-month timeframe of the military is realistic and those who say it should be more than a year. some people say the constitutional amendments, the eight that were passed, that was a bit of a sham. it's not going to bring about the institutional reforms you need. when mubarak step down from power, he did not abide by the constitution, so he's telling you that the constitution had failed. where you going to try to amend a articles and think everything else in the constitution is completely functional? that's the biggest division you see in egypt. there is a great concern that you rush things and put in place this, once again a bit of a sham that looks like a democracy when in reality it does not function like a democracy. >> thank you.

i'm from the council for relations. you mention how difficult it is for americans to view al- jazeera but this is to the website surged. but i wonder if perception of al-jazeera by americans have changed and how has this changed al-jazeera? >> the fact that i was on the "colbert report" has changed a lot of things. he even told me was a big fan afterwards. that was surprising. this notion of americans not being interested in international news is false. the fact that al-jazeera web site had grown by 2500% during the revolution, surpassing that of the "new york times" the vast majority from north america, i think it's a testament to the fact that people, when they want

good news, they know where they can get. how has it changed al-jazeera? i think it has only recommitted us to the value that when you report sometimes the most simple reporting is the most powerful reporting, which is that out on the streets. i think you see al-jazeera's commitment to deploying these resources. the problem or criticism is that in this current climate, there are all these budget cuts and a lot of major news organizations that become a reputable institutions had shrunk back a lot and consolidated much of their coverage of london and new york. they engage in parachute journalism. al-jazeera has 60 bureaus around the world and this reaffirms the best type of coverage is to keep people on the ground and deployed. you'll always get the most authentic story and that shows

all the way from the bottom to the top. that's why it's a truly historic moment both for the network and in terms of its exposure. we are beyond the negative perceptions that would relaunched that we suffered from in the united states. the discourse now is about our coverage about what we offer that others don't. it is no longer about to al- jazeera, but what's al-jazeera is doing. now it's just getting the cable companies to respond a little bit more positively. >> i'm from georgetown university. looking at the various peoples and parties on the egyptian political scene, what is their stance on the libyan conflict and the western intervention? how is that affecting their

strategies for getting into power? >> the egyptian people, particularly the revolutionary groups have a huge amount of empathy for the people in libya and the opposition, pro- democracy fighters. there is a great deal of criticism against the egyptian transitional government for not being more supportive of the libyan rebels. it's gone so far as some saying the egyptian government should help now in this new environment, and quickly to reemerge in a credible way by helping the rebels and supporting them, by giving them material by whatever support they can offer them, to something they should be engaged more diplomatically. that the egyptian government should take the lead in supporting diplomatic at issue tips. what is problematic is the egyptian government is in a

crisis so it's not getting a sense of clarity, and it's just beginning to reap prioritize its own national security interests. the prime minister just visited sudan and it's expected egypt is going to recognize the republic of south sudan. it's important as egypt wants to regain gauge and be considered a superpower, but ordinary egyptians very much side with the opposition in libya and the people fighting against the khadafy regime. >> the way that certain people emerge as icons of resistance and become a galvanizing force for their actions i'm wondering

if you think it's going to take that kind of spark in algeria or morocco to give more impetus to protest their ordeal think it just won't happen in this countries and their different somehow? >> i think the genie is out of the bottle. i don't think any arab country is immune from what is happening. i think every arab leader and chief of staff of the army is going to ask what happens when this happens in my country? but i don't think every country is going to offer a similar path because the forces at play are very different from country to country. libya is a country where for 40 years, miller khaddafi has centralized power and not allowed for the establishment of political parties. there are no unions there which is very different from egypt. it's true they were usurped by the regime but the forces at

play and tensions and currents underground are very different. it's not to say -- about a big fan of this, but it is something we hear a lot, that libya is a tribal society. but the forces in libya, these people are not going to war along tribal lines. that's a bit of a misnomer to suggest it is a tribal war. i think algeria is going to be a unique experience because it has these tribal fault lines but also has institutions similar to egypt under emergency laws. but i don't think there is an arab country immune to the winds of change blowing across the region. >> we spent a lot of time talking about cochrane and syria and jordan. in each of those countries, the regime is trying to quickly make

reform as the emergency laws going to be lived in syria or so they say. the regimes are clearly trying to do what they can to relieve the pressure and stay in power. do you think -- each country may be a little different but what is your response to what those regimes are doing? is it too little too late or will be effective? >> i think it's too little too late, they've had decades to implement reform without being instigated by popular uprisings and they chose not to. any attempt to offer these reforms are widely going to be seen as attempts to hold onto their power as opposed to bringing about genuine reform. the question is what can i do to hold on to my seat by offering piecemeal concessions and these reforms? but i do not think they have any attraction with the arab street.

that's not to say it not going to delay it coming to your country. it made by you more time but the demands for change is now. when we talk about that, when the most important parts is the fear factor has been broken. ordinary arabs particularly in some of these countries where violence is being used, they have overcome their fear of these regimes and no longer fear these security services. i am have to tell you the kind of security services that existed in egypt. those are completely quashed in 72 hours. that fear factor has become contagious and people see the fact they did it in egypt and they can do it in syria, they can do it in yemen and morocco and algeria. perhaps because these countries -- let's not forget the fact there are african countries. it could go beyond arab african

countries and into africa itself. >> i'm with the cbs radio news. my boss wants to think you for your good work. al-jazeera english was saying we could use audio. i never thought i would have anything nice to say about my cable company, but comcast in b.c. has al-jazeera. reborn in the u.s. or are you an immigrant's story made good? what are you six-foot eight? [laughter] >> of all of the above. was born in egypt. my parents emigrated to the u.s. when i was about five years old. i went to school right down the street at american university and actually start working for nbc news across the street from american university and start off as a desk assistant, handing

out newspapers in the morning great environment to be in. most of the time i was in of the correspondence but it was a great environment to see how people operate in that high- pressure environment. the summarize started, i was going to leave journalism. i thought i'm not cut out for this. it was this summer of gary, dead and a shark attacks. my parents were like you have a master of this degree. >> at two months before 911 -- two months before 9/11. >> than the rules completely changed and there is talk of the war in iraq and american network started to beef up their staffing with people who spoke the language and do the region. that led me to cnn and the rest is history. >> you skipped one of the questions -- 6 ft. 8?

>> 6 ft. 4. >> time for one more question. you have not mentioned saudi arabia in terms of unrest. this is obviously vital interest to the united states. any prospects the unrest will spread their? there have been preliminary signs but is there anything more serious? >> the word unrest is probably the best word to describe. i look at it as demands for change. whether it leads to unrest or happens peacefully, i think demands for change and reform will happen in saudi arabia and even the king himself has recognized that. he has offered a huge incentive deal which makes you wonder where all that money was for the past several years. but nonetheless you are going to see this demands. the reason i said every country

is different and every country will take a little longer is because the forces that lead to these demands and acts of civil disobedience are different. what we see in bahrain -- i don't subscribe to it even though it is perceived as sectarian, is not a sectarian demand. their demands are for equal rights and is different. what we see in yemen is different and we will see in saudi arabia is different. i'm convinced no arab co., -- no arab country including saudi arabia sudan call all of these countries are going to demand a new equation between the citizen and the state. >> thank you for your time. [applause] you have seen a career's worth of news in two months. i can only imagine what the next six months will be like. thank you for coming. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now more about the political unrest in libya with that of the un sanctions committee. he spoke with reporters about how bad on oil imports and an arms embargo could affect the rebel movement in libya. taking place after the un security council meeting on libyan sanctions, this is 10 minutes. >> good afternoon ladies and gentleman. as you do -- as you know, i just

briefed the council on the first two meetings we had on the sanctions committee on libya. there were very extremely useful and production -- useful and productive meetings. we agreed on a provisional method for work or rules, we also adopted what is to be sent to member states to request to be formed a committee on the way there, and implementing the sanctions. third, we also discussed a number of issues that have to do both with exemptions to the sanction regime and to clarification on its application.

i trust we will proceed as it happened during the first two meetings with the strong unified support from all members of the council and the unified approval of the 1970 resolution. i was very happy to verify during our informal consultations how solid the support for the sanctions committee and for its work is. thank you very much and ready to reply to any questions. >> the rebels have said they would like to begin exporting oil.

qatar has said they are interested in helping the market there and oil. [inaudible] is there anything that would prohibit the libyan rebels from selling the oil? >> this sanction regime applies to the l.l. company. as far as that will company is concerned, the sanctions to apply. if they were not to sell to the libyan international oil corp. -- >> let me tell you that i don't work on the basis of presumptions. my work is to apply sanctions as they exist today. i'm sure if that or other situations like the one you have presented arise, we will discuss them in that committee of course. my job now is to apply sanctions and as far as well as

concerned, it is very clear. the national oil company is sanctioned under this regime. >> [inaudible] >> my understanding is the resolution imposes a full embargo on arms. >> [inaudible] >> that is what is stated in the resolution. >> [inaudible] >> the resolution is very clear and the committee will enforce that embargo. >> there is an argument that -- >> i don't work on the basis of arguments. if they are rise, we will discuss them, but my understanding is the sanction

regime applies to arms and armament. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know, had number of countries. we will be adding names to those listings and we will see in the coming weeks. i think it will be quickly we will have a discussion on whether to include them are not include them on the list. >> [inaudible] >> i do not have any evaluation. i know that a lot of assets have been seized already. i do not know the numbers precisely. i think we will have a more clear view of that when we have the panel of experts that can dwell on that specifically and

go into the figures you are mentioning. i do hope all member countries of the un are applying the sanctions and -- and a sanctions are lifted in the next to their revolution -- the resolution. they include assets. assets can be both properties and bank accounts. >> when do you expect a panel of eight? >> as i just said, i personally feel it's a very urgent matter but i recognize it is not easy in 48 hours to put a panel together. we have the secretariat whilst doing that -- as you know, the resolution requires a fair

amount of different expertise. you have to have that expertise and obviously, as is traditional, you must have some regional balance and equilibrium there. it is not an easy job, but i hope it will be done quickly because i feel the need for it to answer some of the questions that have just been addressed to me. >> [inaudible] >> and no one raised that issue in consultation today. >> it is very clear [inaudible] >> i know you have read the resolution. except for humanitarian cases which is a different thing from harming anyone -- i'm not going to discuss what people are arguing i hear a lot of things,

but with all due respect, it would be a waste of time to go into all of the different arguments. i'm here with my committee to enforce the embargo and the resolution and that's one going to do. >> the british are not clear about it -- >> i'm not going to comment on individual countries. >> that is what i am trying to say. >> i have my interpretation of the resolution and i hope -- thank you. >> around at the same time as these comments from the un, a pentagon briefing was held on

operations about -- a briefing was held on operations against muammar gaddafi's forces. this is 25 minutes. >> good good afternoon everyone. thank you for being here today. let me start with a snapshot of the situation on the ground in libya. slide please. here is how things looked on friday. reinforces work outside and the position was very much contested. there was still no sign of relenting. next slide please. here is what things look like today.

opposition forces are now in control and have pushed west to within 80 miles of surt. we believe the regime is set to dig in there. likewise for where we think they are going to reinforce positions. not too much of a change since our last briefing. word has come to us this morning that the regime is busing reporters out there today, for what purpose we do not know. i am comfortable telling you we have not received a single confirmed reports of civilian casualties caused by the coalition and we will continue to be just as precise as we can in keeping up the pressure while protecting innocent civilians. in fact, i'm quite confident that in and aroundmisrata we can and will be affected at

hitting exactly who we are aiming at. that is a good segue to the next slide. we have been keeping you updated with facts and figures over the weekend. i will uncover the last 24 hours. coalition strike aircraft continue to go after targets on the ground, most of which were targets of opportunity like the regime forces we have hit. six cruise missiles were launched from see last night against headquarters facility of muammar gaddafi's 32nd brigade. this is one of his most loyal units at one of the list active in terms of attacking innocent people. we are awaiting a assessment of those strikes. we had preplanned targets around tripoli come mostly ammunition stores and bunkers. we did take out a mobile surface-to-air missile site in tripoli as well. over the last 24 hours, the coalition has flown 178 sorties the most of which were strike

related. our coalition partners continue to increase their participation. next slide please. here is a lay down of the overall sortie count so far. the bar graph shows our work over the weekend. the green bar is the total sorties for each day. the blue represents those flown by u.s. pilots, read by the coalition. the numbers continue to rise across the board but the labour share is evening out. i would bet the addition of pilots from belgium who are helping enforce the no-fly zone. i would like to point out that pilots from qatar were scheduled to fly another eight sorties today. we avidly the operating area 12 fighter airplanes from the united arab emirates and expected to join the net -- expected to join the flight schedule in the next day or so. here you can see the sorties

devoted to air to ground missions, the protect the people missions. the numbers at the right are the totals for the operation. from friday to sunday, there is an increase from 91 to 107. i know it seems as though i'm trying to hammer home a point here and i guess i am. it is simply this -- u.s. military participation in this operation is, as we have said all along changing to one primarily of support. one of our submarines has moved on to a previously assigned task having completed all the strike misses -- strike missions assigned to her. we're not flammable combat sorties anymore. we're flying 80% of air refueling and 70 percent better surveillance at 100% of all electronic warfare missions. in other words, we remain committed to the mission and mandate we have been told to enforce. that commitment is very much shared by others and will be led by others. you saw the announcement

yesterday that nato will assume command of the entire mission in the next few days. having already assumed command next -- of the maritime cargo mission and of the no-fly zone enforcement. the details of exactly when and how future command relationships will be established for still being discussed and i'm just not able to lay much of that out for you. we will as soon as we have it. we are all comfortable there will not be dropped balls on the the handoff and everyone is working hard to ensure the tempo of operations is not disrupted nor the pressure on the regime lifted. in short, it comes back to my comment at the start. the situation on the ground has been changing and is changing but in the air, a coalition keeps flying and at sea we keep growing. on that, i will take your questions. >> the affect, if not the intention of western intervention in libya with their power has been to help the rebels regained the initiative

as the first map shows that on the offensive moving westward. i wonder if you intend to exploit that success by adding additional aircraft to the fight at close air support? >> we are not in direct support of the operation. it's not -- not in direct support of the opposition. our strategy is to pressure him where we think it will give the best effect. we see that possibly occurring here. given the events you see on the battlefield. anytime you see an opportunity like that, good commanders in the field will try to exploit that opportunity. you see the number of strike sorties as a direct result of that. >> [inaudible] we have the employeda-10s and ac

130's. >> you are communicating with the opposition? >> we have no communication with the opposition. >> you make absolutely sure you are attacking regime forces rather than opposition forces? >> that is the challenge the positive identification of the target. that's why the discipline of the air crew from all the coalition partners is critical. right now, it appears that the -- where we are striking the opposition is not. where we can make a system of positive identification, identifying friend from foe.

>> you talked about the allies overall and the majority of the strikes. which countries are participating in strikes? the u.s. still has the lion's share, right? >> as an example, if we could go to slide 3, please. you will see the u.s., the u.k. finland, canada, and belgium in the last 24 hours -- and denmark. >> you talked about how gaddafi -- you have been diminishing the ability of gaddafi to command and control forces, but you have not yet see any type of reversed momentum on the ground. what is the situation now? is there any change in that? >> the vix if we saw from friday to today is exactly -- the big shift we salt from friday today is exactly the result of that. whether it is confusion or being overextended, we had a pretty significant shift. slide one, please.

where they were this morning. that's a pretty significant withdrawal on their part. >> what's the difference between the types of strikes you are describing and the strikes that would destroy the libyan military? >> i'm not sure what your question is. >> you described the attack on the headquarters of the 32nd brigade. these strikes against headquarters -- there seems to be a fairly thin line between stopping assaults on civilians

and simply taking out the libyan military. >> we are paying attention to the lines of communication the command and control, the ability to resupply those forces that are the most active against the attacks on civilians. what is the difference between this and another conflict? the specific targets -- the target types are not different. it is where we are trying to go after them. >> you are leaving significant -- >> i would say we are not leaving significant firepower. any place we can see ammunition storage facilities or things of that nature, we are going after those. >> it may be easier to ask what you are not going after.

>> well, i'm having a hard time understanding your question. once again, we're going after those forces -- >> is it simply to relieve the pressure on civilians in these towns along the coast or is it an all out assault on gaddafi's military to dismember it? >> the targeting objectives from the very first strikes remain the same. >> what would be something that is not something on the target list? >> i'm just going to stick to the targets we're going after.

>> to follow up on david's question, and specifically about surt, slide 3 showed american air attacks against libya and maneuver forces at surt. by all accounts we are getting out of libya, there's no threat to civilians in surt. it is gaddafi's birthplace and apparently filled with gaddafi's supporters. what would be the threat to civilians? >> the military forces are command and control related. they are doing command-and- control for the forces that are to the east to them. once again, you want to create confusion at the front and go after command and control at the rear and supply lines in between. and ammunition facilities anywhere we can find them.

>> does not say command-and- control facilities on the chart. >> let me check and make sure we accurately captured that. >> specific on the number of ordinance dropped. >> we are up to 199, 7 from coalition, and a little over 600 persistent guided, 455 from the u.s. and 107 from the coalition. >> can you give a sense of the level of destruction in the last few days? how are you quantifying it? tanks destroyed? >> we do not have the damage assessment from the last 24 hours. once again, we are not into -- as we do an assessment of the effect on the battlefield, we are not counting tanks and

armored personnel carriers destroyed. that's not the effect. that's not how we will measure the effect. we will look at how the maneuver force and the command and control is being uplight. >> that specific brigade gaddafi's is reportedly running its. >> we have not seen the effect yet. from the rest of the strikes the results of where the battle has taken us over the weekend is a direction of how the effect is shown. >> are those allowing you to attack gaddafi's forces in the cities now? >> i'm not going to talk about how any of the specific weapons systems are employed. >> i'm trying to understand why we do not see any french planes as part of the strike forces. >> there are quite a few french strike missions.

it just happened in the last 24 hours, there were not any. >> in sirte, if you have a situation where gaddafi's forces are fighting against opposition forces, will coalition planes to strike in the sirte area? >> i'm not going to get into the hypothetical. if there are regime forces outside of sirte and they are attacked, we will most likely take them under attack. >> is there still evidence that gaddafi's is in charge of the 32nd brigade? >> i do not have any intelligence regarding gaddafi's son at this time? >> looking at the transfer of command, when we transferred command from units in iraq or afghanistan, that's usually a month-long process. we seem to be doing this very quickly. what exactly is entailed with shifting command to nato?

>> the specifics are still being worked out. the maritime embargo was fairly easy and forward. they started taking on the no- fly zone mission on saturday morning. it will take on the total mission in the coming days. none of the commanders involved are anticipating any problems with that. one of the benefits of trancing to nato is -- as we've been working with nato for many years, we understand the command structure. we exercise together. we operate in afghanistan together. there's high confidence we will not drop the ball. >> you mentioned there is fighting that is still pretty serious and misrata. can you characterize that? are gaddafi's forces using tanks? i'm not going to characterize the type of fighting in the city. we're focusing outside the city.

>> are there any attacks -- >> i'm not going to talk about other than that -- in around the city. >> aside from the providence do you have any indication about planes and ships to leave odyssey dawn? >> yes, as we're working on defining command arrangements, they are also working on those assets that are required that nato will need to do that. the forces that will not be needed will be redeployed. >> to follow up on that question, in addition to the stuff that's no longer on station, can you tell us how many are currently there? >> i do not have the number in any of my notes in front of me right now. we can provide that.

>> are there any details you can share with us about the humanitarian aid dimension to this? >> we're heavily involved in planning for the humanitarian assistance and doing that with our partners and non- governmental agencies. >> the dutch prime minister said turkey will take over them gauzy -- over benghazi. >> i'm not at liberty to discuss that. >> are they did in in in the cities or the outskirts? >> i do not have the specifics for you. >> in an e-mail published by "the new york times" a general said he saw little evidence that very few of gaddafi's forces were defecting to a lot of the gains made by the rebels could be very temporary. is that your assessment?

>> he is the commander and i will defer to general hamm in his opinion to the opposition is not well organized and it's not a very robust organization. any gain that they make is tenuous based on that. there clearly achieving a benefit from the actions they are taking. i think the generals assessment is very good. >> does he know who the opposition is and does it matter to you? >> we are not talking with the opposition. we would like a much better understanding of the opposition and we do not have that. yes, it does matter to us and we're trying -- we are trying to fill in those gaps. >> of the 983, do you know of a

single instance where a single one of those aircraft came under fire from gaddafi's forces? >> last night, we have reporting of what we think it's a ballistic missile launch. it was a pilots in flight report. we are investigating that. that's the only one we are aware of. i will tell you, as an aviator every time you fly -- you are assuming you are being shot at. there's a lot of aimed aaa as well as a significant number in the thousands of ir-missiles. those are the threats. i only know of that one from last night from reports.

>> and not even a confirmed report yet. >> those are the ones that i am aware of. i'm not pouring through the 983 mission reports anymore. >> admiral, 50 a-10 and -- if they are combat -- these aircraft are clearly targeting gaddafi's forces. is that the message, with these aircraft, we are going to take you out? >> they are precision munitions. it's not so much the platform as the weapon that is extending it.

i do not call them combat support for combat aircraft. they deliver a precision affect. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in about 15 minutes president obama was bid about libya from the national defence university not far from the white house. his speech will be live at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. then we will take your calls. >> tonight on "the communicators," at&t and t-

mobile. they will discuss the impact on the wireless industry and what the deal faces in the justice department and the sec and the potential impact on consumers. as protests continued in the middle east and as nato is set to take control of military operations in libya, find the latest from the un security council and reaction from world leaders on the c-span video library. all searchable on your computer, any time. watch what you want, when you want. >> just before the president's speech we will watch minority leader mitch mcconnell on the senate for today explaining why he thinks president obama needs to clearly define the u.s. role in libya's military operations. >> as the naval aviator --

aviator's way of shore as marines wait for the call to go ashore to rescue the downed pilot, or as air force pilots like reply combat air patrols we are confident that all military orders will be met with the same professionalism and skill we have come to expect a were on volunteer force. the valor and leslie of the men and women of our nation's armed forces have never been in question. and yet despite the uncertainty many americans view our military intervention in libya with anxiety and uncertainty. ondering why u.s. forces are once again engaged in combat action against an arab regime in the middle east. they're wondering when this operation will end. and when their loved ones will return. and they're asking another reasonable question: what is the mission? if the american people are uncertain as to our military objectives in libya, it is with good cause.

mr. mcconnell: the president has failed to explain up to this point what follows the evident establishment of a no-fly zone over libya as it was originally described. further, the president has articulated a wider political objective of regime change in libya that is not the stated objective of our military intervention nor is it the mandate of the u.n. resolution that the president has used as a justification for our military efforts there. so now that the objective of establishing a no-fly zone has been reached and our nato allies are ready to assume the command and execution of this mission 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 now beginning to understand? these concerns and questions are equally relevant here in the senate and in the congress since it is the responsibility of congress to declare war.

mr. mcconnell: if it is war and, of course, to fund our military operations. now, the president has stated there is no decision i face as your commander in chief that i consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force particularly at a time when our military is fighting in afghanistan and winding down our activities in iraq that decision is only made more difficult. and yet this latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with congress or sufficient explanation to the american people. since returning from south america, the president has begun to talk in greater detail about our involvement in libya. for the second time, he's discussed our operations in and around libya with the congressional leadership. over the weekend he devoted his entire address to the topic and he'll speak to the american people tonight about our operations in libya.

all of this is welcome and in my view, overdue. before addressing what answers i hope to hear from the president this evening let me address the notifications to congress that the president has made. prior to the initiation of combat activities in libya the congressional leadership received two forms of notification of the president's decision to order americans into harm's way. prior to departing for his overseas trip, the president notified the congressional leadership of his plans to send american forces in to combat in action a limited discreet role to destroy the integrated air defenses of the libyan government and to enable our allies to establish a no-fly zone over libya. the second notification was a written communication, as part of his responsibilities under the war powers resolution. throughout his communications with the congressional leadership the president has emphasized that the united states military would not

undertake ground combat against the libyan army and that the american combat role would be limited in time scope and would be used simply as a means to set the conditions for our european allies and arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the u.n. security council resolution. the president his mail terry advisors and commanders -- his military advisors and commanders have explained that the overwhelming american capabilities to destroy enemy air defenses, target command-and-control structures, jam communications signals and monitor the battlefield would all be employed to allow nato and the coalition to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone. it was the limited nature of our combat role that encouraged me that the president was acting within his article 2 authorities as commander in chief. and the actions by nato over the past few days to take over command and responsibility for the no-fly zone are consistent

with the president's commitment that limited u.s. actions will set the stage for further action by our coalition partners. here i'm reminded of the important contribution of secretary of defense robert gates in advising the president since he came to office. 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. it was secretary gates who reminded the american people of the risks inherent in military intervention. i know his views will be critical as we transfer further responsibilityies to the coalition and i hope the administration pays close attention to what he says. this week, nato will consider the last part of the mission that must be transferred. what the united nations resolution refers to as "protection of civilian personnel" has included attacks

on libyan ground forces and strike missions conducted by american war planes. if u.s. military forces were to have responsibility for close air support or execute additional strike missions in support of opposition forces then that, of course, would exceed the president's definition of a limited supporting role. such a mission could last indefinitely and would trigger congressional consideration of our larger role in the war. now, my expectation is that the president will explain this transfer of responsibility in his speech tonight and that nato will resolve this issue this week. ending our efforts there as the primary force. as the commander of u.s. africa command, general carter hamm has said our "mandate, again our mission is to protect civilians from attack by the regime ground forces. our mission is not to support any opposition forces."

general hamm has also said we do not operate in direct support of the opposition forces. so so as president obama addresses the nation, i'll be listening for answers to the following questions: when will the u.s. combat role in the operation end? will america's commitment end in days, not weeks, as the president promised? what will be the duration of the noncombat operation and what will be the cost? what national security interests of the united states justified the risk of american life? what is the role of our country in libya's ongoing civil war? the president made clear that our combat forces' role in libia will be limited in scope and duration. tonight i hope he will reiterate

that pledge or ask congress before extending the duration or scope of our mission there. and, as always, our thoughts are with the brave young americans in laces places like helmand province, baghdad, those in >> president obama is traveling across town in washington d.c. to fort mcnair, home to the national defense university, where he is scheduled to make a speech explaining his rationale for the u.s. involvement in military action in libya. the audience at tonight's speech will be national defense university students, mostly military, other faculty members, and a number of vips, including members of the cabinet and members of congress. for those who watched presidents and their staging a

pronouncement closely, they will note tonight's speech is not quite the prime time and is not in the oval office. all of this intended to convey the president's attitude toward u.s. involvement in libya. he has been receiving a bit of criticism for not taking the case to the public. tonight he will do that, and immediately after the speech, expected to last 20 to 25 minutes, we will open up our phone lines here to hear your reaction and for you to tell us whether the president effectively made his case for u.s. involvement in the libyan military action. until then, we will be watching the scenes at national defense university.

[no audio]

[no audio]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states.

>> tonight, i would like to update the american people on the international effort that we have lead in libya. what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us. i want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who once again have acted with courage professionalism, and patriotism. they have moved with incredible speed and strength. because of them, and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. meanwhile, as we speak our troops are supporting our allies in japan leaving iraq to its people stopping at the taliban as momentum in afghanistan, and going after al qaeda all across the globe.

as commander in chief, i am grateful for our soldiers, sailors, airmen marines coastguardsman, and to their families, and i know all americans share in that sentiment. for generations the united states of america has played a unique role as an anger of global security and as an advocate of human freedom. mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. but when our interests and values are at stake we have a responsibility to act. that is what has happened in libya over the course of these last six weeks. libya since directly between tunisia and egypt two nations

that inspire the world with their people rose up to take control of their own destinies. for more than four decades the libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant, muammar gaddafi. he has denied his people freedom, exploited their welcome murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorize innocent people around the world, including americans who were killed by libyan agents. last month got the's grip of fear it appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. in cities and towns across the country, libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. as one libyan said, for the first time, we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over. faced with this opposition, gaddafi began attacking his people.

as president, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens so we've actuated our embassy and all americans who sought our assistance. -- we evacuated our embassy. we took a series of quick steps in a matter of days to answer his aggression. we froze more than $33 billion of gadhafi's regime assets. joining with other nations of the united nations security council, we broaden our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. i made it clear that gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead. i said that he needed to step down from power. in the face of the world condemnation gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks launching a military campaign against the

libyan people. innocent people were targeted for killing. hospitals and ambulances were attacked. journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. supplies of food and fuel were choked off. water for hundreds of thousands of people in misrata was shut off. cities and towns were shelled mosques were destroyed and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. military jets, helicopters, and gunships were launched on people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air. confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, i ordered warships into the mediterranean. european allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. the libyan opposition and the arab league appealed to the

world to save lives in libya. so at my direction america led an effort with our allies at the united nations security council to pass an historic resolution that authorized the no-fly zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the libyan people. 10 days ago having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing or face the consequences. rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance bearing down on the city of benghazi home to nearly 700,000 men, women, and children who saw their freedom from fear. at this point, the united states

and the world faced a choice. gaddafi declared he would show no mercy to his own people. he compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. in the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets and kill over 1000 people in a single day. now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. we knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, been gauzy -- benghazi would suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. it was not in our national interest to let that happen. i refused to let that happen. and so nine days ago, after consulting with bipartisan

leadership of congress, i authorize military action to stop the killing and enforce u.n. security council resolution 1973. we struck reinforces approaching it benghazi to say that city and the people within it. we hit get off the's troops in the neighboring city allowing forces to drive them out. we targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. and tonight, i can report that we have stopped gaddafi's deadly advance. in this effort, the united states has not acted alone. instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. this includes our closest allies, nations like the united kingdom, france, canada,

denmark, norway, italy spain greece, and turkey, all of whom have fought by our side for decades. and it includes arab partners like qatar and the united arab emirates who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the libyan people. to summarize them, in just one month, the united states has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition secured an international mandate to protect civilians stop an advancing army prevent a massacre, and established a no- fly zone with our allies and partners. to lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together when people were being brutalized in bosnia in the 1990's, it took the

international community or the year to intervene with airpower to protect civilians. it took us 31 days. moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with a pledge that i made to the american people at the outset of our military operations. i said that america's role would be limited, that we would not put ground troops into libya that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. our most effective alliance, nato has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. last night, nato decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting libyan civilians. this transfer from the united states to nato will take place on wednesday.

going forward the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting students on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and i am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on that topic of the remaining forces. in that effort, the united states will play a supporting role including intelligence, logistical support search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam redeem communications. because of this transition to a broader, nato base coalition, the risks and costs of this operation to our military and to american taxpayers will be reduced significantly. so for those who doubt that our capacity to carry out this operation, i want to be clear. united states of america has done what we said we would do. that is not to say that our work

is complete. in addition to our nato responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of libya who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. we will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the gaddafi regime so that is available to rebuild libya. after all the money does not belong to gaddafi or to us it belongs to the libyan people. we will make sure they receive it. tomorrow, secretary clinton will go to london where she will meet with the libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations these discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure gaddafi also supporting a transition to the future that the libyan people deserve. while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the

broader goal of a libya that belongs not to a dictator but to its people. now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, i know that some americans continue to have questions about our efforts and libya. gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, libya will remain dangerous. moreover even after he does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. the transition to legitimate government that is responsive to the libyan people will be a difficult task. while the united states will do our part to help, it will be task for the international community, and more importantly a task for the libyan people themselves. in fact, much of the debate in washington has put forward a

false choice when it comes to libya. on the one hand, some question why america should intervene at all. even in limited ways in this distant land. they argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and america should not be expected to police the world. particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home. it is true that america cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. given the cost and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. but that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what is right. in this particular country libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.

we had the unique ability to stop that violence an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of arab countries, and a plea for help from the libyan people themselves. we also had the ability to stop his forces in their tracks without putting american troops on the ground. to brush aside america's responsibility as a leader and more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been of a trail of who we are. some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. the united states of america is different. as president, and refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

moreover america has an important strategic interest in preventing gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. a massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across libyas borders putting enormous strains on the peaceful, yet fragile transitions to egypt and tunisia. the democratic impulses that are donning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship. as for pleasant leaders concluded that violence -- as repressive leaders concluded that pilots is the way to power. crippling that institution's future credibility to of whole global peace and security. while i will never minimize the costs involved in military action, i am convinced that a failure to act in libya would

have carried a far greater price for america. just as there are those who have argued against intervention in libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the libyan people and do whatever it takes to bring down gaddafi and usher in a new government. of course, there is no question that libya and the world would be better off with gaddafi out of power. i, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. but broadening our military mission to include it regime change would be a mistake. the task that i signed our forces, to protect the libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a no-fly zone carries with it a un mandate and

international support. it is also what the libyan opposition asked us to do. if we tried to overthrow adopted by force our coalition would splinter. we've likely have to put u.s. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission or risk killing many civilians from the air. the danger men and women in uniform would be far greater. so with the cost and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. to be blunt we went down that road in iraq. thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats we are hopeful about iraq of the future but regime change their took eight years, thousands of american and iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. that is not something we can

afford to repeat in libya. as the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do, and we'll do, is support the aspirations of the libyan people. we have intervened to stop the massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. we will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when gaddafi leaves power. it may not happen overnight. a badly weakened it gaddafi is trying desperately to hang on to power. it should be clear to those around him and to every libyan that history is not on the topic of the side. but the time and space that we have provided for the libyan

people, they will be able to determine their own destiny. that is how it should be. that close by addressing what this action says about the use of america's military power and america's broader leadership in the world under my presidency. as commander-in-chief, i have no greater responsibility and keeping this country safe, and no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. i have made it clear that i will never hesitate to use our military swiftly decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our whole letter, our allies, and our core interest. that is why we are going after al qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. that is why we continue to fight in afghanistan, even as we have ended over combat mission in iraq and removed more than

100,000 troops from that country. there will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened but our interests and our values are. sometimes the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security. responding to natural disasters for example, or beginning in genocide and keeping the peace. ensuring regional security and maintaining the flow of commerce. these may not be america's problems alone but they are important to us. there are problems worth solving. in these circumstances, we know that the united states will often be called upon to help. in such cases, we should not be afraid to act but the burden of

action should not be america's alone. as we have in libya our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action, because contrary to the claims of some, american leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well, to work with allies and partners so that they pay their share of the cost and bear their share of the burden. and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. that is the kind of leadership we have shown in libya. of course, even when we act as part of a coalition the risk of any military action will be high. those risks were realized when

one of our planes malfunctioned over in libya. yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground in a country whose leader has so often demonize the united states, in a region that has such a difficult history with our country, this american did not -- he was met by people who embraced him. one young libyan who came to his aide said we are your friends. we are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies. his voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries.

there are places like egypt where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes, and then there will be places like iraq where change is fiercely suppressed. the dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed. the united states will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change, only the people of the region can do that. but we can make a difference. i believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms. our opposition to violence directed at once on people.

our support of a set of universal rights including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders, our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. born as we are out of a revolution by those who longed to be free we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the middle east and north africa, and that young people are leading the way because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the united states. notably, is that fayed, those ideals that are the true measure of american leadership. my fellow americans, i know

that we are at a time of of people overseas. the news is filled with conflict in change. can be tempting to turn away from the world, and is -- as i have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. that must always be our north star, the ability of our people to reach their potential to make wise choices with our resources to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear. but let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people as well as millions around the world. we have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

tonight, let us give thanks to the americans who are serving three these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our efforts for. let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around world. thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause]

>> the president in washington, d.c. it is a pentagon-funded university. student and faculty at national defense university or listening to the president make the case for military action in libya. the president went into the speech with a new poll out from the pew research. suggesting that 43% said he made the right choice. 57% said they did not think the u.s. or allies have a clear goal with the mission. after listening to the president, do you understand better the rationale for going into the country with the allies? do you agree with the rationale?