wait for the microphone that will find you. there are two microphones here. we will start over there. >> the landscape has changed significantly in the region. for the first time we see the empowerment of arabs in the street. they have been victims of their government for generations. really the object of indifference from foreign governments for the most part. if the empowerment continues, what are arab saying about what they expect four key actors.

one is the united states, but what did they want from the united states. e changed landscape, what did they expect. >> if there in the emergence of governance in the arab world that actively reflects the arab street, you will see a different level of engagement. in this case they want the government to interact with israel differently. they want to see the interest of israel take priority. they won the sale of natural gas to not be sold at a subsidized price. they want to see the priority on the siege of ghaza be lifted.

there is a sense of embassy -- empathy. they want the foreign policy to reflect that. they want to see the priority take precedence over the national security of israel and the united states. when israel wanted israel to engage in it mediation efforts, you would see as bike. the underground barriers, it was common knowledge it was really at the behest of international pressure to do more to stop the smuggling, despite the fact the ordinary egyptians wanted the siege lifted. those are just some of the quick examples of the top of my head.

with united states, i think they want something different. what i mean by this is they want to see the united states engaged civil society, universities, think tanks and the know how that america has to the region, but not impose a form or model of the egyptians. they do not want to be to hanging over the fact that they will not deal with the egyptian government as members of the muslim brotherhood on it. the muslim brotherhood is no different than the all but -- ultraorthodox party in israel and christian democrats. they can be political parties

that drive the base for religion but play with in the secular roles of the game. they do not want to see this type of western and physician saying if they win a certain number of seats, we will not deal with them. in that kind of tone is what the egyptians want to see. >> do you have a sense now that the egyptian process is really .eginning to firm -- forme >> i think the muslim brotherhood was completely surprised. never were the slogans chanted.

not by accident, and more and partly because the people were not part of the muslim brotherhood. they were people that belong to the muslim brotherhood, but this was not a muslim brotherhood evened. it will not fill the presidential candidates. they will not felt more than 30% of the seats, because that has been what they have given themselves. -- they will not fill more than 30% of the seats, because that is what they have given themselves. they anticipate that their popularity was in large part due to the fact that they were the only game in town besides the

mubarak regime. the only legitimate opposition in town for the muslim brotherhood. no one took opposition party seriously. they paid very dearly for this over the course of the years. my personal sense is of the muslim brotherhood will not be the type of party that is all or nothing. they will not control everything, and they certainly will not be in the fringes of some other political party. they will be very visible, but not necessarily dominant.

>> barbara from the atlantic council. may i say thank you for someone that was riveted by my computer day after day. can you talk more about the secular parties, particularly the young activist. are they going to be able to get their act together to really participate in the parliamentary and presidential elections? we have seen some push back. you see someone really emerging or should we wait to see any personality. there are people that are emerging. i am speaking more analytically

then and journalist, but i do not necessarily think any one of these have a great deal of traction, because one of the really most unique things is they are really cute gimmick -- really organic and leaderless. no one could claim credit for the egyptian revolution because there was no one in exile but suddenly flew in. it was ordinary people that took to the street. that is a good thing in bad thing. it presented an opportunity of a new generation of egyptian leaders to emerge. this grouping of real -- revolutionary groups that are between 12 and 13 groups, are not traditional political players. that excludes the west party. none of these parties are part of the score revolutionary group. many of them support the

ideology, but they're not a part of it. i think what we are with some witnessing is ideologically of a new group. if the ndp is banded there will be a great opportunity for these groups to emerge. these people with their institutional knowledge may not suddenly find themselves involved in helping these group if they stay and allow, it is a recipe for a problematic election because the strong this parties will be the ndp and the freedom and justice party we are expecting the decision relatively soon, perhaps in the next week or so. the prosecutor -- it is his

call. i suspect within the course of the next two weeks we can expect a decision. there are expected to introduce a new law, which will be very instrumental to how these decisions will play out. i think the indications are that it will be banned. i think the demands of the protestors are you have to band the political party they may take a decision to the new parliament, but they may propose a five-year ban on this party for the time being. >> david apgar, apgar partners.

i wanted to expand the focus a little bit. would you say at the moment there is more press freedom in egypt or turkey? are you optimistic or pessimistic about the development about press and government relations in turkey? >> what i have seen in egypt has been very promising. egypt has gone 170 degrees. i do not say 180 because i do not think they are ready to criticize the military and tackle some of the fundamental issues that are still problematic that has to do with the military, constitution, and a few other things.

i think what you are now seeing is a purging of these news organizations, and i think that is a huge advantage compared to tunisia where they will start from scratch. there is a long history of prince, press, and broadcast. they have plenty of news channels and plenty of entertainment channels. the key is getting them up and going and being firebrand and not afraid. i think turkey is a good model. in terms of its journalism. they have huge amounts of newspapers and journalists. it is the kind of engagement you can't expect from media and a political environment. they are very opinionated. the lines are clearly drawn in some of the newspapers and

political establishment. that would be one criticism i have compared to what it is like in egypt. i think each of should try to shy away from having -- egypt should try to shy away from having every ideology and limitations. >> this has been a fabulous session. they keep for what you're doing. i am interested in the question of the public's expectations about how quickly things are supposed to happen. i keep going back and saying it was 13 years from the time we declared independence before we had a constitution. how do you think this will get cramped into a very short amount of time to meet the expectations of everyone wanting to get into this new space?

>> that is a really good question. some people have been talking and making comparisons about the transition chile went through. that took 15 years. ygpt's e to look at each o progression through different lenses. you have to look at accountability, justice, reform. there are lots of people telling you it is not as important bring elements of the regime to justice. some analysis say that this is more politically motivated. the general prosecutor in egypt is now suddenly this white crusader involved in bringing the former regime officials. people think he is only doing that to save himself time. people are questioning whether these will be fair and legal

processes with do justice. i think that is a legitimate concern. you want to make sure the institutions you build an apostasies are capable of bringing about general reform. i think there is a huge concern and trying to impose a huge time line. that is why you see the biggest division is between those who think the six-month time frame of the military is realistic, and those that say no, it should be more than one year. some people are saying the constitutional amendments that was a bit of a sham and will not free about institutional reforms that you need. mubarak did not abide by the constitution. he is telling you the constitution has failed, so why will you try to amend a articles in think everything else in the country is completely functional? i think that is the biggest

division right now. i think there's a great concern that you rush things and put in place this sham that looks like a democracy, but when in reality does not function like a democracy. >> big you. -- thank you. you mentioned have difficult it is for americans to view al-jaz erra. how has this changed the al- jazerra? >> their perceptions of the of the lead changed a great bit. in as you mentioned, this notion that americans are not

interested in international news is false. the fact that the web site has grown in terms of viewership by 2500% during the revolution, at one point surpassing that of "the new york times", i think it is a testament to the fact that when people want good news, they know where to get it. how has it changed al-jazerra? i think it has only recommitted as to the values that when you report sometimes the most simple reporting is the most powerful reporting. i think you see the commitment to deploying a lot of these resources, because i think sometimes the criticism is that in this current climate there is all these budget cuts.

a lot of the major news organizations have shrunk back a little bit and consolidated and engage in paris troupe -- and engaged in parachute journalism. you always get the most authentic story when he people deployed. -- when you keep people deployed. i think we are beyond the negative perception that we suffered in the united states. i think the discussion is about our coverage it will have to offer that others did not. fighting the negative perception, i think we're beyond that, it is as giving the cable companies to respond a little bit more positively.

>> jonhathon run, georgetown university. what is their stance on the libyan conflict and the western intervention? how was that affecting the angling for their strategies for getting into power? >> i think the egyptian people, particularly revolutionary groups, have a huge amount of empathy for the people of libya and opposition fighters and the pro-democracy fighters that are engaged in the fight. i think there was a great deal of criticism against the transitional government for not being more supportive of the libyan rebels. it has gone so far as some sang the egyptian government should help in this new environment. a quick way for the egyptian

government to reemerge is by helping the rebels, supporting them, giving the materials, whatever support they can offer them in something they should be engaged more diplomatically. that the egyptian government should take the lead in supporting their diplomatic initiatives. i think what is problematic is the egyptian government is in itself a crisis, so it is not giving a sense of clarity and what it is doing. it is just beginning to prioritize its national-security interests. the prime minister just visited sudan. i think these are very important steps that egypt wants to be engaged in the region. in ordinary egyptians very much side with opposition in libya and the people fighting against the regime.

>> the way that certain people emerges icon to the resistance and a galvanizing force for their actions. i am wondering if you think it will take that kind of spark in algeria or morocco? >> i think the genie is out of the bottle. i do not think any arab country is immune from what is happening. i think it is going to be different. i do not think every country will follow a similar path, because the forces at play are very different from country to

country. libya is a country where buy for 40 years muammar gaddafi has essentially had a centralized power. he has not allowed for the establishment of political parties. not a big fan of this, but something we hear a lot, we hear that libya is a tribal society. it is not a tribal war. these people are not going to war along tribal lines right now. that sometimes is a bit of a misnomer to suggest as a tribal war. i think algeria is going to be a very unique experience, because that has these tribal fault lines, but also has institutions under emergency laws similar to egypt. it will be interesting to see,

but i do not think there is an arab country that is immune to the winds of change that have blown across the region. >> we have spent a lot of time talking about bahrain, syria, and to a lesser extent, jordan. each of these countries are trying to perform. they're doing what they can to relieve the pressure, stay in power. do you think that -- what is your response to what these regimes are doing? too little too late? >> i think they're too little too late. these regimes have had decades to implement reform without it being instigated by popular uprisings, and they chose not to. any attempt for them to offer

the reforms are widely going to be seen as attempts to hold onto their power as opposed to bring about genuine reform. the question will be what can i do to hold on to my seat by offering these concessions in these reforms? i do not been there resonating or have any attraction with the arab street. -- i do not think they have been resonating or they will have any attraction with the arab street. one of the most important parts is the fear factor has been broken. ordinary arabs, particularly in the country where violence is being, they have overcome their fear of these regimes, so they no longer fear the security services. those security services were completely squashed in the matter of 72 hours. i think that fear factor has

become contagious. people are saying the fact that they did it in egypt, they can do it in syria, in yemen. perhaps because of these countries being african countries, so it could go beyond this and even into african countries themselves. >> i am with cbs radio news. my bosses want to thank you for your good work. you were very cooperative in saying we could use audio. comcast in d.c. has al-jazeera english. were you born in the u.s.? did you go to college here in washington? are you six-foot eight? [laughter]

>> all of the above. i was born in egypt. my parents immigrated to the u.s. when i was 5 years old. went to school right down the street at american university. i started working for nbc news right across the street from american university. i started off as a desk assistant. i was handed out newspapers in the morning and answering phone calls. most of the time i was justin all of the correspondence, but it was a great environment to see how people operate in the high-pressure environment. the summer that i started i was actually going to leave journalism. my parents were like you have a master's degree, this is not what you're born to be working on. i actually stayed through by chance until 9/11 happened and the rules of the game completely

changed. there was all this talk about the war in iraq following year. this is what led me to cnn and ultimately to iraq. >> you skipped one of the questions. >> 6 bef foot four. >> you have not mentioned saudi arabia in terms of unrest. this is obviously a vital interest for the united states. d.c. any prospects that the unrest will spread there also? -- do you see any prospects that the unrest will spread there also? >> the word unrest is probably describe. e best word to i think the word is change.

i do think demands for change and reform will have been in saudi arabia. i think even the king has recognize that. he has this huge incentive deal, $80 billion. nonetheless, your doubling going to see those demands. the reason i was saying every country is different in every country will take a little bit longer, because the forces that leads these demands and acts of civil disobedience are difference. what we're seeing in bahrain is not a secretary and demand. their demands are for equal rights, and it is different. i think what we're seeing in yemen is different in saudi arabia is different. i am convinced no country, all of these countries will demand a new equations between citizens

and state. >> i want to thank you for your time. [applause] you have seen a career's worth of news in two months. thank you all for coming. thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> president obama gave a speech last night on military operations in libya. on this morning's "washington journal" we will continue looking at the situation in libya. later, a discussion on japan's failing nuclear power plant. live coverage at 10:00 eastern. >> throughout the month of april we will feature the top winners competition. canm what to the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern. during the program, meet the students who created them. stream all of the winning videos online anytime at

studentcam.org. >> if president obama lays out his goals for libya. nato has agreed to take over military operations in libya this week. >> 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 the taliban's 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, coastguardsmen, 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 anchor 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 sits directly between tunisia and egypt, two nations that inspired the world when 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 wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world, including americans who were killed by libyan agents. last month, gaddafi's grip of fear 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 evacuated our embassy and all americans who sought our assistance. we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer his aggression. we froze more than $33 billion of gaddafi's regime assets. joining with other nations of the united nations security council, we broadened 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 sought 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 waited one more day, 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 authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce u.n. security council resolution 1973. we struck forces approaching benghazi to save that city and the people within it. we hit gaddafi's troops in a 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, stopped an advancing army, prevented 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 over a 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 we 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 civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and i am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on gaddafi's 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 regime 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 doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, i want to be clear. the 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 while 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 in 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 a 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 a 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 gaddafi's 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 a betrayal 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, i 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 libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful yet fragile transitions to egypt and tunisia. the democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship. as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the way to power.

crippling that institution's future credibility to uphold 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 regime change would be a mistake. the task that i assigned 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 gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. we would likely have to put u.s. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. the danger posed to our men and women in uniform would be far greater. so would 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 and their future, but regime change there 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 will 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 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 gaddafi's side. with 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. i will 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 than 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 homeland, our allies, and our core interests. 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 preventing 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 demonized 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 one's own 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, it is that faith, those ideals, that are the true measure of american leadership. my fellow americans, i know that we are at a time of upheaval overseas. the news is filled with conflict and change. it can be tempting to turn away from the world, and 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 through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our efforts forward. let us look to the future with confidence and hope, not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause]

>> naida will take command of all military operations in libya on wednesday. -- nato will take command of all military operations in libya on wednesday. >> as protests continued in the middle east and as nato takes

control of military operations in libya, find the latest on the c-span bail library. -- video library. >> "washington journal" is next. later this morning, a discussion on japan's ailing nuclear power plants. we will have a member of the nuclear regulatory commission. and the house is in at 2:00 eastern. they will work on the airport programs measure and the bill to terminate a mortgage assistance program. live coverage here on c-span. coming up this hour, we will continue our conversation on libya. a defense analyst at the heritage foundation joins us. then we willk