you have an opposition in libya that controls part of libya. that is the situation. >> is it called the gaddafi regime? >> you can call it the gaddafi regime if you like. >> last question. >> my understanding from your comments is that you're not able to get the cessation of hostilities that you wanted. the government has promised you security. how does that work? there's fighting going on. will you be traveling with government soldiers who will protect you? will government soldiers protect w.f.p.? >> we obviously have our own security people, but the government of libya has given us assurances that they will also provide security to enable us, for example, to get through the checkpoints and get this far as we can. i am very well aware that there may come a time where, for example, the fighting is so fierce that we can get no further. we absolutely recognize that. we have to do this on the basis of the security situation that is operating at that particular moment in time. we have to take advice from our own security people about the extent to

he is an expert on libya. he has worked on this for many years, so he is fully prepared to analyze the events that are going on now. we are looking forward to that. after that, we have a direct henry -- derreck henry flood. he is also with the jamestown association. he has been doing a great job over the last year. we are very privileged to have him here today as he has just returned from a six-week stay in north africa, most of that was spent in libya on the front lines. he is going to have a very interesting perspective on what went on there from a firsthand knowledge of the events in their. -- there. i will be speaking on security implications for north africa and the wake of the arab revolution. my bio is in the material that was handed out if you care to have a look at that. without further ado, we can give started. -- we can get started. >> you can take the podium if you like. >> let me say that i do not have any surer view of where the egyptian revolution is going. we are in the middle of something and

thomas friedman noted that libya is not a nation. there is no loyalty to libya. it is a collection of 140 different tribes and much more like a rock. are we now aiding and abetting the same organizations we're fighting in afghanistan and iraq? >> to be honest, other than a handful of leaders, we do not have much visibility into those who have risen against gaddafi. speaking of the "opposition" is a misnomer. it is very disparate. it is very scattered. each element probably has its own agenda. s that have town' risen up in the west where resistance has been " basically did so on their own. you did not see people going from one town to the next to share in the fight. that is one of the problems those who have rebelled against gaddafi are facing -- the lack of command and control and organization. there are multiple agendas. their disparate elements across the country engaged in this. -- there are disparate elements across the country engaged in this. we do not have much visibility into that. >> lig is in fact a major component of the opposition? >> i am not aware.

dropped sanctions against libya. we are not told that gaddafi in an effort to engrasheate himself with the west in general and with america specifically accepted a market based economic program led by the very harsh structural adjustment remedies of the i.m.f. and the world bank. . this led to the wholesale privatization of estate enterprises, contributing to unemployment in libya rising to over 20%. cnn reported on december 19, 2003, that libya acknowledged having a nuclear program, pledged to destroy weapons of mass destruction and pledged to allow international inspections. this was a decision which president george w. bush has praised saying, gaddafi's actions, quote, made our country and our world safer. unquote. we're told that gaddafi is in breach of the u.n. security council resolutions but now our own secretary of state is reportedly considering arming the rebels. an act which would be a breach of the united nations security council resolution which established an arms embargo. we are told we went to war as

i mean, i'm no great expert on libya, but i think that the future government of libya is going to be worked out among the principle tribes. and they are the ones that even gadhafi has had to balance and work with. so i think that for some outside group or some element of al qaeda and the islamic maghreb to be able to hijack this thing at this point looks very unlikely to me. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, mr. chairman, thank you very much for being here today, for being responsive to this committee. thank you for your service and, please, express our appreciation to all who serve under y. thank you very much. this committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> our economy is in the tank. our budgets and [protester] [unintelligible] we were told iraq, eight years and we're still there and the iraqi people are worse off. the rebels -- al qaeda is inhe rebels. there is top u.s. officials who admitted there is al qaeda people, plus there is all sorts of gadhafi generals -- >> have we learned not

it belongs to libya. i think the government may manage to say that change could have been -- happen, resulting in violence. >> i just want to make a comment about algeria. in speaking with the rebel leadership, it they say that gadaffi is having two core al arab allies. a lot of the people that i spoke to vw it as cause i belligerent. they believe that the government did not want to see gadaffi fall because it to threaten their own regime. now we have seen that syria appears to be tottering. i am not sure that is isolated to algeria. >> thank you. thank you. i wonder about the chemical weapons that libya has. unaided picture three weeks ago. in 1994, that theyigned an agreement that it will reduce the weapons. they have asked for extensions until may 2011. i think 23,000 tons is in libya. where are they? it is really hard for them to lose it. what are the prospects? >> thank you. he mentioned the bombs. they are not the same as chemical weapons. the only chemical weapons research that we still have is a c

>> specifically libya. >> i'm sorry? >> specifically libya. we're not building anything in libya, i think. >> i misunderstood your question. >> if the government were to shut down, what would the effect be on the activities we are currently involved in in libya? >> my understanding of the law you is it would not impact any current military operations. >> why did the president notify congress, quickly, you said, the next day after he made the decision. what was his reasoning for notifying the congress? >> i think that it's consistent with the actions that i've seen of other presidents of wanting to inform the congress of the leadership of the reasons for his action and to solicit their support. >> and did he get it? support? >> there was not, i would say there was, other than one member who raised the war powers act issue, there really wasn't much discussion. >> what support did he ask for from the congress? >> simply -- well, he wanted them to understand what he was doing, and that there would be public sup

>> specifically libya. >> i'm sorry? >> specifically libya. we're not building anything in libya, i think. >> i misunderstood your question. >> if the government were to shut down, what would the effect be on the activities we are currently involved in in libya? >> my understanding of the law you is it would not impact any current military operations. >> why did the president notify congress, quickly, you said, the next day after he made the decision. what was his reasoning for notifying the congress? >> i think that it's consistent with the actions that i've seen of other presidents of wanting to inform the congress of the leadership of the reasons for his action and to solicit their support. >> and did he get it? support? >> there was not, i would say there was, other than one member who raised the war powers act issue, there really wasn't much discussion. >> what support did he ask for from the congress? >> simply -- well, he wanted them to understand what he was doing, and that there would be public sup

-- surrounding libya? >> we have been particularly active with the government of tunisia and trying to stop any flows into the villa of materials or arms that would be used by the gaddafi -- into libya of materials or arms that would be used by the gaddafi regime. >> i met with a number of constituents who are very concerned about the situation in yemen. yesterday, service killed some and hundreds others were injured. what specific representations' is the british government making calling on the president to end the violence? >> we have made these representations all the time and i went to yemen and saw the president there in the beginning of february to urge him on in coming to an agreement with the opposition parties, which he now seems to have done in the last 24 hours. we have been very heavily involved. our ambassador has been particularly involved on a daily basis and the british government has been heavily involved for weeks now. ordering the army attacks to exploit his own people is completely unac

s role in libya. the numbers -- host: if you called us in the last 30 days, today would be the day to get in touch with us electronically. you can send us an e-mai e mailr follow us on twitter. here's the way it was reported this morning in "the new york post." "raiders" is the headline. it says to senator john mccain called for sweeping new support for the rebels yesterday as he visited, quote, my heros in benghazi while the pentagon admit the attempts to out of muammar gaddafi are failing. mccain was mobbed by a crowd of joyous rebels. mccain called for, quote, every appropriate means of assistance to the rebels." we'll get back to a little bit more of that and other stories in the ups regarding this story. first let's go to the phones. youngstown, ohio. mike, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: mike, what do you think about senator mccain's visit to benghazi and what it says about the u.s.'s role in libya right now? caller: i think it

and why libya? a lot of my friends thoughtfully asked the question, why of all of the countries involved in the region are we going to get involved in every single one of them? but you know, if you're approached on the street by somebody asking you for a few cents and has their hand out and tells you their story and they're in need, and you're trying to figure out whether or not to reach in your pocket and helpr not, because there are so many beggars out there to help, but suddenly all of the street people say to you, help that one, maybe you have to take a look at that. and this is the first time that i can think of when not just one arab nation, but the entire arab league, which seems to be in a bit of difficulty on every individual basis says to you, help that one. maybe there's cause for the exceptionalism that the president has indicated here. so i -- i want to thank him, and you, and the administration for taking the actions that they're taking. i mean this dictator in that country, who has th

that is the difference with libya. that explains why there are general -- journalists wanting around -- wandering around there and not in yemen or bahrain. on the other issues, what was the first question again? host: we showed the headline about the ivory coast. as many as 1000 have been killed in the uprising there. guest: one of my colleagues in captivity with me has a visa for the ivory coast. he was wondering if he should go in or not. others are trying to get in as well. it is a question of access. these people do want to cover these conflicts. it is not for lack of desire or will on behalf of the journalists on the ground. there are other obstacles to getting in. we were operating in libya without visas. host: here is a headline about captive journalists. tom joins us from trenton, new jersey. caller: i have a question for your guest. i see the reporters there, but what about intelligence like cia, mi5, state department? are we there to get a handle on what is actually happening politically there? i will take my

libya. and that op-ed written last we k week. up next is leslie sanchez and jamal simmons for the sunday roundtable but first a look at some of the other issues and topics. we have this report from the c-span radio studio. good morning, nancy. >> at noon c-span radio reairs the five network talk shows. they include the economy, raising debt ceiling, situation in libya and presidential politics. we begin with "meet the press." david gregory interviews geithner, alan greenspan and lee and the former governor of michigan democrat jennifer granholm. at 1:00 is "this week" and we talk with geithner and congressional tea party members. fox news sunday begins reairing at 2:00. they welcome tom coburn and the ranking democrat on the house budget committee chris van hollen. she will then talk with secretary ray lahood on airline safety. at 3:00 p.m. it is cnn state of the union talking with republican senator rand paul. anthony weiner and former c.i.a. director general michael haden and chairman of t

while libya? -- why libya? what is so compelling about libya? it is something we all have to think about. i'm not against it. i think it is a good idea what we did, but the notion that we have to go to tripoli and remove gaddafi is not something that i think is justified by the situation. that is up to the libyan people. we support them, but they are the ones who have to take care of business in tripoli. >> thank you for the comment and the question. you have really raised what is the subject of debate and will be ongoing for as long as i have been around, and that is, where are our values, our interests, and vice versa? that is the tug-of-war between wilsonian principles and realpolitik. my view is, of course we do not want darfur to happen. we do not want to see what happened in ivory coast or all of these other places. but you immediately have to ask yourself the question, can you benefit the outcome? i do not see how we could benefit the outcome in ivory coast or in syria. i do not see how the united states could intervene and beneficially a

he was responding to negotiations in libya this weekend. this is 35 minutes. >> the secretary-general was start with the -- will start with a short statement and then we will take questions. >> the operation is in its second week. nato is fully enforcing the united nations mandate to protect the people of libya. nato is taking vigorous action across libya to prevent attacks against civilians and civilian centers. we are striking with care and precision to maximize the effects of our actions while minimizing the danger to civilians. this is in stark contrast to the pro-gaddafi forces that are shelling city centers. hiding's troops are tanks near schools and mosques. this is utterly irresponsible. i am particularly concerned by the desperate flight of the residents of misrata and above brutalized by these terrible attacks. nato is keeping up the pressure to make the violence stop. since saturday morning nato aircraft have flown almost 300 sorties. we have described 49 tanks. we destroyed 49 tanks, nine personnel carriers, three anti- aircraft

on syria, i would say that -- on libya, i am sorry. [laughter] you can tell that the unrest in the region is broad. on libya, our response to the cease-fire is that what matters here are actions and not words. colonel gaddafi and his forces, his regime, know full well what they need to do. they need to stop menacing the civilian citizens of libya. they need to pull back from the cities and garrison themselves, and that would be a good development. we are in no way pausing, or letting up the implementation in any aspects. the resolution continues and will continue as long as necessary. we continue to pursue our diplomatic and economic measures to tighten the noose around gaddafi and those members of his regime who continue to try to cling to power in order to achieve the result of having him step down from power so that the libyan people can decide their future and pick leaders who will respond to their aspirations. >> on the talk shows it was said that social security is not driving up the numbers right now. the fight is already going

libya. the first of these is, i think, the most important. our efforts to bring freedom and democracy to libya should not be the occasion to undermine democracy and the rule of law here in the united states. now, there is considerable constitutional argument about the powers of the president. there are those who say he cannot take any military action without first inaction by congress. but in 1802, president jefferson sent american naval and marine forces in the words of the song, to the shores of tripoli and the founding gentlemen of this country thought that was consistent with presidential power. those who think the president has no power to ever engage i think must look at our history as well as the text of our constitution. at the same time, there are those who say the president can do anything without congressional approval. and i think those folks go way too far. the answer is the war powers act. the law of the land. and we need to make sure that it's followed. now, that law not only

-- why libya and not the congo? >> anderson cooper. >> the this conflict has gone on for an extended period it and it really is not on page one any more. the u.n. has peacekeepers in there and it is seen as a u.n. issue and " the u.n. peacekeeping operation has exploded in the last 20 years. it has been over and over and we have seen these problems. we did it in el salvador and haiti and it was there and it did not get the kind of attention and d did not strike, the way with the highest. >> -- the way to libya has. >> this is the democracy aspect or the protest aspect was wire rope. there was the virus effect of not standing up when there is a crazy dictator there . there are other different problems derek. i think people are looking at what happened and there was a mess suit -- and there was a message. >> the crazy dictator was being visited by every president, prime minister, and secretary of state in europe and europe -- in europe. >> gaddafi. >> that is a really good question. what about the ivory coast? >> you

in libya. this is 40 minutes. >> i offer those greetings in the hope that you'll go easier on the questions. thank you. good afternoon. i'm here today to update you on our efforts in libya. the mission of our special envoy to the tnc and the progress the coalition has made in stopping the brutality and bloodshed of the good of a regime. it has become clear that gaddafi and his henchmen have no intention of seizing the violence and bloodshed. despite the claims of recent days, regime forces have continued to commit atrocities in misrata and the western mountains. as the secretary said, the u.s. condemns the regime's continued brutal attacks on the libyan people in violation of the un security council resolution 1973 which calls to a stop for attacks on civilians and an immediate cease-fire. the shelling has not stopped and regime mountains have laid siege to civilian populations attempting to starve them into submission. with that backdrop, i would like to update you on two fronts. in the past s

who are the rebels in libya? have we not injected ourselves into a civil war in libya? are there not by other countries in the middle east right now that qualified for the same military intervention that we have implemented in libya? under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, saddam hussein existed for 12 years. under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, the atrocities in bosnia occurred. at what point do ground troops become committed in libya? i think we have already seen that. the unintended consequence of government and its actions -- we take out saddam hussein and there goes the check to iran which may invest via military threat or may in fact be a security threat to the united states. i do not believe it exists at all at this point. it is something i think we should remain vigilant toward. it goes on and on and on. i believe in free markets. the discussion and the debate will be over government, government regulation, and three markets. i am always going to defend pre- market. -- free markets. when free markets are talked about, i always point out that the fact we do not have

backing for the no- fly zone in libya. we appreciate the work you have done to promote transparency. there is a possible recognition of a palestinian state, the continuation of a flawed -- process. it is essential that the u.s. maintains a leadership role in the organization. it will be dramatically weakened if they pass legislation that would be considered in this committee. by withholding a significant portion of our dues unless a nearly impossible list of conditions is that, this bill would severely hinder our ability to pursue u.s. foreign- policy and national-security interests and support our allies and achieve the reforms. this encourages changes in the executive branch. we are one of 192 member states. we have tremendous leverage over the security council and other organizations, simply refusing to pay our bills is counterproductive. the last time congress forced congress into significant our readers into the u.n., an effort led by jesse helms, we lost our seat on the administrative and budgetary questions which is

operations taking place in libya. guest: well, again for the c.i.a., remember a couple things about the c.i.a. operation. before the president can do this, he has to sign what he calls a finding. and that's sent over to the intelligence committees in the congress. and they can veto it. so in eekt what we don't know everything, this is legal under what the president has done. and i think again, it's an important thing to do because you want to know what's happening there. i mean, really if you go around the world there are c.i.a. agents in most countries of the world. a lot of them are under diplomatic cover. but this is important for us because right now as some of the previous callers have said, we want to know what's happening there. if this -- who we should support, who we should not support. and how we can make this thing come out. host: what level of engagement are they in now? guest: ostly we don't know. that's one of the things about the c.i.a. i think what they are is providing tactical help to the rebels, to

the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of libya. at the same time, 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. our view is this would not rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. we do not ruled it out but we have not taken the decision to do so. >> i thank the prime minister for that reply. i am sure the matter will be explored further in the foreign secretary's statement. i thank him for his kind wishes on my forthcoming wedding, which i am very much looking forward to. i may come to him in the next couple of months for advice. i know he has organized memorable stag nights. let me turn to a different issue. that is the issue of tuition fees. the prime minister says that universities will only charge 9,000 pounds tuition fees in exceptional circumstances. can the prime minister tell the house of the 23 universities that have announced their plans, how many are planning to charge 9,000 pounds? >> i am sure there will be a free exchange advi

on to libya. are you satisfied with what the president said on monday, when you heard from secretary kids, secretary clinton? do you believe this is the right policy for the united states? do you foresee an end game for the future? >> like everyone else, we would have liked to have more prior consultation. i was on the phone call, and i thought the president clearly explained -- and as former speaker pelosi, now our lead democratic leaders said, no one said do not do it. i think there is confusion when the president says getting gaddafi out would be the right thing to do, but we are not going to use means in order to get him out. i think people have a hard time understanding that. there is some confusion because of that. so far, i think they have done this very well. i just hope that we are not pulling back the u.s. forces to soon because the last few days, the rebels have had a hard time because there has been bad weather and they have not been able to get as much support from the coalition. turn

first of all, libya. the obama administration has taken military action to enforce a no-fly sound and support rebel troops there. what the president has failed to do is provide answers to some very important questions. what is the benchmark for success? isn't acceptable for muammar gaddafi to remain in power after the military effort concludes? president obama said earlier this week that he embraced the goal of gaddafi being out of power, but he specifically rejected using military power to accomplish that goal. so how exactly will gaddafi be removed from power? we should not be risking the lives of u.s. service members without answers to critical questions helping us understand the purpose behind the use of military power. [applause] syria is a tricky situation at the moment, but there are some steps that the united states of america can and should take. one is, we need to speak with more clarity on this issue of support of democratic ideals. we should not be calling the syrian president a reformer, as s

-- i would like you to talk about libya. in particular, i have read articles raising questions and concerns about the composition with those participating, we do not have a good sense of which groups are involved, who they are, who they are beholden to. if you have anything you could share, i would appreciated. >> al qaeda does have operatives in libya. there is potential for that force to grow considerably in the chaos that exists in libya today. a lot of libyans were trained by al qaeda in afghanistan. the relationship between the u.s. and gaddafi was built in part on cooperation against those elements. we have a common enemy, ironic to think about in those ways. there is a potential there. it is one of the reasons why the obama administration is hesitant to get into the game of army. the rebels. we have been there before when we armed the taliban. against the soviet union and ended up having to worry about those steers coming back to be used against america. the concern is there. it has to be monitored carefully and a pro

[applause] not as far as libya is concerned, we do not have any policy in libya. we do not know what we are doing in libya. we have no idea. we have no idea who the rebels are. it sounds great. i hear the rebels are from iran. i hear they are al qaeda. i hear there is lots of problems with the rebels. i am only interested in libya if we get the oil. if we are not going to get the oil, no interest whatsoever. [applause] now, very interesting. the arab league -- this is one of the great moments in the history of the united states, from an embarrassment standpoint. france led the charge, first time ever. obama could not even give us that privilege of being first. the arab league, composed of saudi arabia and the richest nations in the world, asked us to go in and read them of gaddafi, who they do not like. why aren't they paying us for this? why didn't we ask them for payment? they would have paid whenever we wanted. if i had said, "we want $5 billion," that is nothing for these people. i just told you the airport story. that is nothing for these people. they should

now you have a revolution in libya. there was a human rights activist who had been arrested in those early days and that is what sparked the protests. all it takes to the middle east is a spark. our point is that you cannot ignore the israeli-palestinian conflict. it may not be a front burner issue right now. you need to understand this conflict. host: you do need to understand what it means to both sides. do you think that is important? guest: absolute. will you have is the holiest destroyedjudea saism twice. and now you have one of the most important shrines in islam built on top of that. ariel sharon went up there to walk around. he did not go into the religious shrine. but walking around in flamed muslim passions. jews pray the western wall. that is the most explosive piece of real estate in the entire middle east. guest: you have to understand how layered it is and the proximity and also how small the place is. we tried to paint the picture in the book. we take the leader there on that day when aerial shot walked o

-- why libya and not the congo? >> anderson cooper. >> the this conflict has gone on for an extended period it and it really is not on page one any more. the u.n. has peacekeepers in there and it is seen as a u.n. issue and " the u.n. peacekeeping operation has exploded in the last 20 years. it has been over and over and we have seen these problems. we did it in el salvador and haiti and it was there and it did not get the kind of attention and did did not strike, the way with the highest. >> -- the way to libya has. >> this is the democracy aspect or the protest aspect was wire rope. there was the virus effect of not standing up when there is a crazy dictator there . there are other different problems derek. i think people are looking at what happened and there was a mess suit -- and there was a message. >> the crazy dictator was being visited by every president, prime minister, and secretary of state in europe and europe -- in europe. >> gaddafi. >> that is a really good question. what about the ivory coast? >> yo

and so, the question of, okay, libya, why not burma? i mean, there are, for instance, and i've actually, i have actually heard that question as well. i think it is too broad brushed. to your point, said he is a different country. it's in a different place. and while we certainly deplore -- implored the violence and for the killing, i think whidbey remain full of the uniqueness of syria in both its history, its location and what the potential is, and where we are in that, where they are in that crisis. so, i just don't think that we can say because, you know, one, because one leader was doing something that is absolutely translates to an intervention that involves another leader. i think we have to be very, very careful about that. my comment about how much the limit of air power per se, but would reemphasize what the president has said come and i assure you, he has no intent that i am aware of how he made very clear to me, no boots on the ground in libya and that's what we are today. >> we are counting down. we have about three or four

a day at sea at the expense and libya and syria. -- after they see the experience of libya and syria. in turkey, i think it is somewhat different. i don't think we will see any change in the turkish policies until the coming june. this coming in june, and about three months, we are going to have elections in turkey. until then, we won't see any change. unfortunately, we see that the youth bashing the west as a means to get popularity, especially among islamist forces in turkey -- and by the way, but turkish-is really relationships is merely a reflection of -- turkish-israeli relationships is really a reflection of turkish- u.s. relationships. turks under erdogan did not allow forces to go through turkey to iraq, which would have saved a lot of lives and materials. back in 2008 and last year, they were voting against sanctions on iran, against the united state'' specific request. also, when you look at what is going on there with putting islamists in turkey in key positions, it is also something which is very, very dangerous. one of the last his appointment was by -- one of the last e

to libya. to libya. if you go back to president bush and general colin powell who put a coalition together over afghanistan, the proliferation coalition had 90 countries. in iraq, there were 45 countries. i think that president bush was called the unilateralist. they identified that we needed help and we needed people. but we needed people to agree on the mission. the problem we have seen as recently as the confusion over the mission. imagine if you are sitting in libya and you are an ambassador or a government employee or you are in the army, a colonel or private or in the neighborhood and your looking for cooperation and they want intelligence and assistance and food and housing and you do not know, even to this day, whether gaddafi will go. imagine. people are like magnetic particles. the point at whatever will happen. what will happen? is it likely to change? where are they planning? they are all over the lot because they do not know what is going to happen. when they get up in the morning,

may i start by asking the prime minister about the ongoing situation in libya? in particular, will he tell the house what his policy is on arming the rebels? >> i thank the right hon. gentleman for his question. before starting, perhaps on behalf of everyone in the house, i congratulate him and justine on the happy news of their forthcoming wedding and, along with everyone, wish them a long and happy life together. i can report that the situation on the ground is extremely fluid. there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the ceasefire is still being breached, and it is absolutely right that we keep up our pressure under un security council resolution 1973. i can confirm to the house that the coalition took action yesterday against regime forces harassing civilian vessels trying to get into misrata. yesterday and overnight the raf flew 24 sorties, and tornado aircraft destroyed artillery and an armoured fighting vehicle near sirte. the right hon. gentleman asks about arming the rebels. i have said before in this house that we must do everything to comply with both

"obama sends drones to libya." we'll take calls on that when we come back. first, ken on the republican line. caller: good morning. i've done some study on this in the middle east. i find an interesting potential issue is that there will be problems in iran within the next 10 years, and that we will reach an accommodation with iran in order to reestablish the balance of power in the middle east. when we went into iraq, we destroyed the balance of power between iraq and iran. we're also destroying the balance of power between pakistan and india by going into afghanistan, which is a mistake also. your comments, please. thank you. guest: i know a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to untie the difficult relationship between the u.s. and iran. for many of them they would consider your prognosis to be very optimistic, that we can defeat this antagonism between the u.s. and iran. it is very complicated. it is very difficult. i think it is not impossible but optimistic to be able to say we are

caller: my first question is doesn't libya send all of their oil to europe? guest: oil is a global market, so i do not think all libyan oil goes to europe. what i can tell you is that because of the rise of the dollar against the pound in britain we are now playing -- the paying the highest prices ever paid because of the libyan conflict partly. caller: my other question is i remember when george bush was bragging about libya was laying their weapons down,, and i have been watching c-span since the 1980's, but did the european alliance come in and have something to do with that? did they leave? guest: libya is not part of the european union, but i went with tony blair twice to the so- tent that muammar gaddafi sets up as headquarters. he wants to come to terms with the west. there is no doubt about it. tony blair lead that. as a result, we got much of libya abandoning its nuclear and chemical weapons program, but it also said it would stop supporting terrorism. that of course was very important to britain, because it was known that muammar gaddafi had tried t

let's start with libya. can you talk a little bit about how you thought the hand-off to nato has gone? and how nato has performed? obviously, there have been some problems, reluctance by various countries to undertake various missions, shortages of precision missiles among them. complexity of command and control but how do you think this nato deal has really gone? >> well, i commanded in nato twice over this last decade, once as the fleet commander down in norfolk for the nato strike fleet and in naples, italy where i commanded all the forces in the south, which included forces that were assigned to the nato training mission in iraq in 2004 when nato took that mission on as well as the forces in the ba balkans. i think someone said it pretty well we've done in 18 days what it took us 18 months to do in bosnia in terms of standing up the command, committing to a mission and execution and i think that speaks volumes about nato's agility in these times certainly compared to where it used to be and i've been imp

where are be involved with libya -- why are we involved with libya and china is not involved. the imf came out two days ago. they said by 2016, china is bigger than we are. the you know why? because they are making our products. if they were not making our products, they would not be bigger. china is taking unfair advantage of the united states and other countries by a total manipulation of the currency. if they continue to manipulate their currency -- if i am an office and i decide to run and win, within one day they are going to be told, you keep manipulating your currency, we are going to tax to 25%. that will do two things. first of all they will stop manipulating at the mere thought of it. when the president of china comes to the united states, we hold a state dinner for him in the white house. here is a guy that has been scoring our country for years. -- who has been screwing our country for years. there are going to make $300 billion profit this year, 300 billion more than that, and we hold a state dinner. the reason is because they manipulate their currency brilliantly

it belongs to libya. i think the government may manage to say that change could have been -- happen, resulting in violence. >> i just want to make a comment about algeria. in speaking with the rebel leadership, it they say that gadaffi is having two core al arab allies. a lot of the people that i spoke to view it as cause i belligerent. they believe that the government did not want to see gadaffi fall because it to threaten their own regime. now we have seen that syria appears to be tottering. i am not sure that is isolated to algeria. >> thank you. thank you. i wonder about the chemical weapons that libya has. unaided picture three weeks ago. in 1994, that they signed an agreement that it will reduce the weapons. they have asked for extensions until may 2011. i think 23,000 tons is in libya. where are they? it is really hard for them to lose it. what are the prospects? >> thank you. he mentioned the bombs. they are not the same as chemical weapons. the only chemical weapons research that we still have is

we were sailing along and all of a sudden the president says let's go into libya. boom, a couple hundred missiles real quick, at about a million of pop. >> we don't have anything cheaper in the arsenal that we could use in this kind of war? >> we were just about ready to close up, we did not need them anymore. production a year's in less than a week. so who knows what else is over the rise and? december 31, 20010 -- when we were all sitting around making new year's resolutions, did anybody foresee egypt, libya, tunisia? i don't think so. >> on january 6, when secretary gates came out and we were up there on the hill, you are very upset about the $78 billion cut over five years and no $100 billion cut of three allocation money, and you were basically saying this is dangerous. do you feel like the united states national security is at stake when we start to make these kinds of cuts? >> i definitely do. if you go back a year ago, secretary gates was giving us different numbers, projecting out ahead we were saying we would not go below 01% increase over and above infla

more on libya from the u.n. secretary general ban ki moon.

let's take libya for example. he has not really laid out his plan as to what we're doing in libya. the relation ship with israel is horrible. we do not have the relationship that we used to have, even under president clinton. we had a good relationship with them. this president does not seem to want to recognize them. if they defend themselves, he is not going to stand by them. never mind that he has been a terrible precedent here domestically. unemployment is still 8%. we have a crisis right now in st. louis and japan. he is not bothering to travel to any of these places where people have been devastated by these natural disasters. i cannot really say anything good about the guy. it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. if he was hispanic, i would probably say the same thing. i happen to be hispanic. i did not good thing for him in the beginning. i have no intention of reelecting him. host: that was lucy on our republican line. this tweet -- from bwahh. ben, you are on the "washington journal." what you think about president obama as an international leader? caller: i thin

the surity council resolutions -- resolution for libya and the un action represents the un at its best. on the 60th anniversary of the refugees, i would like to take special note of the critical activities around the globe. we note that the united states representatives have shaped this un situation. >> mr. kelly, the subcommittee on asia vice chair. >> thank you, madame chair. i am deeply concerned with the u.n. peacekeeping mission. as we go forward, we are all concerned about the unsustainable debt that the united states continues to run up. using the president of return of "investment", we need to see positive return on that investment. my anticipation to your testimony is going to be that un peacekeeping operations in libya right now as it continues to escalate, of like to know what our commitment will be as we go forward and the impact it will have on americans. >> mr. carnahan, the ranking member on the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. >> thank you, mr. chair. we are two years into the obama administration. we think there has been important progress. we still havser

. >> libya. tony blair articulated many of the ideas that informed a large piece of international public opinion. clearly there is a gap that has emerged between the goals of ousting of the regime and the means being employed -- employed towards that end. they need to say, look, let's go back to the un resolution and take the cease-fire. over time we can try to shape of libya in the direction we want. >> i do not think it has been mixed. we are four or five weeks in. there is an incredible risk of a slaughter that has been averted. the challenge is not whether or not the performance has been good. the real challenge is along the still might can continue without the intervention becoming a failure in the eyes of the world. the stalemate is better than a slaughter. i believe the british government has been more right than wrong on this. i would defend the undertaking. speech,eart of tony's there were three tests. one was that there was a credible threat. i believe there was. secondly, is there a pl

[inaudible] get out of libya, don't mess with libya, don't mess with gadhafi, because you are in for a big surprise if you continue withhat you're doing. >> i don't think either of our panelists is doing that. [laughter] but if anybody wants to respond, you can. >> let's take another question. >> yes, in the front row there. >> you mentioned that 27% of the violent revolutions have succeeded, and we now have violent uprisings in libya and yemen. can you distinguish what it was above the 27% exceeded the differentiated them from the remainder that did not? and are there any parallels to yemen or libya crux that is what support other than the fact that the one can be distinguished from the ones that lost? >> we haven't done that study. the purpose of the study if you look at the pamphlet on the international non-violent confct the study is in there and by the way it is turning into a book called weiss of resistance works which i commend it to all of you. it is a seminal work that is the debt-ridden. but our purpose was to show that the dynamics create lower probabilities of success tha

nobody knows what is going on in libya. you look at gas prices were he says he has no control over gas prices, which he does if he gets off the phone or the basketball court or what ever he is doing at the time. he should be focused on opec and getting the prices down. that is what he should be focused on. i am going to handle libya much differently. i have said it many times, the rebels i hear are controlled by iran and al qaeda. "they make it "gone with the wind", isn't it romantic. you could end up with worse than gaddafi. i have a great problem with our military people losing their lives and libya and we do not know what we are getting into. i have always said i go for libya, but i want the oil. nowadays when you when you win a war, you lose lives, you spend billions of dollars, and when we come out come out and we go back home. we have all of our wanted to take care of. we have all of the dead soldiers and a dead military, and what do we get? nothing. this is interesting, libya, because the arab league which a saudi ar

libya, i am opposed to what happened in libya, starting out with where was the constitutional authority? where was theongress check off on that? where is it in the constitution ife don't like a foreign leader, we should topple the foreign leader? who are the rebels in libya? have we not injected ourselves into a civil war? are there not five countries that would qualify for the same military intervention we have implemented in libya? under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, saddam hussein existed for 12 years. under a no-fly zone, the atrocities in bosnia occurred. when do ground troops become committed? i think we've already seen that. the unintended consequence of government and its actions -- we take out saddam hussein, and there goes the check for iran, which may be a threat -- which may in fact be a security threat to the united states. i do notelieve it exists at all, but we should remain vigilant toward. it goes on and on and on. i believe in free markets. what i am going to embark on, the debate will be over government, government regulation, and free-market. i am always the one tha

more on libya, the "washington times." libyan rebels will receive $25 million from the united states. it is providing that in nonlethal aid. one more phone call here this morning about the gulf of mexico oil spill one year later. this go to michael who lives down there in pensacola. go ahead. caller: i just want to say, this whole incident serves as the perfect example from washington to take notice of the dire need of government regulations for these powerful companies in these types of businesses. this would not have happened in norway are other countries do to their more concern for the environment. this is all halliburton problem. people like dick cheney and their cronies, they spent -- a set all of this kind of thing up, they delight -- they delayed true progress for profit -- they delayed true progress for profit. they are getting less and less regulation put on them and they lobby for this constantly. meanwhile, the country is just being destroyed, environmentally. host: that was michael. we will pick up this conver