I personally waited for the speech transcript to go up on line because I honestly can't listen to the man's intonations anymore nor can I stand to watch his head go from teleprompter to teleprompter like he's watching a match at Wimbledon somewhere behind his audience.
What I was looking for in his speech was anything about Libya. And here it is:
"But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force — but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don't have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we are doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their destiny."
So he's basically standing by his meme that we don't have anyone on the ground there so it's a good thing. And it's not a war or anything because all we're doing is 'supporting allies'. And it's not a war because we haven't deployed a large force. This man is the king of semantics. And the legislative and judicial branches are letting him get away with it. Does anyone outside of the White House's inner circle actually believe that, despite the money and US personnel 'supporting allies' that he hasn't dragged the US into another war that we had no business being in anyway?
And he's probably going to try to use this weak-kneed speech as meeting Boehner's request that he justify our involvement in Libya to the American people. I don't buy it, not for a minute.