intervening militarily in libya was in the u.s. moral and strategic interest. what he didn t explain, which is what people of both sides, both parties in congress have been clamoring for him to do number one, exactly what we re willing to do to get rid of gaddafi, because that is one of his goals. number two, what exactly the end state in libya looks like. today, an air force one as the president went up to new york for some event including some rundraisers, jay carney said the end state is when the libyan people can choose their own leader. okay. but there is a long way to go between now and then. and what exactly are we willing to do to get rid of gaddafi? the president ruled out ground troops and they have not ruled out arming rebels, as steve explained. today, hillary clinton said the u.n. resolution doesn t ban that. in other words, it s legal to do it if the allies decided to do it. bret: you mentioned the ruling out of ground troops. there was testimony today op that very sunt
zone, whatever it takes. they just want to stop the killing right now. if you listen to the ambassador, that s his argument. they don t want it to be organic how it was in egypt and tunisia. they would love it to be organic. the difference is here you have in tunisia you had a military that refused to kill fellow tunisians. in egypt you had a military who refused to kill fellow egyptians. in libya, you have a regime ready to kill the libyans. i wonder how the congressman feels about that. we have already imposed sanctions. we ve frozen assets. we ve ruled out arming rebels. what else should the u.s. do? you suggested a no-fly zone. well, let me tell you, i think there s a lot we should do. we should immediately get the chapter 7 resolution passed. that will send a clear signal to the gadhafi regime that the international community is united and is willing to take action. and we should also make sure we re supplying the humanitarian
relationship with russia is a good thing essentially and that the president believes that he can change the course with russia unlike his predecessors by this direct personal relationship with its leader, even if that leader is an adversary like vladimir putin. now, the white house argues, anderson, it has been tough on russia. closing the conflict in san francisco, arming rebels in the ukraine, imposing sanctions just recently. but the argument could be made that the administration has been tougher on russia than the president himself, who has been reluctant to directly confront vladimir putin as you pointed out despite several opportunities to do so, despite the fact that his intelligence community has said that it had meddled in the 2016 election, is doing so in the 2018 election, the poisoning of the ex-russian spy, and the uk just last week the administration came out and said russia had hacked the u.s. power grid. but despite this, you are not seeing the president coming out and
is the white house explaining the president as playing nice with vladimir putin? why when he s so rough on so many other people? do they have an explanation? well, the white house is saying, anderson, that it believes that having a good relationship with russia is a good thing essentially. the president believes that he can change the course with russia, unlike his predecessors by this direct personal relationship with its leader. even if that leader is an adversary like vladimir putin. now, the white house argues, anderson, it has been tough on russia, closing the consulate in san francisco, arming rebels in the ukraine, imposing sanctions just recently. but the argument could be made that the administration has been tougher on russia than the president himself who has been reluctant to directly confront vladimir putin, as you pointed out, despite several opportunities to do so, despite the next his intelligence community has said that it meddled in the 2016 election, is doing so in
united nations. the two offered each other this terse toast over lunch after putin sat down 20 minutes late. and they had the briefest of handshake photo-ops, their first meeting in two years. in their speeches to the general assembly, they outlined divergent approaches for defeating isis and how to handle syria. putin criticizing the u.s. for arming rebels, and calling for a broad anti-terror coalition. one obama administration official told the new york times. quote, knock yourselves out. and the two leaders split on whether bashar al assad could remain in power with president putin calling him the only way to secure syria. an option president obama refused. we re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder. that it s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. in accordance with this logic we should support tyrants like