without that being met, i have to again ask why in the world will our military might be used according to the u.n. and arab league desires and nato s leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that obama calls it or doesn t want to call it. greta: usually on speeches like this, there are two purposes. one substantively to explain to the american people why we are doing the military action, whatever. the other to inspire us to feel proud of what we are doing and this is the right decision. i thought tonight that he felt that he had a flat delivery. that he lost the inspiration part. so it was hard to be convinced of the substantive purpose part. well, he did not articulate what our purpose was. except some inconsistent humanitarian effort in libya. yet, the inconsistency lies with the questions now being asked, why not darfur, north
to the american people why we are doing the military action, whatever. the other to inspire us to feel proud of what we are doing and this is the right decision. i thought tonight that he felt that he had a flat delivery. that he lost the inspiration part. so it was hard to be convinced of the substantive purpose part. well, he did not articulate what our purpose was. except some inconsistent humanitarian effort in libya. yet, the inconsistency lies with the questions now being asked, why not darfur, north korea? what are we going to do about syria? all these other areas where i guess america could intervene with our power and resources to help humanity. not make the case for this intervention. u.s. interests have to be met if we are going to intervene. u.s. interests can t just mean validating some kind of post american theory of intervention, wherein, we wait