In Nevada delegation, Obama speech didn’t change minds on Libya

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Wednesday that he was not persuaded by President Barack Obama's speech this week about why the United States was participating in military actions against Libya.

Ensign said in the Senate that the president's address served rather to reinforce questions about the use of military power in northern Africa, and how the United States will know when to stop.

The president's speech also reinforced the views of other Nevada lawmakers who had taken positions along partisan lines on the U.S.-led attacks on Libyan air defenses, judging from reactions to the address.

Obama, speaking at the National War College on Monday, said the United States intervened to prevent Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi from killing civilians as he battles rebels seeking his ouster.

“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,” Obama said.

“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different,” he said.

In his Senate response, Ensign echoed points he made last week, after the first few days of the U.N.-sanctioned action that involves a coalition of Western nations.
   
"I understand the president may sincerely want to save lives in Libya, but our country cannot be the police force for the rest of the world," Ensign said. 

Obama "said the military mission was limited, but how do we know when we have hit our limit?" Ensign said, adding, "This week's address made it clear to me we may be headed for another decade-long military operation in the Middle East."

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said in a statement after the speech that Obama had "clarified" the U.S. mission to her satisfaction.

"I am pleased that the president clarified the goals and mission of the no-fly zone in Libya and that he reiterated his opposition to the use of ground forces," Berkley said. "Americans should be proud that the efforts of the allies have saved many innocent lives."

She added, "We cannot stop every possible slaughter, but that should not be an excuse not to intervene where we can to effectively protect people and American interests."

Similarly, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said Obama "laid out a clear vision for Libya's freedom."

Republican Rep. Joe Heck said Obama was not persuasive.

"I don't think he really made the case," Heck said in an interview Tuesday with ABC News. 
   
Even as it prevented a civilian slaughter, Heck said, there should have been a "national security interest" for the United States to intervene in Libya and Obama did not express one.

"How are we going into another country and spending $600 million by some estimates in the first week with not addressing what is our true security interests in that area?" Heck said.

Likewise, Republican Rep. Dean Heller said he "and most Americans still have not heard a clearly defined goal for how long military operations will last in Libya."

"Protecting civilians from a brutal dictator is a noble cause, but asking our military to maintain a stalemate while we hold out hope that Gadhafi will voluntarily leave his country raises serious questions about the duration of the mission,” Heller said.