In an excellent post, James Joyner points to Dan Nexon's post on Obama's speech:

I might be wrong, but I don't consider the "Humanitarian-intervention-against-militarily-weak-fossil-fuel-producing-countries-in-strategically-important-regions-that-are-also-located-near-many-large-NATO-military-bases-and-are-run-by-dictators-who-kind-of-piss-us-off-and-have-no-powerful-allies Doctrine" the stuff of Grand Strategy. But if you read between the lines, that's pretty much the gist of what Obama had to say tonight.

I do not find it the stuff of coherence or prudence. But the ad hoc nature of this foreign and military policy decision does not bother me. I am not big on "Grand Strategies" either. However I do object to the lack of logic and coherence regarding the Libya intervention. In my view, each ad hoc situation must have logic and coherence. I do not see them in the Libya intervention.

There are two major objections I have to the rationale for the military intervention provided by President Obama last night. The first is the manufactured notion that events in Libya will quell the "Arab Awakening" in Tunisia and Egypt (oh BTW, who knows how that is going to turn out.) What is the evidence for that? Was Gaddafi planning on marching into Egypt? Surely not. Moreover, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, and dare I say it, Saudi Arabia, are not that far away. More . . .

Here's the text of Obama's speech on Libya.

Answering those who think the U.S. should be more involved in Libya:

If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

I didn't get to see Obama deliver the speech. How do you think he did? And more importantly, do you agree with him?

Looks like BTD and I are both tied up at work. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Here's a BBC recap of today's events in Libya. In Yemen, security forces are battling al Qaeda.

In Colorado Springs, Bruce J. Nozolino, a former Lockheed Martin executive facing a 31 count indictment on "charges that he killed his ex-wife’s lover, shot and wounded her divorce attorney and tried to kill the judge who presided over the divorce" in four separate shootings over an 8 year period, has been denied a public defender because he has $221,000 in assets (a condo and a pension.) Who will represent him? $221,000 is far below what a competent defense costs in a murder case. In addition to legal fees, there will be significant expenses for forensic experts and a private investigator. And what happens if he can't find a private lawyer? Does he get released on speedy trial grounds at some point?

The judge needs to rethink this decision. Indigency is not just a matter of how much money one has, but whether one can afford a defense. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee the right to a fair trial and to present a defense, as well as the right to effective assistance of counsel. Even Rod Blagojevich now has court-appointed lawyers.

On a lighter note, the season finale of Shameless airs tonight on Showtime. It's easily the best new series of the season.

Juan Cole take note, Lieberman would back US action in Syria:

Senate Homeland Security chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the U.S. should intervene to help Syrian protestors if officials there turn weapons on the public as took place in Libya on Fox News Sunday.

[. . .]"There's a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya and it's the right one," Lieberman said. "We're not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago and in doing so we're being consistent with our American values and we're also on the side of the Arab people who want a better chance for a decent life."

Via Jay Ackroyd, Professor Juan Cole writes a piece arguing why "the Left" should support the Libya intervention.Before I consider the substance of Prof. Cole's (obviously an expert on the region) argument, I want to take issue with the notion that the decision to support or oppose the intervention requires a view from "the Left" or from any ideological perspective for that matter. Perhaps this makes me not of "the Left" (and I am really not actually), but I think any military or foreign affairs action by the United States should be viewed from the perspective of America's national interest. When I profess this view, some commenters compare me to Kissinger. This misses the point. Kissinger's problem is not that he focused on the American national interest, it is and was that he misunderstood what was in the American national interest. It happens that promoting democracy, economic development, advancement of the entire world, is key to America's national interest. In that sense, the fall of Gaddafi in Libya could be in America's national interest. (Just as certain electoral results in some countries would be in the American national interest.) There are no elections in Libya, and in any event, meddling in foreign elections in a way that American fingerprints are seen does not work and does not forward American interests. Assuming for the moment that it is, the question then is is what can be done to facilitate Gaddafi's fall and what effect will those actions have on the American national interest? I will attempt to glean answers from Prof. Cole on the flip.

RIP Geraldine Ferrarro. She died this morning. The first woman to be nominated for Vice President, she was 75 and battled myeloma for 12 years.

Amanda Knox: Reports leaking from independent inquiry into DNA evidence are that the DNA was contaminated by being improperly stored in liquid.

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh says he's ready to step down. (Update: Not so fast, now he says he's not ready.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Florida v. Butler kicks off the Elite 8 matchups. Florida defeated the Jimmers in overtime in a poorly played game by both teams. Alex Tyus had a career gamer to save the Gators. Butler played well for 37 minutes against Wisconsin, but then looked vulnerable to pressure and almost spit the game up.

Butler is a very physical team, with a very skilled guard in Shelvin Mack. They play good defense. Matt Howard has played quite well. Florida has shown it can play fast or slow, and has a deep bench. It will be interesting to see how Billy Donovan decides to play it, especially in light of Butler's miscues against pressure by Wisconsin late in their previous game.

If Florida shoots well, I believe they should have a good chance to win. If not, probably not. I expect another nailbiter, so I will take Butler (+4) (2 units.) More . . .

You remember when Willie Nelson was busted at the border with 6 oz of pot? Those charges have now been resolved. He gets off with a fine and playing a song:

Nelson was arrested Nov. 26 after a Border Patrol agent smelled pot wafting from Nelson’s tour bus at the Sierra Blanca checkpoint. A little more than six ounces was found on the bus.

Nelson was arraigned and on the road again after paying a $2,500 bond. Now the charges have been fully resolved. He has to pay a $100 fine and sing a song at the courthouse:

My picks for tonight's games:

Marquette +4½ over North Carolina (2 units). North Carolina has looked shaky.

Richmond +10½ over Kansas (2 units). Just a hunch.

Ohio State -6 over Kentucky (3 units). Best team in the tournament. Best low post player in Sullnger. Experienced. Ohio State should win easily over a poorly coached Kentucky team.

Florida State -4 over Va Commonwealth (4 units.) VCU has been on a roll. They are not that good. Down to Earth tonight. Noles win easily.

In Britain, MPs and members of the House of Lords, have formed a new "All-Party Parliamentary Group " on Drug Policy Reform, and requesting new policies for drug issues. They say the policies should be guided by scientific evidence. They argue:

Despite governments worldwide drawing up tough laws against dealers and users over the past 50 years, illegal drugs have become more accessible. Vast amounts of money have been wasted on unsuccessful crackdowns, while criminals have made fortunes importing drugs into this country. The increasing use of the most harmful drugs such as heroin has also led to “enormous health problems”, according to the group.

The current policies have failed. But other countries, such as Portugal, have had success. The difference: [More...]

Update: The text of the memo is here.

The Wall St. Journal has obtained a copy of a new Department of Justice Memorandum authorizing a delay in providing Miranda rights to terror suspects in certain circumstances.

The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.

Isn't this a risky move by DOJ? What authority does it have to change Miranda rights? Shouldn't this be up to Congress or the Supreme Court? [More..]