March 1st, 2011
06:00 PM ET

Should the U.S. do something to protect Libyans from Gadhafi?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The humanitarian crisis in Libya could quickly escalate into a full-blown catastrophe.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/01/art.gadhafi.jpg caption=""]
Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has made it clear he will not be forced out of power. He continues to attack and kill his own people who dare to protest his dictatorship. It's estimated more than 1,000 people have been killed so far. The country has sunk into a civil war that has caused tens of thousands to flee to the Libyan-Tunisian border.

And it's getting worse by the day. So what's the United States, the world’s only superpower, to do?

After days of not saying much while Americans were evacuated, the White House has started to talk tough, saying all options are on the table with respect to Libya.

The U.S. has frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met with top diplomats to discuss possible next steps.

Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is positioning two naval warships in the Mediterranean near Libya. He said the focus is on humanitarian assistance and evacuations, and there has been no authorization for use of force.

In a piece for the UK Telegraph, foreign affairs analyst Nile Gardiner asks whether tyrants even fear the United States anymore. He writes, "Just a few years ago, the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world's most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach."

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. do something to protect Libyans from Gadhafi?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Middle East
March 1st, 2011
05:00 PM ET

Would you favor a gov't shutdown until significant cuts are agreed on?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There's a pretty good chance now that the federal government will not shut down at midnight on Friday.

The House approved a new spending measure this afternoon that could keep the government running for two weeks past Friday's deadline. Democrats and Republicans agreed to $4 billion in spending cuts - mostly to earmarks and other programs, many of which President Obama proposed in his own budget. The measure now moves on to the Senate.

You can bet those cuts are the easy ones - not any of the heavy-handed cuts House Republicans passed in a bill a few weeks ago that included ending funding to Planned Parenthood and making cuts to education programs and the EPA. And there still isn't total agreement on the $4 billion measure.

The President and some Democrats were hoping for a four to five week extension cutting as much as $8 billion.

According to a recent poll, 58 percent of Americans say they would rather have a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut than have Congress avoid a shutdown altogether by keeping spending at the same levels as last year.

And since both parties can't agree on how much should be cut from the budget for the rest of the year and which programs should face the ax, a shutdown could be a reality very soon.

Here’s my question to you: Would you favor a government shutdown until significant spending cuts are agreed on?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Government