I don't normally like to watch the community organizer delivering the speech, and after last night I understand why. The guy is good. He's awfully good. As far as presidents go , Obama is on par with Ronald Reagan when it comes to delivering speeches. Naturally I'm not talking about content here; I'm talking about the manner of delivery. Obama is good-looking, he has a wonderful voice, and he has speechwriters who know how to turn a phrase.

So last night I sucked it up and I watched Obama's speech to the nation about our intervention in Libya. I thought it would be fun if I would tweak my thoughts to my twitter followers during the speech.

In today's political atmosphere those people who support Barack Obama are going to say the speech was absolutely incredible and clearly outlined the undeniable reasons why we needed to intervene in Libya. If you're not a supporter of Barack Obama (in other words, if you appreciate economic liberty and personal freedom) you are going to say that the speech was wholly lacking in any rationale that supported our "kinetic" military action.

All in all, I think the speech was expertly written and well delivered. I can appreciate Obama's oratorical skills without supporting the actions he is taken. There was, of course, the overuse of the "I" word. I did this, I did that, and I refuse to allow that to happen. No doubt Barack Obama is immensely impressed with himself. But in that, he's not alone. Another troubling part of the speech is where, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Obama "overtly disavowed American global leadership." This goes hand-in-hand with Obama's discomfort with America's leadership in world economic and military affairs. Remember, this is the president that said "America is no more special than Portugal, Greece or any other country." There are some who lived in America who might beg to disagree. Perhaps if I had lived in Hawaii and Indonesia right up until the time I came to the cotton the United States to attend college I might find it easier to agree with Obama on that statement.

Did you happen to notice that the rationale that Obama gave last night for his decision to send the American military into action in Libya pretty much parallel the reasons that George W. Bush gave for sending our jets and our troops to both Iraqi and Afghanistan? Now of course the Obama supporters are going to say that this simply isn't so. Detractors will say oh yeah it is. Just find a transcript of the speech somewhere and try to read it with an open mind and then compared to the statements made by Bush years ago.

Perhaps the one aspect of Obama's speech that bothered me the most was the realization that virtually all of the reasons Obama gave for intervening in Libya could well have been applied to Iran and several other middle-eastern countries. When the people of Iran rose up against their own Muslim dictators, Barack Obama decided we didn't have a camel in that fight. Why was it so different in Libya? Now that's what I would've liked to have heard last night ... Obama telling the American people why it was so important that we spend what will amount to over $1 billion to help the rebels in Libya when it was not important at all that we step forward to help the rebels in Iran. Perhaps the reason he didn't make a distinction between the two is because there is none.

So where do we stand now? Well, we can spend endless hours arguing about whether or not Obama should have sent our military into action in support of the Libyan rebels. A better idea would be to save that particular debate until this is over. The fact is our military is now engaged on the side of the rebels, whoever they happen to be, against the Libyan dictator. We must see this through. If this little adventure ends with anything less than the death or the exile of Qaddafi, America will be seen as weak, and other Mideast Islamic tyrants will be strengthened in their resolve to resist any effort at reform.

I'm still of the opinion that Libya presented no threat to any vital American interests, and that this is essentially a civil war. That matters not at this point. America is in, let's do the job and get out. And then maybe we can ask questions as to why Barack Obama didn't lend the same level of support to the rebels in Iran that he did to those in Libya. After all, Qaddafi eliminated his nuclear program -- and Iran's is still going strong.