JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on Libya and the president's speech, we get the views of two senators. Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed is on the Armed Services Committee. And Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson is on the Foreign Relations Committee. I spoke to them a short time ago.
Senators, thank you very much for joining us, Sen. Reed and Sen. Isakson. Before I ask you about what President Obama said last night, Senator Isakson, just quickly, do you believe the U.S. should be involved militarily in Libya in the first place?
SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON, R-Ga.: I think we have done the right thing but in the wrong way. I think the president should have first come to Congress, as did Bill Clinton when we went into Kosovo and George Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan.
But I do think it's important, when democracy is emerging around the world, for the United States to be a supporter of those who want freedom and peace.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about you, Senator Reed? Should the U.S. be there at all?
SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I.: I think the president has very adroitly assembled a diplomatic initiative that complemented a very limited military initiative. We basically set the parameters for turning it over to our allies. They're in charge now. I think the military role has been important, and I think it's been complemented by very adroit diplomacy.
There's a range of debate for you–is the Libyan bombing "adroit diplomacy," or is it "the right thing but in the wrong way"? Those who look to public television for a broader range of perspectives are still out of luck.