i'm wolf blitzer in the situation room. john king, usa starts right now. thanks, wolf, and good evening, everyone. we begin with breaking news from the white house. moments ago it announced that president obama will hold a news conference tomorrow morning, and we're told he will open with a statement addressing rising gas prices here in the united states. in a bit we'll show you why that fallout from libya is a mounting problem for the president of the united states. first a shift in power itself. gadhafi forces are losing retreat, losing patience with a national community that says it wants a brutal dictator to go but again made clear today it is not ready to join the fight. on the battlefield, the regime targeted cities using firepower, including ships from the mediterranean and air force bombing runs on key held opposition cities. if the pictures aren't enough to reinforce the shift in the favor, sending a stern message

to the opposition. >> i want those armed groups to listen to me real well, and i want the people in the east to hear this as well. we are coming! >> and lirch sten to this. a blunt assessment from america's top officiant. >> this is kind of a stealemate back and forth, but i think this is a long return that the regime will prevail. >> because of that, the opposition says it desperately needs help from the united states and nato. but the native allies made clear that no military options are imminent. >> if there were to be a need for enforcement, there would need to be a new u.n. security council resolution. >> another nato meeting is scheduled in five days, but the bottom line tonight for now, the anti-gadhafi forces, well, they're largely on their own. let's begin our up-close look in the balance of power tonight

with our senior international correspondent nick robinson. he's in the capital of tripoli. >> nick, if you listen to the battles and you listen to the words of gadhafi, one gets the impression the regime not only feels it has the upper hand but the balance has shifted dramatically. >> they really feel they're on a roll. they're talking about making the next big town an important oil town, and they're talking about rolling advances from where they are right now, so they are feeling confident. and gadhafi sort of rallied the youth. this was another arranged speech with a lot of young men who were described as workers, just sort of waving flags and fists in the air. the message was really, really clear. we may be becoming more isolated

internationally but the fight goes on. >> and as the fight goes on, they know it's days, if not weeks, before nato and the united states would take any increased military intervention, because the nato alliance saying now is not the time, not just yet, anyway. that has to give the regime a great sense of relief. >> this will make them feel better that, they have more time to use their allies. what is happening when you look at the bigger picture here, the country knows what is coming but the government feeling confident, and now they kind of put pressure on the east, on the rebels in the east to know that they may have to negotiate at some point. this is the mindset on this side with things being pushed further down the road. >> i'm sure the regime doesn't like it when france says it will roadways the opposition. the united states says it will close its embassy and would not recognize any future ambassadors, gadhafi said to the united states. but is there any sense that increased diplomatic pressure,

absent the military component, will change the regime's behavior? >> no, there is no indication it will. this is a regime that's been under international sanctions before. they know how to play this game. they're saying the international community is now tops in the country, but this is a regime that knows how to deal with the international community being set against it. the vision right now is very clear. it's internal. you can do what you want outside, we're going to get on, take control of the country and deal with the opposition in the way we see fit. that's how it's running out, playing out here, john. >> nick robinson for us here tonight. nick, thanks. >> nick again in the capital. the fighting was in the east. that's a key oil and refinery town. let's take a look at some of the images from today's fighting. you see the smoke plumes up here. let's listen. giant plumes there, you can hear explosions in the background. you can see some of the still photo images we're getting.

military forces trying to hold this town. rocket-propelled grenades right there, forces running away from the stronger, stronger regime. firefighting. he has a firsthand look at what we can only call an opposition retreat. >> ben, the regime says it has taken back the key oil. you are out there today as the fighting was unfolding. is it now back in gadhafi's hands? >> that's not at all clear. we do know that government forces advanced on the city and they were bombarding the hell out of the place for several hours today, from the air, from the sea and from the land. we watched, actually, from a smaller hill as we saw these rounds coming in from the west, from the positions occupied by the government forces. one of those rounds came very close to the hospital, other of those rounds hit near us,

apparently one was killed. we saw a mad dash by pickups and cars and trucks full of opposition fighters heading out of town. they said they just couldn't deal with the bombardment. they regrouped on the edge of town and wasn't clear whether they were going to go back or try to hold that position or even hold a counter-offensive. we did see them bringing up these multiple rocket launchers, which is the most lethal weapon they have in their arsenal. it n it's not clear at this point who holds the town, but certainly, if it falls, it's a major defeat for the opposition forces, and already in the towns behind it, like brega, there is already concern that the government forces are going to continue to push eastward. we've heard in brega that the local militias have informed families, civilians, that they

should leave the area if there is this counter-offensive. for the first time, the libya forces using she bombardment. there is a lot of talk in towns on the coast that they will come under bombardment as well. >> obviously opposition in the fight as well, but do they get word that the united states and nato decided not to intervene, at least in the short term? it has to be discouraging for those right in the thick of it. are they aware of that? >> as far as i know, no, they're not aware of it, but certainly we always get an earful when we're up at the front from people who say, you know, president obama, the european palace has got to do something to intervene, because the worry is that these libyan forces are going to continue to move eastward, and what will happen if that is the case is that the

reprisal against the local populations, which welcomed with open arms, the protestors who became militia fighters will pay a very high price. the worry is that there could be a blood bath in eastern libya if for some reason, somehow, the libyan government forces take control again. so their desperately in need of a no-fly zone, of some sort of action to stop this offensive. john? >> ben wedeman in eastern libya. ben, thank you. the united states will not be giving u.s. or nato help at least in the short term. but a television report does suggest that the nato is trying to provide some form of assistance to the gadhafi fighters. what you are about to hear is the voice of the u.s. ambassador to libya and he is talking to a key member of the opposition. >> what equipment or other

support do you need? >> cnn reporter joins us. it appears here the u.s. ambassador to libya trying to offer some sort of assistance to the opposition? >> john, it's very interesting, ask we do have confirmation that such a phone call did take place from the military council. that is, of course, headed by marahidi. we don't know details of the conversation other than what was aired on that clip on libyan television. but it is interesting, and most certainly a positive development, that the u.s. does appear to be reaching out to members of the military council of the national council as well, and that is exactly what opposition leaders here have been looking for, that sort of open communication so they can directly tell the united states exactly what it is that they expect from them, what sort of a support they need. there has been up to now a lot of frustration with the fact that it appears that the white

house has been, to a certain degree, dragging its feet in terms of openly supporting the opposition, and they do really want that legitimacy. they want the u.s. to recognize them, they want the international community to recognize them, and, of course, they do want a certain level of help that they can, at the end of the day, succeed in this effort, john. >> and what's your sense of the specific help? they're not going to get a no-fly zone in the short term, at least. the united states says it has no interest in a direct military intervention at this point. secretary of state hillary clinton will meet with some opposition leaders, so perhaps we're on the road to some sort of recognition, but on the ground in terms of nuts and bolts, the ambassador did say, do you need any equipment, at the end of that clip. what sdt united states think it can give them to help? >> the opposition needs all the help they can get, especially when it comes to the military. they would need training, they would need body armor. these young men are going out to the front lines standing up against gadhafi's forces,

against all the weaponry that they have without body armor, without helmets. they have absolutely no protective gear whatsoever. as one trainer we were talking to said, all they have to protect them at this point is their faith in god. they need weapons. they do have a fair amount at their disposal, but, of course, they need more, and in an ideal world, they would need to have some sort of air capability, which is exactly why they do want to see this no-fly zone established. at the end of the day, they need the equipment, they need the capabilities in order to take on the capability that gadhafi has at his disposal, which is a well-trained force. they're targeting the opposition forces in the air, they're targeting on the ground and they're targeting on the sea. there is a sense that there is only so far the opposition can take this, and there is this fear that they're reaching their limit. and if the international community does not react at this stage, the result for the

opposition could potentially be disastrous. >> a silver note there. thanks. let's get some perspective from a former u.s. ambassador to the nato alliance. nick burns, if you were the nato opposition, you would watch the meeting in brussels today and come away with the impression that nato is perhaps indecisive or, even worse, indifferent? >> i don't think nato is indifferent, but certainly they're indecisive. they react by consensus. all 20 states have to agree, and in this case they didn't. if you're a member of the opposition hoping the nato alliance will react to the opposition of the regime, you didn't get that decision today. >> what we heard is what the opposition, again, would say is legale legalese, what you might say is a form of diplomat, a rule of law, if you will. if there is to be a no-fly zone or some military intervention that the united states and nato security council will have to authorize that first.

you know they're flat out objecting to doing that. if you are a libyan opposition, you are days and weeks at a minimum -- at a minimum -- before you might get any help, right? >> i think that's right. there are things that the u.s. fleet and air power can do in the coming days and weeks. we're close to the shores of libya. we can demonstrate military resolve. we could block arms imports into the libyan government, we could jam military communications, we could be ready to extricate refugees. we could do all those things should we choose to do, but it really isn't logical for the united states to try to implement a no-fly zone on its own. we need the nato allies for that. the nato allies don't yet believe in this mission. at least, not everybody together. >> what is present today is a gadhafi regime that is using its military superiority, its air power. there are reports today of firing from naval ships back to the shore using its army and its superior weaponry. if in the coming days the regime retakes those cities that had been in opposition and then in

the process not only fights violently and kills many of the opposition forces, but there is already a bounty out for the head of the transitional opposition. if there are massacres, if there is retribution and retaliation, do the united states bear responsibility for that? >> i do not believe we bear responsibility, no. this would be the actions of gadhafi, who is a violent dictator. but i do think maybe we haven't heard the end of this nato discussion, because you have u.s. and european military forces in the region prepared to do something if asked to do something. if this situation should deteriorate in the way, john, that you just posed, nato and the united states could come back to this question. if there was a severe humanitarian disaster in the making, in gadhafi turned on his own people in a way that he hasn't at least till now, though his actions have been despicable until now, then the u.s. could reconsider this decision, and 30 days from now, 60 days from now,

this situation might mandate military intervention. it clearly does not today, and i think the united states has faced kind of an existential question as we faced this no-fly zone this last week. remember, pottery barn rule. if you break it, you own t. the question is, do we want to own libya? right now i think it's wise not to inject ourselves into a civil war, but we have to be propped to do what we have to do if this situation deteerioratedeteriora. so today is not an end to the story, but we have to do what we do. americans call for its top official to resign. its crime? apparently telling the truth. next, does nato's delay make america look weak or does it help in terms of military delay? every patient's past.

and because the whole hospital's working together, there's a family who can breathe easy, right now. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest healthcare questions. and the over 60,000 people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers.

♪ an accidental touch can turn ordinary into something more. moments can change anytime -- just like that. and when they do men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven, low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment is right.

tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com. there is no doult the legacy of the iraq war hangs over the possibility of libyan intervention. at every opportunity, they say the united states should not have to loan and that any military action should be endorsed by the united nations and perhaps by the arab league

as well. the leading voice of administrative caution. >> we all agreed that nato will only act if there is demonstrable need, a sound legal basis and strong regional support. we also agreed to continue planning for all military options. the administration critics framed the question differently. >> perhaps of greater concern for us all should be that it would mean america's credibility and moral standing. if a tyrant were allowed to massacre arabs and muslims in libya and we watched it happen. >> is caution the right course or does america look weak here? fran townsend knows it well from her service as president george w. bush's home security advise or. she is now in the advisory community and she visited libya last year. you come out of this summit and you hear, and again, caution may

be the right approach here. you hear we don't have an endorsement from the united nations for military force, we don't have a request from the arab league for military force, but the united nations says, we're being slaughtered here, and if this takes other cities in the mideast, they assume he will slaughter the opposition. what's the right course? >> well, john, i appreciate the fact that the president has a very difficult dilemma, as does nato. the fact s they keep huffing and puffing and saying gadhafi cannot stay. that's what the american position has been. they both said that repeatedly, and with all this huffing and puffing, nothing happens, and what's happening on the ground is becoming now urgent. there appears to be a decisive change on the ground with the libyan government, the gadhafi government, now taking control, having rebels on the run. they appear to have taken this oil refinery town. and john, we don't have 30 or 60 days now to wait and see what

happens and then maybe intervene militari militarily. there is a rising possibility this thing could be over in a matter of days because the libyan opposition, the rebels, could be crushed. they could crumble here in a matter of days. so, you know, from my point of view, i would like to see a much more muscular response. i must say, i didn't think i would live to see the day when a headline like this would be in the "washington post" as it was this morning about an american president. on libya, obama willing to let allies take the lead. we have been, since 1956, the guarantors of stability in the middle east. that's been our role. >> and so, fran townsend, as david points out that headline in the post, and there are people in the administration saying we don't want to be out front on this. we don'tment want it to be thed time in ten years that the united states used military force in the arab world. gadhafi knows tonight that he has at a minimum -- at a minimum -- several weeks.

there is no scheduled united nations session on this, so he has a blank check on this right now for a couple weeks at least, right? >> i agree with david. here's the problem. you can't make public statements by the president and cabinet level officials that gadhafi has got to go and then do nothing. i mean, the problem here is, you know, there's the nato meeting. you send a signal to gadhafi there's not another meeting for five days and then you watch people get slaughtered. let's remember, president clinton in reflecting on his presidency, says his greatest regret was not acting sooner in are rwanda. libya is not of security interest, the fact is having taken the position that gadhafi has to go, you have to be able to back that up. if nato is unwilling to act, i applaud president sarkozy of france and his efforts, but if they can't keep up with the pace

of event, we need to act on our own. >> let me play devil's advocate here. these green places, these are libyan air bases where he's using air power front. the united states has moved some nato bases, we also have nato bases here in italy. if you do a no-fly zone, that's what would be used. these bases here, the french and brits could carry it out as well. but if you do this, let's say you impose the no-fly zone and it does no good. gadhafi stops flying his planes, but he still has rockets, he still has an army, he still has heavier artillery. at that point, haven't you chosen sides and don't you have to have more equipment if nato doesn't decide to do more? >> there's no question, and that's why it's a hard call. but i don't think we should exaggerate how difficult this is militarily. it was just striking this morning that general mcchrystal was quoted so extensively in the

"new york times" saying, hey, guys, this is not a big deal. this is not hard for our military. if we can't do this with ease, why are we spending all this money on the u.s. military? so i don't think this is a hard problem militarily. what it does require is leadership to get the nato alliance, to get the nations aligned. of course, they're going to be passive and of course they're going to be divided. but what normally happens in the past is a strong america comes in, worked with its allies and said, here's what we'd like to see happen. and then it begins to happen. once you begin to retreat from that as a great nation, and we leave a major dictator like this in place, and the message goes out to the other autocrats and other nations, if your people rebell, slaughter them and the west will not do anything, that's going to lead to a lot more brutality in other nations, and it also means gadhafi will start saying to other terrorists, why don't you get trained here? >> do you think the bush administration would take such a dramatic step?

after this he tried a little detante with the nato community. he knows authe's a pa ryriah ag. do you think he would take such a drastic step? >> i'm not convinced this is quite as easy as we may have suggested here. remember, thas madman. this is a madman willing to kill his own people, so when you go take out any aircraft devices, you have to prevent any air shields, and you're likely to confront against this madman some very difficult and moral challenges as you begin to enforce something like a no-fly zone or bombing of air strips. >> i just want to show, as we go to break, these purple signs, these are the longer range air strike missiles gadhafi has. the purple circles can go about 200 miles from where they're fired. the tighter circles are more localized defenses that gadhafi could use if they decided to

have a no-fly zone. there is no doubt they are no match for the united states and nato, but there is also no doubt when you talk to military officials, their capabilities are advanced enough to shoot down some jets. so this would not come without a financial price and potentially -- potentially -- a price in blood as well. that debate will continue. when we come back, wisconsin's governor wins a blood fight getting national attention. but democrats promise this is just round one. and next, america's top intelligence officer gives his take to the biggest military threats to the united states, and it causes a huge uproar. so what did he say? what are you looking at? logistics. ben? the ups guy? no, you see ben, i see logistics. logistics? think--ben is new markets. ben is global access-- china and beyond.

ben is a smarter supply chain. ben is higher margins. happier customers... everybody wins. logistics. exactly. see you guys tomorrow. can a trading site help make you a sharper trader? mine can. td ameritrade can. they've got trading specialists i can call for help. and paper trading. free practice trading that helps me hone my technique. complex options. and free tutorials. online or in person. can a trading site really make a difference?

if it can't, why are you trading there? number one in online equity trades: td ameritrade. trade commission-free for 30 days, plus get up to $500 when you open an account.

shears the the question. who it is winning the civil war in libya? who possess the greatest military threat to the united states? the gadhafi is clearly the answer to the first question. china, i believe, is how most people would answer the second question. so hdavid and fran still with m as we try to answer these questions. he has caused controversy in the past and some of that is messes of our own making.

i think we can all conceive that. but i want to ask you tonight, here's his answer. he is asked to come to congress to testify about threats. the congress invited him, it's a public forum. they know it's a public forum, they know there's cameras in the room and he's asked the question essentially, who is winning at the moment in libya? here's the answer. >> from the standpoint of attrition that over time, this is kind of a stalemate back and forth, but i think the longer term that the regime will prevail. >> now, if you watched cnn the last couple weeks, especially the last 48 hours, you know from our correspondents that's the right answer. that's what's happening on the ground. but yet senator lindsay graham was so offended that he would say that publicly, he asked for his resignation. if he felt the need so say what he did, then they should have moved into closed session.

unfortunately, this isn't the first questionable comment from the dni director. however it should be the final straw. what's the crime? he told the truth, david. >> this is a departure from lindsey graham. i don't understand. it's very puzzling. what the american people expect in a congressional hearing and the director of the national intelligence comes up, they expect to tell the truth. the guy tells the truth and then senators say off with your head. they really want to shoot the messenger. i understand why they feel it sends the wrong signal to the rebels, but that's the signal that's been coming out with all this huffing and puffing and nothing happening, anyway. >> and fran, it's no secret to the rebels, i don't think. i know he's not talking about what covert programs might we have to help them, but that's the question, who is winning, and that is the right answer. >> that's right, john. we know why the approval ratings of congress are so low. it's perfectly ridiculous. he's asked a straight up

question, he gives a straight up answer. and frankly, it's not even clear to me based on people who are in the room that lindsey graham was there for the entire testimony of jim clapper. so i really think, you know, john mccain came out after this and says he normally agrees with lindsey graham but not on this one, and i think he's right. >> director clapper is controversial. he has said things in the past and a lot of these guys are so inclined not to think he's competent for the job. but again, there was nothing, nothing, nothing inaccurate or not really public information in what he said about libya. let's move on to china. former governor, now senator joe mansion from west virginia is questioning him, and he's asking him, essentially, look around the world, director clapper. in terms of military power, what other people have, what other nations have at their disposal, who is the greatest threat to the united states? let's listen. >> are you speaking of the nation states, sir? >> yes, a country. >> well, a country, from,

well -- well, certainly the russians have -- you know, still have a very formal nuclear arsenal which does pose, you know, potentially a mortal threat to us. i don't think they have the intent to do that. certainly china is growing in its military capabilities. it has a full array of -- whether conventional or strategic forces that they are building, so they, too, pose potentially, from a capabilities standpoint, a threat to us, as a mor mortal threat. >> the chairman of the armed services committee took great offense to that. the white house, we're told, was uneasy with that. if i picked up a cia fact book or a james defense bible, or any public document that told me the

military fire power available to them, not the intent, and he made very clear there not the intent of the two greatest threats to the united states from a military power at their disposal standpoint, who would they be? >> the top three, we're in the top three and the other two in the top three are russia and china. that's what he was saying. the dni keeps talking about the mortal threat with the capability, and he asked the question of senator mansion about nation states. it's certainly -- it's not that he didn't understand that iran and north korea are a threat, but they don't have the military nuclear weapons that russia and china have. and so that's all he was saying. once again, this is much ado about nothing, i think. >> why, david, then, is there so much ado. i know we have better relations with the russians right now, and we're trying to have better relations with the chinese. we certainly have a more complicated economic situation with the chinese, but he was asked a pretty simple, direct question. he asked, are you talking about

a country, sir? he meant a nation state, and he gave what i think is the right answer. >> well, i agree with fran, john. there are a lot of nervous nellies on the loose now in washington, it appears. look, the more serious issue that people are discussing behind closed doors in washington is the growth of the chinese navy and their capability with their missile system to take out our carriers. there is a growing sense that china is perhaps trying to kick us out of the western pacific so they can have a blue water navy. and that's a serious issue. but what you find at the white house is a recognition and an understanding of all of these points. and the president, to his credit, is working hard to try to make sure that china does not become an enemy and they're making sure -- he's trying to hit the reset button with the russians to head off these various potential. what the dni was saying, was talking about potential threats

to us. he is forming better relationships, and on that score, i think the president deserves a lot of credit. >> on this day, again, the dni is in trouble. on this day he's getting yelled at for telling the truth in response to specific questions, that he has to clarify the senators, they invited him there, they're the ones that should know better. here's what the dni spokesman says tonight. in response to a specific question about the military situation in libya, they provided a snapshot of the military regime and the opposition. he stated in his testimony yesterday that the situation in libya is very fluid, so that you could say is an attempt to backtrack. but there is a sense right now that libya is winning the civil war. if i were director clapper, i would take this little clip from the movies, con dense it, tut it in an e-mail and send it up to those senators. play it out. >> you want actors? i think i'm entitled. >> you want answers? >> i want the truth. >> you can't handle the truth!

>> i doubt director clapper is going to take my advice. >> dave and fran, thanks for coming in tonight. when we come back, the government wins a restriction on unemployment unions. we'll head to wisconsin live. and ahead, weeks after being shot and critically wounded, we're learning representative gabrielle giffords will leave the hospital very soon. to put more information right up front. adding new calorie labels to every single can, bottle and pack they produce. so you can make the choice that's right for you. ♪

i have clients say it's really hard to save for the future and they've come to a point where it's overwhelming. oh gee, i'm scared to tell you i've got this amount of credit card debt or i've got a 15-year-old and we never got around to saving for their college. that's when i go to work. we talk, we start planning. we can fix this. when clients walk out of my office they feel confident about their retirement. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

welcome back. if you're just joining us, here's the latest news you need to know right now. first this hour's breaking news. president obama has called a news conference for 11:15 eastern time tomorrow morning. he will open with a statement about rising gasoline prices. oil closed lower today, although still over 100 to $200 a barrel. the "new york times" says it happened in a heavy shiite region of the country and at least three protestors said to be wounded. today gabrielle giffords' office confirmed that she will be at the space shuttle launch of her husband, officer kelly. we'll cover the officer's gunshot wounds. the with the wants to make a statement about gas prices. but first, live to wisconsin. the governor wins a key round in his battle with public employees' unions. they say this fight is far from

over. on the run. even futures and forex. complex options? done. the market shifts... i get an alert. thank you. live streaming audio. advanced charts. look at that. all right here. wherever "here" happens to be. mobile trading from td ameritrade. number one in online equity trades. announcer: trade commission-free for 30 days, plus get up to $500 when you open an account.

when you're a stunt woman, work can be pretty unpredictable. from knowing when my next job will be to what i'll actually be doing. so in the rest of my life i like control. especially in my finances. that's why i have slate with blueprint. i can make a plan to pay off everyday things and avoid interest, or pay down my balance faster on the big stuff. that saves money. with slate from chase, i have everything under control... ♪ ...financially. announcer: debit card control and credit card flexibility. get both with slate.

ilts an understatement to say it's been a wild day at wisconsin's state house. they passed a controversial bill that strips public employee unions of most of their public bargaining rights. onlookers in the gallery chanted "shame, shame" as the lawmakers filed out. >> shame, shame, shame, shame,

shame, shame, shame. >> it has been chaos all day there, and ed joins us live. i can see the demonstrations still going on behind you. the labor unions lost this round, but they say it's not over. >> how you doing. the pictures there tell the entire story of the day, and you get a sense of just how inflamed the passions here have been in madison, wisconsin throughout the day after senate republican kind of did an end around bypassing a collective bargaining bill that would essentially strip away the bargaining powers of most public sector employees. late this afternoon it was passed out, and now it's on its way to the governor's desk. not sure when that will be signed into law here, but obviously protestors continue to stay out here outside the madison capitol building, and we're joined by brian kennedy, who is with the american federation of teachers here in

wisconsin. brian, your initial thoughts on what's gone on here today? >> what we've witnessed today san absolute travesty. these republicans and governor walker have taken a baseball bat to the head of democracy. they are trying to silence workers and they're doing it for one reason and one reason only, and that is because they want to deliver this state to the republican nominee in 2012. senator fitzgerald said so on a fox news interview just yesterday. this was never about the money, it was always about silencing the workers so they could monopolize the political agenda for the next few years. >> what do you think this will do to the strike? there has been essentially a lot of talk that it's union busting. do you think that's what's going to happen in reality when you see how this bill will kind of play out in real life, if you will? >> well, you know, we don't have to bargain contracts to show the strength of our movement. what we're seeing, and you can see the thousands of people that have crowded into this capitol building, the crowds that are

behind us. what you're seeing right now is something that is transcending the labor movement. this isn't about labor unions anymore. this is now about the faith communities involved, this is about immigrants rights groups, farmers, agriculturicultural mo. the workers want a voice, and we are not going to stop until we've recalled every one of these republican senators and have restored the voice of the workers. >> if i could just jump in for one second. mr. kennedy, you talk about recalls. what we're seeing is elections have consequences, and republicans would not be able to do this if they had not had big gains this year, not only winning the government seats but federal seats as well. do you feel like you'll have reelections before 2012? >> there are polls out already that are showing us an overwhelming majority of the

people want to recall their senators. and as for what the wisconsin voters supported in november, they never once advocated their rights. they never once supported having the people -- having these folks take away our rights. that's not what we voted for. and i think their agenda i thin becoming much more evident. >> bryan kennedy, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> reporter: bryan kennedy with the american federation of teachers in wisconsin. back to you. >> ed, thank you, we'll keep in touch. let's continue the conversation. with me is joel kline, veteran political correspondent for "time." we've known each other a long time, i'll say this on national television. you wrote a remarkably reasonable column about this a couple of weeks okay. >> reasonably, no. >> i'm joking. but this is a -- we talk a lot about wisconsin because it's an amazing battle that's going on there. but this is playing out across the country. and democratic governors need concessions from the unions, republican governors need them, they may be going about it with different tactics.

you wrote this on february 24, "the existing arrangements between government and its employees clearly need a profound overhaul. but the idea that americans return to the mythic stability and prosperities of 40 years ago without a well-paid middle class including public employees seems a very dangerous experiment to undertake." call it a dangerous experiment. but is -- it is an experiment in different ways, popping up coast to coast. >> yeah. oh, yeah. when you look around the world, you know, all the turmoil we've been seeing in the middle east, it's because they don't have a solid, stable middle class. the way we got one was through the gains of labor unions, from the 1930s to the 1950s. our most stable period, the 50s to the 70s, was because of that. but -- but what we have here is not traditional labor versus managements. that's where you have the forces of capital against the forces of labor. here you have the force of labor against the force of the public. and against politicians who they

can help elect or not elect. they have an unfair advantage, and they've taken advantages of it over the years. what you've seen happen is that while the pay isn't really what it should be for government workers, because the politicians didn't want to bust their budgets and raise taxes, they gave lots of concessions when it came to pensions, when it came to health care benefits, and when it came to work rules. the whole seniority system that the teachers have. >> right. >> and that's what has to be overhauled. >> and you see live protesters here. this fight is going to go on in wisconsin, and again, it's happening in ohio, happening in indiana, happening in california, new york, new jersey. different in each state. but the basics are the same. dpofs lo governors looking for money in state employees' pension and health care plans. you spent time reporting on libya and the u.s. options in libya, you've been back and forth to the region many times over the years. you were listening earlier, david gergen and fran townsend were here, making a passionate case that they think since the

president has said gadhafi must go, that he has to fwak back it and at the moment support the opposition which is routed. >> the president hasn't said gadhafi must go, but i disagree with him completely. i think that this is a civil war where we don't know either side. david said that gadhafi was a major dictator. he's not. he's a minor tin horn egregious, awful dictator. but it's a small country. it's a sideshow. middle east diplomats said today what happens in libya, stays in libya. what happens in egypt affects the whole region. and instead of spending our billions on more military activities in libya, what we should be doing is organizing the region to have a development fund to provide jobs for those kids who are in the streets in egypt, so that six months or a year from now they're not back in the streets again supporting the muslim brotherhood. >> and take the heat, so be it

then if people are saying you're being weak or passive? >> right. john mccain, if a tree falls in the forest, he wants to bomb it. i think that, you know, that -- that we have to be reasonable here, and we have to understand that every time the united states takes military action in an islamic country, it's to our debt. >> a remarkable debate that will be going on for weeks. you're going to the region? >> soon. yeah. when we come back, the biggest domestic fall from the crisis, the gas cries us. the president will driaddress t tomorrow. we'll show you why next. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 but the moment they had my money? nothing. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no phone calls, no feedback, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no "here's how your money's doing." tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i mean what about a little sign that you're still interested? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 come on, surprise me! tdd# 1-800-345-2550 [ male announcer ] a go-to person to help you get started. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 regular detailed analysis of your portfolio. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 for a whole lot of extras at no extra charge,

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 [ male announcer ] an everyday moment can turn romantic anytime. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away.

[ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, like the other stuff, diet snapple has healthy stuff. [ horn honks ] and tasty stuff. we just took out the calories and stuff. so who comes up with this stuff? i do. ooh! now who wants some free stuff? [ all ] me! snapple. the best diet stuff on earth. but you can still refinance to a fixed rate as low as 4.75% at lendingtree.com, where customers save an average of $293 a month. call lending tree at... today. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief

for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. and celebrex is not a narcotic. when it comes to relieving your arthritis pain, you and your doctor need to balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, including celebrex, may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you've had an asthma attack, hives, or other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor about your medical history and find an arthritis treatment that works for you. ask your doctor about celebrex.

and, go to celebrex.com to learn more about how you can move toward relief. celebrex. for a body in motion. we told you the president has scheduled a news conference for 11:15 in the east tomorrow morning in washington. we're also told by our sources tonight that he will open with a statement about rising gas prices in the united states. i'm told by several sources the president's political team has told him this issue is registering in the country, rising gas prices, far more than the budget squabbling in washington. far more than the libyan political crisis itself. why is it such an issue? well, you know this -- because you've been paying it at the pump. we've been talking about this the last couple of weeks. the libya crisis starts here. look, up go the prices. down a little today, but crude oil closing about $102 a barrel now. it's been over $100 a barrel for several days. that's a problem in the market. what does that do? crude's over $100, gas at the

pump goes up. look at that spike the last couple of weeks. $3.52 on average now for a gallon of regular unleaded. you know that as you've been filling up. now, where you live makes a big difference in what you pay. this map shows essentially gas prices across the country. the darker the state the higher at the pump. california, high gas tax, you're up in the $3.94 range. the lighter states, maybe you're paying $3.20 at the pump. ar watch how this changes. what about how wealthy are you. if you look at the difference here, again, look at mississippi. 13% on average of income goes to gas. only 5% of income in the state of new york. now that's a big difference because, look, new york has the higher gas prices than mississippi. but mississippi's a poorer state. so if you look out here in these heartland states here, you start getting into the purple, the price of gas is beginning to have a bigger impact on the family budget. the proportion of the money you have to spend on other things. that is why the president will open tomorrow saying he understands gas prices are on the rise. he'll try to