Aside from the fact that I don't understand why the neocons are suddenly so against this action in Libya when they've been so trigger-happy the past dozen or so years...
Didn't the President work through the UN, who with a consensus took the action? Didn't he meet with members of Congress the day before the action and briefed them on what we were going to do?
Sure, Mike. Obama isn't Bush. Like Dean said, Bush invaded Iraq based upon a lie. Didn't Bush invade Iraq after ignoring the UN? Didn't Bush invade Iraq single-handed like the sheriff of the world?
Didn't Bush invade Iraq in violation of the UN Charter and our very own laws?
How many thousands and thousands of lifes in Libya have been saved?
I'm trying to think which one of those lines you wrote you might be correct on...
As far as NeoCons go, Obama is now one of them.
The debate over going in to Iraq lasted a year. It was a debate with the public, in the media, and with both houses of Congress. There UN resolutions, Use of Force approved by the Congress, a national interest at stake (whether you think it's a "lie" or not) and overwhelming public support. You may have disagreed with going in (as did I) but the administration dotted it's i's and minded it's p's and q's.
As far as your humanitarian question, how many lives have been saved... that's the weird one for me. I heard Ghaddafi's threat as one against the rebels, not just a promise of mindless innocent slaughter (although Ghaddafi is capable of mindless innocent slaughter). I think there is a real argumnent to be made that there might be some circumstances in which humanitarian intervention might be justified. But I just didn't see it in this case. Ghaddafi was threatening the rebels and we intervened in a civil war. As long as your happy with fighting this war to the finish and staying there to fix what we broke...
