But I will say a few things on Libya here.
First: while I'm as antiwar as anybody, this is not "America at war". It's another fornicating 'military action', which is not a good thing, but still less than a war.
Second: Please throw all Iraq comparisons out your window. This isn't a pointless, unprovoked invasion. At least, I hope. Obama is much smarter than Shrub.
Third: This really wasn't a military action that was started by America. The UN initiative was more a result of European pressure. Europe is much more dependant on Libyan oil than we are. Prolonged instability of a civil war in Libya would seriously hurt the Euro, so intervention was inevitable. The French and British had no choice.
Fourth: Yes, it is about oil. The tsunami in Japan threw the world in "crisis mode" and any urge to let Libya "resolve itself" became untenable on the world market. Which is why everybody involved will work for a quick resolution. Europe wants stability even more than we do.
Fifth: I do think that Obama has done a fairly good job of walking a fairly fine line. Being cautious is not a bad thing, nor is acting when the time is advantageous.
Sixth: Dear media: Libya is not in the "Middle East"; it is in North Africa. In Fact, Tripoli is the main North African port.
Seventh: Know at least something before you speak: I happened to hear one of the Sunday talkers say "then why aren't we going into Bahrain?" (I forget which one) and I wanted to scream at my TV. The simple reason we aren't "going into" Bahrain is that we're already there. Our Fifth Fleet is based there. I realize this may come as a surprise to some idealists, but we do treat allies of convenience differently than we do 'enemies'.
That's a Tomahawk missile. They cost around a million bucks apiece. We just gave Libya over a 120 of them for "free" if you look at the federal budget. Next time a repub wants to cut anything that helps American people, ask how he feels about giving cruise missiles to foreigners.