The Washington Examiner ponders the brain-lock induced by the execution of Qadaffi:
Does Killing A Dictator Make An Illegal War Legal?
It's actually pretty embarrassing.
Pictured here is a tweet from liberal blogger Markos, of the Daily Kos. It reads: "GOPers who criticized Obama's approach in Libya ... wrong again."
The implication: If you objected to the President for illegally entering a war where vital U.S. interests were not at stake, you were wrong, because we killed Gadafhi. More briefly: Might makes right.
The liberal Center for American Progress made the same unliberal argument in August when Gadhafi lost control of the country, asking on twitter: "Does John Boehner still believe U.S. military operations in Libya are illegal?"
Baffling! Not. But let me answer a question with a question, and I will type slowly so our firned on the left can follow along:
The US got valuable intelligence from Khalid Shekh Mohammed after waterboarding him. Did that make waterboarding him legal?
Let's flash back to March of 2011 when Barry's Excellent Adventure in Libya began. I would say that the gist of the objections was that we had no plan to force a resolution of events, we had no special US interest in ousting Qadaffi now (rather than at any other time in his long reign), and we had no real sense of what the enduing government would look like (It was only later that we learned that Obama planned to mock the War Powers Act).
Here is Ross Douthat on March 16, 2011:
...the lesson of Iraq isn’t that we can’t execute a tactically-successful military intervention. It’s that even the greatest power in the world needs to think long and hard about what happens after the intervention. And National Review’s preferred course promises a very, very long “after” for America in Libya.
Seven months later, Obama's plan to lead from behind, minimize US involvement, and maximize Obama's self-congratulations has borne some fruit. Still open, of course, is the vital question of the nature of the succesor regime.