I'm hardly an American liberal, unless that appelation now applies to libertarians as well. But I can answer.

1. You are factually incorrect. The U.S. played the largest operational role in the air campaign, and by all accounts a major intelligence, diplomatic, and training role. In fact, not long ago Obama was being criticized for maintaining a major U.S. operational role longer than he initially said he would (largely because it turns out the rest of NATO simply lacks the military capacity the U.S. has.) I don't care for the President, but it makes us look petty not to give credit to the extent credit is due. We aren't beating Obama on security policy this election. Deal with it.

2. Yup. Sure did. And got away with it. Personally, I find UN resolutions to be worth about as much as the paper they are written on, and just as effective as a blank sheet of that paper in maintaining international security. However, we should note how this was handled. At every step we were able to manipulate the language of the resolution to justify our operations for our own goals, even while claiming we were in compliance. Smart, leaves your political adversaries at the UN without a solid purchase from which to criticize, and preserves your international political capital for when you need it down the road.

3. Yes. Nice job pointing out that Obama has ordered the deaths of Somali Pirates, Osama Bin Laden, Ayyad Allawi, and other terrorists. I'm sure everyone is going to be really hacked off that this administration has had success in killing America's enemies. You know, if we go into the election with this not only will we fail to beat Obama on it, we'll be helping the Dems make progress towards asserting that THEY are the party of national security.

4. That's not clear at all, in fact. Again, I get why we want to say that, its one of the only lines of attack we have when a president from the other party has this kind of success. There are almost certainly islamist factions within the rebel forces because there are islamists in Libya and any widespread opposition will likely contain elements from every part of the society. But its a long reach from that to "the rebels are secretly planning to set up an islamist state". That's paranoia. And if we are going to be afraid of the success of rebellions against Mid-East dicators because there are some islamists among them, we are making the decision to resign ourselves to supporting Mid-East dictators so long as they aren't islamists.

My point is not to complain, but to highlight that Obama and the Democrats lied for 8 years under Bush. Conservatives were slandered in the most despicable terms for being far more honorable and trustwothy than Obama.

The Left never really meant it, everything they said for 8 years was a lie, Obama is a dirtbag who you can not trust on any issue three seconds after he says it.

It appears I've been successful sounding like the pantywaist, treasonous liberals who mercilessly attacked Bush for 8 years for far less "illegal" actions.

It is ridiculous to try to get around giving Obama credit for Gaddafi's downfall be saying that 'Obama had nothing to do with this because NATO and the "rebels" were in charge.' Who do you think is in charge of NATO? Iceland?

"sic semper tyrannis" -- this to all tyrants. Yes Obama was lame in not admitting the US miltary was participating in the Lybian regime change desired by Euro oil companies, yes Obama and his supporters on the Left are hypocrits of the highest order for facilitaing the same kind of regime change that they called "illegal" in Iraq. Etc Etc. But what's important is an anti-american dictator is gone, and what's most important is Obama now doing the right thing and confronting the Mullahs in Iran, and getting Assad out in Syria. Sic semper tyrannis. If he falls to do that the rest of the Arab world will conclude it's safer to be an enemy of America than a kind of friend or neutral. That would be dangerous.

I am with NK in trying to dredge up some concern for Gadaffi's civil rights and our national reputation, and coming up dry. Live by the torture of your political prisoners and die like a dog in the street, and to blazes with dainty and excruciatingly overwrought philosophical points.

Obama is confronting the mullahs in Iran? Where, and how? You must have a meaning of "confront" different from any commonly understood meaning. He's getting Assad out in Syria? Again, he's doing nothing, so you must mean something that is not meant by the ordinary meanings of those words.

I meant "a trial", but trail works as well, in that his enablers needed him disposed of before a trial led back to them.

So, governments are allowed to kill tyrants who run other governments to protect the phony image of a corrupt plutocracy? Your rationalization is actually worse than I could possibly have imagined from a free people. A blabbering Qaddafi might actually have been good for the liberty of people in Europe as they (increasingly) understand the for-profit nature of their kleptocrat leaders.

My God, listen to yourselves. The ends justify the means. Protect the establishment. We truly are living in frightening times.

"President Obama called for Qaddafi’s ouster early in the conflict and then did nothing about it, never asking Congress for authority to use force, refusing to target Qaddafi himself, and then refusing to acknowledge that he was being targeted when NATO clearly was doing so..."

But I'm sure that we'll see Qaddafi's face in an Obama campaign video at some point before the next election.