OK, here we go.  My opinion on whether or not we're doing the right thing by getting our military involved in Libya.  But first off ... we need to address four basic truths:

1. It doesn't matter one way or another to virtually anyone how I feel about Obama's little kinetic military action in Libya.  I'm not the one who had to make the decision, and I'm not the one who will have to take responsibility (political and otherwise) for those decisions.
2. All of us, including me, are thankful for Truth No. 1.
   
   
3. In today's partisan atmosphere there is no way someone who supported our forays into Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan can do anything but support The Community Organizer's adventure in Libya without being called a hypocrite.
   
   
4. Most people don't understand the meaning of "hypocrite."  

For the life of me I can't figure out  what strategic interest the United State has getting involved in what is essentially an attempt by the Libyan people to overthrow their government.  So what if they do?  So what if they fail?  Is the situation tragic?  Yup!  Sure is!  Is Ka-Daffy murdering his own people?  Absolutely!  So did Stalin and most of the Soviet leaders who followed him.  So is that strange little gargoyle controlling North Korea.  Hell ... Kim-John-Puck-Face is starving his people to death!  And so did whatever dictator they presently have holding forth in Sudan and Darfur.  They're all murderers.  If we're such humanitarians, why aren't we in there trying to run these bad guys out of town? 

"But," you say .... "What about Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?  You supported those wars, didn't you?  You're right ... I did.  Here's my reasoning (refer to Truth 1 above):  

Kuwait:  Saddam clearly meant for his invasion of Kuwait to clear the way for a push into Saudi Arabia.  Can you spell total and complete interruption of our oil supply?  We had pledged to defend both of these countries.  We met our obligation by pushing Saddam back from Kuwait.

Afghanistan, after 9/11.  The Taliban, then in control of Afghanistan, was providing safe haven for the people who attacked our country on 9/11.  That's all you need to know to justify Afghanistan I.  

Iraq:  First of all ... the action against Iraq was clearly spelled out in several United Nations resolutions.  Saddam promised certain things if we wouldn't taken him out after the Kuwait adventure.  He didn't live up to his end of the deal, and part of that deal was that he would be removed forcefully if he didn't hold up his end of the bargain.  Secondly, there is NO DOUBT that Saddam had what we call "weapons of mass destruction."  He used chemical weapons against his own people!  I've always been a bit puzzled at how progs and libs can get away with this "Saddam had no WMDs" line when everyone who can read a newspaper damn well know he did!    Secondly .. there's the regret matrix.  In dealing with Iraq the question might not have been so much what we had to gain by taking Saddam out of power, but what we might lose if we didn't.  Remember ... after the Iraqi invasion we found components used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and trasis of saran gas in old warheads.  

Afghanistan II.  Here's where I left Bush.  After Saddam was taken out of the picture, I really didn't see the need to commit  more troops to Afghanistan.  But then what do I know?  If the Afghan people want to re-tender themselves to the caring and gentle caress of Taliban leadership, well than good for them.  I don't see where we have a dog in that fight.  If they start playing footsie with Al Qaeda again ... send in the throat-slitters and the cruise missiles.

Now we have Obama and Libya.  Watch, folks.  This isn't going to turn out all that well.