True, which was the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, something that has not produced heaven on earth, but instead trained and continues to train terrorist.1) We have no idea what North Africa, much less Libya, will soon look like
True. But Iraq especially was even more reckless and full of hubris.2) Whatever one thinks about Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not comparable to Libya.
Not entirely true. We showed you back then that he had started doing this long before Iraq. Only the blind partisan sees it as due to Iraq. I believe even Powell debunked that Iraq was the cause.3. Qaddafi surrendered his biological, chemical, and quite surprisingly advanced nuclear programs after the removal of Saddam; had he not (and he probably would not have, without Saddam’s example), who knows what eight years of further development and deployment would have led to by 2011?
Not important. We didn't just decide to invade, as was done with Iraq. Qaddafi was already in a conflict with his people. it was getting bloody. The UN and NATO decided to intervene. The US worked within those confines, unlike Iraq.4) Qaddafi was a monster in rehab who by 2011 posed little strategic threat to the U.S. or its neighbors —
We can start how that might have gone differently, but Afghanistan is not where Bush lost his mind. Iraq was. He'd have fared much better if he had stayed their.The Taliban, in contrast, were the hosts of the 9/11 attackers.
A bit of a misrepresentation. Much of the concerns were declared dealt with after Clinton's bombings. Your side always leaves that out. And not of that talked called for invading. It is not the natural conclusion that concerns equal invasion.Worries about Saddam were expressed in the 20-something writs passed by both houses of Congress in October 2002, after an earlier regime-change resolution passed in the Clinton era. There is no comparable legislation regarding Libya.
With NATO, still far more than with Iraq, which is why there wasn't the UN uproar.5) As far as authorization goes, it too is problematic: True, we got U.N. approval for Libya, unlike Iraq, but only to conduct a no-fly-zone and offer humanitarian assistance. Almost immediately we exceeded that —
As well we all should have opposed. And Most of us still do. The hypocrisy is on your side in changing position.6) Friedman is right in saying that Republican leaders have a hard time admitting Obama’s anti-terrorism successes. But why is that? Perhaps because Obama was once a fierce critic of nearly all the Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — the Patriot Act, tribunals, renditions, preventive detention, Guantamo, Iraq — at a critical time when such political opposition almost ended them altogether, on the premise they were either amoral or ineffectual or both. But mirabile dictu, President Obama adopted or vastly expanded almost all of them,