I supported it in Libya
I did not support it in Libya
>" In 2011, President Obama decided to commit U.S. forces to participate in a NATO-led operation to effect a regime change in Libya. He did so without seeking the prior approval of Congress, which I felt was a clear violation of the War Powers Act, since the stated purpose of our intervention was to prevent an impending humanitarian crisis. I was deeply opposed to our involvement because Muammar Gaddafi had been cooperating with the United States in the War on Terror and the violence, that had erupted in Libya, was largely due to tribal tensions. Regime change was accomplished, but the fall of the Libyan government created a vacuum of power that has, in part, been filled by radical Islamists. I fail to see how attacking Libya served the vital security interests of the United States. "<
I can almost guess who's on Obama's hit list for regime change after Assad is gone.
Like it or not, Gaddafi has been or correctly was an American ally since 2003 on fighting against Al Qaeda. Who do you think was conducting enhanced interrogations of captured Al Qaeda for the CIA ?
Since Obama has refused to capture the Al Qaeda leadership and fighters, Obama had no need for Libya. As a couple of CIA whistle blowers warned back in 2012 that Obama has been working off of the intelligence that was gathered during the Bush administration and that intelligence on Al Qaeda was drying up fast.
The regime change in Libya was all about renegotiating a cheaper contract for Libyan oil. That's why the Frogs and Italy wanted regime change, for cheaper oil.
Obama's reason for regime change in Libya were different. Read "Dreams From My father."