Against Attacking Iraq, But for Attacking Libya

Some conservatives have pointed out what they believe to be hypocrisy on the part of liberals who support Obama's attack on Libya, while being against the war in Iraq. I am one of those on the left, although only marginally so, who supports intervention in Libya, while still believing that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, and I don't think I'm a hypocrite for doing so. When I would argue with conservatives about the merits of the Iraq war, they would ask me, "do you think Saddam Hussein should stay in power?" and I would say no. So then they would ask me how I expected him to be removed if not by other countries invading, and I would say, there was a perfect opportunity for Saddam to be overthrown when Iraqis themselves, Kurds to be more specific, rose against him after having been specifically instructed to do so by George Bush Sr. and CIA operatives. That would have been a great time to take out Saddam's forces from the air, without invading, and allowing Iraqis to gain control of their own country for once.

Now some argue that the war is not constitutional, and they may have a point. Obama did not successfully gain explicit congressional authorization for the attack on Libya, and his defense that American soldiers are not being put in harms way, therefore America is not really at war, is, I admit, quite a stretch. But the same fucking day, a bill that would deny Obama the funds he needs to carry out the operation in Libya was also voted down, and that vote included a significant number of Republicans, some of the very same Republicans who denied authorization for the operation that they then voted to fund. This proves to me that the protest against the attack on Libya is nothing more than an act.