Shortly after the first U.S. cruise missiles hit their targets Saturday, the collateral damage became apparent -- not in Libya, but on the home front, where liberal credibility was shattered by President Obama's sudden resort to military action against Moammar Gaddafi's regime. Those who had hailed Obama's ascent as the dawn of a new age of peace, an end to the alleged "cowboy" belligerence of the Bush years, exploded with a mixture of outrage, confusion and chagrin as their hero flung the country into war in North Africa.◼ ‘Too Good a Pleasure to Forego’ - The Other McCain
None was more indignant than Michael Moore....
◼ Obama Goes to War - W. James Antle, III/American Spectator
..."Beam me up, Scotty."...Obama allowed that Saddam Hussein was a "brutal man," a "ruthless man," a "man who butchers his own people to secure his own power," a "bad guy" even. But that did not make Saddam's ramshackle military capability a threat to the United States, Obama argued, and thus did not offer sufficient grounds for war on a country that had not attacked us.◼ Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya. - skynews
How then can these Nobel Peace prize-winning words be squared with the president's decision to bomb Libya? The case for military intervention was based entirely on Muammar Gaddafi being a ruthless man, a bad guy, a man who threatened to butcher his own people to secure his own power.