AND NEOCONS EVERYWHERE SMILE: Ecstatic crowds in Libya celebrating imminent use of U.S. military force against Gaddafi.

UPDATE: Reader Adam Sullivan emails:

Just pointing out the obvious –

Like the comments in the BBC news section right now where you’d think no one had ever tried to put together a coalition of western democracies to depose an Arab tyrant who was abusing his population. And this one hasn’t even bothered to invade anyone recently.

From those comments one thing is clear – that was one well deserved Peace Prize!

Did these people never hear of Saddam gassing the Kurds, running over Shia with tanks to quell their uprising, or throwing his opponents in chippers?

Guess not.

I suppose that means my support for getting Saddam was “blood for oil” but my support for “Lyberation” is virtuous.

I just can’t figure myself out sometimes.

They told me if I voted for John McCain, we’d be bombing Arab countries while the supporters of the bombing promised that we’d be greeted as liberators. And they were right!

ANOTHER UPDATE: Prof. Stephen Clark writes:

Your reader Adam Sullivan makes raises an interesting point: Those who condemned the use of force against Saddam, but who now praise the use of force against Qaddafi on humanitarian grounds have some explaining to do. Is the difference really a UN resolution – Oh wait, there were 17 UN resolutions on the books, as I recall, the majority of which Saddam had violated, that that would have authorized a resumption of hostilities from the first Gulf War – and one would think provide sufficient cover for any humanitarian intervention. I look forward to the rhetorical contortions to come. Neocons smiling, indeed.

Heh.

MORE: John Steakley emails: “In the interest of fairness and bipartisanship, allow me to defend the President against the ‘Obama Lied’ crowd: He promised to bring the troops home. He never said it wouldn’t be through Libya.”