Well you see that was a Republican use of force and it was useful to elect Democrats therefore it was unjustified....

...and this is a Democrat use of force therefore it is justified...you see, because Democrats did it and we're good, you see.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Hat tip Instapundit.

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.

Of course virtually every boot on the ground will be from Red America, not a single faculty member anywhere will risk his precious, cynical, fascist hide.  Obama and the boys give cynicism a bad name.

Hat tip Instapundit