say. Well Deserved. Edmund, let's not forget that if Bush had not gone into Iraq, we would have had two countries developing nuclear military technology in the Middle East instead of one. I'm sure the left would have argued that would have done a lot to stabilize the region, because they would have canceled each other out. Ye', right. Can you imagine? -- two idiots next to each other with nuclear weapons. "Obama, Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice are launching a humanitarian intervention in Libya because the United States is capable of saving a lot of lives in this situation, Gaddafi was killing his own people, and the United States has been a bystander to genocide and mass murder too many times." So it is 'humanitarian intervention' is it? Obama to the rescue.... 'humanitarian intervention'\'kinetic military action', is this New-speak for war? The other wars were 'bad wars' and this is a 'good war'? Can you tell me why the US is intervening in Libya and not in: Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Myanmar etc...? They all have their despots killing their own people AND most of them are supporting terrorist groups unlike Libya (Reagan took care of that). Are those people not worthy of 'humanitarian intervention'\'kinetic military action' by the US? I call your bluff. "The United States has saved hundreds of thousands of people from being massacred and it, with its allies, is crushing Gaddafi so he will never be able to threaten