Does anyone have a pertinent answer for him?
I think someone does:
As usual, it’s the OIL, stupid!
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald summarizes why no decent person should support what NATO is doing to Libya:
No decent human being would possibly harbor any sympathy for Gadaffi, just as none harbored any for Saddam. It’s impossible not to be moved by the celebration of Libyans over the demise of (for some at least) their hated dictator, just as was the case for the happiness of Kurds and Shiites over Saddam’s. And I’ve said many times before, there are undoubtedly many Libya war supporters motivated by the magnanimous (though misguided) desire to use the war to prevent mass killings (just as some Iraq War supporters genuinely wanted to liberate Iraqis).
But the real toll of this war (including the number of civilian deaths that have occurred and will occur) is still almost entirely unknown, and none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday’s events. Shamelessly exploiting hatred of the latest Evil Villain to irrationally shield all sorts of policies from critical scrutiny — the everything-is-justified-if-we-get-a-Bad-Guy mentality — is one of the most common and destructive staples of American political discourse, and it’s no better when done here.
What kind of a guy Moammar Gaddafi is, is not the real issue. Neither is what kind of government Libyans want, sadly. The NATO alliance has tacitly supported Gaddafi in the past, and it has also supported far, far worse than him. The real issue, as always, is the OIL. And the bad US policies surrounding it, which Glenn Greenwald hints at and Ed Markey states outright.
And that, in a nutshell, is why you won’t catch me joining the latest round of premature, disgusting triumphal roaring. It is no less despicable when one party does it than when the other does.