An air tight case that reads like a Bam! Bam! Bam! indictment.
The entire article is a great read, here is the link and some highlights.
Obama's Fatal Attraction to War
It's a good thing we didn't elect John McCain in 2008. A McCain victory would have meant an escalation in Afghanistan, a third war in the Middle East, and a president sending U.S. forces into harm's way heedless of public opinion or congressional power.*****
Instead, we elected Barack Obama, who firmly rejected military action for purely humanitarian reasons. In his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war, Obama insisted that though Saddam Hussein "butchers his own people to secure his own power," the war was unjustified.
Hussein, he pointed out, "poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors" and "can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
Obama's defenders insist that what he did in starting the Libya war is not as bad as what President George W. Bush did in starting the Iraq war. True: In some ways, what Obama did is worse.While it is a country of peripheral value to the U.S. Libya is very important to France and Britain. Here you have an actual "Blood for Oil" war and no one will call it that. It is all about keeping access open to the close by (read cheaper) brand of oil that they have become addicted to. Hell! Britain gave back the Lockerbee bomber back to have access to that oil. All that for naught? Not if they can get the U.S. to help stop it!
Bush made the case for removing Hussein over months. Bush got approval from Congress. Bush acted against a dictator who aspired to acquire nuclear weapons. He invaded a country of large strategic value. He stated plainly the purpose of the invasion.
Obama did none of those things. He rushed into a war, ignoring Congress, to punish a ruler who had abandoned his nuclear ambitions, in a country of peripheral importance.