Libya--the Friendly, Liberal War

Daniel Flynn, wickedly droll, explains how America's third war in a Muslim land is qualitatively different than the first two--at least in the minds of Barackists:

...This is a liberal war. Did I say war? I meant “kinetic military action,” or “humanitarian mission,” or maybe “internationally authorized intervention,” or perhaps “time-limited, scope-limited military action” even. Liberals don’t fight wars. They manage “conflicts,” oversee “interventions,” and participate in “actions.” Bullets fly. People die. Just don’t call them wars.

Liberal bombs and missiles are humanitarian in intent. When American ordnance and Libyan people experience their moment of cultural exchange, the Libyans will surely appreciate how well meaning the American policy is. What is “I am from the U.S. government and I am here to help you” in Arabic?
The campaign is multilateral. This is another way of saying France is on board. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which involved a more diverse coalition that included Brits, Poles, Spaniards, and three dozen or so other peoples, was “unilateral.” That’s because the French stayed home.

Sure, Barack Obama bypassed Congress. They’re comprised primarily of conservative rubes now, anyhow. The Constitution? It gives rights to foreign gentlemen imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay; it doesn’t restrain presidential power, at least when the commander in chief is a Democrat. The important thing is that the Obama administration went to the United Nations. Their approval, not Congress’s, affirms the legality of the president’s action...

Furthermore, Obama said that one of his reasons for going into Libya is to make the UN seem "credible"--bar none the lamest, silliest reason ever for Americans getting dragged into a war. Fighting to make the world safe for sharia and jihad it bad enough. Fighting to make the world safe for the UN is downright bonkers.