I can't understand what's so different about Libya that it's okay for this administration to support US action against a dictator who threatens and has taken action against his own people in that oil-rich country when it so vehemently opposed US action against another dictator who threatened and took action against his own people in another oil-rich country known as Iraq. Have Obama and his democratic senators changed their minds? Has the increased power and authority brought with it a change in viewpoint?

Otherwise, we now have an international coalition butting in to what amounts to a civil war. In the US civil war, Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward requested that foreign governments consider it an internal insurrection that required nor requested foreign involvement (though Southern President Jefferson had hoped that the British would get involved and side with the southern states for lack of cotton). If this is a Libyan civil war, I think it deserves the same respect we requested of other foreign governments during our civil war (and I can recognize the rebels celebrating the recent coalition strikes in Libya, but did they officially ask for that?). Or, could it be that the thirst for oil and rising gas prices has forced the hand of world leaders to get involved (cotton, anyone)?

So, what's so different this time?