The role of the United States in the Libyan revolution is a difficult issue. Do we have the right to intervene? Do we have the duty? What are our responsibilities, as a superpower and as a member of the global community? These are thorny questions, and most of those who oppose a military response are giving them the respect and thought they deserve. These people are not.

The National Review's Mark Krikorian

You may remember Mark from: When he spent a day wondering why Hitler didn't have a sexier girlfriend.
Why Mark opposes intervention: Bombing Libya makes us look weak because President Obama was reportedly influenced by female advisers.
Key quote: "It was obvious to most of us that Hillary has more, uh, stones than Obama, but to have it confirmed so publicly for less-attentive foreign goons means they're that much more likely to try to push us and see how The One responds."
Wait, what: "Rather, Obama's pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in."
Did he just: Yes.'s Frank Gaffney

You may remember Frank from: When he claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the Department of Homeland Security.
Why Frank opposes intervention: After Libya, President Obama is going to invade Israel next.
Key quote: "What I find particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Qaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel."
Does he really think: "Once again, Team Obama's leading ladies—Mesdames Clinton, Power and Rice—align to support the 'will of the international community.' They exemplify, and are prepared to enforce, the President's willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his hostility towards Israel."
Is he: Yes.

The Nuge

You may remember The Nuge from: "Cat Scratch Fever"
Why The Nuge opposes intervention: Actually, The Nuge's strict isolationism is an intellectually defensible, if immature and unrealistic, position. He just couches it in lots of crypto-racism and eye-rolly machismo.
Key quote: "There is no country in Africa that truly respects freedom or the rule of law. The majority of countries in Africa are in economic ruin because of political corruption and a history ugly with cruel despotism. That's why starvation and disease are rampant. AIDS is projected to kill as much as half the populations of some countries. Genocide is a way of life. There is little light in Africa."
Wow, what an asshole: "Africa isn't called the Dark Continent for no reason. Africa has forever been a political nightmare full of overt corruption, tribal warfare, genocide, murderous regimes and brutal dictators."
Jesus, at least Joseph Conrad could formulate a sentence: "Africa is an international scab."
Didn't you say there was eyerolly machismo: "If the real goal of the United Nations is to topple the Libyan leader, kill him and all his henchmen. Flatten the area of Tripoli where it is believed he is holed up with a human shield surrounding him. Kill all those people and get it over with. Implement total war for a week, and cockroach Gadhafi will be entombed in a pile of rubble. Because we won't implement total warfare, we run a real risk that he will remain in power."
"Cat Scratch Fever," though: Yeah.