"(For shame, Barbara Boxer.)"

No, wait a second. You mean for shame, first and foremost, on "Independent PWOGWESSIVE" Bernie Sanders.

Comparing Qaddafi to the U.S. is like comparing an elementary school bully to the town mafia don.

"...here in the good old US of A, the crisis is crystallizing a massive discontent that could turn, at any moment, into a massive populist upsurge replicating – and even intensifying – the furious energy we have seen unleashed on the streets of Cairo."
We saw the extent of how far any rebellion in the U.S. will go in Wisconsin. Out into the streets and right back into the Democratic Party. What Justin won't mention in his columns is that labor organizing rights appear to be headed in opposite directions in the U.S. and Egypt. Egyptian labor appears headed in the direction of finally winning organizing rights, while in the U.S. labor appears on the verge of losing organizing rights.

The reason for the global economic crisis is that the global economy has been destroyed by the expropriation of the global economic surplus by the usurer class by way of extortionate fees, interest and rents. The vulgar libertarian defenders of the "free-to-extort-market" believes these economic policies are wonderful, while pretending to oppose them rhetorically. Whenever their policies are implemented and prove disastrous, like utility deregulation in the U.S., they always publicly disown them, claiming that the policy wasn't really what they had in mind.

"This “sense of the Senate” resolution was voted down, 90-10, by the Democratic-controlled body, with not one Democrat voting for it...."
So now we know what the loss of Feingold meant to the Senate. Only a dent in the pro-monarchy majority. The vote would have been 89-11 if he was still there.

Of course, this also demonstrates the complete lack of principle among the Democratic critics of George W., including "pwogwessive" fraud Bernie Sanders, who voted against this resolution. We all knew this from the experience of the last great Liberal Humanitarian Crusade In Kosovo.

Alexander Cockburn's take on Rand Paul last year was right on. Not a snow ball's chance in hell the Democratic jurist Paul ran against would have voted for, much less co-sponsored, this resolution.

The West in hates Qaddafi and current events has given Western powers the cover they need to do something they've been wanting to do in Libya for a long time.

A principle is only a principle if it applied all the time. Obama's claim that his military intervention in Libya is motivated by support for democracy and ending the repression there can't be taken seriously, while he is helping repress dissent in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain. We don't let a home invasion thief get away with arguing that he is principally opposed to home invasion robbery because he didn't rob any other home in the neighborhood. Yet look how easy it is to enamor so many people with the "humanitarian intervention" line when a Democratic president decides to flex Washington's military muscle anywhere in the world.

The only principle in Obama's intervention in Libya is the principle that the U.S. government will defend, and attempt to extend, its power in the Middle East and North Africa by military means when necessary. There will be a U.S. military base built in eastern Libya eventually.

Every court has its flatterer and BHL is a recent example of a long standing tradition of spouting words pleasing to the ears of the powerful.

The good news is that many people are catching on to BHL's act:

http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq01272011.html

As far as Justin's contention that a partition of Libya is probably not going to happen, it's worth noting that it really doesn't matter what Obama does now. It's not like most of his liberal supporters are going start organizing mass anti-war demonstrations, a la February '03, and defect to a third party candidate next year. Even if he does break his promise that there will be no American boots on the ground in Libya, it simply ain't going to happen. I mean there is a laundry list of reasons already for a revolt against Obama from the left. If they haven't broken ranks already, then there is no way it is going to happen over Libya. So Obama can do whatever he wants, and not face a fraction of the opposition George W. did while engaged in the same policies.

Yes, Qaddafi is easily the least liked by the West among the Arab despots for doing things that have always drawn Washington's ire. He's just no Mubarak when it comes to playing the game and following orders from Washington.

There is also this urban legend that the bombing of Libya is "sending a message" to the rest of the Arab dictators to stop their long term abuse of their people. As if some kind of principle is being adhered to with this Libya policy. Actually, the repression of protesters around the Arab world is increasing since the bombing of Libya began. The only other Arab dictator who might get the Qaddafi treatment is Assad. Other than him the rest of them don't have to worry about the "humanitarian" interventionists coming to get them.

Don't be so sure that Washington won't go along with a partitioning of Libya. Overthrowing Qaddafi is turning out to be tougher task then expected. It would be so much easier to just split the country in two and get the process of installing a U.S. puppet regime in Benghazi going.

"Libya is but a prelude to a major extension of US power and influence in the region, the first war in a series that will culminate in the final assault on Iran...."

Yes, they will be setting up a permanent military presence in Libya. Difficult to say how and when they would go about attacking Iran. It would most likely come after the election next year, if such an attack were to ever happen.