Reply #1: The administration waited too long to do this. Now it looks like the Rebels will lose

[wisteria]

their battle for democracy, and no country now wants to get on the wrong side of Gaddafi because they will have to suffer along with him and his family's continuing power. If they would have been asked two weeks ago, their answers might of been different.
Frankly, I see this as sad. If there was a dictator that needed to go it was Gaddafi. And, I don't think gaining world support for a no fly zone would have lead to our further involvement, it would have just helped the Rebels more likely achieve their goal of democracy.
Would you have felt the same way if Mubark had not departed with some grace, and America offered further support to the rebel protesters in their bid to oust him from Egypt? You know, many historians would suggest that we would not of won our Independence from England without the help of France, and there were many French leaders who did not want to get involved then to. Is it your suggestion that we turn our back on people asking for our help so they can become free and begin the process of democracy, simply because it might mean we had to get involved?
You also seem to suggest that Senator Kerry was careless in suggesting a no fly zone with global support. And, as I have said before, the Senator is not a careless man, so I doubt he did not give this idea much thought. And, if it would have been acted on quickly, and our Administration would have appeared decisive, we most likely could have persuaded other countries to go along and offer support. Bush didn't have much trouble gaining decent support for his invasion of Iraq, Obama/Clinton/Gates didn't even try, and I have to wonder why. Was it the concern over oil prices? Or maybe they just pick and chose which countries deserve democracies and which dictators should go.