At some point, one assumes that politicians would remember that everything is recorded these days and that in order to not appear hypocritical, they must address what has been said when it stands starkly against what they are doing.
Such is the case with President Obama and the actions in Libya. Like RedState's own Moe Lane, I too have had a difficult time deciding where I stand on the current action given that the President would need to have outlined an objective of some sort in order for me to know if I'm for or against it.
Objectives aside however, there is no doubt what is taking place as a practical matter: We as a nation are now committed to a military course of action against this evil dictator.
As a conservative, I've always had an immediate dislike of the phrase "War is never the answer." Sometimes, frankly, war is the only answer given the options that may exist. This is also the case when Democrats make such absolute statements like "we cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war." In reality, there certainly can be situations where we can and should do just that. Our Commander-In-Chief held a different view not too long ago when the political winds blew in the direction of anti-war.
In fact, according to Obama, "No amount of U.S. soldiers -- not 10,000 more, not 20,000 more, not the almost 30,000 more that we now know we are sending-- can solve the grievances that lay at the heart of someone else's civil war."