Would blacks back Bush if he bombed Africa?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As the country and the world at large debate the wisdom of imposing a no-fly zone in the strife-torn North African country, comparisons to former President George W. Bush's still controversial decision to invade Iraq have flown fast and furiously. Naturally, the action has sparked a riveting debate about whether the action in Libya is justified or legitimate. They've also prompted a tremendous amount of angst and soul-searching amongst President Obama's ardent fan base, many of who believed the president they voted for represented a 180-degree turn from his predecessor.

Leaving aside for the moment the jarring inconsistency of a Nobel Peace Prize winner ordering a bombing of a sovereign country, there are obvious questions that beg for answers. Do the president's supporters have reason to feel betrayed? And is the Libya bombing another example of American supererogation? Important similarities and differences between Iraq and Libya should be noted. At least for the moment, the military campaign in North Africa appears narrowly defined. The military action was given the explicit backing of the U.N., an institution to which the president and his base remains unfailingly deferential. And President Obama has made a painstaking (although wholly unconvincing) effort to draw a distinction between humanitarian intervention and unprovoked or
http://t.co/1RVe608 via @theGrio