What makes Libya a "smart war" to Obama?

VerumSerum takes us to this Obama speech in 2002 that offers an interesting contrast to events taking place today:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

Replace ‘Iraq’ with ‘Libya’.  Replace ‘Saddam Hussein’ with ‘Moammar Gadhafi’.  

What are the particulars between the Iraqi situation nearly 10 years ago and the Libyan situation today that would make this a “smart war”?

Anyone think Obama will be asked the question?

No Holds Barred
You'll never guess ...