The United States launches a Tomahawk missile. Photo via WIkipedia.The decision to launch air strikes on Libya has been widely criticized, for a wide variety of reasons, by a wide variety of ideologically disparate politicians. President Obama’s Libyan intervention has been called too sudden and not sudden enough, as well as too forceful and not forceful enough. On this fifth day of Odyssey Dawn, let’s review these criticisms. Too soon:

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said. It’s not even disputable, this isn’t even a close question. Such an action—that involves putting America’s service men and women into harm’s way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy—is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone.”

Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY): “It doesn't matter that the U.S. is not taking the lead. So what? We are still using U.S. military forces [...] the fact that other countries are doing it to are irrelevant. This act was unconstitutional.”

Not soon enough:

Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “He [President Obama] waited too long, there is no doubt in my mind about it. But now, it is what it is. We need now to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that it didn’t—we didn’t act much more quickly, and we could have.”

Former United Nations ambassador and Fox News pundit John Bolton:“Had America intervened in the opening days of Libya’s conflict, such a prompt and decisive move could have tipped the balance in the opposition’s favor. By thus demonstrating to Qaddafi’s loyalists he had no hope of retaining power, we might have ended his regime with far less risk of casualties and protracted engagement than we face today. Instead, by dithering for a month on whether to use force, Obama raised both the risks and the grave consequences of failure or stalemate.”

Too much:

Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN): “Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people. But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.”

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): “Unless there’s a clear and present danger to the United States of America, I don’t think you use U.S. forces in North Africa in what is the equivalent of a civil war.”

Not enough:

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ): "I’m afraid it may well be too little too late, in which we get the worst of all worlds: We intervened, but to no good effect. I hope and pray that it’s better. There are ways that we could resurrect the situation, but it would involve more activity on the part of the United States than I think would have been required initially.”

Former United Nations ambassador and Fox News pundit John Bolton: “Obama’s stated objective of ‘protecting innocent civilians within Libya’ is actually more ambiguous than flatly endorsing regime change. As Washington has emphasized for weeks, the most acute threat to Libya’s people is precisely Muammar Qaddafi. How can the civilians be protected while allowing him to remain in power in any part of Libya? Moreover, on Friday, Obama demanded unconditionally that Qaddafi withdraw from three Libyan cities he already controls or where he is engaged. If Qaddafi fails to withdraw, but otherwise observes a cease fire, is Obama really prepared to continue using military force to drive Qaddafi from these cities? And why those cities and not others where Qaddafi has used military force indiscriminately?”

On the other hand, the reliably hawkish New Republic praised Obama.