how can the issue be discussed without mentioning the uprising in egypt? libya was mostly opportunistic. i understand paul's confusion in regards to the timing, but it just had to do with a window of opportunity.
a more interesting question is why he wasn't bombed previously. why wasn't there an invasion as far back as lockerbie? even clinton could have theoretically pulled this one off without a duck in approval ratings. but it was tactically problematic, because removing ghadaffi would no doubt destabilize egypt - something that the israelis and americans alike had no stomach for. similarly with syria.
but with both egypt and tunisia already in chaos, the argument against destabilizing the region no longer applied. rather, the window of opportunity could not be ignored. peace through coercion became secondary to an easy kill. remember: these people aren't liberals that use force as a last resort, but rather predators that resort to diplomacy when force is unlikely to be successful. so, the imminent invasion that had been put off for decades was activated.
the russians have been clear that this pissed them off. the way the americans did it showed a complete lack of respect for their ambitions. as we see repeated in syria and now ukraine.
i think there's also something to say about saudi ambitions. he speaks of france, but we know who france speaks for. the other side of libya is algeria, a country we do not hear much about but that may pose a natural boundary in the western extent of saudi influence.
but, it was mostly an opportunistic kill. like the vultures they are....