When the President Has a (D) Next to His Name - Bombs Away!

The New York Times editorial page has chimed in on the Libyan War. They support it, but are having a difficult time distinguishing it from the Iraq War (they never mention Iraq, but it hangs over the piece). Clearly, they've yet to figure out a way to differentiate the two. Here is their closing paragraph:

There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly — not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world. 

That argument could be applied to the Iraq War, couldn't it?

I'm still waiting for a supporter of the Libyan War to explain his continuing opposition to Iraq. I have yet to find an adequate way of differentiating the two - aside from the political party of the president in office at the start of each conflict. After all these years, is opposition to the Iraq War grounded in partisan politics?