Whether a single cog in a machine or not, becoming involved in it, supporting it with air strikes, breaking it and then ending up owning it, as SoS Powell stated (yes, the same thing applied to that situation as well), still doesn't 'explain away' Hillary's bad judgement in the matter, especially if the previous administration was excoriated for essentially the same thing in Iraq.
Yes, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 comes into play, but what of all the diplomatic prowess of Clinton to avoid such an obvious mistake in judgement with equally obvious calamitous result, the destabilization of Libya, expansion of ISIS, and yet more Islamic militants running amok killing people in that country and essentially a failed state.
Why not pass on Gaddafi and Libya at least for now (at least at that point in time), until the over all Middle East situation were a bit more stable.
Was it / is it all worth it? Given the other instabilities in the region, prudence would have clearly dictated to leave this one pass for now. A how many fronted war do you want to be fighting?