Do you feel like the Democratic and Republican roles have been switched?

Without sounding like I'm making a sweeping generalization of course. My mother was a democrat and my dad a republican so I grew up hearing both arguments. When Bush went into Iraq and Aphganistan it was under the pretense that we were liberating a country under an evil regime. Obviously there was a lot of back and forth about it being for oil, selfish reasons etc etc.. Many republicans being pro-war many democrats being anti-war. When Obama went into Libya for supposedly those same reasons (liberating a country from tyranny) it seems like the roles were reversed with democrats being pro-war and republicans being anti-war. Isn't this rather hypocritical for both sides? Why are some republicans, who supported the "liberation" of Iraq and Aphganistan suddenly so against the "liberation" of Libya? Both Osama and Sadam were allies of America just as Ghadafi was. Each country has been harsh quelling any type of uprising to the point of cruelty, yet to me it seems the only difference is the president. Maybe I'm used to ping judgement because of political policy rather then political affiliation. Obviously it would make sense if we either liberated all suppressed countries or none, picking and choosing who just doesnt make sense. I guess what I'm wondering is this. Is a presidents political affiliation matter so much to people that they can go from supporting a war in Iraq to condemning a war in Libya? Even if said reasons are supposedly the same? Opinions?