Guardian's worthless leader?

For what it's worth, some questions on this revealing line from the Guardian leader piece, 'Syria: Russia on the wrong side':

"Does Russia really want to be the global protector of tyrants who turn their guns on their own people simply in order to get one back against the west after the overthrow of a worthless leader like Gaddafi?"

Were those who executed Gaddafi also "worthless" or convenient agents in the removal of someone the west wanted silenced?

Was Gaddafi, the "worthless leader", worthless to Tony Blair and the other western elites who propped him up for years in return for oil, arms and other corporate deals?

In what sense is Tony Blair - a war criminal masquerading as a 'peace envoy' while raking in millions - "worthless" in the eyes of the Guardian?

Would the Guardian ever describe Obama, Cameron or any other western leader as "worthless"?

Is it "worthless" to say that western tyrants have also been adept at turning their state guns on their own (think, Bloody Sunday) as well as foreign people?

Is Russia's refusal to sign the west's Security Council resolution a "worthless" rebuke over Libya if it helps save the lives of more Syrians?

Is this Guardian leader a "worthless" use of words or a worthwhile propaganda message in support of Nato and the warmongering 'interventionists'?

Is any human being "worthless"?

John