[Hoot Gibson]

Ahh come on man, you know better than that crap. That's not the "definition of war".

Now that obviously looks like a reach to try to blame Pres Obama and his administration with something. We weren't killings any rebels, we were asked for help by the "rebels", and we provided that help along with NATO. Not all civilians were/are rebels. Throughout the war, the term "rebels" was most commonly used to describe the fighters that were part of the Libyan resistance.

Saying the United States was at war with Libya is not really correct...we were fighting Gaddafi's Army, the Libyan Army, but we did not recognize Gaddafi's regime as the leaders of Libya, the NTC took over that role. So, does it really make sense to just simply say "the United States was at war with Libya"? I don't think so, if anything, it was "NATO was involved in armed conflict in Libya".

The only rebels and civilians NATO killed were incidental. That kind of stuff happens when rounds and bombs come into play. Small numbers of civilian casualties because of NATO strikes sounds alot better than Gaddafi's troops shelling a city indiscriminately for 3 days and kilyling many more civilians. Good trade to me.

I did not mean to imply that the deaths of Libyan civilians was deliberate but friendly fire deaths are a part of war. Libya was a sovereign nation, Gaddafi was its head of state, and Gaddafi's army was Libya's army. We inserted ourselves into a civil war, the outcome of which would have been quite different without our military intervention. I don' see how you cannot call what happened in Libya war.

The issue of whether Obama violated the War Powers Act does not hinge on whether Gaddafi posed a serious threat to our military. Deliberately attacking amd killing the troops of a sovereign country is an act of war, regardless of the justification.