[Hoot Gibson]

It's not that I'm not trying to call it war, it's that I'm not calling it "war with Libya", because Gadhafi was it's deposed head of state, not the head of state we recognized and granted our support to, just like the rest of NATO did.

NTC have shown nothing but their thanks for U.S. and NATO intervention, they have worked with us fully. How do the rebels actions indicate ANYTHING about what type of government they'll have? They are fighters, not legislators, the leaders of NTC, who have shown nothing but competence throughout this conflict, will in my opinion be as pro-U.S. as possible.

Hoot, not everything that is on the news is put there for a party's advantage...Libya sure as heck isn't being covered so it will be an advantage in the eyes of voters for Pres. Obama and the Dems, and it's not being covered to "show the Obama Admin's problems" or anything else political.

They are refusing to release the Pan Am bomber because he's already been extradited on the basis of bad health! From what I've heard, he's in pretty bad health anyway, and even if he weren't, so what? Is that really what we are going to focus on to try to discredit them?

There is no indication that Libya's leaders are going to "turn against us", or that the ones that actually fought for this would. THEY DO NOT CARE. They cared about Gaddafi being gone, because they were at war with him, if they would've stopped, they all would've died. They want their country, and that's it. They're not worried about America.

"liberal Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure of democracy to take hold in those countries."

^^^That kind of stuff is what you're doing right now man...

And I can't believe that you are really taking up for Gaddafi...who cares if he got executed. He didn't get tortured, he didn't get beheaded and his body dragged through the streets...their mission was to find and kill him. They did just that. If it'd had been our mission, we'd have done the same thing, but he probably wouldn't be recognizable because of all the lead in his facial/upper body area.

Me thinks you are just using this as something you can use against Pres. Obama...the same way when Republican's get asked about it, the first thing they go to is how Obama is/was wrong or whatever. If he was wrong, do something about it the right way instead of the first thing that comes out of your mouth is how wrong our President was, when he wasn't. A government asked for our help, two big allies asked, and we could provide that help with minimum U.S. risk, and we did.

Gaddafi was Libya's head of state when NATO, mostly the US, began air strikes. He was deposed as a result of our aid to Libya. We did not begin supporting the rebels after Gaddafi was overthrown. I am not defending Gaddafi at all. His death was a good thing and I know that it may be a cliche, but the ends do not necessarily justify the means.

There is nothing that you can say that will make the way that Obama personally waged war on Libya without asking for Congressional approval in accordance with the War Power Act. Every president has complied with that law since it was passed, regardless of which party controlled Congress. Bush sought and received approval of Congress, including a Democratic-controlled Senate, before he committed US troops to war in Iraq. He was heavily criticized for the flawed intelligence that resulted in that approval, but the truth is the decision had widespread public support - and that is why the invasion of Iraq received bi-partisan support.

As to the blue passage of your post, you could not be more wrong. As I said before, Gaddafi was the head of the Libyan government when Obama agreed to support the rebels, and the only legitimate government that could have asked for our help was the Libyan government.

I am not anti-war and certainly not anti-military. I have praised Obama for not keeping his campaign promise for the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq and I supported his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. I even support his program of killing terrorists with drone attacks to avoid having to decide which court to try them in. So, as bad as you may want to make my harping on Obama's failure to follow the law during the war on Libya a case of political bias, that dog won't hunt. Had the adventure into the Libyan civil war taken "days not weeks," as Obama promised, then the War Powers Act would not have applied. Once that law's 60-day limit passed, Obama was violating federal law every single day that force was being used in Libya.

When Nixon tried to place himself above the law, both parties slapped him down for it. When Obama does the same thing, Democrats rally around him and say that the law doesn't matter and Republicans hardly make a whimper. Congress has set a dangerous precedent by not making Obama's actions in Libya a bipartisan issue. What really bothers me is that I believe a majority of both Democrats and Republicans would have given Obama the green light had he simply complied with the law and made the case for deposing Gaddafi.