Obama is demented - he lets a Democrat Congress dictate the entire substance of his signature domestic proposals, but where the Constitution specifically mandates congressional approval for war, he bothers not even to check in with them.

I'm actually surprised more Democrats are not speaking out about the usurpation of their legislative power.

IMPEACH.

And they're on yet another vacation.

Words are weighty when one with works. If no works follow, he's just another Washington windbag.

So far I like Rand Paul.

"Watch and wait, Mr. Smallweed," my friend Mr. Tulkinghorn used to tell me.

I already posted this comment on the "Killing One's Own," article, but it relates here as well:

I was one of the "guns-blazing" supporters of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In hindsight, my opinion has drastically reversed seeing how these conflicts have carried on.

I never bought into the so-called, "faulty intel," argument the Left stood behind. It was weak and altogether false, given the Demwitocrats all supported the war initially, and Iraq did have WMDs, at the very least, the materials to assemble them. (The reporting that our military found substantial caches of yellow cake went largely silent in the press, but the truth did surface for those who cared to listen.)

The problem with our military interventionism is 3-fold:

1) We cannot foster American Democratic ideals in any country.

This is where Bush, and nearly every administration policy after WWII, has gotten it wrong. We should have learned this lesson from our own revolution. It was an idea, a great experiment, unique in history, Divinely inspired, and born out of a series of grievances from the population. The French were instrumental allies, but the French did not waft in on their ships and promote independence amongst the colonies. The American Revolution was an idea, long before it ever became a reality. Smart, reasoned thinkers, argued over our Republic all through the war, and long after. "Spreading democracy," is a false notion.

2) We cannot police the world, we CAN protect our interests (protecting free shipping lanes, allies, etc.).

Following the first point, America cannot interfere (militarily) in the affairs of other nations, no matter how bloody they become, unless that nation is an ally. This second point is the most difficult for me, because no moral person wants to see the wholesale genocide by one of these madmen. Unfortunately, the sad reality is this more common than not. The only interventionist exception to this rule should be undertaken by an equal coalition of freed peoples- that's what the United Nations was supposedly designed for. Americans cannot be the overwhelming force of the operation, precisely because of what we are seeing happen in Libya today. Where is the so-called Arab League who cried out for the "no-fly" zone? They should be at the tip of this sword, not us! As a consequence, we are again used as pawns and scapegoats... the BIG bad USA, tyrannical and imperial.

3) We cannot be mired in never-ending conflicts without a plan of victory.

When we fight a war, we need to fight a war to WIN! What is all this staying around in countries for decades? We need to destroy the enemy entirely, regardless of where they hide, or how many human shields they hold up. War is a serious and unfortunate business, that is why the criteria for getting involved in one must be set VERY high. The POTUS should be made to make the case before the peoples' house, Congress, prior to any war declaration, or military asset being committed- unless there is an imminent threat to the shores of the United States (see War Powers Resolution).

Due to the unique nature of the current bad guy, terrorism, we must have a set policy. If a country harbors terrorists, and we are attacked by them (depending on the degree of attack, or loss of life- a nuclear explosion in an American city, demands an immediate retaliation), we must first allow their government to bring them to justice, and crack down on camps. If the host country is a state sponsor, we hold that government directly responsible. And by responsible, I mean the government is just as culpable for American deaths as the terrorists- this includes the Saudis. In both instances, state sponsored, or not, we must hold the government responsible. No more playing around with these guys. They mean business and so should we.

All that said, Obama's "waiting" for a coalition, was not a strong enough reason to enter Libya. He did not have the approval of the American people, who must always come first. He did not have a strong enough case to embroil our nation in another conflict. Where was the imminent threat to America?

If we handled these guys from a position of strength, if we practiced what we preached, their would be very few "strong horses" in the Middle-East (and elsewhere) looking with "imperial" eyes on the world.

Whoa, I guess the term "Tea Party" if not the actual movement has been coopted by the likes of Rand Paul.

Of course a Tea Party is an activity, not a group of people, even if some of the people who participated in the activity (doing what, again?) also voted for Rand Paul or others who caucus with him.

But I hope most of the informed and concerned people who were (and will be?) involved in Tea Party rallies are aware that the President is authorized by the Constitution to command the military (that's the Commander in Chief bit.) The constitution grants the funding of Armies (for no more than 2 years at a time) and a Navy to Congress, who has seen fit to keep a standing army for quit some time. While only congress can declare war, the War Powers Act (approved by Congress in 1793) clarifies that the President has 60-90 days in which to act, but that he must notify congress of troop movements into hostile territory within 48 hours.

The only stretch you could make is that it's not clear whether that last clause has been fulfilled, but since Congress has not protested ignorance of troop movements, I'll assume it has been so apprised if any troops are on the ground in Libya.

A "Declaration of War" has more to do with the powers granted to the president, etc. than with the act of blowing things up, killing people, or deploying troops.

It's not as relevant to who you're attacking, as to the internal political & legal system of the United States.

It signals the ability to set up military tribunals, declaration of martial law, conscription, spending without budgetary constraint, nullification of treaties, calling of alliances, etc.

Be sure you know what you're getting when you ask for it.

The War Powers Act of 1973 states that the President can use US military force for defensive action for 60 to 90 days without congressional approval and must inform congress within 48 hours.

Are we defending ourselves from Lybia?

I think a better use of the War Powers Act right now would be to secure the Mexican border.