We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
We have had Wilsonian wars before and I have no doubt we will have them again. You can, sometimes, wage Wilsonian war. What you cannot do, at least not yet and probably never, is build a Wilsonian peace.
Woodrow Wilson discovered this almost a century ago.
I think the issue about consulting Congress about the Libyan (or is it Labian? - see below) war is important, but in some ways it might be missing a larger point.
We're fighting AGAINST Gadhafi, which is good, but I don't think there's been enough thought about who we're fighting WITH or FOR. I know I would prefer Gadhafi to al Qaeda. So it wouldn't make me happy if we supported rebels just to have an oil-rich country handed over to a bunch of fundamentalist Islamist head cases who are willing to blow themselves up (and me with them) for a global calafate. Petro-bucks + Narco-bucks makes it that much easier for them and they might not need to blow themselves up.
If we are going to get into this, I think we should be trying to stack the deck of the rebels so our buddies are more likely to be the ones to take over. In fact, we should have been trying to do that for at least the last ten years. With the way we appear to be doing this, we could win (if we actually do win) and still be worse off.