pcosmar...
It doesn't declare war on anybody. It is not a "Declaration of War".
OK. You got me there. It doesn't "declare war". However, the short title is "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". I dunno how much stronger the language of a formal declaration of war might be, but this one is pretty unambiguous.
This war has been different than any war in the past. Everything we've ever thought about war has been in the context of one country using it's military against another. Here, we've got jihadis who, with some support from what we call "rogue states", engage in low-level direct warfare and terrorism.
Because the nature of this war is different than anything in the past, the conventions that we previously used to define which countries were at war, who were the legal combatants, what were the rules of war, etc., have flown out the window. If you want a "Declaration of War", you'll have to point to who you believe our enemy to be. There is no
al-Quadia or
Jihadistan on the map. But just because these countries don't exist on a map, and therefore fit into the conventions of what it means to go to war, does not mean that these forces are not our enemies.
To bring this thread back to the topic at hand, I'll support Thompson in a heartbeat. Guys like Ron Paul are why I am now a small "l" libertarian. It is his right to base his platform on the liberty that all libertarians treasure, but IMO, he is failing to recognize that our enemies abroad do not treasure liberty at all, and are willing to impose their views on us. I think that this battle is still very much worth fighting. YMMV.