Which is it?

The U.S. House proves again why a 435-member "Not Quite Joint Chiefs of Staff" is less than optimum for designing and executing military policy.

The radically condensed version is that the House "rebuked" President Barack Obama by voting to not sanction his "kinetic military action" in Libya while also voting to not halt its funding.

In truth, most members of Congress leave the impression with the American public, our allies and our enemies that their stance on U.S. military involvement depends on who occupies the White House. In this case, Obama is a Democrat, and many congressional Republicans are taking the hypocritical opportunity to bash him.

That said, it doesn't mean Obama's congressional critics - including more than a few Democrats - are entirely wrong. In fact, the president defied legal advice to offer the obtuse logic that what's happening in Libya equals an absence of U.S. "hostilities" and so is not covered by the War Powers Resolution. By any reasonable reckoning, dozens of fighter-jet sorties and drone strikes are fairly hostile acts.

Instead of straightforwardly seeking a use-of-force resolution, as predecessors have, Obama argues with a straight face that the obvious is not as it appears. This, too, is not leadership.

The Dallas Morning News has backed limited U.S. military involvement in Libya, largely because the Arab League sought international help to enforce a no-fly zone. If U.S. national interests were once dubious, they are no longer. The last thing our country needs is another example of encouraging a dictator's overthrow before looking away.

- The Dallas Morning News