Mav, I agree 100% with most of what you were saying in this post. The idea of the U.S., particularly when being led by two old oil men, going to war against the oil states of the Middle East is ludicrous. And yes, the politicians' use of the word war is distressing, but good sense, absolute truth, and levelling completely with the public are always the first victims of a jingoistic campaign, and that's what too many people in DC are up to now.

On the same post, a little correction. Bush does not have the power to declare war on his own. By the terms of the U.S. Constitution, war can formally be declared only with the consent of the Congress. The last time a U.S. president asked congress to declare a war was Dec. 8, 1941, when FDR began his speech to a joint session with the now-immortal words, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy ..."

In any case, it is most unlikely that Bush or any other president will ever again ask for a formal declaratin of war. To begin with it isn't necessary. As commader in chief of the military, a president has wide discretion to take such actions as he sees necessary for the defense and protection of the nation, and he need not consult Congress, although there is usually some consultation, at least with the leaders. And he can always get a sprecial resolution from Congress, as Bush has done, and as LBJ suckered Congress into with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Secondly, a formal declaration and resultant state of war has serious legal consequences. For starters, much insurance coverage would be voided. So the "war" will officially be a "police action" or some such nonsense.