Is there some specific required language the Constitution requires the Congress to use in order to "declare War"?
If the Congress authorizes "use of force", is that not making war?
The bottom line is that despite large numbers of very influencial people who are anti-war, none of them have gotten a case through the supreme court to halt actions in places from Korea through Vietnam to Iraq.
Under the Constitution, the SC is the arbiter, and obviously it hasn't stopped those actions, so my opinion is that all those actions were authorized. They just may not have used the exact phrase "Declaration of War".
Totally disagree with you on this war. But read your tagline and more than agree. It has got even worse since then. If Dean is the Dem nominee- there is a serious chance even Massachusetts will vote Bush. Dean will be defeated so badly it might even be the death knell of the Democratic Party.
Just a comment on the Democratic party now. When the McGovern faction took over - they were at least still idealistic and believed in their policies and ideology. They don't believe in anything anymore than pure power. Do you think there is one Democrat who actually thinks Federal no frills Welfare is a "good policy"? Or that their support of teacher's unions and their anti choice stances is going to "help kids?" Nope. They don't believe one word they themselves say anymore. I need only point to one example of how easily they betray anything they once stood for- the Impeachment vote and Senate trial of Bill Clinton. And who is the head of the DNC? Terry MaCauliffe- who resembles the small town near-do-well who peddles pyramid schemes in between used car sales jobs.
When the Dems critisize the war in Iraq it is worthless jibberish. If they were in power they would be calling any opposition to the war "treason" just as they did against Republicans who raised doubts and objections to Clinton's disgusting "wag-the-dog" wars.
John / Billybob