[Dr. Frank fan]

He is referring to the fact that Congress has failed to declare war. And he is right about that.

No he's not even right about that. Congress authorized war powers; there is no Constitutional requirement that the empowering document contain the phrase "declaration of war". And even aside from that - even if you could make a case that, for example, it's not a 'real' or 'legitimate' war because it "wasn't declared" - it still wouldn't make Bush's use of force "illegal". Congress authorized force and Bush ordered it; how is any of that "illegal" (=prohibited by some law)? which law is the war against exactly?

[Iwo Jima]

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to "authorize war powers." It authorizes Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS to declare war.

My congressman, conservative Republican John Culberson, said at one of his town hall meetings that he wanted to declare war after 9/11, but that the Bush administration did not want to do so because that would trigger things which it did not want -- like closing the border.

If it's worth going to war over, it's important for Congress to declare war -- clearly and unequivocally -- not these vague "authorizations" that every argues over what they mean. And when we're at war, we are at war.