That is true Suzanne. "War" can only be declared by Congress, but the President has the power to take military action (as Commander in Chief) at his discretion. Congress does have the power to stop him if they see fit, but in this case I doubt they will. Though, we are not "technically" at "War", I am sure the history books will view it differently. BJ (Bush Jr.) got away with it much more easily than his dad, because he didn't downright "declare" war on Afganistan like his father did with Iraq. His father's boldness and presumption ruffled feathers in congress, whereas his son merely outlined a campaign to be brought against al queda and the Taliban, and went ahead with the plan with the implied consent of Congress. To this day, though he has said numerous times, that we are "at war" with terrorism, etc. He has never, once "declared" war on anyone. Yes, it is all a matter of semantics, but in the political arena, semantics can make all the difference, especially when you have so many egos involved.
Though I am not much of a Bush supporter (I can't stand most of his politics), I have to support most of his decisions in regards to terrorism, and the actions he has taken. He is walking a very tight rope, though. A number of decisions and statements, he has made have started to make the rest of the world a little leary about his plans for the future. He needs to be careful. We need the support of the rest of the world.