War should be declared, but will it be?

First I read this article Bush calls attacks 'acts of war' and this quote:

'Speaking from the White House, Mr Bush said the US would rally the world to defeat those who had carried out the attacks.'

I'm glad the Bush team is taking the time needed to assess the situation and review options. But I hope they don't wait too long and lose momentum.

What worries me is that this crime will be met with a 'limited response.' Attacks upon the U.S. anywhere in the world should be met decisively. But attacks right on U.S. soil? The parties responsible should be wiped out. The message should be both swift and clear.

Which is why I read the following with some dismay.

Bush weighs response options

... We have been here before after previous horrendous attacks with large numbers of civilian casualties and the rhetoric at the time has essentially remained rhetoric when it has come to formulating internationally agreed policy that might be effective.

It remains to be seen whether the almost apocalyptic nature of these latest attacks will do more to galvanise the international community....

Mr Bush has chosen a more measured line as he weighs his options. But he knows they may in reality be more limited than he would like.