My original post was not meant to be a criticism of Bush, I was remarking that the quaint old 18th century custom of a formal declaration of war was a far better mechanism for initiating hostilities because it focussed the congress and the nation and put them behind the president, but only after a period of debate let everyone know where everyone stood. By failing to do this, you go into the whole enterprise without a sense of mission and unity and when it goes south the inevitable finger-pointing begins. The resolution short of a declaration of war is just a way to get congress off the hook for having to accept the responsibility and taking a stand. It is cowardice, it allows them to have their cake and eat it too, to benefit if the war goes well and cover themselves if it doesn't. I realize now that is exactly what the framers knew would happen and wanted to avoid when they wrote the constitution. Bush did not act unilaterally, he legally requested the power and he got it. Congress voluntarily surrendered that power to him.

This is why my own position has always been that Bush may be guilty of incompetence, or maybe just bad luck, but there is no grounds for impeachment against him. It's not like he engaged in a war the congress specifically forbid him to fight. Even now, congress has the power to force him to stop the war, and it has not done so.