The Congress passed the "War Powers Act" back in the '50s so that the President could act if the US government was wiped out in a nuclear attack ("duck and cover"). It was good planning, but poorly written (and rewritten). Presidents since have used it to commit US forces to combat without a Congressional declaration of war.

Several points: first, the War Powers Act was intended to be used if the US was attacked. Secondly, I think it has a limited number of days in which the Pres can use US troops without Congressional approval. Thirdly, the Congress told GWB to pursue terrorist where ever they might be (or words to that effect) -- basically, a blank check.

So W goes into Iraq and creates more terrorists? This is sensible? Especially since W has said that the fighting there is over?

I've heard that right after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the phones in the White House ran off the hook, telling W not to declare war, not to ask for a declaration of war. Why? Because if war was declared, the owners of the buildings couldn't collect the insurance! If true, this would be...well, the word "shi**y" comes to mind. So do other words.