Bush couldn't possibly have gotten a formal declaration of war, for the same reasons why Congress has never formally declared war since 1941. Declaring war means identifying an enemy, and in this age of "nation-building" in the "New World Order" this simply isn't going to happen. This is precisely why every military action the U.S. has undertaken since 1945 has been a half-@ssed effort in which "building a coalition" to support the action has been more important than protecting the sovereignty of the United States.
No doubt I'll be seriously flamed for this. But I've come to believe that what's needed is another Hiroshima. Select a Baathist town, give a warning and a demand that local "insurgents" surrender, and, if they don't, drop one. Repeat.
Will some innocents die? Yes. Will more innocents and more Americans die without harsh action? Probably. Will the left scream? They're screaming now. Will more Middle Easterners turn against the US? They're doing that now, but at a very low cost. We can at least raise the cost dramatically.
We've got to decide whether or not we're really in this to crush the enemy.
IOW, it hasn't been poliically expedient for Congress to declare war since WW II, has it?
That is part of my point.
IMO, this shouldn't have happened without a declaration, but now that it has we owe it to everyone to see it through and not get squishy when there's bloodshed.