Will we always be "at war" now - or just until further notice?

It seems like a perfectly valid question. Yet, this bold presidential statement that "we are at war" - so stridently made after 9/11, and accepted by most of the American public without question for nearly 5 years now, is not a self-evident declaration that should enter the annals of history without at least a few questions (even at this late date).

Does the fact that 19 terrorists destroyed two skyscrapers in NYC nearly five years ago mean that we are automatically AT WAR until George W. Bush says otherwise? We're depending on the one person for whom a self-declared "state of war" yields nearly unlimited, unquestioned power, to tell us when it's all over and we're back to normal. The President once said to reporters: "...you don't think I WANT to be a War President, do you?". Oh yes Mr. President, with all due respect, I DO think so!

If you've read "1984" by George Orwell and you don't see some pretty obvious parallels with the current "war", then please read it again!

The massacre on 9/11 was truly horrible. But, how was it "more horrible" than our many recent actions in the Middle East involving "collateral damage". It's not certain, but you may have a factor of intent (or may not in some cases). And at one time, the numbers would have tilted the comparison to 9/11, but it's mostly been reversed by now - such that it's very likely that more than 3000 innocent people have now been killed cumulatively in cases of "collateral damage", mistaken identity, language deficiency, unclear roadblock protocol, troops letting off steam in Iraq (and also you can start counting dead innocents in Lebanon - just more "birth pangs" Condi tells us).

And going beyond 9/11/2001, how many Americans were killed on American soil by terrorists in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? so far in 2006? I believe that the answer in each case is zero - and yet the attack continues and the war rages on.....