Bush's "world war" rhetorical incoherence

This current administration is full of contradictions, but this one is quite salient at the moment: On the one hand, Bush is equating the threat of terrorism to the threat this country faced in WWII. On the other hand, he's not asking Americans to do much: no draft, no tax increases, no sacrifices from those of us who are not in the military. If this threat is as great as his rhetoric is building it up to be, then his response has been completely inadequate in scope. Digby has a post elaborating in illustrating this idea.

Of course, even if Bush's response was adequate in scope, I'm almost certain it would be completely wrong on what we should be actually doing.

UPDATE: uggabugga has a good post along similar lines:

So, if it's so important, why haven't we raised taxes, initiated rationing, or (as Slate's Fred Kaplan remarks) "reactivated the draft, printed war bonds, doubled the military budget"?

This whole Clash of Civilizations or whatever it's supposed to be, just seems out of tune with the underlying policy choices already made by Bush and the Republicans who control Congress. They've spent a lot of money, and wasted lives, but on the whole have avoided asking the broad public to sacrifice anything. So how important can it be?