Actually, four. You missed one.

So I did. Big woo.

And yes, it IS referencing the War Powers Resolution; thank you for reinforcing my point. They don't tend to reference it in legislation unless they are using it. See any highway renaming bill to prove my point. And while you claim that the object of that legislation is to cabin the executive's power, so he doesn't go off and start a war on his own (which is exactly why it was passed, you are correct), when Congress then invokes it, it makes triply clear that it is conferring its power to declare war, which is precisely what Congress did here.

The War Powers Resolution states:

"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Thus, Congress, in passing the AUMF, specifically avoided declaring war as a trigger with which to commit US Armed Forces into hostilities, etc. Had Congress wished to declare war, they could have done so. They did not. Instead, Congress authorized the President to use the forces of the United States in a very limited fashion against a very limited "enemy". That's a far cry from a declaration of war. Why do you think they did not just declare war and get it over with?

There is some merit to the claim that Congress's debate on the 2001 AUMF was limited to the one week prior to its passage. That's six days longer, however, then it took Congress to declare war on Japan. The same "limited debate" argument cannot be made about the Iraq AUMF, which was debated for months.

We're not talking about Iraq, Salter. We're talking about this so-called "war" on terror. You claimed that the AUMF was reached after "extended public debate". That was clearly incorrect and your attempt to compare it to the declaration of war against Japan is clearly an attempt at subterfuge to cover your initial misstatement. It's rather disingenuous of you and reduces your credibility.