See, elf, that's exactly my--and I think, Ron Paul's--objection. It DOES mean something. And it complicates things because our laws say it should complicate things.
The proper course--if we are to have war--is to declare war. If the complications are not acceptable, then those complications should be legally overturned.
Really, the objection to Viet Nam aside (and I maintain we WON the Viet Nam war, while the Congress lost the PEACE), Paul makes a pretty good case. That's why we have declarations of war--because sustained military action is serious.
If we had embarked on an overt and virtually irreversible declaration of war 6 months ago as we began deploying our forces and equipment, Saddam would have spent the last 6 months deploying and perhaps using WMDs. This little trick that has a few like yourself all rattled was probably the only way to successfully pursue this war. Sorry for the inconvenience and the lose ends.