We are at war, whether you like it or not.
Whether it is declared or not, we are attacking the military and political structures of another nation with our military might. We might say we are not "at war with Afghanistan," but we quite plainly are.
Under your definition, we were not at war with Iraq in 1991. Nor over Kosovo in 1999.
This war is being prosecuted under the same rubric - a resolution by the Congress authorizing the President to use military force.
Besides, if Congress had issued a declaration of war, would you then be in favor of nuclear retaliation for the introduction of biological warfare?
I understand the need for action against the terrorists, but see no need for a war against the Afghanis. The real desire is to eliminate the terrorists responsible for the attacks. I have seen no evidence that says that anyone specific is responsible. OBL probably is, but GWB and company have shown no one their proof.
In the case of a declared war, I would expect our military to be given the lattitude to make the appropriate decisions as to weaponry. BUT, this is not a declared war, regardless of the attack on us. Even after Pearl harbor, the military did not go on the offensive until after the formal declaration of war. Our Congress has conducted itself the way a bunch of eunuchs would. That is disgraceful. Ron Paul offered up a measure to issue letters of Marguise so that people could go after OBL legally, but I have not heard if they were passed.
Here is the underlying problem:
If any president can throw out the US Constitution to make war as he sees fit, can he not also throw out the US Constitution in order to 'protect' us from attack? Does he not then becaome a dictator? Would you support that kind of action? It would be, under your argument, just as legal as the 'war' we are indeed fighting.