Given that they no longer are mere individuals, that might be correct. But I think the problem in this case is that people doesn't want to know. Too many people don't care whether Congress mentioned conditions when they voted for the war, why they had conditions, or what they were, and noone cares if the white wash from the administration afterwards is as thin as paper. I mean, it's right there, available for all to see.

Really, the incredulous nuances of this particular issue is that yes, indeed, obviously, and so on, the president can legitimately say that no foreign power shall decide upon the policies of the US. The US can veto all decisions made in the UN, for instance. But it cannot overrule the judgement of the UNSC. That's how it was meant to work. So any country can deal with their own defense as they see fit perfectly legitimately, but cannot attack souvereign countries on a whim and claim legitimacy. Justified in terms of legitimacy would be if Iraq was an imminent threat, and if that was so, noone could argue. But as we know, the prerequisites were already disputed before the war and as I've said there were no new information of any substance available since about '98. That in itself shows what kind of impendence we're talking about. But no, "we're so scared we support our president's war for peace". And "if we think we're under attack, that's all that matters even in the face of all kinds of evidence that says otherwise". Fucking jerks. Beg pardon, I shouldn't write things like that of course. It is a perfectly legitimate point of view that the UN should not matter. But that point of view shouldn't be named anything else.