We know now that "Regime Change" is the only reason yet articulated that still stands in the Bush reason-of-the-week for invading Iraq. We know that Saddam was a tyrant and the world is better off without him in charge in Iraq.  But I ran across a very interesting piece over at

http://www.commondreams.org

A former Nuremburg prosecutor says, among other things, that Bush and Saddam should both be tried for war crimes:

Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.

 The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 Read below to find out what George was up to even before this "War on Terror" began:

But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.

 I didn't know we could sign a treaty and then, ala George's "signing statements" which allow him to ignore laws, he can just remove the United States' signature from a previously ratified treaty!!!  Did you?

Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to "use all means necessary and appropriate," including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.

 What law?   What Senator or Congressman originally proposed this law?  Who sponsored it?  Who voted on it?  Why don't we know anything about it?  Did they know that far in advance that they would be torturing prisoners?  Is anyone else disturbed that George wants to be able to invade the freaking Netherlands!?

That's too bad, according to Ferenccz.

I gotta hand it to Ferenccz -- he defintely gets understatement!

But here is the zinger, and the reason for my title"

If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

"The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area," he said. "They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time."

Just as he ignored the FISA court, the Geneva Convention, and other international laws, the Bush administration just doesn't want to do things LEGALLY!  So to all those people who say, well, we got rid of a terrible tyrant, and now Saddam is not killing his own people, get this:

There was a legal, bloodless way to do this, and the Bush administration didn't want to go that route!  Could it be they had another agenda rather than the delivery of the Iraqis from this ogre?