Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: U.S. war crimes ambassador: Assad ‘absolutely’ should be tried for war crimes [View all]ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)He wasn't appointed by Bush and has no connection to the Bush admin.
I agree with the point here, while people should be reminded it shouldn't be the ONLY thing focused on, basically every single immediate reply to this thread aside from the one starting this sub-thread is a variation of "Why don't they arrest Bush first?" This also pops up in pretty much every single thread mentioning war crimes on DU, I even remember it with the announcements of the arrests of Karadazic and Mladic in Serbia (whose crimes predate Bush's) and STILL a majority of the replies was whining that Bush wasn't arrested too. It's possible to be upset about that without losing focus and basically saying every other war criminal out there is left off the hook. Does ever arrest of a serial killer today result in screaming about how the Zodiac Killer was never brought in? If there had been some attempt to apprehend and try Khmer Rouge leaders in the 80s (unfortunately this never occurred until far later in the mid-90s) would it be worth it to scream about how this isn't right because there were still prominent Nazis at large?