Exemption from The Hague

One of the most galling aspects of this season of Autumn is the sudden reappearance of ex-president George W. Bush on television, either looking more insipid than usual as he tries to dance in Africa or expressing his viewpoints about something or other in his usual clumsy and just-slightly-above-coherent style.  This "war criminal" (and we only put it in quotes because even he deserves a fair trial) should be on trial at The Hague, along with his father (George H.W. Bush), Bill Clinton, and several other officials and ex-officials, instead of getting endearing smiles and ingratiating comments from the mainstream news media.  This is a man who started an illegal war in Iraq under outright lies and deception and caused the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, most of them civilians going about their daily lives, and that of thousands of American servicemen and servicewomen who were ordered into an unnecessary war -- not to mention countless other terrible outcomes derived from that war and this man's ego and nefarious choices.

Like father, like son, apparently, because his father should be seated right next to him at The Hague if only for ordering the invasion of Panama, the most abnormally outrageous drug bust in history that killed hundreds of civilians just walking the streets of Panama City; although, probably for actions taken in the first Iraq war (or Gulf war) as well.  Clinton's bombing of Serbia for months with neither U.N. nor Congressional authorization, including intentionally blowing up an inhabited civilian television studio, is more than enough to get him a seat at The Hague.  With the exception of Slobodan Milosevic and some of the late ruler's henchmen, it seems as though only certain Africans and Asians are considered vile enough for trial at The Hague, but somehow others are exempt.  That seems neither fair nor right in the matter of violating some of  the most enshrined norms of civilization and morality.

[revised on 12/11/13]