quote:
As I see it, George W. and associates are setting themselves up, to go down in history as being perceived as being some of the greatest war criminals ever. That is because it seems that they are about to win the small war, but loose the greater war.
I am not so sure about this. Read my previous post. There are plenty of past presidents who have committed probably greater atrocities but are not treated as historical pariahs. I am not sure that dispassionate historians will treat Bush any differently. If there is even the slightest hint that Bush thinks (rightly or wrongly) he is protecting American citizens, there will be no (distant) future condemnation. As to the greater war which you refer to, I'm not sure that history recognizes this conflict or will chatise a president who ignores it, particularly since it has gone on essentially for centuries and will unlikely be resolved within Bush's term.
Certainly if the conflict spreads there will be blame to go around, but it will be shared by numerous leaders who could have averted it. For instance, it is entirely possible that Bush never intended to go to war, but now that France and Germany have undercut Bush, Saddam is effectively free to do whatever he wants except for an invasion. The Europeans could have handled this a little bit better, also. But on that scale, it's all about power and resentment.
Just some comments from a history buff. I am not taking sides, but trying to inject an alternative historical perspective. I think that sometimes we get so caught up in the passions of the time that we do not get a historical perspective.