MeOhMy saidI don't see how an "endorsement" from spawn of war criminals like Bush, or from current war criminals like Hillary and Obama, or former war criminals like Clinton does any good. Is this a good thing?
Spawn of War Criminals? You may want to narrow the scope of your shotgun. Not very many children of murderers murder. So let Barbara Bush support good issues and celebrate it. She represents a new generation of conservative voters that by all appearance are loosening on social and civil rights issues.
Fair point. However, I have no hope for any spawn in that family. They have a long history of being horrible people. George W.'s great grandfather was a war profiteer from the first world war; then his grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a banker and Senator who helped finance Hitler and also profited off of slave labour at Auschwitz concentration camp; then his 'daddy' was the chief architect behind Iran-Contra, not to mention the war of aggression against Iraq, and then Bush, well... etc. Families that function like political dynasties typically do not produce decent human beings. It happens, of course, but it's the exception, not the rule.
As for the individual questioning the claim of war crime. By your logic, because Hitler was never "convicted" of war crimes, he is, according to you, NOT a war criminal. Yet, if you use something called "common sense" and look at the law, as set up during the Nuremberg trials, there are very specific criteria for being deemed a war criminal, or for defining war crimes themselves. Among them are committing "Wars of aggression" against a country or people who did not provoke you. Bush obviously did this against Iraq, also Somalia. Clinton did it against Yugoslavia, his sanctions imposed on Iraq (economic warfare) killed over 1 million innocents, 500,000 of which were under the age of 12; Bush sr. did this against Iraq and Panama, and on and on... oh and Obama has done this against Pakistan, Yemen, etc. The problem with war crimes is that in our sad world, only the losers of war get tried... yet it is the victors who often commit the greatest crimes, which is precisely why they 'win'. Those who run the American empire never get convicted of war crimes (except for Henry Kissinger, but he's still roaming free advising presidents), but that doesn't mean there aren't war criminals among them.
If someone commits murder in front of you, do you declare that they are "not a murderer" simply because they haven't been convicted of murder? Or, do you use common sense?