1. If there was no WMDs then there was no immediate threat to the US
2. If there was no immediate threat to the US, then there was no justification under both international law and our own president’s statements *
3. If there was no justification under both international law and our president’s own statements, then it was illegal
4. If it was illegal then it was a war crime **
5. If it was a war crime, then those who ordered it are war criminals
* "They have WMD. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have any right to invade" March 2002 So even under our presidents own admission, this war was done illegally
** war crime n. means an act or omission that is committed during an international armed conflict, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission, and that, at that time and in that place, constitutes a contravention of the customary international law or conventional international law applicable in international armed conflict.
I am not for bringing the president up on war crimes, but the evidence is seems to be fairly clear that the simple progression of inescapable logic listed above is accurate.
Please also don’t get into whether or not invading Iraq was a good thing. We’ve obviously lost that war as we are about to pull out as they are falling into a what will be a long, nasty civil war that will end (as their history shows, time and time again) with yet another leader like Saddam finally winning over one side or the other. All of that is pretty cut and dry at this point. It’s the buildup and justification to classification of war criminals that I hope for someone to shed light on.