"but Bush set a very bad precedent with his preemptive, unprovoked war against another nation that posed no threat to the US. Disregard of Geneva was another bad precedent."
===============================================================
harry....
Well I guess he posed no threat to the US as long as one did not count an attempted assassination of the President of the United States, and almost daily attempts to shoot down US aircraft in the "no fly zone" -- the pilots of those planes might disagree a bit. We may never know what the true story was about Saddam and WMDs, but had all the world intelligence organizations, all the world leaders, including all the democratic leaders, including all the leaders of the Clinton administration been correct, then the alternative to a preemptive attack would be to wait until after we suffered a possibly horrendous attack upon ourselves. A terrible decision to make, but the weight of the evidence was that Saddam had the capability and the will to use WMDs, and was crazy enough to use them against the US or give them to someone who would do so.
As for "disregard of Geneva", there is serious question that the Geneva Convention even applies to the captives in question -- I think it does not and to date no court with jurisdiction has disagreed.
mlsoft
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
