Of course, Ferrencz won't ever see Bush standing before The Hague. The United States revoked its signature from the treaties creating the ICC in 2002 and has vowed military action against the Netherlands to free US personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC. Ferrencz speaks for millions who believe justice cannot be gained for Iraq without the recognition of Bush's illegal actions there. Admittedly, there is a cynical satisfaction that comes with the thought of Saddam and Bush being tried equally for their heinous reigns of terror. However, that's cold comfort for the thousands of families of Iraqi civilians and American military killed in Bush's supposed drive for democracy in the Middle East.
Ferrencz believes that had the United States shown more interest in the ICC, Saddam would have been tried for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Bush wouldn't have needed to oust Saddam from power militarily or gut Iraq had he been wise enough to choose a legal solution that would have saved American and Iraqi lives. "Nothing justifies the mass killing of innocents" says Ferrencz, "and the process of justice through law, on which humankind depends, would be reinforced." So the only inference we can draw from Bush's choice is that he prefers to have blood on his hands.
The only difference between Bush and Saddam is Bush has more money, weapons, and a bigger armed force behind him. Those things may not insure victory for Bush, but they do give him a huge advantage in making the world capitulate to his wishes. When you're the only leader who can offer carrots or sticks, other leaders tend not to stand in your way.
Ferrencz understands that the actions of both leaders need to be curbed. "What I've learned after working for sixty years on this problem is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."