I still don't see how this makes Bill Clinton a war criminal. For that to be true, he would have had to have attacked the pharmaceutical factory as a means of retaliation against Sudan's civilian population (i.e. not as a result of misunderstanding the factory's purpose). Can you prove that Clinton was indirectly targeting civilians?
We don't live in a perfect world. Human collateral alone is not enough to justify the label of war criminal.
We don't live in a perfect world. Human collateral alone is not enough to justify the label of war criminal.