Selective Definitions of War Crimes

"Till the day the lions have their rule, history will only show hunting as a glorious skill and hunters as heroes." - an African Quote.
The BBC had an item on the reaction of its readers on the capture of Karadzic – a Bosnian Serb War Crimes suspect. That piece left me wondering about the status of George Bush the current President of the United States of America and of Tony Blair, the former prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Are they not of the same ilk? If definitions are only what matters, then what is the use of defining human rights? Should not people who bring in untold misery to others on account of their actions be held equally responsible as other criminals for they do what they do with full knowledge of the consequences?
Is it justice when dozens of innocent people are killed in Iraq or Afghanistan by bombs dropped by the military forces of the United States of America and the United Kingdom when they know that it could be a consequence of their act and when they have absolutely no business to be on its territory? Are not George Bush and Tony Blair, as the political heads of these countries, equally responsible as Radovan Karadzic for the acts done under their command? If so, are not the selective definitions to suit political purposes a greater crime against humanity than any other?