Really? This seems like an ignorant claim. Just because I didn't outline the details for you doesn't mean I'm not familiar with them. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and many within the Pentagon (to name a few) had sufficient evidence from the CIA to show that their justification for going to war was faulty. They manipulated and misconstrued the evidence and presented to the public information they knew to be highly suspect at best to bring our country to war.
Fiasco is an excellent overview of what occurred. Vincent Bugliosi presents
an excellent case for prosecution of Bush for murder. Although it is an extreme goal, it could easily be used for war crimes as well.
Cheney has also
admitted to authorizing water boarding. Water boarding is - by any conventional definition of the word - torture. We are signatories of the Geneva Convention which prohibits all forms of torture and
under international law is considered a war crime. Therefore Cheney has admitted to authorizing warcrimes.
Violation of human rights under the Geneva Convention including, but not limited to torture and/or inhumane treatment (waterboarding), depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial (
GITMO), and unlawful deportation (
Extraordinary rendition).
These are not "might be guilty", these are things we've admitted to doing. These are things the rest of the world views as crimes. It's not a matter of if they've committed war crimes, it a matter of whether we as a country have the balls to pursuit justice. It's a matter of identifying who had a role, and who should be held accountable.