I've heard all about how the Bosnian intervention was supposed to take the focus off Monicagate and his impeachment. It has all the credence and credibility of Leftist nuts who believe we went to Iraq in 2003 so Bush 43 could get back at Saddam for planning to assassinate his father and take control of the oil.
Clinton took heat for not intervening in Rwandan genocide, but chose to act in Bosnia. I suppose if he had sent troops to Rwanda in 1994, people would have probably called it a distraction for actions taken by his administration in Waco the previous year.
The bottom line is we had no national interests in either Bosnia or Rwanda. However, your disagreement with the action and 1st Amendment right to say so does not make it a war crime.
Terms like treason, Nazi, torture, and in this instance, war crimes, are thrown around so loosely on internet forums these days, they've almost become relative and lost any true meaning of their definitions.
You're not helping.
Basically, American and NATO personnel knew from day one this was another dog-wagging episode for which nobody could plausibly be asked to go into harms way. They therefore tried bombing from 25000' for three or four weeks and, when they learned they could not harm the Yugoslav military from earth orbit like that, they embarked upon an entire series of what anybody would call war crimes and that included bombing out the entire Serbian civilian infrastructure which is in total violation of Geneva conventions, killing Yugoslav civilians in areas remote from anything which could be called military targets even in an imaginary world in which the operation itself was basically legal, and doing things like bombing out the petrochemical plant at Pancevo and thus dumping hundreds of tons of toxic chemicals into the Danube river which Russians rightly called an act of international terrorism.
That whole deal was basically a gigantic stain on the honor of the United States and in fact it cannot be realistically described without using the term "war crimes".