It has been a recognized principle of The Law Of Nations, for the past two hundred years, that nations do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of other independent nations. That is, indeed, one of the principal criteria by which you would identify an independent nation.
"The Law of Nations" doesn't protect unalienable rights.
There is no unalieneable right for a dictator or for a tyranical government to exist.
If it was not so late in the day, I would quolte Vattel to dispute that statement. However, I will limit this.
What you propose is tantamount to the sort of anarchy in international dealings that led to the Communist and Nazi abominations. You need to recognize that Bush is not a law unto himself. God has not ordained him to judge the rest of mankind. His "mission" and "calling," are not justified either in American theory, Western Theology, or the law of reason. It is the equivalent to "Lynch Law," instead of the normal workings of a Criminal Justice system; to the Nazi doctrine that the end justifies the means.
The Law of Nations--not the antics of the UN, but the 18th Century efforts to take some of the uncertainty out of our affairs--are intended to promote the safe and honorable dealings between peoples. Why can't you just live with that?