omooex: I've noted the many mentions of Nuremberg, here. But am I missing something?

Yes.

The US held the Nuremberg trials to try its vanquished enemy.

Not the US, the Allied Powers: France, Great Britain, the US, and the USSR.

Where is the analogous body that would bring our criminal leaders to trial?

Actually, it is the US DOJ. Committing war crimes is against US Law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

§ 2441. War crimes
a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

Of course we can't expect the current DOJ to bring prosecutions under this law because they're the ones who enabled its violation in the first place. But, who knows, some day the DOJ may once again be interested in justice.

Its certainly not any of the international bodies out there, since we pretty much control them.

All of the signatories to the Geneva Conventions have initial jurisdiction over war crimes severally under article 129 of the treaty:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions

Art 129. The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed. or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

This is why people like Yoo and Rumsfeld need to be somewhat circumspect about what countries they visit. And, of course, after they are out of office so will Bush, Cheney, etc. We (by which I presume you mean the US) don't control all the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions. The US may have been able to duck out of the ICC after it decided to invade Iraq, but it's too late to duck out of the Geneva Conventions.

omooex: I do remember there was a time when Ariel Sharon was unable to travel to Europe for fears much like the ones you have rightly mentioned. But I seriously don't believe that a war tribunal that involved an Israeli or American PM would get very far.

A case had been brought against Sharon in Belgium for his complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacres, Belgium having a law allowing charges to be brought for war crimes regardless of where the crimes were committed. Belgium folded when Rumsfeld threatened to pull NATO headquarters out of Brusells.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/24/wbelg24.xml/

When I said, "am I missing something", I wasn't saying that I didn't know there was a legal structure. I worked for years in Palestine under this same rubric. I was saying that the odds of those precedents being used against US (and their affiliated) leaders seems slim to none. Bush and crew may leave power, but the interests they have so bravely stewarded are going to be in a powerful position for a long time to come. I have hope that a DOJ, Geneva signatory or International Tribunal prosecutes these folks someday. Maybe when I'm ninety, or so, and the US has been eclipsed by China and India there'll be a reckoning--today's paradigm would literally have to be up ended.

I agree that it won't happen under the present paradigm, but I don't know that it will take another 50 years. Remember how quickly the Soviet Union fell apart. Of course, they bled themselves dry for 10 years in Afghanistan which resulted in their rapid disintegration as a heavy hitter on the world stage. If the US tries to stay in Iraq for another 5 years it may very well disintegrate just as quickly. But then one has to wonder what a world where the US could not protect its interests would look like. One should perhaps be careful what one wishes for.