But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to this ques

But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as the instigator of it all. "have a hand" is a little too ambiguous don't you think? There is a significant moral difference between "providing information" (what Manning did), and "invading a sovereign state using fairly indiscriminate bombing after a propaganda campaign about WMDs" (what the coalition forces did)