We can be quite sure that war criminal Clinton has never called for her fellow war criminal Bush to be tried, unlike Corbyn. The Spartacist headline is accurate, and intersects nicely with the nationwide working class revulsion against Blair and Blairism that has washed over England.
Many opportunist leftists (not to mention anyone in particular) in our current atmosphere of defeat and demoralization ever since the demise of the Soviet Union leading to masses of formerly pro-socialist people worldwide thinking that "socialism may be a nice idea in theory but in practice it never works" have been snatching at every dubious leftish non-alternative that has popped up in the last few decades, from the Zapatistas to ecologism to "anti-globalism" to Occupy to SYRIZA to a dozen other things I could mention.
Now, when in England you see an actual turn to the left, with the moribund Labour Party instead of becoming a bourgeois party going back to being a reformist Social Democratic party as angry workers flock back into it inspired by Corbyn's left rhetoric and actual leftish positions on some questions, one gets to see that sectarianism is just the opposite side of the coin of opportunism.
So you and SOS object to the tone of the Spartacist response, even though the actual position of SOS's favored IBT on events is the same. Well, that tone is appropriate, as the objective of revolutionaries should be to bring a revolutionary program to working people in motion, not to sneer at them.
And now the only serious competitor with the ICL for the mantle of "orthodox Trotskyism" has spoken up. They understand that something serious is happening here, Mr. Jones (I'm quoting Dylan), and tonewise the article is just like the Spartacist coverage, to the point that till I got to the end, I wondered if they would differentiate themselves from the ICL at all.
http://www.internationalist.org/corbynmania1510.html
But they, unlike the IBT, actually end up trying to stake out a different political position. They (besides some mild and somewhat hypocritical tone potshots) claim that the ICL has come out in "critical support" of Corbyn. Which is not true. Yes, the ICL statement did say that the demands put forward by Corbyn in his campaign for LP leadership were supportable. And guess what, though limited they were by and large supportable.
But that is not the same as supporting him, which the ICL did not. Indeed, it could not, as it did not and does not urge people to join or support the Labour Party, in elections or anywhere else. The ICL continues to see the Labour Party as a reformist social-democratic trap, where what is needed is to set the base against the top, not Corbyn's idea of the Labour Party as a Kautskyite "broad church" of the whole working class. And unless and until the Labour Party rids itself of its Blairite bourgeois wing, supporting or even joining the Labour Party, as so many British leftists are doing right now, would be an opportunist mistake.
And here is the new WV statement in the current issue of the paper, which should hopefully help resolve misunderstandings.
http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1075/corbyn.html