You know, remembering the coverage at the time I can't really believe that Milosevic (who broke up with Karadzic and Mladic over the Vance-Owen plan in 1993 which Milosevic had accepted but Mladic opposed) had any foreknowledge of the massacre in Srebrenica, or responsibility (except indirectly) for it. Milosevic had a tense relationship with Karadzic at the time. Interestingly Zoran Djindjic who later became some sort of pro-democracy icon, was feasting with Karadzic in Pale right after the B/S leadership's break with Milosevic and was campaigning for Karadzic well after his indictment, certainly in 1996.

See this 1994 report on Yugoslav politics a year before Srebrenica, in which it is clear that Milosevic is the pro-"Peace in Bosnia" camp while the so-called democratic opposition is the war-camp.

Also see this report on Milosevic and Srebrenica.

I should also mention that, as far as the "dictator" tag goes, a lot can be said about his authoritarianism and his corruption. But I really don't think that, say, election tampering by itself was what kept him in office. He was a populist opportunist and he ran against a comedy of an opposition, which was for the most part (the "Civic Alliance" being the only honourable exception) significantly more nationalist in rhetoric than him. He would have won anyway it seems - yet, had Kosovar Albanians actually voted in Yugoslav elections at the time as they could, he would have lost power very easily.

Note that I think Slobodan Milosevic was to a great extent co-responsible for the Yugoslav tragedy, and he should have been prosecuted on a number of charges. But I don't believe the claim that he was a monster who created the mess all by himself. In fact he was one of the outcomes of  triumphant nationalism in ex-Yugoslavia. And there was no-one to challenge him inside Serbia.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake