April 28, 2008, - 11:16 am

Surrender Nation: It’s Official–Bushies Bid Adieu to U.S. Sovereignty

By Debbie Schlussel
Who’s looking out for America on the international stage?
Not the Bush Administration. Not anymore.
After long taking the right tack and opposing the International Criminal Court in Europe, the U.S. is now surrendering to it . . . and giving up America’s national sovereignty.
Why wait for Barack or Hillary to do it, when the liberal Republican in office can do it now and claim credit, as a boost for Nobel Prize consideration.


The Ultimate Surrender Monkey: Bush Submits America

to International Criminal Court

And the reason for submitting is absurd, too. As I’ve noted over the years, America didn’t care about Arab genocide of Black Christians in Sudan. But, now that almost no Black Christians are left and the victims are now Black Muslims, suddenly the world and the State of Greater Celebritia is all atwitter over it. Now, the International Criminal Court is moving on Sudanover what’s happening to Black Muslims in Darfur. And, therefore, the Bushies–not ever willing to do what’s right on our own–insists we must now be a part of this international tribunal.
We have to give up our national sovereignty because Arab Muslims are murdering Black Muslims on the other side of the world? I don’t get it. This will now make our soldiers answerable to this America-hating forum. It will make Americans and America’s fight against terrorism weak and emasculated by submitting the fight of those efforts to a body dominated by pan-Islamist sympathizers.
Predictably, the far-left is joyous, and the only person talking any sense here is the ever-reliable, ever-visionary John Bolton. So, remind me again, why was Bush better than John Kerry? This was a point of contention between them in the 2004 election. Guess what? Bush lied:

A senior Bush administration official said Friday that the U.S. now accepts the “reality” of the International Criminal Court, and that Washington would consider aiding the Hague tribunal in its investigation of atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region.
“The U.S. must acknowledge that the ICC enjoys a large body of international support, and that many countries will look to the ICC as the preferred mechanism” for punishing war crimes that individual countries can’t or won’t address, John Bellinger, the State Department’s chief lawyer, told a conference in Chicago marking the 10th anniversary of the tribunal’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute. More than 100 countries have ratified the treaty. . . .
Mr. Bellinger’s speech represented a rhetorical turnabout for an administration that came to power determined to hobble the movement for a permanent war crimes tribunal.
“This is a meaty piece of work,” said Richard Dicker, international justice director for Human Rights Watch. “It’s impossible to imagine such a statement four years ago.”
Shortly before the court opened in 2002, the Bush administration “unsigned” the Rome Statute, which President Clinton had approved before leaving office. President Bush subsequently signed legislation authorizing military action, should the court arrest an American, and limiting U.S. dealings with the tribunal.
An architect of the White House’s earlier policies dismissed Mr. Bellinger’s remarks as “pabulum” from a State Department that is too solicitous of international institutions. “It would be a great speech in the first Clinton administration, and probably a great speech in the second Clinton administration,” said John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations who, as undersecretary of state, signed the letter repudiating Rome Statute.
“It reflects the yearning the Rice State Department has for acceptance” by academics and foreign intellectuals, Mr. Bolton said. “The fight resumes after Jan. 20,” when a new administration takes office, he added.
All three senators running for president — Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — have voiced reservations about the court, but said they would consider closer cooperation with it.
In 2002, both Arizona Sen. McCain and New York Sen. Clinton voted for the anti-court legislation. But Sen. McCain said in 2005 that “I want us in the ICC, but I’m not satisfied that there are enough safeguards,” Reuters reported. . . .
The Darfur investigation “is likely to do more than any other factor…to shape U.S. perceptions of the role and impact of the ICC,” Mr. Bellinger said Friday. “We want to see the ICC’s Darfur work succeed,” and are “prepared to consider” providing assistance, he said.
The thaw between the Bush White House and the court began in 2005, when the U.S. refrained from vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution referring Darfur atrocities to the court.
Mr. Bellinger said the U.S. wanted the court to “complement” the U.N. Security Council’s agenda. That would ensure the court remains aligned with American interests, because the council can take no action without assent from its permanent members — the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia.
Mr. Bellinger said the U.S. would look to a diplomatic conference slated for 2010, which is expected to discuss definitions for the international crime of “aggression.” . . .
The U.S. has worried that a vague definition could be used as a pretext to prosecute American officials for military operations.
The International Criminal Court is intended as a court of last resort for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, when national justice systems can’t or won’t take action.

This is madness. When an American soldier shoots a terrorist in Iraq who was trying to murder him, he may soon have to answer to China, France, Russia, and the other international America-haters on the ICC.
Thanks, George Bush. T Minus 8 Months.

8 Responses

The concept of the president as a traitor is not a new one, I’m afraid. For example: FDR and Jimmy Carter. (And, if you include those who turned their backs on the MIA’s from Nam, the list will include some surprising names.)
Bush was better than Kerry only because the rate of descent into Hell was a little slower.
Gee, what’s Sean Hannity going to say about this?

Red Ryder on April 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm

This is madness. Every U.S. soldier will be sued and brought before the ICC. Even if every soldier is to be found not guilty (not likely, but let’s assume that), the lengthy process itself will destroy America.
How can a soldier even defend himself or herself? Can you imagine the discovery documents that will be requested from the U.S. military? How can any war be fought like that?
I’d expect this sort of thing from Barack Obama and the George Soros crowd, but from a Republican? Is this George W. Bush’s “legacy”??

barrypopik on April 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm

It is time for conservatives to recognize that, when they acquiesce in the election of a liberal Republican, this only means — as Red Ryder so eloquently puts it – that the rate of descent into Hell is a little slower. Moreover, when a Republican is in the White House, most conservatives lose their ability to acknowledge and oppose the liberal policies that the administration supports. Yes, there are a few exceptions. But as a general rule, we conservatives continue to ride the liberal Republican horse into national oblivion.
We must seriously consider whether the nation will be better off in the long run if McCain is defeated by the hard left Obama. With a race- and class-monger like Obama in the White House, perhaps patriotic conservatives will stand up for what they believe in on a more consistent and forceful basis.
John McCain is very unlikely to be any better than GWB.

RepublicanPatriot on April 28, 2008 at 2:25 pm

I do hope this does not affect the ability of our troops to defend themselves-they deserve credit and should not have to second guess their every move.

mindy1 on April 28, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I agree with RepublicanPatriot’s assertion that liberal republicans are driving this country into a deep, dark abyss but I have to disagree with his notion of us being better off with Obama.
As notorious of race mongers as Obama and his sleazy wife are, with him at the helm and a liberal senate and house, how far do you think the patriotic conservatives will get?
I’m fed up with politics and all the BS that goes with it. There are no more distinctions in the parties; just between the men and women in office. Then again, that’s as fine a line as you’re going to see.

1shot1kill on April 28, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Is this any suprise? We are beholden to the criminals called Politicians. Not the other way around. Why should they consult the american people? We are underpaid nobodies. We supposedlly are the ones who put them in power in the first place. Well, I havent. I have never voted. I dont believe in putting criminals in office.
Votes dont count. Free speech is all but banned.
Total anarchy is the only cure for these thieves and murderers. Take them out and put the government back the way it is supposed to be. BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE! NOT BY POLITICIANS FOR POLITICIANS.

savage supporter on April 28, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Why should Bush not repay his rich extended-family in Riyadh? That wahhabbi family has been loyal to Bush amily for decades. Poured billions of petro-dollars in Bush failed businesses of Arbusto. Bush never held an honest job or worked for a living. What were the chances Bush making anything of himself without the support of his extended wahhabbi family? You see, Wahhabbi petro-dollars were Bush’s only support. So, what is wrong in exploiting the democratic system to acquire some votes, so he can repay his debts to the wahhabbi family that stood by hin in his time of petro-dollar needs? What is wrong with having the administration “sensitive” to Islamic terrorists? After all, Islamists are also human-beings. But more importantly, Islamists come froem ummah, the extended wahhabbi family, the same that stood by Bush in hsi time of needs of petro-dollars. As a president/commander-in-chief, it is Bush’s gratitude to wahhabbis in Riyadh at whose feet, Bush has laid American blood and tax-dollars!
Bush could not have it any other way, you see….

Alert on April 30, 2008 at 5:57 am

I think we have some high crimes and misdemeanors here. I finally found something that I can agree with John Conyers – this man should be impeached…but not for any of the reasons that Conyers would support.

Sioux on April 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field