>While the Obama administration reduced what HRC described as US "hostility" towards the court, at the end of Obama's time the US was only an "observer" in the court.
>
>Now Trump comes along and says that the sky is blue and all the likes of you and I can see, is aghast observers acting as if it's the worst thing a President ever did.
>
>This will please Bill: the Bush administration behaved in quite a warlike fashion on this one. It even passed legislation requiring POTUS to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". That was subsequently watered down, but when you think of the "all means necessary" available to POTUS, I can only imagine the fake news response were something similar enacted today.

>This will please Bill:
I'm really not that hard to please.
I generally agree that international tribunals are a sham.
By definition, they will tend to represent the views of the most powerful countries at the time they were established.

The Nurnberg trials were a great example. Had the war's outcome been different, allied generals would have been hung as war criminals.

The UN hit its low point for me when it gave credence to Colin Powell's meaningless testimony about non existent weapons.

The problem however is that people like John Bolton, whose views on international organizations (they're useless at best and harmful at worst) tend to align with mine often have their fingers on the trigger and are ready to fire at a moment's notice.


So, if I have to choose, I'll take the internationalist who won't fight over the nationalist who does.