[Bernard Marx]

So you have no problem with this, like CFR, getting thru our so-called conservative president?

That's one hell of a leap in logic and a distortion to boot. Where did I say that?

As for removing the signature, isn't that what the story said he was asking the Senate for? Where have you found information supporting your statement he could do it on his own? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want facts.

[fogarty]

As for removing the signature, isn't that what the story said he was asking the Senate for?

President Bush did not have to go to congress to remove the signature. What the article referred to was that Congress refused to even consider ratification of the agreement when Clinton signed it first, back in December. President Bush had both the ability and power to remove the signature - or at the very least come out with a public statement saying it was null and void in his eyes. But he refused to do either.

[EBUCK]

I think that the committee refused to put "ratification of the ICC" to a vote not "removal of the signature". At least that is the way I read it.

Bush should remove our signature ASAP. Then congress should pass a resolution/law stating that no US citizen will be held to stand before "the abortion of justice called the ICC" and that any attempt to do so will be met with the full vicious force of the U.S.M.C.!

EBUCK