I'm not sure why you have a need to think of this as a game. People do disagree honestly. If someone disagrees with Bush on point, there doesn't have to be an ulterior motive. Sadly, those who support Bush have come to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with Bush is "out to get him" or simply hates the man. I didn't even hate Clinton. I hated the things he, his wife and their supporters did to this nation, but I didn't hate them. I don't hate Bush and I don't hate you, Arne or Nopardons, although I'm not convinced the reciprocal could be stated with certainty. So when it comes to little games, you'll have to look somewhere else.
As for a diabolical act, I never termed this a diabolical act or inferred a diabolical plot on his part. Once again you seem to have a need to categorize any opposition to Bush's procrastination on this matter, as a sinister effort to trash Bush or do political harm to him. Neither of these is true.
This matter was on the radar in early January 2001. Bush was inaugurated in the latter part of the month. This was a simple issue to assess. He should have stated his objections right away and followed through. A more prominent stance by the United States would have given other nations cover for making the same decision. To take a stand after the ICC became a reality, was the right thing to do. Unfortunately it was one month too late to affect the ratification of the ICC. It was also more than a year to late to claim the moral high ground with regard to the decision.
Now, is this a diabolical plot? Well you tell me what the plot was. Up until now I had simply thought that Bush made a tactical blunder by procrastinating so long. If you feel there was a plot, why don't you spell it out for us.
Honest to goodness bud, you sound like I just told you Santa Claus wasn't real. Bush isn't perfect and when people criticize his actions it doesn't have to mean any more than that they disagree with the way he handled an issue.
Once again you prove your dishonesty.