Associated Press
As much as Mitt Romney would like to go after President Obama over U.S. policy towards Iran, there are two main problems: (1) Obama is already doing what Romney wants; and (2) Obama's policy is working.
So, how does the Republican differentiate himself? As of last night, the former governor presented a new idea: "I'd make sure that [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it."
Asked later what the candidate was referring to, aides said a Romney administration would pursue charges against Ahmadinejad in the "World Court." In context, this could only be a reference to the International Criminal Court, which is the only international body that prosecutes for genocide
Putting aside the merits of the case against Ahmadinejad, since when do Republicans find legitimacy in the ICC? As Greg Sargent explained this morning:
[T]he United States would not accept the ICC under George W. Bush — and indeed, one of Romney's own top advisers has said that Obama's embrace of it reveals his weakness and passivity on national security, and his unwillingness to exercise international leadership.
John Bolton, the former U.N. Ambassador under Bush who is said to be one of the only top foreign policy advisers Romney actually listens to, wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed in March of 2011 attacking the ICC and Obama.
Bolton wrote last year that Obama's support for the International Criminal Court "reflects his overall approach to international affairs: a passive, legalistic America, deferring to international bodies." And now Bolton's preferred candidate has adopted this same "approach"?
Kevin Drum ponders what the reaction would be this week if Obama had taken the same line as Romney.
Their contempt for legal proceedings at The Hague is pretty well known, and the idea that a president of the United States would make such impotent action a centerpiece of his Iran strategy would elicit withering scorn. National Review would splash it on its cover, the Weekly Standard would write a hysterical editorial, Drudge would bring out his siren, and Rush would spend hours harping on it. "The Hague" would become yet another in a long line of conservative pet rocks, to go along with Fast & Furious and Obama's removal of the Churchill bust from the White House.
And yet, I didn't notice any conservatives taking issue with this last night.
The fact that the right seems willing to let this slide suggests conservatives en masse are prepared to simply bite their tongues, putting up with just about anything, for two more weeks.
Leave a Comment:
If Bibi Netanyahu spoke out about a red line because he was concerned that Pres. Obama wouldn't act on Iran, I imagine after last night's debate we will hear from him again out of fear that Mitt Romney now supports Pres. Obama's promising only to take action as a last resort. If not, we know that what Mitt Romney said last night is not what he is saying to Bibi Netanyahu, which means Mitt Romney and his 17 national security advisers from the Bush administration are still planning on carrying out the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, not war as a last resort.
They are counting on the fact that most Americans don't know a thing about the ICC. The Republicans have blanched for years at the idea of the US being subject to the ICC and have attacked it even more vociferously than our being part of the U.N. depending rather on the jingoistic drumbeat that they feed to the base that would have the US schizophrenically both withdraw from the world stage and conduct ourselves in affairs and diplomatic relations with other sovereign Nations of the world from the deck of a "gunboat"
The fact that their policies have to be explained with terms like "Jingoism" "Gunboat Diplomacy" speaks volumes about their evident belief that this is the 19th century and not the 21st. One can only imagine that Mitt Romney will make his next campaign stop in a tailcoat and mutton chops to discuss the virtues of the Smoot-Hawly Tarrif Act
Of course they don't like the ICC, since any of the Americans that would be appearing in the dock would be Republicans.
The Republicans are relying on the ignorance of voters and that strategy is working very well. Most people don't know what the ICC is about so that makes it very easy for Romney and the Republicans to talk out of both sides of their mouth. Low information voters will accept whatever they are told.
I'd love for them to go down the ICC road.
W, Cheney, Yoo and others would then be in REAL trouble.
Ever wonder why none of them go out of the US?
Rmoney is laughable! He is more self-centered than any teatard could hope to become..
Not only has the United States not ratified the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court; even if it had, the President would not be empowered to prosecute anyone in that court. It has its own prosecutors and judges and they are not answerable to the President of the U.S. Romney continues to demonstrate his lack of understanding of how government works. For example, he says on day one, he's going to repeal Obamacare. He can't. He won't have the power. He acts like a buffoon. The sad thing is, nearly half the electorate doesn't seem to notice.
Mr. Romney knows that the right wing has no choice but to hold their noses and vote for him at this point. There is no other choice.
But really? The World Court? One of the symbols of 'all that is wrong with the world' to the Teapers and Wingnuts?
Mr. Romney is courting disaster by discouraging his flock from going out to vote.
I'm trying to figure out what Ahmadinejad ever did to get indicted for genocide. No matter how distasteful his diatribes, speech is not genocide -- actually killing people is. Ahmadinejad has yet to do that as far as I can tell.
Romney's diatribes are just as distasteful.
The republicans were screaming "free speech" when it came to the anit-Muslim video, so I guess that only applies to christian hate speech?
Poor Sarah Palin. She got ripped for making comments that weren't half as idiotic as this one. If Ahmedinejad could be indicted for "inciting genocide", just imagine all the right-wing bloggers, who have blathered about turning various Middle Eastern countries into parking lots, who would be in the docket with him.
He sucks so bad it's exhausting.
No mention that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and George W have already been brought forward in proposals for indictment in The World Court?
It's not about logic folks; it's about elections and marketing. Two weeks to go and no holds or lies are barred.
Most of the undecideds have got to be low information voters who are vulnerable to emotional pitches. That is why you see emotional pitches and lots of red white and blue. Do not expect appeals to reason.
Romney's supporters understand that at this point whatever Romney says is with a "wink" and a "nod" "just follow my lead and go along" until I'm POTUS.
Why they don't realize that everything he has ever said while running for POTUS is with a "wink" and a "nod" "just follow my lead and go along" until I'm POTUS - Trust me, I don't understand.
What I also don't understand is whether Romney knows he's a puppet and someone will have a hand up his ass making his lips move or if Romney's thinks he's playing them. Cause I got news for Romney if he does think he's playing them!
Romney sure has a queer idea of the law, doesn't he? Indict someone for something he has not done? And imagine sending him for trial to a court Romney and his party do not believe in???
I've never seen anyone as ignorant as Romney.
If this man every became commander in chief I would soil my trousers.
Dang! Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to gain ground for a base from which to attack Iran,Syria,Saudi Arabia,Africa and....
Think about what Colin Powell told Congress..."...first we need to bring democracy to Africa then we can bring them aid" Democracy in republican means invade and control.
Why don't you just put your taxes up Mitt and get the charade over already?
Besides, A republican at the ICC would bring up suggestions that the entire Bush Administration should appear before it. The US may not be willing to face our own hypocrisy on war crimes during our attack on Iraq but the rest of the world is more than willing to hold the Bush/Cheney regime accountable for lying us into a war, torture and killing innocents.
I can't believe a Republican was foolish enough to even mention "indictment for inciting genocide" when we were unwilling to even let photos of our actions under Bush be released...a shame Americans cannot justify hiding. I didn't do it...most Americans wouldn't have allowed it...but Bush/Cheney/Bolton/Rice etc (a huge list) should be made accountable for their unsanctioned actions. Romney was just bluffing for bluster.