Well, howdy there, internet people, Lidsboo again. So today we are going to talk about the

US response to recent developments concerning international law.

We're going to do this because there's a lot of questions coming in and a lot of them are

based on the desire to fit new events into preconceived notions or narratives.

And the main... or narratives.

And the main question at the heart of it is why is the U.S. response what it is. And that question actually assumes that we know what the US response is already.

And I know the news came out, the ICC said, hey, we have these applications for these

warrants.

And pretty quickly, U.S. officials from across the government, regardless of partisan divide, they came out and they said,

it's shocking. We're in disbelief, this is outrageous, can't believe there's an equivalency, so on and so forth.

And people are taking that as the response to the merits of the case

or the situation on the ground. If you want to believe that, you

have to believe two things. One, that it's a good idea to accept statements from politicians at face value

when they kind of appear coordinated, oftentimes to include the same terms.

So you have to believe that.

And you have to believe that I can assess what the ICC was going to do weeks in advance, better than the entirety of U.S. State Department, the

Intelligence Community in the White House. I'm not that good.

Weeks ago, we talked about how the warrants were going to come out, how the applications were going to go in. There was going to be a

set for Hamas, a set for the Israelis. You have the entire government acting like this is

a surprise right now. It's not. The equivalency

that was pretty apparent. That was going to be there. That's what the ICC was going to do and they knew that as well.

That terminology that was probably drawn up weeks ago.

...