Well .. the state dept has always believed they were superior to any American President - and therefore they are willing to challenge Bush’s authority - as far as I’m concerned, it’s just more of the Bush-derangement syndrome.
But .. even if somebody at the meeting had “signed on” - wouldn’t Congress have to ratify such an agreement ..?? And .. if that’s true .. “signing on” could end up being worthless.
That’s actually debatable. Our Congress did not sign off when Clinton signed us on to the International Criminal Court. It depends on how the whole thing is framed.
BTW, I agree with the tone of your State Department Comments. Most of the State Department stays on through administration after administration.
I doubt that you are very encouraged to hear that our rep stated that we will be signing on down the road. I sure wasn’t.