I'm reading a transcript of yesterday's on-air debate between radio host Hugh Hewitt and The New Republic's Peter Beinart when they have this exchange over What Would Harry Do?

HH: And I think Harry Truman would agree with that. I don't think Harry Truman would ever agree to the International Criminal Court, do you?

PB: Yeah, I think that he would have done exactly what I'm saying to you.

HH: You're just wrong.

PB: No, that's not true.

HH: He would never turn Americans soldiers over to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

PB: That's not true. Look, as you and I well know, the ICC would...the only...it would only ever in the most remotest possibility take U.S. troops if we had blatantly failed to...the judicial system in our own country they're talking about...

HH: Harry Truman would never, ever agree to that.

PB: Harry Truman was a great believer in powerful, international institutions.

HH: Not in 10,000 years. Now let me go back to the key part here in the book.

Personally, I think Hewitt's off by at least a couple hundred million years, but I could be wrong. I'll have to see if David McCullough's "Truman" was transferred to me in the great Hoystory library downsizing of 2005.

Frankly, I can't imagine any U.S. president, of either party, agreeing to turn U.S. servicemen over to the joke that is the International Criminal Court. The fact that a purportedly moderate Democrat hawking a book about how the Democrat Party can be considered serious by the public on national security can advocate on behalf of the ICC is ... disturbing.