the military at large to ensure that they would feel comfortable with this process. And that's where the real dog is in the fight in Washington. I think the Senate is ultimately evolving in a way that doesn't prohibit us from thinking about the necessary vote in the Senate, but it's so much an educational exercise and so many of us have been in the vineyards of this for so many years, with one group after another. I was just up at West Point, talking to West Point officers and cadets about this. Fascinating discussion. It just takes dogged, educational effort so that people understand that the risks may not be exactly that they think they are, and that frankly we can take a lot of steps domestically that would ensure that this Court actually proceeds as it was really intended to do, which is to go after those mass atrocities, those systematically planned genocides, crimes against humanity which, in fact, it is doing. TOOBIN: John, talk about what you think the prospects are for the International Criminal Court, but also on the merits. Do you think it's a good idea? Should we be involved? BELLINGER: I -- second question first. Personally, yes. I think the -- at the broadest level of an international -- TOOBIN (?): How did you last all those years in the Bush administration? (Laughter.) BELLINGER: We had different views in the Bush administration on different things. TOOBIN (?): Yeah. BELLINGER: And I don't mean necessarily