dominant mentality within the Bush administration, at least in the first term, that tended to see international law as coming at the expense of U.S. power, of American power. And there was a counter argument to that. There was a movement -- TOOBIN: Which was? WAXMAN: -- within the administration, of which John was a big part, that argued that rather than seeing international legal constraints as coming at the expense of American power, we should see them as something that supports and expands American power, in a number of ways -- In terms of building political and diplomatic support at home and abroad for our actions, in terms of coordinating our policy with that of our allies, in terms of strengthening certain principles and codes of behavior abroad that are in our interests. And I think it was that -- I think a lot of the debates within the Bush administration on issues like detainee treatment, but also on issues like the degree to which we should work through the U.N. Security Council on use-of-force issues, dealing with proliferation threats, et cetera. I think that debate between do you see international law as coming largely at the expense of American power, or do you see it as something that expands our power, I think explains a lot of the divide. And I would just echo some of David's points. I think these are similar to what John was saying on the use-of-force question. I think if -- I think