What about the second question?
I realize that article 4 is fairly broadly worded and is open to interpretation. We may be interpreting it one way, the British may be interpreting it another way. We have seen this argument break out in England between politicians and military people, and military people saying that they're not able to do that under the mission, and frankly they're not going to do it. They're not going to attack Mr. Gadhafi because they're not authorized to do it. Yet you have some political leaders saying something a bit stronger than that.
That kind of disengagement with what seems to me to be the clear intention of the motion is bothersome to me from this distance. I realize this is not America, and we haven't had such strong statements coming from our leaders, but we've had some things pretty close.
How do we keep on that straight and narrow there? And do you agree with the British general who said that we have no authorization to attack Mr. Gadhafi personally, that we're not looking for him, etc?
I don't want you to comment on Britain, but would you comment on that point in terms of the limits of resolution 1973?