c-span. >> joining us on c-span " newsmakers," rep bacchus. joining us for the questioning is a washington times correspondent and alison fitzgerald of "bloomberg news." >> thank you congressman. the leaders of the biggest economies in the world are meeting in pittsburgh. how important a role is it for international cooperation or ways that the nation should work together in establishing norms for the financial system? >> we often say that is a great question. that actually is a great question. it is something we have

struggled with. i will answer by saying that it is very important. we are in a global economy. in 1984, when i was elected to the state senate, we were the second state in the nation to do that. . .

and we don't need to basically get -- have nnks standards or let them dick -- international standards or let them dictate how we approach national services, energy, health care. we need to fix what's broken. >> let me talk about this because the president talked about it last friday in pittsburgh. what resulted in the collapse of lehman brothers and a.i.g.? was it lack of oversight? >> i would say it started with really our markets becoming -- evolving and outgrowing regulation. securitization only really started in the 1990's, the

wide-spread use of derivatives, credit swap the first one was 1994. just a few years ago. sub prime lending really didn't catch on until 10 years ago. and most of those bad loans were just in the 10 years. so we had a 1980 regular structure in the 21st century. yet you had tremendous evolution of financial products. and i don't think the regulators kept up with them. and then the bad actors always find gaps this the regulation. the sub prime lenders that failed and really brought down wachovia and caused trouble for merrill lynch, bank of america. they were unregulated sub prime lenders. they were making so much money that wachovia bought one. bank of america bought one. merrill bought one.

and they didn't realize that all of the profit were a lot of mortgages that were going bad. >> so if the chairman of your economy, barney frank is saying we need more regulation. you're saying you need smarter regulation. where do you come together? where's the agreement? >> there's an agreement that we need to modernize our system, that the information needs to be there. i know what my derivative agreements with you are. but say allison, i don't know what your arrangements with allison or sean are. i need to know what your liabilities are to other people so i can know whether you will fulfill your obligations to me. with derivatives they need to

full them. we had unregulated sub prime lender who is were affiliates of depository institutions. they failed and they brought down the depository institutions. we also had this going regulator to regulator. and the regulators -- well, if we do this to our institutions, they'll switch their charter. and that's why, really, since july when we introduced our bill, we've gone to a single regulator or an overall regulator. >> sean lengell of the "washington times" congressional reporter. geithner said he was fine with their protection agency.

the update was to reject the president's on vanilla products . >> pure vanilla. >> you've expressed concerns about there this consumer protection agency. given chairman frank's updated plans and giving the administration's seemingly approval of the chairman's plans, would you accept now the democrat's proposed consumer financial protection agency? or do you still have some problems with it? >> basically what we have is chairman frank's talking points. we still have the white paper from the administration that which basically authorize a government agency to design financial product. and as i said earlier, we -- america got to where we are by giving people choices, by

innovation, by new products. it was the abuse of those products where you had a problem where you abused derivatives or you abused sub prime lending or you abused the securitization market or didn't understand it. so i believe what their focusing on is really more government management. you saw that in health care, where they said there are problems. we're going to have a government bureaucracy that's going to come in and make things right. you saw that recently in cap and trade where they actually said we're not going to have nuclear, we're going to fix it all with green. now green's good. but we need nuclear. they came in and we're going to tell the utilities. they've got to do this. and do that. if they don't we're going to tax them and tax their customers. all these new ideas behind them has to be a tax because it's a brand-new bureaucracy. but behind it all is just more government regulation. it's the government making

decision, the government managementing job. the government -- can you imagine 30 yearing ooh someone was going to propose that a government agency design consumer products and that they have to approve the design and the format of every product? >> he took that out of the bill and proposed the bill without that. are you against the agency anyway? >> he hasn't offered legislation. so we don't know. now, what republicans are for and democrats and where we have common ground, we need a better consumer protection. that is why we have said let's have one overall bank regulator that understands the banking system can really patrol. it has the expertise. and we think the way to do that is to draw the safety and soundness regulators in, the

s.e.c., those that are in charge today of consumer production. and let them work for a uniform rule. >> that sounds like what chairman dodd wants. >> senator dodd and senator shelby have basically just recently talked about really something that if you pick up our republican alternative, it looks very similar. yes, we've talked about one regulator. now we would have separate charters within there. >> ok. so the different forms of banking. >> i mean, you would still recognize -- although they've said we're going to shut down the o.t.s. i think a thrift charter is not a bad thing. so i think that ought to be preserved. now you still have a choice between being a state or federal. but the regulators, it would be one single regulator, and they would establish single rule. >> should that regulator --

that single regulator be the federal reserve as a lot of democrats have proposed? >> no, the federal regulator should propose monetarily policy. the federal reserve is not a safety and soundness. they're not a prudential regulator. in fact, they do have a very important tax of monetarily policy, a stable currency. and really you shouldn't distract them by trying to make them in charge of either a consumer protection or for that matter safety and soundness. but they should when it comes to safety and soundness. there has to be a partnership. there has to be a working relationship. there has to be some connection between the federal reserve and what we or what senator dodd has proposed as a single -- and i would say umbrella, a regulator. you you have a lot of experience and those people particularly as we become more

complex in financial services, you can't expect a small agency that has been regulating a community bank to understand a company as diverse as a.i.g. or as diverse as bank of america. you're just asking too much. you need to bring them together. you need some consolidation. you don't just keep creating regulators. >> but aren't we creating other companys that are too big to fail? >> oh, absolutely. and i think the biggest distinction and it existed yesterday and the day before, you saw it glareingly when secretary geithner testified. his republicans have said no to bailing out single companies. i think there's a misconception. we have not said that the fed doesn't have a flole the overall market and stabilizing the financial system or

stabilizing trying to add liquidity of ensuring there's enough capital. but when it comes to the fed or the treasury, bailey out of general motors or a.i.g., we think there were justifications for some interventions last september. but we believe we ought to get of the bailout business. we believe we ought to get out of the business of taxpayers coming in and assuming the riss rocks. we have had a unit assumption of private debt by the public sector. it has been there. it's just been shifted from the private sector to the government. >> former chairman ted bulker. his recommendation is that for

banks, giant banks such as citigroup, you really should limit some of the activities that they should participate in order to make them less risky because they're many the position of probably needing some sort of federal assistance if they got into trouble are you immuneable on this subject? >> i think you brought up an interesting point. i've exerned concerns about what were investment banks. they weren't commercial banks. they were making loans. what they were doing, you know, you may have a pair offer sterns. they >> doing everything from operating hedge funds or private equity. they were trading organizations. they were taking risks. proprietary trading, which is a really separate thing.

and really, you got -- now goldman sachs they've got morgan stanley. if they're going to continue to engay in proprietary lending, if they're going to continue to be involved with hedge funds activities, some of these more risky activities, there actually need to be a separation. >> did you also have some trading activities. you know, and when you get citigroup, bank of america. you do get into trouble because they're real any half or the other. if they're going to are the protection of what was designed for the posture, the american public blib. you start giving them

production. i don't think that's what is intended. this is what paul voker has side. they're there are going to lose money, those federal governments should continue in there and guarantee. or they shouldn't guarantee their obligations. and we've done that over the last year. and that's a big mistake. that's why i understanded my tarp trust, that said any of the go companys that the government has a significant owner in they have a lot of trust. it was observership. >> you mentioned that republicans are not against reforming the regulatory system. at the same time, you've also expressed your distaste for

bailing out companies. but where do we draw that line? where is that line between aiding a company that if it fails it could seriously happen. >> you ask why did it fail snl did it fell because you were in a risky bhar or. i'll give you a distinction. there's been a lot of talk about 313-3 federal reserve act. much of what id dit, it would do none that. the second design is to stabilize the overall market. i don't think it with us every designed to by a part of general motors or to by a.i.g.

i don't think that is what i understand. secretary voker sess i have -- sess i have greater concern. that's where we have said no. >> but with the depnstial firms, you had said earlier there month an these are your words, we need to do that without regulation. >> we've had market discipline. we've let companies gamble. and say gameable. that's a take home risks, but those risk have turned out badly, we didn't come in and social ligse. you might side, they're losses. private ties the floor, if i

said that, i don't like that i don't think the taxpayers like that. the united states is really pabt people going o out and createing new products, innovating. and often they fail. i mean, you look at the internet bowl. at loy of those countries failed. a lot of government wasn't failing them out when you failed or the government said don't take that, now we get back to what allison called what were the investments who have disappeared. it depends which activity they're engaged in. we believe there's role for government and there has been since the 19930's.

and ensuring your deposits in a commercial bank. but when you get beyond that, >> you -- when you bet what's going on? i think what republicans have said no, we're not going to intervene in the private market. but if those vets turned out badly, the taxpayers aren't going. >> after that, you did have -- included sitigroup. they have these trading arms and had in hedge funs. is there a role in sing if you have a commercial bank mostly a commercial bank you should not be able to honor head lights. you're de mo sits are protected

by the federal government. well, i think if aur commercial bank. and you engage. or you a hedge fun. or you're doing proprietary trade. then that shouldn't be guaranteed. you either need to wall that out. there need to be a wall of separation. part of the answer to that is pull back that safety net. i do believe this -- and steve as we started this discussion, you know, what we witnessed last year. it was the overextension of leverage and credit. to a certain extent that was a failure of safety and soundness regulator. i don't think you create

another regulator on top of that that that solves anything. but when you look at those activities if those banks are going to come out of the protection of the f.d.i.c., then you have to see how much risks their assuming, how much leverage. >> the $700 billion so-called wall street bailout that the asset relief program, tarp, set to expire at the end of this year, unless congress decides to extend it through october, 2010. we still have a few months left to make your decision. but would you be willing to extend it? >> shawn, the administration's proposal is basically making it permanent. that's what they're doing, they're just proposing that we're going to earpt this plam. we're going to continue it.

10 years from now, secretary -- the secretary said, i wouldn't take off the table a trillion dollar bailout. secretary geithner said i wouldn't take it off the table. let me tell you, we're going to take it off the table. any legislation we pass that i'm am party too and the republicans in the house are a party to, swronet the bailout of individual companies. but >> but do you have the votes? >> i think we have more colleagues that agree with us. more every day. more every day -- you know, the fed for instance has become, they have become the chief purchaser of fannie and may

securities. they purchased about 50% of the treasures that were offered in the second quarter. we now have government nor agencies bailing out or financing other government agencies. and you've got to ask you're the question, who bails time-out government. you know, if the government keeps bailing out the government, where does it end? i mean who -- that's why -- everything we discuss if we don't get our handle on social security. if we don't get our hands on medicaid and medicare, you're talking about the bail outs. you have the housing the g.s.c.'s. now the treasury and the fed are beginning to -- they're the

purchasers of those onablyizations. you have the f.d.i.c. who recently set our reserved. they've at least declined. i think they set aside for losses. you know have a -- you know chairman frank said a year ago, if i can get with president obama and 60 members of the senator. i can get the government back in the market. he's done it. when you talk about the housing market today, you're talking about the government. and what worries me about that is where do housing prices go? >> if they continue to go down. yeah, it could bring many of

these government agencies bloun and was them the fed that the trevssi have said. >> some conservists say we have become more of a model. i don't think anybody has aqumed name in that sylvia model. any time you step in the government and you begin when -- and you begin to, if you can't make the payment we'll make it for you. we'll seasons -- that's the product you're going to buy. i would certainly say we're getting age way to what made this country great.

which was' the first thing i had to go back to it. if i if were to to go today? >> if you were working in the r.n.c. you know, we could have avoitsed most of which we weren't if the credit agencies had done their jobs. with that you're going to have more consistent disclosure. ied a vow quayed -- advocated. what i advocated adopted it two years later. there has been that we avoided a lot of heart ache. do you any we will see any legislation this year. yeah, because i think there is consensus between the american people and i think a growing

majority of congress that we're not going to bail out individual companies. there's an agreement in congress that we have do a better job of protect the con sirme. and we can't do it by having eight or nine different agencies to try to do the job. everybody's in charge. no one's in charge. we can screat without any expertise of safety and soundness. and tell them to go frequent consumer. congressman baucus ranking republican. lun from -- lindell from "the

washington times." >> how would that shape on anything that could come out of that committee and capital hill. certainly this is a useful -- consider by partson supports against continuesing to do this practice. this week, this past week there were a group of 28 house members bipartisan that sent a letter to second saying that they need to expire. so this is is an issue at home. the whole bailout program has not been terribly popular in home dist districts. and and so i think there's general -- there is

considerable bi-partisan support to end more bailouts. >> i agree there's var little support and the covet for passing -- cover for passing this reform. there's a paper that says, if another ca that trophy happens against and we have to come and deal with a failing bank that if we were afraid is going to take down this that whole financial system. they have a line that says, among the things that a treasurey has is the ability to inject money in the ban use taxpayer funds or give the banks the phones. he is trying to get secretary

guide ner. he would limit it to 1,820. there's a limit. the there's a that field goal out there. and there's a lot of resys tangs. but i think the people in the room last fall dealing with with the financial system wants to vavibble. mr. bachus thinks that there was going to be a lot of ta ba us the proposal. >> i feel -- her regulation, but not as much as the administration likes. the proposed consumer prex

agency, it would be a new agency to safeguard against shady mortgages and things like that. that would be another level of bureaucracy. i think that would be another support for it as long as it sort of gets widled down and if mention's has already expressed some said that they were willing to allow that to -- not to be a big of a scale. >> sharon, thanks fire fighter being with us. allison fitzgerald, thank you for joining us ons" newsmakers." thank you. nice to be here. this week on q. & a. --

>> an event now with u.s. central commander general david petraeus, he talks about the situation in afghanistan. this an event hosted by the marine corps university here in washington. it's about 90 minutes.

>> i am the president of the marine corps university. it's my pleasure to be with you today. before we get to our last panel and our keynote speaker, i'd like to take an opportunity to thank all the people that made this possible. the marine corps foundation acknowledged general tom brown. they provide events like this. for academic chairs for student trips. and we wouldn't be able to do what we do without him. so i'd ask you for a round of applause for what he does for the foundation. [applause] >> i would like to acknowledge those at the university.

major andy ha melton, gretchen cam lan and mr. mark moyer for running the events today. [applause] >> the university's committed in creating dialogue to address problems we are likely to face in the 21st century. i hosteder marled express event addressing issues with that in afghanistan. we hope toe do another one this following spring. for those of you that have not participated in those events, visit or website and possibly join us again in the future. now let me get right to the panel. i'll remind everybody that the topic for today is leadership in a coin environment. during the past eight years,

airmen and marine have fought side by face achieving in my cases the same accomplishments. they served affect natly for different services. we are truly a real force. in all kinds of war especially the counter insurgency is porn. it could not be developed or those in international leadership cannot get better. we all learn every day and get better. i would say we're certainly better leaders from what we learned from others than we were in the past. the history of the nations show them very talented in putting

the right person at the right place at the right time. our panel today will be able to talk, general petraeus will be able to talk today about how we were able to at least in iraq and we're working with that in afghanistan to find the best iraqi leaders to lead those units. i think improvement in the quality of the iraqi leadership is a critical factor in the transition of so many security responsibilities to the iraqi security forces and the iraqi government. our panel today is going to be moderated by lieutenant general trainor, obviously, a man, who i have an instruction. if you don't know who general petraeus is, see me outside. [laughter] >> general trainor is a marine, joined the marine corps after world war ii. served in korea in combat. was a battalion commander in vietnam. he ended up making the rank of three stars and retiring. he's been a successful writer.

he and michael gordon have written a couple of books on iraq. general petraeus is the commander of centcom. and we all know for those who served together, he was the commander of multiforces in iraq from september 2007 to when he assumed central command. so with that sir, thank you very much for coming today. appreciate you taking the time. the floor is yours. >> thanks a lot, bob. >> thanks for that mercifully brief instruction. i've had this conference on the calendar for a number of months. and it's a topic that's very good, very timely. and very important. and i applaud bob, what you and your team have done in pulling it together.

i feel privilege to be on this panel. it's great to be a panel of one with my marine on any flank here. congratulations as well, bob, you've just taken over the command of the intellectual center of the universe there, the marine corps university. and i commend you for that and commend the marine corps for that with a very straight face having seen you in action and knowing what you've done over the years. and i can assure the audience that is a very, very good selection. and we're delighted to see you where you are. it's also wonderful to see so many familiar faces, so many important members of what's come to be known as counter insurgency nation here today. but looking at a lot of those who were out in this audience and knowing that i've power pointed many of you within an inch of your intellectual lives on most occasion, i said the

most productive is a conversation facilitated by a great marine leader and a great historian that's of course general trainor. well that was my thinking, but then being a u.s. army officer the idea of power point prompted me to reconsider. it's genetic. what i thought i would do is set the scene with four or five slides that provides contends with the challenges that our leaders are facing in the overall area of responsibility p. then have our conversation and q&a with a full deck of slides as required. finally, up front as well, my apologies to those who showed up be all afghanistan all the time and to hear me divulge details as we were reminded

that conference focus is leadership in counter insurgency. i know you've had great sessions on that already today. and with respect that should be the focus of the questions this afternoon. i can assure you it will be the focus of my answers. [laughter] we were doing counter insurgency at the time. i was privileged to work under general galvin. and werle engaged in el salvador, peru and a variety of other places. i remember watching him with the press today and he was done. and i was a special assistant. so you know he'd -- they would ask afterwards, well, what do did you think? well, gosh, seemed super. you got all your points across. but it struck me that you didn't answer any of their questions. >> he said, they didn't ask any of mine. so a couple of slides.

again just to set the stage here if i could. next slide. this is central command now. now some of you will remember central command and will remember a world prior to one october last year where there was one less je graphic combatant commander and where central command still had the horn of africa. at the start of the fiscal year there are now six geographic commands to go along with the four other co bat tant commands that have specified functions central command is therefore the smallest of the je graphic combat and commands. but regretably it seems to have the lion's share of the problems. now just focusing a little more just to remind you where we are.

the other states in the north and down through of course yemen and the other southern part of the arabian peninsula. and everything in between. all told, 20 countries. we have ambassadors in 18 of them. and you can see the various challenges that exist there. it's a region i don't need to tell this audience of haves and have-nots. the richest per capita country in the world and also among the poorest countries in the world. extraordinarily blessed in oil and natural gas but often poor in fresh water. some countries again with spectacular construction activities ongoing and others that have very substantial services inadequate governments and a host of other challenges to confront. and therefore are in my cases fertkl ground in planting the

seeds of extremism. these the challenges are out there. you know about them, a couple of other trance national terrorists and we have iran which continue to arm, train hunt. shiah extremists elements to a modess degree in afghanistan. there's the piracy issue. be happy to talk about that. touch wood, but we've actually made a bit of progress against that with its own defense as the more ships. the challenge there being a failed state. we still do support operations that are conducted with after caon or there the navel component commanners. obviously, we still have the operations in iraq.

need less to say the -- there are are others. i'm sorry go to the next slide beyond this. flip threw this quickly, please. feel that -- there we go. back up one, please. this shows the elements in central command. it shows in a snapshot what we are trying to do across the a.o.r. in terms of in the stands to replace the traditional great game, the competition for power and influence among the powers of the world with a broad partnership against extremeism, and trafficic that comes out of afghanistan. obviously, a major effort

supporting pakistan where we've seen heartening developments. in particular against those elements seen by the pakistanis as threatening their writ of government and their very existence. but also of course, some of the operations and the tribal areas that have resulted in the death of some of the key leaders among them. afghanistan, needless to say, i now you've spent a good time on it. and we have a bunch of back-up slides and so', if you want to get into it that. it's continued effort in the nuclear arena which many would assess it to deliver it with their missile efforts. happy to show you the statistics in iraq where there

continues to be very substantial progress. still down to 220 attacks per day fer range even with with the iraqi sometime fray. although we've seen horrific -- i think it's called black wednesday. by and large significant damage done still in al-qaeda and still shiah extreme is present. the reconstruction and all the bridges just about have been rebuilt that were bone off by the extremists. higher oil ex-morts in their history back in august.

-- exports in their history back in august. so quite a bit of progress there albeit many, many challenges. sunni shiah. they prepare for the 2010 elections. you name it, plenty of challenge there is. no shortage of issues that have to be resolved. we continue to support the lebanese armed forces. heartening development tpwhr the elections. not so heart nk yet in the form of sa heed ha rary. we're going to go the first big bright star exercise this year than we've done in a number of years, i think probably since 2002 or so.

if you were to characterize all the overall effort, i think would you say that it is mildly positive that the developments all the way from the fata over into arke lebanon egypt, the golf of -- gulf states, they counter terrorism there. and it's something we will highlight in a moment. with the exception of yemen. and that's where al-qaeda and the arabian peninsula have established their territory. they're located down there in the arabian peninsula in some of the southern tribal areas. again, that is a concern. and i do trap into africa.

i mentioned the piracy effort here. and financial this very subential series of partnerships that have taken with countries along the western side of the gulf there. many of them in a sense motivated because of concern over iraq's rhetoric and iran's rhetoric and i ran's actions. i ran has been the recruiter of federal command. some time ago there were none of those. so a lot of other activities as you could imagine in the my sill ballistic attack. countrys that are very substantially embracing. we can then turn into

multibattling a. if you can show who's doing all this -- next slide. i'm sorry i want to talk briefly about this. this was an an insight in the strategic positions. this is something i've been briefing for about eight months. during the 2006, 2007 time frame. the thing about it is it requires more than your special university forces. counter insuri general approach. that does not mean that we have to be the one providing the forces or all the resources or anything else. it does mean that many

different governmental agencies civil partnerships and again a come prea hence i approach to these problems is the answer. i would hold out frankly as an example what the king has done because they have had sigh per b program. yes their d -- yes, their secretary of their interior has been great. but by and large given where they were four and a half, five years okay. the headquarters is blown up when the complex was sletnd and thousands of western workers were leaving. the response they had was quite similar to the anaconda slide that i have in reserve. to remind you what a solo

government approach looked like. and so we'd be theep discuss that furtherer as well. further as well. >> now just a reminder, of course, as well of the come mow ponents that are out there. obviously, we've gotten the typical army, navy, and stars, they plit their time although they're about 70, to 80% left. i've been the four star command in a rock. and afghanistan we showed if u.s. forces in aufing that he -- in eafl. >> in addition to that, the two store in pakistan two star, one, one, star, a flag officers and're operations are out there because of the enormous

security. we try to build a network of networks. help to some degree by the concerns of the activities of iran. so that's sort of again -- thing sets the stabling. before we start the conversation since it's about leadership, we auls off used to use this because this was a metaphor for what tfers what we're trying to do in iraq. the task or the missions and what you're trying to do is get the cattle but boy it's tough and it's raining side wies. this might be an i.e.d. we're riding for glory. a handful of us are outriders. we're all trying to get it

going. the point was walls this slide to make the, to illustrate the idea that leaders and counter insurgency with a slight degree of discomfort or chaos of course, and again, the mells poe tame yum standard, involved nonstandard tasks that we spend . i know you've heard other speakers during the course of today. we'll leave that up because i think it's a great reminder of if challenges that he face. and it was a farly uncomfort nl endover. wand that i will bing with my

wing mand. begin the conversation and we will go ahead and have the question and maintenance. >> i'm going to go out there and start the vision -- i moith go with you. before i make my preliminary services. we went into afghanistan to go after the alaska. and we went to iraq and i.q.u. give us fits an you loob it to the fact that the al-qaeda is down of somalia. my question is, you know, things move all the time. so my question is how would you define him today and how would you describe his estate of health. as i ex-ed the moment. i think diminished where it

was. it is certainly diminished from when we lost the search in sellerly fwevpb. again, again, i think that if you look at what's been done to al-qaeda in the toy that. now i'm non, treatmentists. there's been a di my knew shan of their activities. that doesn't mean -- i think in the united states it was reported to there not alerts in other countries and various locations in that area as well. it doesn't mean there's a linking from akack east and the a-- over to al-qaeda. we have power point slides, of course. that can build and it build

every and every little link that can trap these. and the folks that are in that bat dsu -- we can show that pretty well. showing it and being able to target or disrupt or ultimately defeat some of those elements is another case. and often, again that require as bit more than just kinetic activity. it also requires in the case of iraq where you ru do clear, hold and build certain areas that were sanctuaries in that case for al-qaeda, iraq or our sunni. i think that has been an assessment that has been shared by the c.i.a. they gave a major report in novet last year that had a similar asissment.

and i think the community's assessment is the same as well. >> ok. let me remind you all of the rules of engagement. raise your hand if you want to be recognized. wait for the mic, so that everybody can hear you. identify yourself and your ifill yation. and ask a question, but only one question, no follow up questions. and make it succinct. if you're going to make a statement, please do not make it a fidel castro, two-hour speech. stick to what you want to say. and say it precisely, if you go on too long, i'll cut you off. >> this is why we had a marine, by the way. [laughter] >> now the other thing i want to mention is stay on topic, the topic of the conference has

been leadership in counter insur surgency, iraq and beyond. general petraeus is not going to dress any mechanic dation about it. with that we'll get it underway. so who's the first -- in the back. that's you. stand up. state your name, affiliation once you get the microphone. and i would ask the attendants for the microphones to be on their toes if they're even in here. >> there is a microphone -- oh, that's not