could have a revised security clearance procedure which would identify people like -- before i was an fso, i was a security officer. you'll never catch people like that in the security clearance office. it does not work that way. finally, i have a suggestion. one of the things that might mitigate some of the damage -- and i am speaking as a person who has written thousands of cables for the state department -- we use names. not all the agencies in the government use names. for example, the cia, other intelligence agencies, the not on purpose use names. they refer to perhaps something like a government official, or some way of fudging that. maybe the state department should go that route. i do not like it myself. it does not read well, to begin with. but what do you think about that? going to a no-names policy? >> i think it could work in some cases, particularly the second or third secretary talking to somebody. you could certainly not identified by name but give a characterization or a description. but obviously when it comes to high-level discussions, it matters who you are talking to b