. >> colby? >> i think you did it the right way. he needed to get the endorsement of the arab league, and whether it is led by our allies are we participate, a new international front. what happens? gaddafi in effect faulted, once he realized there was the possibility of international action. >> haven't we been hearing warnings from the generals an about the risks of a no-fly zone over libya? >> exactly. exactly why i am very grateful that we're not the leading force in this. we did not get off half cocked leading on our own. >> what about charles' point? >> i think protecting civilians gives the united nations forces in a lot of wiggle room. you can respond to any action that gaddafi's people might take against the rebels. >> what is the commitment? how long? what will it cost us? anybody going to ask those questions? >> that is why we needed to date, april public debate in the congress for this -- a full public debate in the congress for this. the bridge of the british are already there on this, but the idea of assembling -- the f

colby ross injured today in tepe in a giants game against the angels.e was chasing down a fly ball and he gingerly walked off the field. he was taken by car to the giants' training room. here's what we know right now. mri is under way as we >> , the giants will not no more until they see the results of the mri. that will be some time tomorrow. it's all speculation until now. it could either be serious or nothing. it depends on how ross response after a battery of tests against that calf. now what are the options? i talked to my people in arizona. if cody can go who's in richfield? he would not commit although he would fill in the legs.the blanks. ths the great unknown. we all know what he did in october. we will see some of that interview saturday night. >>pam: we want to tell you about kron 4 is baseball special. gary is going to host baseball by the bay with a preview of the giants and a's. we will have interviews of the players and an up close look at spring training that's this coming saturday at 8:00 p.m.. we will be right back with more news, weat

>> colby? >> i'm not having as much difficulty understanding this, whether you agree with it or not. the objective is to stop gaddafi from killing his own people. air superiority, aircraft back on the ground, protecting the civilian population. i think they have achieved that limited objective. the question is where do we go from here, but i don't see any confusion on the limited objective. >> benchmark of success, charles? >> the international community's policy, meaning the u.n. authorization, is to protect the population. that is the minimalist position. the u.s. as a separate -- i don't know if they used the word "objective," but it is clear that he has to go. our national interest is that he go, because as evan said, if he doesn't, we will have problems at home, we will have lost. the problem is that obama has hitched himself to the un, this multilateralism, so that we are constrained to go for what the u.n. and the international community wants, which is much, much less than what the u.s.

colby, do these hearings make sense to you? >> had they been constructed differently. "the economist" said that with peter king running the hearings -- it would be like having a subject handled by a steamroller. the subject is homegrown terrorism, how it comes about, how we handle it, it could have been a conduct all -- conductive hearing. he just talked about the muslim community and the community's response to it, putting the onus on the muslim community. we said after the attacks and london, it cannot happen here because of the muslim community. we were wrong. why is it that way? why is that the case? >> charles? >> homeland security says the major threat of islamic radical terrorism is internal. we have had some success since 9/11 in keeping the x turtles from getting into our country and attacking. we do that well. we have a problem that is a recurrent one, the fort hood shooter, the times square attacker, all of those -- the somali kid that end up in somalia. we know they are radicalized inside america. of course it is a problem. the attack on king has been nothi

>> colby? >> i'm not having as much difficulty understanding this, whether you agree with it or not. the objective is to stop gaddafi from killing his own people. air superiority, aircraft back on the ground, protecting the civilian population. i think they have achieved that limited objective. the question is where do we go from here, but i don't see any confusion on the limited objective. >> benchmark of success, >> the international community's policy, meaning the u.n. authorization, is to protect the population. that is the minimalist position. the u.s. as a separate -- i don't know if they used the word "objective," but it is clear that he has to go. our national interest is that he go, because as evan said, if he doesn't, we will have problems at home, we will have lost. the problem is that obama has hitched himself to the un, this multilateralism, so that we are constrained to go for what the u.n. and the international community wants, which is much, much less than what the u.s. wants an

there's a little bit of experience with colby, the same thing happened. and explanation back then was, that the japanese insurance companies had invested abroad and had to bring money back to try to get funds inside japan to pay off. also, you should differentiate it from the stories you see in the newspaper about the bank of japan issuing lots of union. that's just liquidity. am am one of these things happen, if you thought about having in u.s. we all rushed to the atm and we want money. that's what's happened in japan. so the bank of japan quite easily just accommodates that by pumping a lot of money into the domestic economy as evidence it is working. you see no signs of rise in interest rates inside japan. no shortage of funds. and also i think what's happened on the exchange rate is they are thinking this money is going to have to come back from abroad. i think it's exaggerated. for a bunch of reasons. if i was in japan and i was running a japanese company, i would not liquidate my holdings in order to come back to rebuild in japan. just borrow it in

a reference, the colby disaster was estimated to be about a loss of about $100 billion. this one looks like it's going to be in the neighborhood of 200-300 billion, but those are pretty crude estimates. people are just guessing. but at that magnitude you are talking something went four to 5% of gdp, one or 2% of japan's well. it's not a great big number that you get. in the short run, the effects will be that the infrastructure has been disrupted, transportation, but it is being restored, within a few months ago so that should be completed. there was a huge loss of thousands. he will have to move these people somewhere in japan to find an at least temporary housing. but those are all solvable problems. there will be a supply-side disruption. it looks like -- the industries that were most affected is electronics. they were in the northern part. most of japanese industry is in the south, the south side of tokyo. therefore, largely unaffected. so i think the overall, the lesson is this is not the big problem. in the short run it will have a depressed effect of the japanese

we've got jim colby's hourglass that has five minutes each, and so we'll watch that carefully.up just any minute. they're 15 minutes each. what i'm going to suggest we wait as long as we possibly can, and then we adjourn. i know your time is very valuable. if you'll stay, we'll make our two votes, come right back and finish because i know we've got lots of questions. i'm going to start with following up on what mrs. lowey was talking about, about the subject of iran ask sanctions. president obama, as you know, signed into law a stronger iran sanctions act last july that requires the secretary of the treasury to prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining of accounts to foreign financial institutions that he finds knowingly engage in certain activities. why is the treasury department failed to sanction foreign banks that continue to work with sanctioned iranian entities in violation of u.s. law? is it your belief that no foreign banks are conducting business with sanctioned iranian entities in violation of u.s. law? >> a very important question, i'm glad y