we expressed our concern through ambassador eikenberry to president karzai and his government. as a result of that, president karzai called secretary clinton on friday to clarify his remarks. he specifically said during the course of his conversation on friday that they weren't directed at the united states. in fact, at one point he said he was complaining about media coverage, as politicians tend to do. so i'm going to take a cautious approach here. i can't explain what he said about the taliban. he is the elected leader of afghanistan. we're working closely with he and his government. ultimately, as i said last week, this is not about the relationship between president karzai and the united states. this is about the relationship between president karzai, his government, and his people. ultimately, he has to demonstrate leadership and effectiveness to his people. and it's not about us; it's about the basic relationship between the government of afghanistan, the people of afghanistan. they want to see that government perform more effectively and so do we. >> right, p.j., but i

with the upcoming plan the offensive in kendrkandahar, you know, ambassador eikenberry was here recentlyd he said it was going to be one part of military and five parts political. the one part military, the afghan leadership is likely to ksupport. the five parts political, a big portion. Ñ-- a big question. >> and from the christian science monitor. i would like to go back to the reset with russia subject. could you talk a bit about the political aspect of it and where you see any relationship developing between obama and medvedev, whether that could cause a split between medvedev and putin in terms of the direction and -- of the countries? where you see the politics going and obama may be finding a better friend in medvedev then he may find in putin? >> i think there's no question that president obama finds it easier casa and more pleasant to -- easier and more pleasant to interact with mr. medvedev then he does mr. putin. -- then he does mr. putin. it is a tricky -- than he does mr. putin. is po a tricky ...int. in my discussions with administration officials i have confirmed that ther

with the upcoming -- the planned offensive in kandahar, you know, ambassador eikenberry was here recently. and his comment was, you know, this is one part political -- excuse me, one part military, five parts political. the one part military, the afghan leadership is likely to support. the five parts political, big, big question mark. >> welcome to the bipartisan nonideologically driven center for strategic for international studies. right over here. >> francine kiefer from the "christian science monitor." i would like to go back with the reset of russia subject. could you talk a little bit about the political aspect of it. and whether you see any relationship developing between obama and medvedev? whether that could cause a split between medvedev and putin in terms of direction of the country. where do you see the politics going and obama perhaps finding a better friend in medvedev than he may find in putin? >> well, i think there's no question that president obama finds it easier and more pleasant to interact with mr. medvedev than he does with mr. putin. it's a tricky -- a tricky point

i would really complement general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry and the obama administration forthe job they are doing in afghanistan. in pakistan, i came away more encouraged. i think their civilian and military leadership gives the country a lot of hope. it is important that they recognize what a threat the taliban is to their country. we do not hear a lot about it. they have major military operations going against the taliban and they are forcing the taliban back into afghanistan, which allows us to track them -- trap them. there is cooperation happening there. hopefully, the pakistani people will recognize the good that the american people are also doing for the people of pakistan. lastly, it is critical for the united states and our national interests that pakistan be a stable country and that it not fall into the hands of the taliban. it is in our interest to make sure there is stability in the region. it was a pleasure to be on the trip. our staff did a great job on this. tom carper's staff did a great job with a trip -- with the trip. >> i will make my comments brief. sen

well is to have a terrific leadership and we have that in general mcchrystal and in ambassador eikenberry, the former general on the civilian side. we met with a number of folks in the leadership in afghanistan on the afghanistan side. president karzai among others to the ed ministers within the cabinet and other folks that were part of the parliament when for the folks in the media and we met with a lot of the troops who ran the southern part of afghanistan for the better part of one day and a lot of trips included our states and had the opportunity to see among other things to see actually remember the film sleeping with the enemy we had the opportunity to see u.s. troops sweeping the same compound with afghan national army troops with our allied troops, with afghan national police and we have done is we don't have the arresters out by themselves in a compound somewhere. they are integrated and we meet with the afghan national army and sometimes police we eat with them, then the same areas, train with them, they sometimes need operations and sometimes we do. it's very much an integrated

orix eikenberry disclosure requirements when you are talking -- >> i think there is a disclosure requirement when you are talking about underwriting. but the disclosure of the risks associated with that is not related to whether you are long or short also or whether housing is going up or down. does the product deliver what the client seeks? >> if disclosure is not given equally to both sides, because you said it had to be given equally to both sides to make it work, if it is not given to both sides, whose responsibility is that? -- is not you. porges it to you? -- or is it you? >> the disclosures are very well involved. >> ok, is it to you? >> i think the disclosure document would disclose -- would disclose to the world the buyers in that incident. >> so you think i knew that paulson was part of securities? >> again, the lawsuit is whether we satisfied it and that is a factual issue. >> do you on behalf of goldman accept any responsibility for the collapse of 2008? spuck >> yes. >> are you in any way embarrassed that the u.s. taxpayer had to bail out kohlman? >> we got funds for the governm

one is -- and i expressed this to general mcchrystal, ambassador eikenberry, when we had a -- one of our pwraoegz was of the -- one of our briefings was of the various aspects of the international coalition from usaid to the state department, various aspects of the state department, the military, all of the coalitions that represent what are called p.r.t.'s or prevention reconstruction teams. when we were in that meeting, i asked the question about, you know, how much money we were spending now, but also it was very clear when we were talking about the economy of afghanistan and whether it would be able to support this large army and large police force that we're putting into place, i asked the question: how much money are we spending now and how much is going to be into the future, and how long? because president obama has talked about us starting to withdraw troops about the middle of 2011, around july 1 start drawing down some troops there. it became very obvious, though, that we're going to have to have a commitment there for some time. i think it's important for us to be honest