>> i did say that but i said it in the context of warren's estioning that we assure all of aig creditorsor he bailout. and again, what i was trying to convey their is i don't think that was a consequence of what we do. i don't think that was the intent of policy. the intent was to draw a line and prevent further collapse of the system and they drew the line at aig. and at the next point i was going to try to make was that if and as some have urged the government in november or somewhere else along the way try to extract concessions from the aig creditors having intervened in aig would that have communicated the broad market about the government role with regard to other firms the other large institutions which by then have made investments in what they have promoted financial stability to think for the markets to think that the government was going to turnaround for all of the large financial institutions which it didn't own the preferred stock and demand a creditor concessions? would that have encouraged financial intermediation or discourage? what it promote stability or promote instab

to go back to the previous estion of what is going on in afghanistan, is important that we understandhat the taliban and al qaeda does not present an existeial threat to the united states. they do not have an industrial base. they do not have armies. they are terrorists. now because of the fact that afghanistan has no means of national support for a large army, where is the end game? are y proposing that just pay and afghanistan until they develop a modern economy and a modern democracy? for heaven's sake, their constitution was drafted by the french as part of the nato mission ended in binges out strong -- it envisions a strong central government which is like afghan culture and tradition. i've studied this issue. we need to kill our enemies. we do not need to build a modern nation state where one has not extended for 100 years. >> there are so many problems with this health care bill that we must repeal it. lest the star with the fact that it ought not -- it does not solve any of the problems that said it would solve. i battled breascancer last year. that is why my hair looks a litt

the european countries are standing up and there are estions about performance. and questions of effectiveness of our performance. the important thing is that the europeans have been with us in those two fights and are with us today in afghanistan in a big way. russia and china are different case, russia because of its history and identitying power in afghanistan wouldn't work on the ground and they facilitated it and it's positive. and china is beginning to get active in iraq and afghanistan in developing iraqi oil and in some reconstruction activities in afghanistan. that's a good thing and should be encouraged. i think one thing that is many times missed is how much both iraq and afghanistan have been an international effort, not just the united states going at it alone. host: the "washington times" report that is general mcchrystal is assisting iraq in afghanisn an do you agree? guest: we did see the iranians getting active in western part of the country. i think, i think what i would say is this. iran has had conflicted view towards afghanistan, in 2001, and

liability, which are, by their very nature, closely linked to these presently unanswered factual estions. anything specific we might say in this connection would be speculative and perhaps misleading or potentially so, to the committee and to the public. given the very limited extent of everyone's present suddenier standing of the facts, it is impossible for anyone to make any liability determinations at this point. nonetheless, eve unof us is mindful of the personal, environmental and economic concerns associated with this incident. we understand the need to discover the facts relating to what went wrong and to do all that is possible to prevent the recurrence are of an incident in the future. i'm here to answer your questions. thank you. >> attorney vincent foley, partner with holland & knight in the marine -- in the maritime practice group, practicing primarily in the area of international litigation arising out of vessel casualties, including coalitions, groundings, exosions, fires and oil spills. he has participated in all aspects of oil spill litigation, oil pollution prevention se

. >> now we'll move on to >>estion. i will take my question thank pd first. >> mov mr. noll and mr. leibowitz, mr. ening to your testimony, i'm not sure anything happened on thursday.z, everything worked, is that correct? happene >> oh, i don't think any of useg would say everything worked. wo. i think, in fact what mr. noll was saying was a systems work but i think we'd all agree the market did not. and i think -- his systems >> what caused that, the market do not work?agree th the >> i think what both of us have >> wha found is liquidity's lead the? >> market, just as through the dayt as the market was get his. then an overwhelming wave of ar the mame in on the sell side that just build on its cell. ane i think having a market wideheel circuit breaker in effect wouldn have helped mitigate that having problem, but in effect thecircui market would be liquid justped m after longtime as hell hell that orders broke into the market.rog >> i think, mr. chairman, i think there's two things to broe observe that happen. i would agree with mr. leibowit that the markets did not behave normall

please go ahead with your estion for dr. fauci.aller: i'm a ob-gyn and what i find the two biggest problems are, one, marketing drugs, unsophisticated doctors that use high powered drugs. secondly, primary care docrs who have yet -- family practice people are taught to use high-powered drugs on simple drugs and now i can't treat gonorrhea with cypro and others are going away because too damn many doctorsre having marketed high-powered drugs when the simple ones will work so you need to something about marketing drugs to doctors. you should not have people saying you should use my -- host: we got the point. let's get an answer. guest: the point is well taken. what he is referring to is it is almost like using a cannon when you could use a pistol. if someby comes in with an infection that is likely sensitive to an antibiotic that is not a real blockbuster that can knock virtually any microbe out, if you use your heavy weons against thing that don't need happy weapons, at the end of a period of time those heavy weapons will not be as

campbell's line of estioning here because last week we had fasb's cabins across submit testimony herehat in many waysrecognized or admit a certain dichotomy here or a certain problem when it comes to the impact or effect on this decision. he said -- he said that keeping assets on the books will better reflect financial institutions exposures to risk, but may also, in his words, affects their ability to comply with the regulatory capital requirements and therefore affct the liquidity available to real estate in the u.s. to commercial real estate specifically. and one of the debates that we have had about the vicious circle that we've got ourselves caught in is the fact that in many cases you have performing loans, but banks aren't allowed to be banks right now. you know, if the appraiser -- the appraisal comes back and the value, you know, isn't what necessary, there regardless the fact it's a performing mound and in the past maybe you keep it on the books and you have to make that tough decision because the regulator is breathing down your neck. and at that hearing, u.s. up a witness