>> college started it off by referring to shared interest among on-line users that are not necessarily a parent initially when one is upset with another in the course of a deal. unlocked the black box a little for us. what do you do? for those in this room who work in conflict resolution, what do you do to help change the nature of that antagonistic at this aerial conversation over a deal gone bad and resolve it? i am sure you have the same thing in facebook where you have a difference for a dispute with some angry folks that you have to mollify. tell us what are the tricks of the trade? >> i have been in conflict resolution for about 20 years. i never thought that i would work for a park -- a for-profit companyebay called me. >>ebay is cherry picking from the peace corps. [laughter] >> the reason i entertain that is because ebay is a third-place party. they are resolving interests they don't have an interest in. they don't have a vested interest in the outcome. we have 60,000 disputes and only 15,000 employees. we talk about the fourth party where we use technology to play the role of a traditional third- party like a mediator or arbitrator. we can result more than half of our pre -- disputes between communication between the two sides. that is facilitated through technology. short messages create conflict escalation. if you have a real-time chat between two people, you do not have time to do a well done resolution. unfortunately, ts is an aspect of facebook and twitter is that they have short messages which makes it difficult to engage in meaningful communication. people can express their spots, fully composed it, and submitted for it who communicates first? in an ebay dispute, the buyer is the aggrieved party. they are mad and they have an incentive to scream from the rooftops and make accusations against the seller. the seller has the buyer's money and may not have to vote -- delivered an item. you don't want to give the buyer to communicate first. they will make threats and accusations. you want to collect information from the buyers in a structured way said they feel they are communicating everything but you can take the escalation out of that vacation and you put the ball into the court of the seller. they have the incentive to resolve the case and resolve that buyer because they will leave feedback for that seller within the system and that eventually affects all of the downstream prospects for a duty to design the systems in a way that is cognizant of the role of the parties, the touch of issues they have. we have millions of these transactions that come through ebay and we make them more effective over time. let's apply this to other types of disputes. that is the kind of a research i would like to engage in. >> not on the scale of the court agreed goods, many of the complex in the real world are clear that we will not solve those on our own. how do we allow people to pick a geography that better describes their understanding? the interesting challenge has been setting rules and we have to decide what to allow and what not to allow for it occasionally, there are conflicts with facebook decisions and has a u.s.-based company, we have more freedom of speech the other nationalities may be comfortable with. at that point, it becomes a very different kind of dispute resolution where facebook has to say that this is what we have decided to allow and this is our reasoning. that is not always going to be something that the aggrieved parties will be good with. that is an important thing. as these pressures build, you can stand for what to have decided. >> questions? >> yes, i know that facebook was not designed -- >> can you identify yourself? >> i am a philosophy student at temple university in philadelphia. i know facebook was not designed as a forum for political activism particularly but some people use it for that. all kinds of things happen. some people seem to be in support of regime change and i have had friends say that is slightly dangerous to their relatives who are in iran. that becomes a concern. yesterday i saw some posts that said the islamic republic is on there and collecting these posts and collecting data to use and find people and interrogate them and who knows what can happen since facebook was not set up for this, what can you do or what are you doing, if anything, about situations like that? do you have any connection to maybe the cia or state department or other people? are they on facebook, too? this was supposed to be a social networking king and it has gone beyond that. i am sure you have felt a need to respond because it is being used this way by many people. what are you doing? >> there are a couple of answers to that. we are cognizant of the tool with 400 million users. based on geography or your intent, it may depend on how usage is. all discussions aside of our previous privacy discussions, we are really the only site that gives you things like drop down box to decide who can say what you post. encouraging people to use the public and private bills and understand them for messages they post and receive is important. twitter got a lot of attention in iran for some of the public things that happened that were able to be watched by people in the united states. much less attention was spent on private messages being sent on facebook because the privacy may be more secure than a public dialogue when you know people would not share your interests are there. our terms are service are clear that if you are going to be on facebook you need to follow the terms and be a real person and not be engaging in prohibitive activity. if you are a lot enforcement from a nation that has high standards, if you're going to do investigations, you should do them in a lawful way. there are many different things that are available. in this world, these things are constantly evolving. we want to make sure the users know how to protect themselves in this environment as well. another thing we find is that people use facebook differently in different places. having people understand that is important that is frankly a difficult challenge to communicate. it is an ongoing education battle. >> you raised it really important question that you are a global organization and i think it would be helpful if you could clarify for folks what is your policy when it comes to sharing information in countries where governments want to have access? >> every country is different. we are a u.s.-based company. we very clearly state that a consequence of using facebook is that with a legal proceeding from a country that may make certain standards, we may deem it necessary for law enforcement investigation. this is not something where anyone in the world can request your data and we turn it over because they asked. ebay and others have to have processes, we have to have internal compliance systems. we have created those. >> next question. >> we have seen that activists using facebook globally. you say if facebook used the platform in 74 languages. i have done research in account deactivation and the terms are available in only seven languages. the terms of service are clear but at the same time i feel there have been a number of cases where activists have had their accounts deactivated perhaps in other countries not having understood the terms of service for the general reply when someone goes through the appeals process is they get an e-mail back, this is an anecdotal experience, it says this decision is final and cannot be appealed. i wonder if there's anything facebook can learn from the ebay process? >> we are a much smaller company than ebay. we have a little more than 1000 employees. have you ever been a crime reporter, anyone here? doesn't that person always claimed they are innocent? because of the privacy implications we may have, we cannot release things that might otherwise contradict their claims. oftentimes that is not the first message one may receive. there is behavior that people do not admit that will trigger are deactivation. i would caution on that. the second thing is that with technological systems, and how do you qualify this? some countries or companies have sent 5000 messages to people they do not know. how is that not spam? other uses complain about that. there is a real balance that has to be struck. we cannot go in and assign intent to large scale messaging. that is a difficult thing and technology has privacy concerns. it is a difficult process and we do our best to arbitrate it. we are always letting -- adding more languages. our goal is to have our terms, but our help section and to have that in more languages so people have a better understanding of what they can do in facebook. it would be simple things as well as deactivation. >> one of our values at ebay is that people are good. we have been used as a giant social experiment to validate that premise. 99.9% of the time people go on line engage in their transaction and they get their items and they are happy. that is happening all over the world. there are bad actors out there. there are people using these systems for the sole intent of defrauding people, stealing their information, taking money from them, and to a certain extent we are engaged in a war against these bad actors. there are those who work in high rises every day and third job is trying to defraud users and sell them on the black market. yes, i may people are good person. i know there is a certain percentage of cases that come into my juba and they are bad guys. -- into my cube and they are bad guys. when an account gets removed or restricted, we ask for inappropriate piece of information. sometimes an account is restricted by paypal by no fault of the user. we do different things so they can protect themselves. this is a huge challenge to administer a giant system. with hundreds of millions of users. we have to use technology to do that. sometimes, there are anecdotal stories. i would say that we are doing the best we can to police these systems. >> thank you. >> i want to respond to the eurasia comment. there is a big request from facebook. with regards to the issue of human enter action of israeli importance, of course it is part of what happens when humans can't communicate and people in society tell them you cannot communicate with a person and you're a traitor. your point to skype. in the context of armenia and azerbaijani, telephones are monitored or blocked. if you -- if i went skype, i am likely to get something nasty back. facebook has changed my life. i have made lots of good professional and personal contacts in azerbaijan. when people see these interactions happening, they think that this is possible but they were told this was not possible. we were told that people start doing this could they get arrested. in reality, that has not happened yet. facebook is still used in groups. the human interaction thing is very valid here. there is a lot of cursing and insults' and very little dialogue on personal pages, there is quite a lot. one year ago, i was in a conference in bucharest i am not paid for this, by the way. someone asked about the pc portion of facebook. the numbers are small but i think it would a good way to monitor the trends. i would like facebook to include armenians and azerbaijan relations and turkey and as art by john -- and azerbaijan relations >> we have time for one more question. >> thank you for your insights and inspiration. i am a graduate student. i am originally from zimbabwe hoping to return sen. soon. i am fascinated with the digital device and how it poses a dilemma in development. when i look at history, there has been an image -- innovation and information has been engines for change and development throughout history, recorded history. and yet we have seen so many instances to this day we're in for -- innovation and information have perpetuated in justice, inequality, and illiteracy. my question is -- how is it that information and innovation can be used in empowering ways for everyone instead of explicative ways? -- explicated ways? -- exploitative ways? can we put more meaning behind the machines? >> i think your point is excellent. it makes me think back to the time that i spent in aritria. i lived in a small village there and i came back and went to graduate school. i went there with an idealism about technology. i got there and realize there were like three computers and the whole country. i had a conversation when i came back and my friend was saying that the internet will save the developing world. i thought at the time that it was an intractable problem and there was no way technology would permit africa. that was about 11 years ago. it is amazing to me that there is so much to the cell phone network in africa. another friend of mine, ken banks, uses a short-term text messaging in different countries. they are doing banking by mobile devices and other things. we have all these cheap sell bonds out there and a cell phones may become the network that empowers3 . we are just barely getting started. these technologies, the division -- digital divide issue, big progress has been made. in the next 10 years, mobil will be huge. telephones that are in africa will get smarter and smarter. people will figure out how to to their wororlds advantage. i was wrong 10 years ago. i think we have made major strides more progress will come. >> i am a political person as well as a technologist. when you hear people talk about the future and they have ideas, no one is betting against mobile. maybe that will be the dominant form of communication at some point there. people with these mobile devices, the information does not terminate with them. those of mobile devices are not inpoints. >> we have a lot to learn from what is going on in the private sector. we are very grateful that you both came today to share your insights with us so thank you very, very much a [applause] . >> this is just the beginning. we were dipping power to go into this and we will be expanding the circle including google, microsoft, and other players. it is obvious that they had good of viewpoints. we will invite you back for the next round. let me just say thank you to our partners in this, the george washington institute for public policy and global communication and several individuals -- ana bartise, gerard mccarthy, tyler pedersen, an morgandibble and we have lots of staff to help put this together and we are very grateful. my father used to say that the secret to a good meeting was that the speakers deliver useful information and the audience listened carefully and both finished their jobs at the same time. i think we have succeeded in doing that. thank you all very much. meeting adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on today "washington journal" a look at the cleanup workers in the gulf oil spill. the heritage foundation will talk about proposal to eliminate the budget deficit by increasing taxes on higher income earners. the reporter will talk about the implementation of the new health care law. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on cspan para >>book-tv wraps up tonight with bestsellers. that is tonight on c-span 2. this weekend on a book-tv, the unconstitutional behavior of the bush and obama administration adlai's the government told you. he is interviewed by ralph nader. nonfiction books all this weekend on c-span 2. check the entire schedule at booked tv.org/ defense secretary said he is recommending a janemaddi regionjames maddis to replace the general petraeus. he also defends the new pentagon policy for officials to seek clearance before speaking with reporters and certain issues. this is half an hour. >> i am pleased to announce that i recommended to the president that he and james maddis who currently heads joint forces command as one of our outstanding combat leaders and strategic thinkers bringing an essential mix of experience, judgment, and perspective to this important post. he has served and commanded at all levels and has held a number of key leadership positions. this includes battalion commander in the first gulf war, leading the first conventional ground forces inserted into afghanistan, commanding the first marine division during the initial combat stability phases of the iraq war, and command of all marine corps forces in central command. whether commanding troops in battle, leading marine corps combat development command, or developing new operational operating concepts, a generalmaddis has approved a one of the most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers. his insight into the nature of warfare in the 21st century haven't lost my own views about how the armed forces must be shaped and postured for the future. his thinking is the reason i selected him to lead the red team on the department's 2010 quadrennial review. the -- as opposed to critical at a critical time for the united states has vital longstanding interests and commitments and central area and the gulf region going back decades. these are commitments that transcend multiple presidencies of both political parties. i consider it essential to have a confirmed full-time commander in place at centcom as we confront the challenges posed by the ongoing operations in afghanistan, our troop withdrawal in iraq and iran's nuclear program as well as the threat presented by millard -- militant groups throughout the region for it on a personal note, i want to thank him who otherwise would be looking forward to a well-deserved respite after a long and brilliant military career for taking on this tough assignment at this time. i would ed that if he is confirmed, we would have called moraines leading in central command. the chairman and i are comfortable with this arrangement for a period of time for the key is having the best people in the right places. i would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the guidance issued last week dealing with this department's issuance about the news media. when i took this job 3.5 years ago, i spend my first few months on the job telling military audiences that the press was not the enemy and to treat it as such was counterproductive and self-defeating. accordingly, i have attempted to be as straightforward and cooperative as possible and encourage this department's leaders to do the same period none of that has changed. last week's memo was not about how the media does its job but about how this department's leadership does hours. it is not a change of policy but a reaffirmation of an existing policy that was being followed selectively at best. it reflected the fact that for some time now, long before the recent "rolling stones" article i have grown concerned that we have become too disorganized and sloppy in the way we engage with the press. as a result, personal views have been published as official government positions and information has gone out that was inaccurate, incomplete, or lacking in proper context. reports and other documents were provided to the press before i or the white house knew anything about them. even more worrisome was that a highly classified information has been divulged without authorization or accountability. my hope and expectation is that this new guidance will improve the quality of press engagement by ensuring that the people the media talk to can speak with accuracy and authority. this should not infringe or impede the flow of accurate and timely information to you or to the public. that is not my intent nor will i tolerated. it. over the last two years, i have lost a first rate central command commander in -- and an outstanding commander in afghanistan do to their own missteps in dealing with the media. i have had to recall a combat commander to washington for a verbal reprimand for speaking inappropriately on a sensitive foreign-policy issue. i have had two very different presidents each on several occasions expressed concern to me about senior defense officials both civilian and the outtary paradspeaking inappropriately. these instances with my own frustration about premature disclosure about personnel and budget and other options led me to conclude several weeks ago that we need greater coordination and discipline. effectively communicate what we do and how we do it remains a top priority for me. i consider it my duty. it is a responsibility i have not only to the military but to the american people. i take it seriously and i expect everyone else in this apartment to do the same area on that note, we'll take your questions. >> i and many of my colleagues have basic questions about how media policy will work on the ground. i hope you will have very specific guidance about who is covered, what's covered, and whether this amounts to a prescreening policy. since your predecessor was widely criticized for reining in dealings with the press and said that he had a bunker mentality, does this mean that you are also developing late in your tenure here a worry that the press has become the enemy? >> no, not at all. this is not about you. this is about us. this is about us doing things in an uncoordinated way. this is about people in this department speaking out on issues where they do not have all the facts or may not have the perspective of. . it is about somebody in one part of the world or the military or civilian defense and civilian speaking out on an issue without realizing that the same subject is being addressed in a different place and is sensitive and it is trying to give them that situational awareness a lot of the interviews you ask for are already vetted through public affairs. this is as much about our being better coordinated and our making sure of what the parameters of an interview are so that people who are being interviewed stay within their plane. lane and are not speaking out about issues they don't know everything about or where they may not be informed at all. this is more about our being more intelligent and thoughtful about how we respond to requests for interviews and to try and make sure the information you are getting is accurate as well as making sure that our people are not speaking out about issues where they may be treading on sensitive ground and not know it. >> i want to ask both of you about the nomination of a generalmaddis. back in 2005 and taught -- in front of television cameras, he said," actually, it is a lot of fun. it is a hell of ahoot. you go into afghanistan and you see guys to slap around women so it is fun to shoot them." you are nominating him due to his judgment, and this was set in 2005 and he was then reprimanded in writing by the commandant of the lower court at the time and asked to watch his words more carefully, he nonetheless is going into a sensitive part of the world where the military is trying to demonstrate it is about something more than killing. do you have concerns about his remarks and his views about this addressed in public? >> as you point out, that was five years ago appropriate action was taken at the time. the subsequent five years have demonstrated that the lesson was learned. in the wake "of the rolling stone" interview, we discussed this kind of thing and i have every confidence that general maddis will respond to questions and speak publicly about the matters for which he is responsible in an entirely appropriate way. >> i want to follow on the media up memo because in it you say that any means of media and public engagement, any means, with possible national and international applications. that is perhaps the broadest, by any measure, restriction. any means of public engagement. do troops and commanders and people in the united states military give up their right of free speech? that is what the words say and they will now have to be screened? what right of free speech does a person in the united states military have? >> this is not about the first amendment. this is about what the secretary laid out as far as coordination and synchronization. this is about discipline. this is not in any way meant to preclude the proper engagement with the press. all of us in the military understand that being in the military, we follow certain guidelines this is to emphasize guidance that has been out there for an extensive period of time. we just walked away from this recently. in light of what has happened recently, it is not a just a" peace, this isi" a need to make sure we are coordinated and that we do tell our story. since that article, it is important that we do not see the press as the enemy and i have said that and also that we do not overreact and we do tell our story. it is a challenge today because of the 24-hour news cycle. we understand that. in engaging the press and the media, we have to do with from the position in which we are qualified to do that >>. ne engagement, are you in fact saying that the troops in the field before these e-mails have a telephone conversation and posts something on a facebook page or twitter, any public engagement with the media, it must be cleared? >> if i was to use the trooper in the field, the rules with respect to that should be understood going in and then follow those rules very specifically. i have known general maddis for a number of years and i've watched closely the last couple of years. one of the hat he wore was one of the allied commanders in nato. i watched him interact in nato at the highest level diplomatically and politically on very sensitive subjects. i have every confidence -- i watched about skill and he did not just execute, i watched him do exceptionally well. i have great confidence that he will be able to carry out the duties of this command without presuming his confirmation. >> in the interest of information and accountability, is often difficult to find senior military leadership who are willing to engage the. media are you the least bit concerned that your memo could have a further chilling effect on their willingness to talk not only to the media but the american public. ? what was your reaction when your memo against this was a leak to? >> it was pilot [laughter] predictable. -- it was highly predictable. [laughter] let me address this more broadly. we need more internal discipline about how we coordinate the substance when people are going to be interviewed or going on one of the television talk shows or sitting down with you all. to make sure they are not talking about issues that are outside their area of knowledge, their area of expertise. and to make sure they know that there are some areas within their areas of expertise that may be sensitive because it is in the middle of the decisionmaking process. the idea is not to turn off the interview. the idea is to try and help the person who is giving the interview understand what the sensitivities are. after all, every time before the chairman and i come here, we sit down with people from our public affairs office and talk about the issues and what theeee has in mind and what is on their minds. that is the kind of thing we're talking about so that when people have interviews, they have greater situational awareness. we will have to use some judgment in this. the reality is stories in the press, and you have heard me say this before, whether it was the stories on the treatment of outpatient warriors at walter reed in ""the washington post" or stored e aboutmwraps and have been away spur to action for me. the kind of reporting you do, as far as i am concerned, is one of the tools that i have in trying to lead this department and correct problems. we understand that speed and responding to you often will be of the essence. this burden will fall on the public affairs office. i fully expensed that if they are not being pumped enough that we will hear about that from you all. we will take corrective action because the purpose here is to be as responsive to you as we have always been, but for us to do a better job of preparing people before they have interviews. we will make adjustments as we go along. i would just say that if you are a captain in a unit that has an embedded reporter, as long as you are within the guidelines and the rules, we expect you to be open with that embedded reporter. on the other hand, if you are a captain in this building working on budget options, i expect you to keep your mouth shut. >> charges were filed this week against private manning in a case. how significant a breach of national security do you view that as and a young soldier had free access to information and was able to download it and take it out of his headquarters. are you ordering any kind of review of security clearance processes, computer security, or any other steps that are necessary? >> i don't know the seriousness of the breach. i am not familiar with the investigation that took place. i would have to say that i defer to the army in terms of the specific case. in some respects, this illustrates the incredible amount of trust we place in even our most junior men and women in uniform. i would be loath to change that because of a few examples, because there are a few bad apples. we have over 2 million men and women in uniform. i believe we should always err on the side of trusting them because virtually all of them, not 100%, but nearly, give us reasons every single day to continue trusting them. no, i have not ordered a review. if the results of the investigation suggests that might be necessary then we will take a look at it. my instinct is to take these on a case by case basis. >> the only thing i would add to that is that i think it is being appropriately handled in the chain of command. any commander, when they look at a case, looks at the facts as he or she understands them and the mitigating factors as well, the specifics of which i am not familiar with here. obviously, if it looks like it will be something that will be bigger than local, it comes up and we would look at making adjustments. there is no indication of that right now that i can say. > see. >> if everybody is following the spirit and letter of the memo, are you confident that stories that you mentioned would be merged the way they did? there will always be linked but i am wondering if you're confident? >> i am and it is largely because of my confidence in the persistence and the skills of the people sitting in front of me. >> 400,000 surveys when out electronically yesterday. please give us a sense of how much that will inform this review. can you tell us how much we should expect from this? >> i think it is very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges and to get their views on this issue and the challenges that basie in implementing change in bill blog. that will help us prepare better to implement those changes when and if bill law is changed. t --he law is changed. this survey is an important element of this effort. this is in part because while generalhamm and general counsel jay johnson have talked to hundreds of military personnel in many facilities and we have gotten tens of thousands of comments and views by e-mail in response to their request for peoples' thoughts on this, this size sampling is the most significant element of getting the views of the troops. we have designed -- it has been designed in partnership with a professional survey company. this is according to the best practices they have for that industry. i would tell you that i'd put myoar in in only one respect and that was that the original proposal was to sample 100,000 active duty and 100,000 in reserve components. i suggested -- i strongly suggested that they double the size of the sample. i wanted a significant percentage of the force to have an opportunity to offer their views on this. i am aware that there is at least one group that has suggested that gays and lesbians in the service not fill in the report for the good is is that the number of the other advocacy groups have urged gays and lesbians and the force to fill it in. i strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms. we have organized this in a way to protect their privacy. we have confidentiality of their responses through a third-party and is -- it is important they fill this out. we want this done in a very professional way. >> let me ask you about the ill- fated tanker program. for the third time in nine years, they will try to replace these tankers. what steps have you taken to minimize the chances that a protest will be sustained by the general accounting office? how will this process be transparent and how will the taxpayer get the best value and how will you prevent from being underbid? >> you are asking really about the whole process that the air force and at &l will run. my view is that the way it has been designed is as transparent as possible. i have assured the congress that this will be a fair and transparent process. i think that the various criteria that the air force &l have come up with make it that transparent. i am optimistic that we can get on with it. >> you spoke about your frustration of calling back an officer from overseas. you did not mention the bob woodward leak on the stand in a crystal work in september. -- ast on theanley mcchrtystal report which was classified. it was typical of what you want to avoid for the silence is deafening. >> i was never convinced that it leaked out of this building. >> what steps did you take to track that down? >> i have all lot of experience with leak investigation over a lot of years [laughter] . very cautious for calling for a leak investigations especially when lots of people have access to the document. >> to what extent did you know the actual controversial content of that article in a "rolling before hand? >> i think you have to address questions of appropriateness. those are areas where i certainly depend on the advice of people will have been in the public affairs business and know these different publications and i think frankly this is a world that has got more complicated with a lot more free-lance journalist, a lot moreblogs and a lot more of everything. people who have full-time day jobs doing something else are not going to be familiar with many of these entities. i think one of the issues that would be reviewed by public affairs is -- is this a public publication or television interview opportunity for this particular officer? these are judgment calls. we make them every day. we already make them. i don't see much change in that respect. >> would you have tried to have shot that one down? >> i think that is pretty easy in hindsight at this point. there was no advanced knowledge of that interview at all. publicldn't the and the civilian leadership have known about generalmcchrystal? >> i don't know the exact circumstances and what was going on in headquarters and i don't know what was going on in paris. frankly, as far as i am concerned at this point, -- let me be clear about one thing, general mcchrystal never, ever shapene thing in any way or form and a disrespect for civilian authority over the military, never. i have never had an officer do that since i have been in this building in 3.5 years. this business of questioning civilian authority as far as i am concerned has been taken out of context by virtue of the " rolling stone" article. i meet with troops everywhere i go. i have never encountered at any level of the military and a disrespect for civilian authority. i think this was a rare circumstance and an unfortunate one. i think we can move on. >> is there any formation from the survey that would make either of you think twice about supporting repeal the "don't ask, don't tell?" >> what the survey does is it will be able to give some -- give us some objective information with respect to the responses from the people that we care about the most. this includes the people that would be affected by this policy change the most. to reach out at this point and try to predict what they might say or what the results might be, i think it is too early with respect to that. i would not do that at the. time.his >> this is not my decision. this is a lot that really needs to be changed from that perspective. >> a few hours after your meeting with prime minister netanyahu, there were photos confirming the flow of weapons andhexbollah. is this a serious threat nra concern that a new war is imminent? >> i have said publicly before that hezbollah now has more rockets and missiles than many governments around the world. i am absolutely confident they did not manufacture them themselves. i think iran has been supplying these kinds of weapons h toezbollah. i think it is a concern and we are working very hard to ensure that there isn't another conflict in the middle east. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> "washington journal" + is next with your phone calls and later, live coverage of the governors' conference in boston. in about 45 minutes, we look at the health risks facing cleanup workers in the gulf. willeritage foundation's talk about proposal to eliminate the budget deficit by