have a great 4th of july. see you soon! >> major: i'm major garrett in for chris wallace, and this is "fox news sunday." the general who turned around iraq takes command in afghanistan. will u.s. and nato forces change their war-fighting strategy? we'll have a report from the scene and talk to senator joe lieberman from afghanistan. also if not for the oil spill, this would be a money-making weekend all along the gulf coast, but, of course, it's not. we'll have an update on the spill and ask kenneth feinberg, the man in charge of the $20 billion b.p. compensation fund who will be paid, how much and when. plus, president obama slams republicans for blocking unemployment compensation, immigration and wall street reform. what is the g.o.p. response? we find out from south carolina senator jim demint.

we'll ask the sunday group if a double-dip recession is in the future, what it could mean for the mid-term election and the president's agenda. all right now on the 4th of july edition of "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. as we celebrate our independence today, we are following two stories, the huge oil spill in the gulf, which is having a terrible impact on the region this holiday weekend. more on that soon. and the war in afghanistan. general david petraeus, the new commander is now in kabul, and for the latest we turn to fox news correspondent connor powell. connor? >> reporter: general david petraeus officially took command of all u.s. and nato troops in a change of command ceremony in kabul this morning. it's been a tumultuous few weeks since the dismissal of general stanley mcchrystal for making derogatory comments about senior members of the obama administration. general petraeus is pledging unity and cooperation between the military and civilian leaders here. petraeus has gone out of his way since landing in kabul

friday to project a united front with u.s. ambassador john ikenberry to hammer home the image of a unified team. general petraeus assumes command here in a significant point during this nearly nine-year war. violence is at record levels and the taliban have opened up several new fronts across afghanistan and progress battling the insurgency is moving far slower than the u.s. officials hoped. despite the pleasures of unity, though, there are still significant divides between senior military and civilian leaders. still, general petraeus says no, major changes will be made to the strategy here. as this war enters another violent and deadly summer, the strategy disagreements between military and civilian leaderships are only likely to intensify and won't be easily hidden by public shows of support and unity. now despite it being a 4th of july holiday here, there is no break for the troops on the ground here. according to one u.s. military personnel, there are simply no holidays

or vacations in a war zone. back to you, major. >> major: connor powell reporting from kabul. connor, thank you. joining us now from afghanistan where he is taking a firsthand look at the war is connecticut independent senator joe lieberman, chairman of the homeland security committee. senator lieberman, welcome to "fox news sunday." >> happy 4th of july, major, to you and everyone back home. >> major: thank you so much, senator. you met with general david petraeus. what did he tell you about the u.s. strategy in afghanistan; and specifically, did he tell you whether or not he is going to loosen the rules of engagement? meaning, is he going to allow u.s. forces to attack unseen taliban fighters? did he pledge to not only work with but retain diplomats john ikenberry and richard holbrook? >> well, we didn't really -- ikenberry was in the meeting, but we didn't talk about civil military relations at this point except that general petraeus talked about how committed he was to a unity of effort among americans here in kabul. but on the question of the

rules of engagement, i did raise that question. it's a term, but what it means are what are the circumstances in which american troops under fire can call in fire on their behalf; particularly, air power? you know we're in a counterinsurgency here. we're trying to gain the support of the afghan people against the taliban. therefore, when there are civilian casualties, that hurts the cause. ultimately, we have to be concerned about the safety of our american troops here. and there definitely have been cases, we have heard anecdotally from some of the troops where they have been in a situation, in a firefight where it's taken much too long for them to get air power support. and we can't let that happen. and endanger their lives. general petraeus said he was committed to reviewing the rules of engagement. i'm here with senator mccain and senator graham, and we encouraged him to do that. obviously, to emphasize the

safety of the americans who are over here fighting for our freedom. we came on july 4th, but thank our soldiers here for what they're doing on independence day to fight for our freedom against islamist extremists terrorists who are threatening it today, and also if i may through you, major, thank the families of our troops back home for all the support they give in this cause. >> major: senator, what is the timeline for general petraeus' decision on reviewing the rules of engagement? speaking of timelines, where are we on the timeline for troop withdrawals next year? the president's new phrase is "a transition phase." what does that mean? and do you want the surge forces to start leaving july of next year, or do you want them to stay longer and fight longer? >> on the first question, major, i'd say that general petraeus' review of rules of engagement will occur as soon as possible. he didn't give us a deadline. i think that the current rules of engagement, at least as our troops had been interpreted have hurt morale

here among american military. so i hope he changes those rules, clarifies them as quickly as possible. secondly, with regard to the date of july 2011, which president obama said was the date by which he would begin withdrawing troops, i understand why president obama said that when he committed to afghanistan and winning in afghanistan last december. i think he did it so the afghans wouldn't think we'd stay here forever. but on balance, i think it was a mistake, because it sent a message to the afghans, to the taliban and people in the neighborhood we're going to leave regardless. that is not the fact. general petraeus clarified that. the president has come some distance now in the last couple of weeks and clarified that. whatever we do in july of 2011 will be based on conditions on the ground at

the time, because you know the president made the right decision last december that america has a vital national security interest on the line here in afghanistan. we've got to win it. and therefore, you don't, you don't put that on a timeline. of course, we'd all love to bring our troops home as soon as possible. if conditions don't allow it next july, i don't think it's going to happen. i don't think general petraeus will let it happen. i said to general petraeus today "don't hesitate, please, to make the case to the commander in chief, to congress. if you feel it's justified that you actually need more troops, more american troops here in the short run so that we can win here and not stretch this out over the long run." i will say one final word about this, major. when president karzai was in washington a month or so ago, i met with him. he and i had a very good talk

about this deadline. i think that the afghans are looking for is an understanding, not just about what happens next year, but what happens after the war is won. and i think we ought to enter in negotiations with afghanistan for a neutral security commitment and agreement. such as we have with japan, or south korea or australia or new zealand, to basically say after this war is over, your security and the stability of this region, we're committed for the long run. not with the 100,000 troops here but we'll give you a commitment to stick with you. >> you mentioned congress. three votes were held in the house this week, all about of gan withdrawal component -- about afghan withdrawal components. all of them failed. 162 members of the house voted for not only making the july 2011 timeline ironclad but also following up with an actual plan to remove all u.s. forces. what do the three roads, especially the last one i

mentioned tell you about what democrats think and are willing to do to continue to fund and support the afghan war effort? >> i found those votes troubling. of course people have a right to their opinion, but president obama conducted a lengthy review of the policy in afghanistan as initiated by president bush who brought us in here to throw out the taliban that gave a safe haven to al-qaeda that attacked america on 9/11 and began this war we're in. president obama decided after that review that he was going to continue the policy and he was committed to winning here. he's a democratic president. i hope some of the democrats in the house and senate will stand by him. i must say in the unfortunate statements that michael steele, the republican national chairman made today, which were certainly interpreted as calling this obama's war and suggesting that we get out, i know he clarified that, the reaction

from some of the leading republican spokes people to me is disheartening, which is no. we have to win in afghanistan. it's important to america's security and freedom. if we lose here, if we pull out, it will energize the radical islamist, extremist groups, the terrorist groups around the world. it will be a tremendous cut down in america's prestige and credibility in the world. that ultimately is bad for the safety and freedom of the american people. >> major: picking up on michael steele's comments and your reaction, senator, do you think they undermined the ability of the republican party to effectively join and continue to participate in this debate on afghanistan? >> no, i think we had a kind of positive boomerang effect here. there was such a stern reaction from republican leaders to michael steele's comments, which has i say he retracted that i think you now -- i think the republican party gives me encouragement

to believe they'll take the high road and not make a partisan political fight out of a war in afghanistan or try to take advantage politically of a war that will get tough. and will test our steadfastness. so i'm encouraged today that the republicans in congress will do what is right for the country and not turn afghanistan in a partisan political battleground. there is too much at stake to let that happen. >> major: that would be a welcome, i guess, component of a mid-term election season, always fraught with politics. senator joe lieberman, connecticut independent. thank you for joining us from kabul, afghanistan. of course, senator, happy 4th of july and safe travels. >> thanks, major. happy 4th of july to you and all your viewers. god bless you. now is no the gulf, day 77 of the oil spill. the holiday should be busy for local businesses but many hotels have empty rooms and some beaches have more clean-up workers than

sun-bathes. fox news correspondent phil keating has the latest from grand isle, louisiana. phil? >> reporter: good morning, major. this is a sight no one expected and certainly no one wants to see. the 4th of july, normally a happy and crowded holiday weekend here on the beach, on the beach other than me is desolate. the water is off-limits and much more what you see in dead of winter. for those who did show up in grand isle, despite the oil, fireworks display paid for by b.p. to lessen the gloom that hangs in the air and continues to wash on shore in an effort to try to make this weekend festive. at grand isle state park, normally this weekend brings 100% occupancy at the camp site. this year it's half full. no kids running around. adults who are here only out of the goodness of their own hearts. >> we made reservations last year with some of our other camper friends. and they canceled out. i just felt that i wanted to

come to support the people here on the island. >> reporter: same story around the gulf. over in pensacola, florida, most businesses that rely on the busy 4th of july holiday weekend to make the summer season seeing half of what they would, both in people and dollars. out of the deepwater horizon disaster site, the oil continues to flow, as much as 60,000 barrels a day by government estimates. this week out there on the scene, b.p. hopes to have the third large oil collection ship in place. that is the helix producer. that could increase daily oil collection to about 50,000 barrels a day. but as for the normally busy and bustling and profitable 4th of july holiday weekend, what you don't see here pretty much says it all. major? >> major: phil keating reporting from grand isle, louisiana. phil, thank you. with us now to discuss what is being done to get money to the people of the gulf impacted by the spill is kenneth feinberg, administrator of what is

known as the gulf coast claims facility. mr. feinberg, thank you for joining us on "fox news sunday." >> thank you. >> major: i asked my twitter followers and those on the white house blog to submit questions for you. i got this question over and over: from what power or authority, sir, do you derive the power to pay claims? who do you work for? how can you be viewed from the american public as truly independent when you were hired by president obama and are being paid by b.p.? >> i work for the people of the gulf region. that's who i work for. i am totally independent. it's a private agreement entered into by the administration and b.p. to find somebody who can design, implement and administer a totally independent facility. i answer to neither b.p. nor the administration. and i just want to get the job done for the good of the people in the gulf. >> major: very good. you testified wednesday before the house small business committee. there were several issues that could not be resolved in the committee testimony. i'd like to see if we can get resolution to them today.

one question you were asked is b.p. paid out $130 million in claims already. does that count on the $20 billion? here is what you said wednesday before the house committee. let's look. >> i think the $130 million that has been paid out so far is not part of the $20 billion. that has been paid by b.p. separately, independent of the escrow account. i think that's right. i think that's right. >> major: do we know for sure? can we resolve it? what is the situation, what is the $20 billion, do they comix? >> $130 million has been paid out and it is not part of the $20 billion escrow fund that is being set up as we speak. that will be used to pay claims. and -- >> major: the fund has not been paid down in any way? >> correct. >> major: that's for shoe. next question, you were asked something on the minds of businesses along the gulf that don't have tar balls, that don't have any actual oil damage near them, but their businesses are quite clearly being affected. this would be some restaurants, condo associations, lots of folks. you were asked about it and here is part of what you said

wednesday. >> i want to emphasize that i have made no decision yet on whether or not that the local law should govern in every case. there are examples of inequity and injustice where the local law may not be the best barometer. >> major: picking up on that, your answer was basically what you will be following is state law on these matters. but, of course, state law in many respects, if not all respects never anticipated ecological and economic catastrophe of this nature. for those who don't have oil near them, can they be compensated? will they be compensated? >> sure they can be compensated. first of all, it's not just state law. it's maritime law, the pollution control act law. it's also my discretion in terms of equity and need. so one should not focus only, nor did i attempt to even suggest one focus on a particular state law. that's first. secondly, you have to look at each and every case. there may not be oil on the beach. are you losing business this year because you can't take

charter fishermen out to fish? you can't take a charter boat for sightseeing, you can't go in the marshes of louisiana. oil, physical presence of oil should not and will not be the only requirement. there are going to have to be some tough decisions made as to who is eligible and who is not eligible. as i said last week, i will look at the claims, i'll look at the underlying facts of those claims. i'm working for the people in the gulf. i want to try and maximize as much compensation as can do fairly and consistently to the people i'm trying to serve down there. >> major: one other thing i'd like to clear up once and for all if possible, b.p. also as a good faith effort set aside $100 million for idle deepwater rig workers as opposed to the government-controlled moratorium.

you were asked if you'd administer the fund. here is your response. >> what i'll process the claims or some charity or foundation will process those claims i don't think has been finalized, but hopefully that will be finalized in the next day or two. >> major: mr. feinberg, it's been a couple days. do we have an answer? >> we don't have a final answer yet. i can say this; one, the $100 million moratorium payments are not part of the $20 billion. they are over and above the $20 billion. secondly, those payments will be limited to one time. the $100 million unlike the $20 billion, the $100 million is a fixed amount which will not be supplemented. it is all there is for this particular type of rig worker claim. and thirdly, it will be limited to the rig workers who actually performed, employed on the rigs subject to the moratorium. it's not also to be used for

businesses or other subcontractors. it's an employee-based, limited fund. whether i'll administer it, whether a charity or a foundation will administer it or another third party, as of today, as of this moment, i don't believe that has been finalized between b.p. and the administration. >> major: they have to work that out between themselves as to who will administer it. that brings me to another point. i've asked the white house several times, unlike the 9/11 fund which you administered, that was congressionally chartered. this is not. this is an agreement between the sitting white house and multi-national corporation. shouldn't the american public see this written document, the legal confines and the outlines of everything that has been agreed to so they can evaluate and they know with certainty under what rules this is all going to be conducted? i have asked the white house for that and they committed publicly to provide the document. will you here, sir, today say it should happen and happen sooner than later?

>> first, i don't know if there is such a document. >> major: should there be? >> i don't know if there will be. that's not on my watch. i'm administering a fund to source that $20 billion for payment. what that document will say, how it will read, what it will be made available to the public, whatever the transparency of that escrow account, i have enough problems without trying -- >> major: would it make your job easier to have it out there? >> i don't think it would make my job easier. my job is to serve the people of alabama, mississippi, florida, louisiana, texas, to try and maximize the dollars that i can get to those citizens and those jurisdictions. that escrow money i'm assured by both the administration and b.p. will be there. i do not want to interfere with what is private discussions, at least underway between the administration and b.p. i'm an independent third party, beholden to neither. i want to move forward with what i am supposed to be doing, processing those claims in the gulf. >> major: i have less than 15 seconds left. how soon will you be taking this job on day-to-day personally and transitioning

out as what you are as pay master for the fund? >> i've taken on the job and i have been in the gulf numerous times. you cannot do the job from washington. i have been in all of the states down there and i hope to transition from the b.p. program within a matter of weeks, not months. >> major: very good. mr. feinberg, kenneth feinberg, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> major: thank you for the update and thank you for spending part of your 4th of july with us. happy 4th of july to you, sir. >> thank you. >> major: up next, the president campaign style bashes the republicans for, well, just about everything. we'll hear from the top republican senator and his reaction right after this break. >> major: president obama as

>> major: president obama as he sometimes does took it to republicans this week every immigration and unemployment computation to name just two issues. for republican reaction, we turn to senator jim demint who joins us from his home state of south carolina. welcome. happy 4th of july. thank you for joining us on "fox news sunday." >> well, major, it's not america's birthday, my daughter ginger was born on the fourth so i want to wish her a happy birthday today. >> major: happy birthday to ginger. senator demint, your republican party national chairman michael steele said something in connecticut. i'd like you to listen to it first and then i'll get your evaluation. >> this was a war of obama's choosing. this is not, this is not something the united states had actively constituted or wanted to engage in. >> major: the war steele was referring to, senator, is the war if afghanistan. sir, many republicans, some in congress, cole and duncan hunter called for the chairman of the republican national committee to resign over the remarks. do you agree? >> chairman steele needs to

apologize to our military, all the men and women who have been fighting in afghanistan. this is america's war. it's not obama's war. he needs to refocus on electing candidates who can stop the rampage of spending and debt in washington. whether or not he resigns is up to other people than me. but i need to see him focussed on this november election, which is important because the democrat party is running our country in a ditch with the economy, our job situation, debt situation, we need a chairman who is focussed. >> major: other than apology, do you find something offensive about what many called the anti-historical nature of this? not only that it was started under president bush but the war came to us under 9/11? >> well, i do. i think everyone, it's unacceptable. careless comment, obviously. inaccurate. this is america's war.

we're in afghanistan because they attacked us. it's a war as joe lieberman said earlier we have to win. we have to get rid of the arbitrary deadline that sends a signal we're not committed. this is a war we can and must win. >> major: moving on to what the president said this weekend about unemployment compensation. here is the president talking in his weekly radio address over the fight over the issue. >> majority of senators support taking the steps to help the american people. some are playing the same old washington games and using the power to hold this relief hostage. >> major: a republican filibuster in the senator, as you well now, senator demint, is holding up and held up for four straight times unemployment state compensation. republicans want it offset with spending cuts; but nevertheless, unemployment continues to rage in this country. americans will lose the unemployment benefits. tens of thousands in south carolina will lose them because your unemployment

rate is higher than the national rate. don't those folks deserve some help, extended help? and are republicans going to offer in any way assistance to the president to get that done? >> major, we can't help people by bankrupting the country. that's what the democrats intend to do. this is their fourth year in complete control of congress. we suggested and voted several times on unemployment extension to take money from the failed stimulus program or other programs but the democrats seem committed to add the money to the debt, which is something future americans will have to pay for. so they're playing the politics with the game. i mean with this whole big issue. the republicans want to extend the benefits. it's a showdown of philosophy. do we add it to the debt and bankrupt our country or work together to pay for this in a way that won't put the burden on the next generation? >> major: senator, isn't it true that the democrats have

more votes than the republicans do with the philosophical clash? they've had the clash four times. doesn't it seem to you that there are innocent americans trapped in the middle of a philosophical debate and it won't be resolved and they're the ones that will suffer? >> democrats are losing democrat votes, too. they're hearing what i'm hearing all over the country, america is tiring of the spending, borrowing, the debt, the government take-overs. they want us to show some discipline. major, there is nothing compassionate about senator voting for a new spending bill and not having the courage to pay for it by taking the money from some other wasteful program that is clearly not working. the president spent nearly $1 trillion on his government growth program that he called a stimulus. there is still unspent money there. if we need the show compassion, which i believe we do, we need to pay for that in a way that doesn't burden future generations. i think most americans agree with us and increasingly even the democrats agree with us.

>> major: let's turn now to immigration, senator. the president delivered his first full blown speech on the topic of immigration reform earlier in week. and he talked about republicans. take a quick listen. >> reform that brings accountability to the immigration system cannot pass without republican votes. that is to be political and math call reality -- that is the political and mathematical reality. >> major: you know my daytime zip code is at the white house and i hear from the officials with regularity. they argue that if republicans were serious about border control, improving employee -- improving relationships they'd get on board for wide-wanging reform and the fact you don't undercuts your commitment to border security. does it? >> major, we need to be clear here what the president is talking about.

when he says comprehensive reform, what he is talk about is amnesty and voting rights for those who came here illegally. i don't think we can reform our immigration policy by rewarding those who came here illegally. i know we tried to do things as republicans. i've introduced a bill to complete the fence. the border patrol tells us where we have double-layered fencing. we are able to stop almost completely a lot of the flow of not just illegal workers but drugs and arms and human smuggling. the president has refused to secure our border. as others have said, he is holding border security hostage to his political agenda. this is a serious problem when states like arizona have to take matters in their own hands, because the people are being kidnapped and murdered. the president is the one who is playing politics with this. we need to secure our borders first. there is no reason to even

talk about an immigration plan if we can't control who is coming and going in our country. this is a dangerous situation. the president is playing politics, because the democrats want more votes. they want more union members. this is pretty clear by who is organizing the whole effort to promote amnesty among those who came here illegally. >> major: senator demint, quickly, your republican colleague lindsey graham quoted in sunday "new york times" magazine saying he doesn't believe the tea party is going to last because it doesn't have a philosophy to govern. how irritated are you, sir, to hear it from lindsey graham, when you, of course, financially backed many tea party candidates and identified with the approach to political philosophy? >> he's a great friend but he is wrong on this. we'll see in november americans step up. not just those who call themselves tea party members. the tea party is just the tip of the iceberg of an american awakening of people standing up, they want to take back the government. it's not a matter of right or

less or conservative or liberal. it's a matter about success or failure as a country. i think americans are going to show in november that this isn't going away. >> major: senator demint, south carolina republican, thank you for your time on this happy 4th of july. happy 4th of july to you. >> thank you, major. >> major: up next, the chairman of the republican national committee sounds off on the war in afghanistan.

[ inaudible ] >> major: that was part of michael steele's -- well, i guess one word might be used -- controversial remarks about the war in afghanistan. after the criticism poured in, democrats had a bit of a field day with it as well. steele put out a statement saying in part, "during the

2008 presidential campaign, barack obama made clear his belief that we should not fight in iraq but instead concentrate on afghanistan. now as president he has indeed shifted his focus to this region. that means this is his strategy." time now for the sunday group of fox news contributors. bill kristol of "the weekly standard." nina easton of fortune magazine. stephen hayes of "the weekly standard." and juan williams of national public radio. this is where i hand the show over to you guys. you run with it. [ laughter ] i'll be happy to do that. bill, start with you. you in a letter to michael steele said please, sir, consider over the 4th of july weekend stepping down. do you stand by that? is anything michael steele said influenced your opinion otherwise? >> no. i talked to michael yesterday. he called me. we had a long conversation. and he tried to persuade me that the remarks were taken out of context. at the end of the day, he didn't persuade me, actually, that it wouldn't be better if for republican party and the country if he stepped

down as republican chairman. he is a good guy, he should be a pundit on a million tv shows. he should give speeches but he shouldn't expressed the views he expressed as the republican chairman. he was speaking at a republican event and said keep in mind, again, federal candidates -- speaking to republican candidates for federal office -- this was a war of obama's choosing. one thing as a republican that republicans can be proud of, we don't politicize foreign wars and we support the president if we think he's right and we don't try to make political hay of difficulties that are being encountered overseas. republicans supported the president in the war the afghanistan, and michael steele politicized this in a way that doesn't reflect the view of huge majority of republicans and i think it would be better if he went. >> major: panelists, quick yes or no question. is there a context it could be interpreted another way? juan? >> yeah, there is a tremendous level of opposition to what is going on in afghanistan. people are pointing out that we have been there for nine years. and the sagging support from

the american people in the polls, so michael steele's position as republican chairman is what is the difficulty here. as bill said, it's politicizing of the decisions that caused this. it's not the opposition, not the idea -- >> major: but he said this was a war of the president's choosing. there is no context for that. >> president bush was the one who engaged it and clearly president obama has continued it. >> that's a yes or no question? >> major: i'm learning my way through this, folks. >> look, the problem with steele's remarks they were both factually inaccurate and offensive. this is not the president's war. it's our war. the country's war. not obama's war. >> the nation's war. the other thing, the effect of the context took spotlight off the democratic party, which is where the problem politically is over the war. we saw the protest votes this week by democrats in the house. you've got, it's as if the democratic party wasn't listening to barack obama when he passionately, when he's running for president passionately supported the war to win. to win. >> he said this is the war

i'm going to fight. >> the stuff, the brouhaha over mcchrystal supposedly pressuring him to add troops he made clear in the campaign he wanted to win this war. secondly, the white house now has the problem with this deadline. the next july deadline hanging around his neck, as he tries to distance himself from it. much as the guantanamo bay deadline around his neck. >> and has come and gone. >> come and gone. now we have petraeus back in the saddle and i think it will make the deadline more problematic because he has the gold standard general running that war. if he is going to want more time and more troops, that is going to be something that i think the president will say yes to and will put him at odds with a big punch of his party. >> the republicans should do the honorable thing, what is good for the country and help president obama win the war. >> he'll have to win it, unfortunately, over the

doubts and opposition almost of two-third of the democratic members of the house who voted last week for a timetable to get out. which is astonishing. nine republicans voted against the president on this. 165 or something supported the president. republicans supported the president and general petraeus to win the war. 60% plus of house democrats said no, mr. president, we just want to get out. congressional democrats never met a war that when it got tough wanted to get out of to. >> major: moving steele, moving him from the committee and setting it aside, joe lieberman said he thinks there is a positive boomerang effect that we're not going to politicize afghanistan and not mid-term election. do you agree? >> yes. i privately discussed afghanistan with jim demint. he has doubts about the war, as a lot of people do. and rules of engagement for several months but it was striking. talking to you he said look,

this is america's war and we have to win it. the reaction of the republican elected officials and officials been healthy. >> major: steve, does it blow over? >> i don't think it blows over. the timing could haven't been better for michael steele. there is a bigger issue, and that is the president can do more to make the case. this is a president that gave 50 some odd speeches about healthcare. we knew it was his priority, national priority. he is giving since september 1, 2009, when he announced the new strategy three or four speeches. if president obama wants to get out and rally people, the american people, members of his own party, keep republicans on board, he can get out and start making the case on a positive and on a regular basis we need to win the war. >> major: what does the vote this week in the house tell you about the level of dissatisfaction, dismay even about rank and file democrats about the war policy and their efforts to try to stop it? >> it's ratcheting up. it's ratcheting up in the body politic, in that americans, republican and democrat, more and more

people are concerned about what is going on in afghanistan and that we have been there nine years. substantially, people pointed out this week 300 al-qaeda in pakistan, 50 to 100 in afghanistan while president obama is now putting 100,000 american boots on the ground. the question is, is this commensurate with the threat that al-qaeda poses to the united states? clearly, al-qaeda has allies. so the numbers could be larger, in fact. but the question is we are there to prevent another 9/11, to prevent al-qaeda and terrorist group from taking root in afghanistan or pakistan, and therefore having a base to attack the united states. is this really comnsurate in terms of what we're doing? is it necessary given it's nine years and given we are having trouble right now. last month was the deadliest month since the u.s. has been in afghanistan. so these are questions, then -- let me just say that the democrats lost on two

votes to try to have an immediate withdrawal. >> right. >> what you see is pelosi and others are voting to send a signal to the white house, hey, listen, this is not without problems. and michael steele, michael steele was wrong in terms of the history here, but in terms of representing concern about the effort he's on target. >> you are also sending a signal, though, to on the afghanistans that you're leaving. you're not going to stay there forever -- >> that's the argument you make. >> and you don't want to make that a territory for al-qaeda. that's not going to happen by july 2011. petraeus just said we were just now getting the resources we need, up to speed we need, the strategy we need. >> let me disagree, nina. general petraeus said this week when he was confirmed, i think it was 99 votes to confirm. he said i not only support the president in terms of the deadline, i agree with it. he thinks it's a good idea and it puts on notice people like hamid karzai who has not

been a helpful partner saying we need to train the afghan troops to do the job for afghan people. >> major: yes or no all the way down, will the july 2011 deadline be hard or soft? >> impossible to say. >> soft. >> he's already making it clear it's soft i think. >> bill? >> soft. >> the president. >> major: panel, we take a break at this time of the show but when we come back, the troublesome job figures. what can washington do, if anything, to put america back to work? the panel will have some answers when we come back. xox

we are headed in the right direction. we're not headed there fast

enough for a lot of americans. we're not headed there fast enough for me either. >> major: that was president obama on friday trying to say and actually saying something positive about the unemployment picture, which others have called sluggish or weak. now we're back with your friends and mine, bill, nina, steve and juan. i want to play for you something that house speaker nancy pelosi said earlier this week about the debate we talked about earlier with jim demint, about the unemployment compensation and what unemployment benefits do in the real economy. listen. >> this is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. the economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. it injects demand into the economy. and it's job-creating. it creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. >> major: it creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. nina, does it? >> well, that was an interesting look at economic policy.

no. i think unemployment -- the dirty little secret about unemployment benefits and before i get the hate mail i want to make sure unemployment benefits are not cushy, but difficult and there are pain out there. >> major: people pay into them. >> right. we're coming up on two years of unemployment benefits provided. but it extends unemployment because people will wait until the last minute before the benefits run out to find a job and relocate to take jobs they really didn't want to take. the longer you're unemployed the more difficult is it to find a job. >> major: there are unintended consequences. >> the same thing i'll add is mortgage help program, which this administration pursued, which essentially kept people in homes they couldn't afford for longer than they should have been. now the homes are dumped on the market and they're out of homes anyway. >> major: juan, your quick take on speaker pelosi's assessment that unemployment

benefits are a great job creator. >> well, they are. >> major: always? they always are. people spend the money right away. people who don't have other money to spend, they spend it, they don't save it. that's what she means by the quick injection. nina is right with the analysis that some people take longer, therefore, to get back in the job market and take jobs they don't want but the fact is we're dealing with the recession where a lot of people have been out of jobs. i think it's a record number for more than 27 weeks, major. those people are in need. the idea that republicans would get up on their high horse and say you know what? we can't extend the benefits right now, it's not going to -- somehow it would add to the deficit -- >> that's not what he said. >> it puts republicans at risk going in the fall election. >> if they said it would be risky but that's not what they said. they want to extend the unemployment benefit but do it in a way that doesn't add to deficit. take the stimulus fund and shift them over -- >> take stimulus funds. >> right.

that's the argument. democrats didn't want to do it. that's fine. the most interesting thing that happened this week is the president's tone. the president turned, made -- he was highly partisan, highly aggressive in making the case that the republicans are to blame. and the other thing he did was redefine what success is. he said basically what we really need now is growth at 4 to 5%. that's defining success very, very low. he also said at least we're not at 15% unemployment. again, so 9.5% is acceptable, or successful? i think he is trying to change the terms of the debate. it's not going to work. >> major: bill, historically when you have a deep recession you have a rapid and strong job creation component afterwards. "v," if you will. i talked to larry summers a while ago who said we are in the middle of a long "u." that's the economic reality. what is the political reality of the economy in the mid-term elections? >> i don't think most americans are going to agree with president obama that we

are in recovery summer as the white house is calling it, or that as he said this week we're headed in the right direction. dan lapinsky, member of nancy pelosi's caucus, from illinois, said small businesses are not hiring. until then, we will not have a strong sufficient recovery. that is the key. you can do keynesian thing and put money in the economy and say one way to do it is the unemployment benefits and that could work very, very short-term. but even now, now it can't work because the debt is so high you're borrowing the money from here to put it in the economy there. borrow it from here and it's causing as much fear and disincentive to invest in the future and prospect of higher taxes in the future that it's not even having a keynesian effect anymore. the debt is so high it's unsustainable. people are genuinely scared of it. we don't face good prospect for recovery; specifically, with the small business. the tax and regulatory burden they are looking at for the next months and years is going up, not down. if you want faster recovery and growth, you have to

reduce the burden on the small businesses. >> let me say quickly this economy added 600,000 jobs in the private sector this year. as compared to losing millions of jobs in the first six months of last year. that's good news. and i think that the president is right saying we are on upward track but there is tremendous anxiety with the housing sales going down, the stock market unstable, that don't say we're in the wrong direction. >> i'll stop you there, because, of course, this is 4th of july. i took a little bit of rookie anchor prerogative and said why don't we do something for 4th of july? so each of the panel members will tell us in their own inenable way who the hero of the revolutionary era is. >> alexander hamilton was the most impressive of an extremely impressive group. soldier in the revolutionary war at age 20. came to washington and commanded the unit himself. author of the constitution at age 30. one of the two primary authors of the federalist papers, in his young 30s, the

main document explaining and defending the constitution. secretary of the treasury, again, when he was what? 35 years or so. put the nation's finances on a firm basis and got us out of the first debt crisis. hamilton would be a good model for people to follow. >> you chose? >> at the risk of sounding trite, george washington, not the most charismatic person in the world but important to remember somebody who fought a war no one thought he could win against the most powerful nation on earth. also took a collection of motley states, nobody thought it would necessarily be this. this was not a foregone conclusion it would be successful. he created the nation, and created the modern presidency and took a country and the economy was in shambles and moved it forward. and a reluctant president which i like. >> stephen hayes, graduate of james madison high school in california, i'm enamored of your pick. >> james madison, the under-appreciated founder i think. the key author in my view of

the federalist papers and he basically took the idea that grew out of the revolution, provided the architecture for what we have with the constitution, the bill of rights. he's the one who put these in practice. set up the checks and balances, talked about setting factions against faction that is sustained now. >> i take christopher addacks, revolutionary war and black man responding to the call from sam adam to protest the british presence of the customs house in boston, told his fellow revolutionaries don't be afraid and led the fight and was the first to die in the revolutionary war. and the idea that he, a former slave, would stand for american independence and american principles i can't think of someone who better personifies freedom for all. >> major: i got thomas jefferson. i got to pick last. news item over jefferson, last couple of days the library of congress told us

when thomas jefferson was putting together the declaration of independence, instead of writing citizens he wrote in ink "subjects." he revised that and we're happy that the lyricisms is about citizens not imperial subjects. thank you. up next, we look at the prep for the big 4th of july celebration.

it wouldn't be 4th of july

of without fireworks and parade. and it requires a lot to get ready. let's take a look. >> staples, paper and a lot of elbow grease goes to make a 4th of july of float. work for the washington, d.c. national day parade. it will make the trip down constitution avenue, along with marching bands and special guests from our treasured past. >> i know for a fact that abe lincoln is going to be here and ben franklin. >> on the other side of town, a military color guard drills in the summer sun preparing to carry state flags during tonight's big event. >> welcome to the capital where pbs will have unique celebration of 4th of july, an american concert and fireworks and was lucky enough to call washington its home. bigger than the ones in your hometown, memorable just the same.

>> 2008 american idol will sing the national anthem. for him the 4th of july is about our founding fathers. >> it seemed like it was impossible for them to really achieve what they wanted to achieve. and they did it and think it's amazing. it just shows that god was really on their side. >> after darkness falls rockets' red glare will synchronize explosions of light. on this day, washington puts partisan politics aside and reflects on those that fought then and are fighting now securing our freedom. where issued rights first articulated in the declaration of independent and later secured in our constitution. that is it for this addition. chris wallace will be back in the krirs next week. it goes without saying, please have a great 4th of july.