with us tonight. >> great to be here. >> tonight in our survey, i asked, do you -- do republicans care about creating jobs for the unemployed? 7% of you say yes, 93% of you say no. that's the ed show. you can listen to my radio, sirius xm radio noon to 3:00 p.m. follow me at twitter @edshow. > president obama trying to rain on the republicans' parade. let's play some "hardball." good evening. i'm michael smerconish. leading off, a split-screen moment. we don't often fund ourselves to be part of the news, but that's what happened today.

president obama tweaked the republicans' candidates by scheduling his jobs speech wednesday at 8:00 p.m., exactly when the republican debate is scheduled to air. john boehner, who has yet to approve the request tweeted him back saying why not true thursday? it's a delicious bit of gamesmanship. we'll get to it at the top of the program. also, democrats may not like any of the republican candidates, but chances are they reserve a particular fear and loathing for rick perry. yes, his positionser extreme, lightyear from the mainstream, but the real worry for the ds? he could win. plus how serious really are republicans like eric cantor about holding up fema spending for hurricane irene until other programs can be cut to pay for it? that's what eric cantor is insisting on, but that's not how he felt 7 years ago. and if you're worked about the cost in the wars in iraq and

afghanistan, this won't help. a congressionally commission reports that as much as $60 billion has been lost to waste and fraud in two wars. how will that play? an age of record deficits? finally one republican can't decide, should i get in or not. and here's a hint -- it's not sarah palin. check that out in "the sideshow." we start with the president as decision to make his jobs speech at the same time as the republicans' debate. chuck todd is political director as well as the host of "the daily rundown. john harris is politico's moderator of the debate. chuck, this really is hardball. there's no interpretation that comes to me, except to say that the white house said, you know we want it to be on the same night. how do you read it? >> well, if the president, it was kind of interesting when you

now look at the tick tock of the entire day. the president, this morning at the event with the chamber of commerce and afl-cio calling for passage of a couple bills, some extensions of a couple bills in order to not harm is the economy deal with some job issues, he talked about the political gamesmanship must end, and then we proceeded to have a six-hour back and forth of political gamesmanship here. apparently what happened is when the white house made this request of speaker boehner and senate majority leader harry reid, they didn't sort of prewire this. you know, in washington normally, when some of this stuff happens, when a president wants to address a joint session -- >> it's already been determined? >> yeah, it's sort of a precooked deal. from what i understand, there wasn't a lot of back channeling going on between the obama white house and the speaker's office. what this tells me, we can talk about the debate in a minute, but what this tell me the whole

month, and here we are, starting the fall season where they're either talking past each other, they're not communicating, that's not a good sign for thoex that were hoping that both sides would want to work together. >> what's going on with this boehner letter which i read? he is talking about, we will be back into session. we need a security clearance. i'm told that it's the first time, if this is a rejengs, of a president shl request, and that's unclear exactly what the bottom line is, but to the extend it is rejection, it's the first time in history there's been such a rejection. what does bane really want? >> i think boehner's idea would take issue that they're rejecting it. >> the other day they're offering is the start of the nfl season. that starts on thursday night. >> there you go. you wonder why that, too, why didn't the white house ask for tuesday instead of this. there's clearly an issue where

boehner's office was offended that, since this her -- remember, you have to be invited to attend a joint session of congress. it's not something the president can dictate. i think what boehner's office is saying, and from what i'm saying is hey, why didn't you let us know before you let the press know over today, ask us a little in advance. >> let me ask john harris. where does the debate stand? any difference in your bogs as a moderator? >> well, no, there's no question there will be a republican presidential debate on wednesday. i think there is some question to when the president's speech is going to take place, as you know. my view, you said this might be hardball by president obama. that's perhaps true, but it's also to my mind a great big fat pitch over the plate for we have these presidential candidates who's going to be debating out at the ronald reagan library on wednesday. in all likelihood, the general election will feature one of

these candidates versus president obama, so in some ways, this sort of counter-programming, if it happens that way, represents the first general debate. >> we're a couple junkies, this is a great news event. are you kidding me? we can watch all this happen. if you're moderating this debate, the first 20 minutes you're opening the floor and saying respond to what you just ahead and they'll have to think on their feet, which is what maybe the white house had in mind. >> i think the without said this is a great opportunity to engage, it's good for us, but if the republicans are thinking with any imagination and they're confident in their ability to think on their feet and provide a crisp, compelling alternative message, it's a great opportunity for them. i see this, if it all happens on wednesday, one big night, everybody's a winner. these republicans could potential be a winner, president obama gets a higher -- raises the stakes, and the audience is winners, because they'll have a great side-by-side contrast that

i say effect tifl is the first general election debate of the 2012 cycle. let me ask chuck about what the president will say. >> chuck, maybe i shouldn't read too much into this, but in the her he sent to speaker boehner and majority leader reid, he talked about making a series of, quote, bipartisan proposals. as a matter of fact, i think we have the her now. here it is. it is my intense to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals to congress can immediately take, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. when he says bipartisan proposal, do you think this is not the long ball speech that, for example, eugene robinson had written about in "the washington post"? >> it's my understanding that it's going to be a lot of ideas of what the white house is describing as traditionally has been bipartisan. that doesn't mean that they can get through this republican house, but that in the recent past has had republican support, whether it's spending on

transportation, specific infrastructure, some tax credit issues, but that it's a package of that. by asking to speak before a joint session of congress. my reporting of this is this has been sort of the plan all along, when they decided that they were going to do this, this is the venue that they wanted, because, you know, they feel as if this is their last moment to actually get some of this stuff done before the campaign completely takes over. that said, i've talked to multiple democrats this afternoon, who are questioning the white house's play here a little bit on the timing of it, whether it was on purpose or not, and i think jay carney was trying to say it was a coincidence, but we shall she, the idea that, why elevate the republican presidential candidates in this way. john harris described it as a big slow pitch for one of these guys, meaning you're giving them an opportunity to be elevated on the presidential stage by the president of the united states and potentially you're

politicizing -- and one more thing -- you're politicizing your own speech. >> that's exactly what i was about to say. as a matter of fact you referenced jay carney, here he is on the timing of the president's speech and whether it was all a political decision. >> no, of course not. there were a lot of considerations. once you decide you want to do a speech to congress, you have to deal with congressional schedules, and there are many other factors here, and obviously one debate of many that's on one channel of many, was not enough to even not have a speech at the time that we decided to have it. >> john harris, chuck said something to the point i was going to make. it seems that it does politicize the entire meeting. another reaction is one wonders about the behavior of the gop inside that joint session of

congress, because is it my memory serves correctly, it was in one of these similar sessions you had the joe wilson outburst "you lie" which many of us thought was entirely unbecoming of a joint session of congress, but isn't that the risk you run if there's a politicized type of speech? your thoughts? >> i'm all in favor of a politicized speech, a politicized evening and having these contrasts out there in very vivid terms. chuck had suggested that speaker boehner may have been upset by the protocol of this and perhaps some presumptuousness. my guess is he's not the only one. i would be somewhat surprised if nancy reagan, obviously a widely respected figure, not just in republican circles, wasn't also a little put off by this news. >> offended? >> i don't know that to be true, but i was struck by that. my understanding is there was no advance notice or consultation with the ronald reagan library,

as you might ordinarily expect. >> i don't want to get in trouble upstairs or downstairs. >> isn't it the likely scenario you move the debate back one hour and then you get the best of both worlds? >> i'm not clear on precisely the logistic. i do know there will be a debate on wednesday. i would be thrilled if it happens the same day as president obama's speech. that sounds up in the air right now. >> my bark barcolounger is really for both. and as of now, the debate is scheduled for next wednesday right here on msnbc at 8:00. the sudden rise of rick perry. he's not your father's republican. what's more, he could win. that has progressives nervous. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. [ female announcer ] instantly smooth wrinkles with a shot? wait a second... with olay challenge that. new regenerist wrinkle revolution... relaxes the look of wrinkles instantly, and the look of deep wrinkles in 14 days.

ready, set, smooth... regenerist. from olay. when you switch your car insurance to esurance. i could save 'em 522 smackers. you talkin' dough? bread. benjamins? scratch. greenbacks. moolah. cheddar... simoleons! don't try to out-save me. [ female announcer ] any way you say it, $522 is the average amount saved by people who switched to esurance. 522 bucks! [ female announcer ] to find out how much you'll save, call 1-800-esurance or visit esurance.com right now. that's 1-800-esurance or go to esurance.com. with rick per ray running strong in the republican field some tea party types are running away from former front-runner

mitt romney. freedom works is planning to protest in new hampshire this weekend, because romney is attending. an organizer said we had to defend our brand against posers, and others say romney doesn't represent their interests. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." with his tchbl swagger and liberal views many liberals have called rick perfectly, george w. bush on steroids, but is the possibility of calls him "mr. president" scaring liberals into getting worked up about the campaign. according to reply coal, the panic has spread, with the realization that the conservative texan could become the 45th president of the united states, small town affects and stands on core cultural issues such as women rights, gun issues

with death penalty with the separation of church and state, beyond cultural issues, the governor has called the 16th amendment, quote, the great milestone on the road to serfdom, and has suggested that supreme court decisions should be overturned with a two thirds vote in congress. these are not exactly views that fall in the main stream of politicos. dana milbank and jonathan martin are here. is it what he has said? is it what he has done? a combination of both? >> i think it's those two things and how he says it and how he looks when he's saying it. a lot of american politics is cultural. issues, of course, matter. i think that's definitely driving part of this, but you can't discount the cultural issue. george w. bush was somebody, who as dana well knows, spent part of his life in west texas, but

also went to prep school at andover, went to college at yale, grad school at harvard, so they came from a prominent political family in the northeast, so he was somebody who i think liberals didn't like, clearly, but the cultural thing was not as pronounced with perry. perry is the genuine article. what he says is he couldn't tell you where martha's vineyard is, he means it, and he doesn't care that people don't like that. that's not his world. his world is texas a ann m. it's growing up on a cotton farm in west texas, it's the boy scouts, if you have an obama/perry matchup, that could be a serious cultural clash, urban versus rural, liberal versions conservative. >> let's show everybody something you wrote on exactly this issue. you want by his own account, he's a cultural warrior, seeking to save marriage, christmas and

the boy scouts from liberals, gay people and moral relativism. pet seen before in modern-day mainstream presidential politics. really? i know you've read both of books he's authored. >> while everybody else was reading dick cheney's attacks on colin powell, i was reading rick perry's attack on gay scout masters. i think that's true. probably williams, jennings, bryant, might have held how he has held his faith. he does not seem it have the soft edges that bush has. that's funny to think of george w. bush as having soft edges, but it's almost like rick perry is bush without the charm. he does, i think, a larm a lot of people, as jonathan was pointing out, because of the way that he phrases things. you don't hear a president typically speaking in terms of

jesus christ needing to be the savior for all of the people, not just some. he says it's not acceptable to say that jesus was just a good man and a good teacher. >> can i put something on the screen? here's what rick perry wrote in on that issue and allow to you continue. 2008 when christianity and cleanse all people of their sin or none, but not some. many, especially secular humanists, want to recognize jesus as a good teacher but nothing more, but why call him good if he has lied about his claims of deity and misled two millennia of followers. i believe it emanates out of a man's great downfall, the sin of pride. i got to tell you something. i recognize what you're saying is how that would drive liberal bat blank, but i'm sure it's a huge applause line when it comes to the world of republican primary. >> it certainly is. i think that's why we're seeing him rise so raptly. other things equating

homosexuality to alcoholism, as he did in that book as well typically, in a normal year, you would say this guy is out of the mainstream, democrats would salivate to have a guy like this to run against. the problem is, because of the way the economy is, because president obama is in such a vulnerable position, you can't actually get to the point where even the guy who is outside of the mainstream, should he get the nomination, could actually be in a position to become president. >> allow me to show you and somebody else something he wrote. this is in 2008. dana just made reference to this. when he compared gay people to alcoholics and wrong even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol, he still makes a choice to drink. even if someone who is attracted to person of the same sex, he la choice to engage in sexual activity. with someone of the same gender. is this the sort of thing that you could see mitt romney, now duking it out with perry for

leadership of the gop, using? primary season, on would he not go that route? >> it's a great question. i don't think romney would use that kind of language against perry, but frankly that would just remind a lot of primary voters about his own more moderate path when he was running in a very liberal state. i think romney's message will be much more oriented towards perry having been in public office since 1985, being sort of a, you know, a government lifer, if you will, at a time of maximum wearyness, towards those who work in government. michael, what i'm really curious about is what perry will say in these debates in this next month. we have three coming up in september, the first one sponsored by politico and nbc at the reagan library. will perry stick to a pure jobs message, or will he be sure to talking about some of these cultural matters. he's been fairly disciplined out

of the gates. the whole ben bernanke was a slip-up, obviously, but i think it will be a real test of his. will he veer more to the cultural wars or stick more to the jobs and economic focus? we'll get a sense, i think of the strategy, the perry folks, in this next couple weeks. >> let me pursue that if i play for just a moment. we just had a great conversation about the dynamics of next wednesday night, when perhaps it's the president speaking to a joint session of congress, immediately followed by the debate. at the reagan library, here on msnbc. dana, from having just read those two books and of what you know of rick perry, is he capable andic to immediately think on his feet and respond to the president after the. concludes his remarks? i think that will be a wildcard in the debate next wednesday night. there are questions about rick perry's intelligence, the ability to think on his feet.

if you're a dumb guy, you don't get as far as he did in politics. i think he is very good with the one-liner, and i think he'll have the ability to react to that. unclear what happens in a more extended debate with the president, you know, in these large republican field president atdebates, everybody only gets a couple minutes anyway. he can probably hold his own, and certainly nobody is going to come out and try to make a big deal in a republican debate about some of his more provocative, socially conservative views. most of them hold the same ones. >> well, jon huntsman could. if he wanted to emerge from the pack, i would tell him to go for broke next wednesday night on exactly that basis. hey, jonathan, one other aspect, if we're talking about the so-called extremist positions of rick perry, to me it always come back to how does it play with the eyes? how discuss it play with the independents? it might not caught any problems in independents season, but i

think it could cost him a general election. >> that's the whisper that you hear, talking to very influential folks in the republican party. that is, okay, perry's got what it takes to. win in a joep primary election. how will it play in your backyard? this n columbus, ohio. i think he has to figure out how he answers that question. i actually asked that question at the iowa state fair. you were just showing roll i think of the iowa state fair a couple weeks ago. i said, how do you respond. he says, they care about jobs and ohio and pennsylvania as well. >> well, it depends on the economy. we do, but it -- >> it depends on the economy. culture matters too. >> and cultural issues too. thank you. >> thank you. >> hey, thank you dana, thank you jonathan martin. up next, besides sarah palin, there's another republican who says he's not made up his mind whether he's

going to run for president. what rude,giuliani is thinking next, on the sideshow, next on msnbc.

welcome back to "hardball." time now for the site show. first up. this time it's for real, again. new york mayor rudy jiern june giuliani juny new york mayor rude,yule yanni is seriously consideration entering the 2012 race. at least he's kind of set a time frame to when he might make an announcement. according to associated press, giuliani said he wouldn't make a final decision until probably the end of september. talk about vague. what will sway him one way or the other? he said part of it will be how the other candidates perform and whether i have confidence one of them can beat president obama. i'm not sure of it yet. time is running out, mr. mayor.

tomorrow is september 1st. next up, joining the bushies in perry bashing? not quite. former vice president dick cheney has been front and center this week with the release of his new tell-all memoir. this morning the interview tender to the 12012 election. rather than comment on the candidate himself, cheney commented on how perry might have hi texas roots to thank. let's listen. >> i've been busy looking back at old elections doing the book rather than focusing on 2012. i was always struck by the stchbt to which the rest of the country is attracted to texas and texas politicians, there's just a different feel to it. it's the west, a strong sense of independence, and a bit of arrogance, maybe. >> too busy thinking about past elections? maybe, but it seems like he's chosen to take a backseat for now. not exercising his own big texas independence i guess. now for the big number.

what's with the negative? in the lead up-to-the recent recall election in wisconsin, it appears that candidates' ads aired in three mess leading up the recall. just how many ads were purely negative? 95%. the study also shows that a large majority of the spending was done by special interest groups and not the candidates themselves. 95%. that's tonight's big number. up next, how is this for hypocrisy. congressman cantor insists that any money spent on hurricane clean-up is to be offset by other cuts. -- that of course wasn't his opinion when a tropical storm hit his district a few years back. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc.

welcome back to "hardball." last weekend millions of americans up and down the east coast were slammed by hurricane irene. eric cantor is threatening to withhold federal relief funds unless they're offset by cuts. are republicans going to keep the green eyeshades on while thousands are suffering? joining me are msnbc political analyst david corn of mother jones and michael 1250e8, a former chairman of the republican national committee. allow me to show you both what kantor had to say on this issue on month morning. >> this is a time and an appropriate instance where there's a federal government role. those monies are not unlimited. what we've always said is we've offset that, which has already

been funded. it's like any family would operate when it's struck with disaster. it finds the money it needs to to take care of a sick loved one or what have you, and goes without trying to buy a new car or put an addition onto the house. >> michael steele, is he speaking for the gop or for himself? >> i -- i think he's speaking for the gop, and i think he's speaking for the country and the concerns that a lot of citizens have about the money. the bottom line is those states, particularly here on the east coast that have been ravaged by this storm will get the aid they need, the resources they need on the ground. i think what the leader was talking about was making sure we don't do as washington has done in the past and that is spend without some precious that this is a limited coffer, those resources are not readily available, and maybe we'll have to do some offsets to make sure all those resources are there and available. >> david, he might find himself

on an awkward issue after he made the questioned after a tropical storm. i say a hill report that said in a letter to then secretary tom ridge, kantor requested immediate action from washington, time is of the essence, the federal assistance to richmond after gaston ultimately totalled nearly $20 spending concerns. >> i know, michael, that you're not surprised that eric cantor or any other politician is preaching what they didn't practice. >> of course. >> the way i look at this, if you're a hammer, every problem look like a nail. if you're a hostage taker, every issue look like a hostage. while americans are suffering because of these natural disasters, eric cantor is running in on any ideological platform saying ahay, i see another way to, quote, take a hostage, and we must have spending cuts.

i don't think this will be a winning issue over the long run, i'll bell you it will fate in the weeks to come, particularly if we start running dry on some emergency money. >> the optics are potential bad. from a political standpoint. respond to that. >> no, and that's the rub. you know, i appreciate the drama that my friend david has put out there, but the reality of it is it's much more what you've just said here, michael. it is the optics here. the optics are off. i think the way you should have started this conversation is, you know, showing the empathy for the people out there affirming very clearly that the resources are going to be made available to help them, but, you know, you can also then recognize, yeah, we're in tight times, but we're going to make it work. we don't need to get into the washington minutia of where the money will come from or how we're going to pay for it. that's not what people want to hear when they've just lost their home or the life of a loved one.

i think the op iks are really off. hopefully the week will correct as the dollar flow that need to be out there in the public. i agree with you, the optics don't look good. >> i was just thinking, down the road, one of the states that got remarked is -- i can see a scenario you already have, -- the gop house could be at odds with one of theirs prized governors meaning christie. >> you have, michael, republicans in missouri who feel like the money that's going to go to irene might come from efforts to with of disaster in joplin and elsewhere. i don't think the republicans over all are in a good spot right now. i don't think the president is either. after the debt ceiling, and numbers went down for each side and republicans looked like they were willing to blow things up

to get their ideological way. i think for eric cantor to come out and say aha, we have another way of playing this same game, is not going to help with independent voters or people in those states who may need assistance. let me say, michael steele is exactly right. this is not the first thing that should come out of his mouth when people are still picking up the pieces. >> let me be fair to congressman cantor by sharing what his spokesman said. he went on the defense when asked about requesting aid back in '04. quote -- the national debt was at the time under $8 trillion and 8.67 try wrong which nancy pelosi became speaker. today the debt assistants at 14.625, mean that while democrats controlled the purse string, the national debt literally exploded. we have living in different times. so michael steele, his point is, you can ask for offsets because we find our selves in dire straits. >> this is where the rank-and-file republicans have a little rub.

back in the day we didn't have the money to spend, either. we were increasing the deficit. remember, in 2001 we had a balanced budget. by 2008 we didn't. that's part of the argument that a lot -- that resonates with a lot more people in this country than i think some in our party really want to get their heads around. so, again, getting back to the optics not good. i think the reality for the speaker and the leadership with kantor is ear going to make it work, because people neat help. you will work out with the white house and others in congress how you go about getting the dollars into that fema coffer to make sure the resources are there, even if it starts with various programs in fema, which i think david would agree not all have worked over the years, could use some tinkers. >> here is what craig few gate had to say about potential blocking funds for disasters. >> we look at they large-scale

dier this is best leapt to the appropriators and those that deal with these issues. in this country, americans have always come to the aid of other americans. that's our job, what we do, who we are. fema is doing its job. >> thus far, getting high marks generally across the country, it will be hard if you're in a political posture, contrary to that demand at this time. >> i'll take the head of the fema agency and obama administration over a republican politician any day in that fight. compared to the katrina days and the bush years, i think fugate has given fema a whole new light and is widely seen as doing a good job. he's sticking to the issue and staying above the political fray. if eric cantor insists on making this a political issue, it will hurt him and the republicans.

>> in your prior job, michael steele, you would have been calling him, saying you're killing me, you're killing me in the next cycle. >> like, can you help a brother out here? come on now. no, i think david makes a very good point, and i think they understand how this has come off and how this looks to the american people. as i said, i really believe -- i know eric very well. he's going to get it right on this. i don't think he will politicize this any further than it already is. >> thank you both. appreciate your time. up next, here's a headline that won't play well in an era of record deficits. a congressional commission reports that $60 billion has been wasted in the iraq and afghanistan wars. even worse taxpayers dollars are actually funding the enemy. that's ahead. this is "hardball," only on msnbc. that's a recipe for failed investing. open an e-trade account and open doors, seize opportunities, take action

with some of the most powerful yet easy-to-use trading tools on the planet all built to help you maximize the potential of every dollar you invest. successful investing isn't done by throwing ideas against the wall and hoping. it's done by lowering your costs and raising your expectations by using unbiased research and powerful screeners to build a diversified portfolio with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and every etf sold. and we'll help you every step of the way. with 5-star research and free education covering everything from the basics to advanced investing strategies. start now and we'll give you up to $500 and let you trade free for 60 days. visit our website, call us, open an account. e-trade. investing unleashed.

america's most famous military man has worn his uniform for the last time. general david petraeus officially retired today after 37 years in the army. petraeus oversaw the successful surge in iraq and the top commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan as well. in his farewell speech at the pentagon today, he argued against cutting defense spending too deeply, saying it would undermine the military's flexibility and versatility. petraeus takes over as director of the cia next week. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." there's a mind-boggling report out today on just how much taxpayer money has been lost to

waste and fraud for work done by contractors in afghanistan and iraq. the commission of wartime contracting found up to $60 billion has been wasted over the past ten years and the more waste to come when the u.s. withdraws from these war zones if we need to foot the bill for infrastructure upgrades we have put in place. today, senator claire mccaskill said in a statement it's disgusting to think that nearly a third of the billions and billions we spent on contracting was wasted or used for fraud. richard lardner broke the story for the a.p. when he got an advanced copy of the report. richard, i expect something is going to fall off the truck and allowing for economies of scale, unfortunately there's going to be waste, fraud, and abuse, but this is far in excess of what any reasonable estimate would have expected.

>> i think the $60 billion figure, that's the upwards end of a scale that starts at $31 billion and moves up to $60. it's not totally precise, but the commission seems to think $60 is not unreasonable at all, and it's a very, very large figure, especially when you consider what it comes from, $60 billion out of $206 billion total spent on contracting and grants in iraq and afghanistan, so that's about 30% of the total that's been lost to waste and fraud. >> when i saw your headline, of course, the first thing i want to know is are these toilet seats, paper clips, what are we talking about, cited numerous examples of waste including a $360 million u.s. financed agriculture development in afghanistan. the effort began as a $60 million project in 2009 to distribute vouchers for wheat, seed, and fertilizer in northern afghanistan.

the program expanded into the south and east and soon the u.s. was spending $1 million a day for the program, creating an environment ripe for waste and abuse, so said the commission. we were insisting people in doing something they were capable of doing themselves in this regard. >> right, again, that is an example, and there's numerous examples in the report of projects that start off well-intentioned, they seem to make sense, but in the end they don't and end up wasting money. in afghanistan in particular you have a problem with a country that doesn't have basic infrastructure that we take for granted. technical bureaucratic, and when you start injecting huge amounts of money into that country, you create an environment for waste, and that's what happened here and there are many other examples in the commission report. >> here's another, because i think what we're about to get to is the worst of it, we're funding the enemy. you say the second largest

funding source after illegal drugs is the diversion of money from u.s.-backed construction projects and transportation contracts, that's according to the commission. the money is typically lost when insurgents and war lords threaten with violence unless they pay for protection, according to the report, so those funds for good work that we're trying to have done in that country are ending up funding those fights against us. >> that's what the commission says, and, now, it's important to note the commission does not put a number, a dollar figure on how much is degree diverted to insurgents, to criminals, and the military will tell you that it's a very small percentage. in afghanistan, a task force set up by general petraeus before he left looked at about 2,000 active contracts worth about $31 billion and concluded $360 million had fallen into the wrong hands. that included power brokers, criminal networks, and insurgents.

they won't say how much ended up in insurgent hands but say it's a small percentage. >> i have the words of secretary powell in my head, if you break it you own it. the worst might be yet to come, because as you point out, we've funded so much repair and construction of infrastructure that needs to be maintain, so if we all of a sudden pull up stakes, what becomes of the investment that we made? >> again, that's a big potential problem, and especially again in afghanistan where they just lack the fiscal resources and the technological capacity to maintain a lot of what has been built, so what the commission describes is a situation where power plants, roads have been built, dams have been built, and a lot of necessary infrastructure we leave, our allies leave, and the afghans can't support it, it falls into

disrepair and the investment is lost. >> do i understand, we have a minute left, the commission itself will go out of existence? what becomes of this oversight rule? >> they only had a three-year window. they were formed in 2008, they officially go out of business at the end of september. this is their final report, so that report represents three years of work. there are 15 recommendations in it which range from creating a permanent inspector general to oversee contingency operations, emergency operations, whether it's war zone or a katrina-like situation, so presumably that new i.g., if implemented would fulfill the role that -- understood. a frightening report whether unemployment were 9% or 0%. thank you, richard. let me finish with why a tough new anti-bullying law might go too far.

she's had these shoes a long time.

they're kind of my thing. and they were looking... nasty. vile. but i used tide and tide booster, and look at them now! now they can be my thing forever. yay. that's my tide. what's yours? i use tide sport because it helps get odors out of athletic clothes. i mean, i wear my yoga pants for everything. hiking, biking, pilates... [ woman ] brooke... okay. i wear yoga pants because i am too lazy for real pants. that's my tide. what's yours?

tomorrow in new jersey, the strongest law in the nation regarding bullying goes into effect within one day of a bullying incident principals must begin an investigation. now, getting lots of attention is one district, east hanover, crime stoppers will receive anonymous text messages, tips to their site.

richard bose, the executive director of school administrators tells "the new york times" i think this has gone overboard. no resources to implement requirements. the law was inspired by the suicide of a rutgers freshman last september. a freshman took his life by jumping off the george washington bridge. his roommate stands charged with invasion of privacy and intimidation. he faces up to ten years in jail if convicted. the widely-circulated version of the story after the incident was that he and a female student with malice on more than one occasion used a web cam to spy on clementi while he was in an intimate encounter with a man and he took his own life.

the prosecution narrative asserts that he sought to expose the sexual orientation to humiliate or intimidate him, but hundreds of documents suggest a more complicated picture, although none of which would change the tragic outcome. the defense says there was no sexual encounter, that clementi may have been depressed before he arrived at rutgers and part of the reason for his depression may have been his mother's reaction to his sexual identity and his roommate said he didn't care about clementi's orientation. clementi commented on his roommate's ethnicity. the defense maintains at the time clementi was taking his life, ravi was apologizing for his behavior. bullying is a bad thing that should be dealt with and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but what went on at rutgers last fall may have been