from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. is it critical mass? >> this is unheard of. this is never happened in the post-war period in the united states. and those folks who have been out of work for six months or a year or two years obviously they're losing the skills they had, they're losing their connections, their attachments in the labor force.

this unemployment situation, the job situation, is really a national crisis. >> more than 14 million people in the united states do not have a job. u.s. unemployment is now a national crisis. federal reserve board chairman bernanke sees the current unemployment crisis as widespread, enduring and unprecedented. >> we've had now close to 10% unemployment now for a number of years, and of the people who are unemployed, about 45% have been unemployed for six months or more. >> that 45% figure adds up to roughly six million americans them have not had a job in the past six months. mr. bernanke also says long- term unemployed could well become the permanently unemployed. the bernanke comments come in the middle of a nationwide protest movement called occupy

wall street. these protestors are demonstrating against wall street and its corporations. , who they believe caused the ongoing unemployment crisis. boston, baltimore, chicago, denver, kansas city, los angeles, new york, san francisco, seattle, st. louis, washington, d.c. have all seen the wall street demonstrations. president obama's former green energy advisor, ben jones, compares the protests to the arab spring. >> i think there's an expression exactly the same thing. we had the arab aude aude up. >> this is a piece of the national crisis ben bernanke is talking about. the unemployment rate for september, 9.1%, unchanged from august. in fact, in 27 of the last 29 months, over two years, the unemployment rate has been 9%

or higher. question, when will the occupy wall street movement reach critical mass? >> john, i'll be honest, i'm unimpressed with the occupy wall street movement, when we're in the white house we had 300,000 people one month. this is -- >> this is brand-new, though. >> and 531,000 the other month themes are small, getting a lot of publicity. secondly, unlike the anti-war movement which was directed and purposeful in an objective, these people are all over the lot. one said, i want to know what we'll do about student loans. i wondered, is his problem is he didn't get one or doesn't want to pay it back? to the third thing is -- >> or can't pay it back. >> like the battle of seattle, you had a good movement there with jim and ralph mader and pat buchanan and pro-'s people. this movement is radical in the spence ours was destroyed by the an ashist. and they blocked brooklyn bridge which means middle america will say what are you

doing? they're attacking cops and that's stupid. they're identifying themselves as the radical left, and that's one reason barack obama is steer clear of them if he's smart. if he embraces these folks, ñih better watch what $q@6#rr:hremi transpired in london a few months an, with an uprising -- >> i don't think we have to reach over to london. i don't think we have to go back to the 80s or 90s. the more recent analogy is the tea party movement, which erupted in kind of anger which is directed at government. these are voices, if you will, more from the populous left of the tea party is the right, and they're angry at the banks and wall street, and i think they have a number of concerns. they have the concern of people who are out of work. they have concerns of people who are getting pink slips and who are looking at wall street and seeing them taking home fat salaries, while main street isn't doing well. and i think the political climate is perfect for the president coming out with his

jobs bill, which would be paid for by a surcharge on the ultra rich. >> old rich. obama versus the new nemesis. >> said yesterday that people in this country are worse off than when he was elected. we feel the same way. >> i'd like mr. cantor to come here to dallas and explain what exactly in this jobs bill does he not believe in. >> president obama says that congress has not voted on the president's american jobs act because the house republican leader eric cantor is undermining is. the obama legislation promises to spur infrastructure rehab, plus aid state and local government to do more hiring, plus give employers tax credits permitting them to bring on new workers. republican leader cantor says that while he will introduce portions of obama jobs act, the

bill as a won't get to the addition. "president obama needs to understand addition. "president obama needs to understand that his my way or the highway approach simply isn't going to work in the house or the democratic senate, especially in light of his abyssmal record on jobs." is eric cantor playing the bad top what we will see as john boehner's good cop? >> no, they're on the same page as on this program. they're going to oppose it, but pick out pieces of it eventually and pass them. the big story, john, is you have even senate democrats opposing this jobs bill, when it comes up early next week in the senate. democrats will be hard-pressed to get even 50 votes for closure on this thing. what is astonishing is that president obama is to the left of where he was on election day 2010, which i thought no one would have expected. you have democrats on the verge of embracing this occupy wall

street movement. on the misbegotten theateree ic day party. it was mainstream compared to these folks. read that are declaration of occupation of new york, where they say corporations are perpetuating colonialism around the world, poisoning the food supply, suppressing free speech. >> it's a paranoid marxism, poisons for the democratic party. >> okay. your thoughts? [everyone talking at once] >> richard, you're cherry picking those statements. >> read the declaration! not saying -- i'm not saying dakota [everyone talking at once] >> same way you complained about critics. >> no. >> they are picking the signs of the tea party. >> i agreed at first, about this past week they've got the afl-cio, organized labor now coming out on their side. this is growing! >> clarence -- i'm not cherry picking. >> the tea party grew in the beginning. i agree with pat they need to have an agenda, organization,

which can come but what we're seeing now is rage expressed on the left from the same sources as on the right, but people on the right are protecting the tax cuts for the rich. that's the -- [everyone talking at once] >> eric cantor and get off this argument this -- >> argument, john. >> i want to tear about cantor. >> he is proud of it john boehner is more the ohio moderate, but -- [everyone talking at once] >> can't dissect cantor anymore. >> what do you want to hear? >> is he leadership quality? >> are you trying to start a fight? >> i don't know. >> speaker of the house and he's -- >> he's the now leader of the republicans in the united states house. >> boehner will be reelected speaker with the republicans hold the house. but there's no doubt boehner is establishing himself as read credentials, sharp, cutting- edge, whereas boehner is a compromiser because he sees that as a future.

>> before i go to you, i want to make even though 50 some percent of the american people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant. what is relevant is we're in charge. them for being mad, we're in charge! >> question is, vice president biden saying too much too little, or just enough? >> he is candid, and in the end it may be the president who pays for the inactivity that the republican congress is deliberately causing. they've been diabolically successful in creating a dysfunctional political system, and then pointing to the president and say, see, he can't fix it! but the president -- >> let her finish. >> the president is now taking his case to the country and pointing out exactly who the obstructionists are and saying you show me each piece of this bill. if you don't want to build infrastructure, what would you do instead? you don't want to help pay the salaries for teachers and firemen? what will you do instead? you don't want to extends

payroll cuts? you don't want to extend unemployment insurance, what will you do instead? >> we have a guy -- they had ryan out there had that had a good plan. >> let's include -- >> that's a cut -- [everyone talking at once] >> you know who is included among these horrible obstructionist? ben nelson, senate -- these are senate -- >> democratic. >> democrats, and it's as if the last three years have been forgotten when for two years president obama basically could get anything he wanted. he got a stimulus bill twice, he got a huge health care bill. he got a 2000 page bill regulating wall street and bunch. other things and it hasn't worked. and i want to go back to the -- [everyone talking at once] >> is there a third -- >> look, first two years, barack obama had virtually a veto proof congress of the united states. >> right. >> three deficits add up to $4 trillion. the feds got money at zero, triples the money supply. it didn't work! this new --

>> kept us from falling into a depression, pat! and -- >> it didn't work? >> the new proposal is peanuts compared to what we've already done. >> you tell all the people who are not going to go back to work because the congress will pass the peanuts. >> by what theory -- [everyone talking at once] >> that's right. >> by what theory is preserving a payroll tax cut that we already have create a boom in jobs or protect us if there's a financial crisis? had how do we have -- >> it would make a huge difference. you're in a position where you don't have to worry about that. >> how will it create new economic activity? it's not. >> it's going create -- >> tax cuts for the rich? [everyone talking at once] >> tax cuts already exist, not create new jobs. >> take away consumer demand. >> please relinquish! exit question, the u.s. senate is considering legislation to oppose tariffs on chinese imports, assuming the

legislation passes both houses of congress and is signed into law, will it balance or unbalance, do more harm than good to the american economy? >> it a do good if they took the tariff revenue and took taxes. >> it's never going to reach the president's desk. the republicans won't take it up in the house because they're afraid of the repercussions. so it's not going to happen. >> probably more harm because you're going to increase the price of consumer goods here in the united states so lot of households will get hard by this. it will help american manufacturers, but at best it's a wash. and then that's not even dealing with the issue of what retaliation you might see overseas. >> coming up trade bill some win, some lose. and the fact is it's not going to get through legislation. but we do have to address the issue of unfair trade with china bus they do have an advantage for themselves. >> the answer is, it's dangerous but it probably would yield a lot. when we come back, afghanistan

end game?

>> the plan is to win. the plan is to be successful. and so while some folks might hear that we're departing in 2014, we'll be here for a long time. >> marine corps general john allen is the commander of all forces in afghanistan, 90,000 troops. allen says u.s. forces will be in afghanistan well beyond the 2014 withdrawal date laid out earlier this year by president obama. general allen's remarks came as the nation completed its 10th year of war in afghanistan. the war in afghanistan is now the longest war in american history. it is longer than the revolutionary war, longer than the civil war, longer than

world war ii, longer than the vietnam war. the human toll for those 120 months of afghanistan involvement -- u.s. dead in afghanistan, 1685. u.s. wounded in afghanistan, 14,342. u.s. dollars spent in afghanistan, $450 billion. with 90,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan, the u.s. is currently spending $2 billion a week, and is on pace to spend i year. question, what explains general allen's seeming divergence from the commander in chief, barack obama's deadline for withdrawal by 2014 december, which is about three plus a few months, years from now. >> right.

>> is it -- this commander in the field -- denying the validity of the commander in chief? >> not necessarily, more typical not announcing your withdrawal date as being vague as how long we'll be here the one thing the pentagon does to the want for the enemy to wait us out and then suddenly move in as soon as we pack up and leave. but the fact is we can't stay there forever. we are occupying the place, making progress in the tribal areas. we need to wind our effort down and turn it over to the afghans. >> you think it was purposeful disinformation on the part of the -- >> well -- >> because if you pause that sentence, he's not saying we won't be out. >> no, it will be -- >> a long period of time [everyone talking at once] >> which is three years, pretty long. >> john, what he is saying is we'll have a re studiual training force in afghanistan as we purport have one in iraq. we'll have 33,000 guys out of afghanistan of the 100,000 by

next september. which is 11 months. >> down in 90 now. >> right now the taliban is virtually all over the place. they've got some places intimidated. they're waiting for the united states to leave, john, and i think everybody in that part of the world knows the americans will go home and this will end horribly. >> well, there are some successes, a third the kids who were going to schools are girls and before that, no girls won't to school. the taliban is hated within the country. they do control some of the southern areas, and i think right now it's a stalemate. we can't defeat them, and they can't defeat us. and it's the same situation that the soviets were in. the soviets didn't lose in afghanistan. they -- exactly, they left. and that's what we're going to do. and we're doing it in as gradual a fashion as we k and i think the afghans are beginning to stand up and -- and -- >> is there another -- >> that's not how we're going to be leaving. >> isn't there another angle

that withdrawal from afghanistan, the afghan leaders have to convey that to the people so the people are willing to assume the risks, and this is the master plan? in other words, they've got to get the people onboard to accept the risk of withdrawal? >> i think it's actually the opposite dynamic. if they think you're leaving soon, they're more likely to straddle the fence or go to the other side. what you want to communicate is a real commitment to win and stay for the long-term, then you're more likely to have something that sticks and makes it possible for you to leave in fairly benign conditions. i think -- i fear we have the worst of all words here with a lot of blood and treasure in, but they're all just waiting us out. >> in a shocking move, john boehner booms barack obama. obama got a glowing endorsement of his handling of terrorism, from get this, the republof the boehner! >> the very supportive of the president's decision in iraq

and afghanistan, and i think so far the president's done just fine. when you look at the prosecution of the war effort against the enemy in the tribal areas, there's clearly more been done under president obama than there was under president bush, in term of a more aggressive effort focused at them. >> question, is this a shocker? a total 1,000% political shocker? >> it's nice that he said it out loud. but i think it's pretty obvious this president has done a superior job in prosecuting the al-qaeda and really using drones more aggressively than president bush did. there's some controversy associated was with that. in terms of keeping america safe, i think the president has done a good job and goes into the election at least taking that off the table as potential weakness. >> when he pursues a genuinely -- >> who is he? president obama pursues a centrist approach, he gets support in the polls, and two he gets support from republicans who genuinely want

to support him when he does the right thing. [everyone talking at once] >> not done in domestic busch. >> irony here of course -- >> i don't get that. >> adopted the best -- >> let clarence in [everyone talking at once] >> irony is republicans have always supported action over in cnn more than democrats anyway. so that's helpful. secondly, frankly, it doesn't swing elections right now. foreign on policy is not swinging barack obama's numbers. >> that's right. the republicans are from mars and democrats are from venus. what are they doing. >> obama has been more aggressive than george w. bush when it comes to going after terrorists, al-qaeda and pakistan if elsewhere, secondly -- >> and u.s. citizens. >> and -- but i will say this -- >> watch that! >> hold on! >> also agree with his policy on afghanistan and iraq and we're pulling out, but i

believe we ought be realistic. neither will end very well. we are not staying for the long course, quoted we can. >> if we leave and would americans care? >> i think we would care, but like we did in vietnam. >> the president is not thumping his chest in victory about any of this. but he is handled some pretty bad situations and not made them worse. >> let's look at what the end game in afghanistan is supposed to look like, okay? the karzai government will be stable backed by u.s. trained police units. two, the taliban will lay down arms and be peacefully incorporated into afghanistan's civil society. three, women will have equal rights as men. four, al-qaeda remnants will lose any safe haven. and five, neither indian -- no one pointed this out -- neither indian nor pakistan will have undue influence over kabul. and all children will be above average. >> had! >> the only thing -- >> what about that? what standard likelihood of

that occurring if we leave. >> that's unlikely. the one goal that is achievable security forces that fight the insurgency on their own. >> let garris we'll be right back. [ mr. connally ] i was paying too much with cable.

it was crazy! paying so much you want better quality. it was like you were trapped because that was the only system that was in our neighborhood -- was that cable. i was just getting too frustrated. [ male announcer ] stop paying for second best.

upgrade to verizon fios tv, internet and phone for our best price online -- just $89.99 a month guaranteed for two years, with the option of no annual contract. i always heard great things about fios, but the first time i saw the picture it was just like "wow." [ male announcer ] go to verizon.com/greatprice. save $600 in your first two years. when i'm on the internet things download like -- shoo! just as quick as i'm snapping my fingers. it's just "bam." [ male announcer ] switch to fios for just $89.99 a month with the option of no annual contract, and no price increase for two years. i didn't realize how good fios was until i got it. when i got it it's just "wow." [ male announcer ] get our best price online. visit verizon.com/greatprice. call the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 1-800-974-6006 tty/v. [ mrs. connally ] you can't take my fios away. [ male announcer ] fios. a network ahead.

steve jobs and civil rights leader reverend fred shuttingworth passed away this week. we mourn the loss of these two american giants and our thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones. may they rest in peace.