staff, rahm emanuel. then -- >> we are not going to put up with it. >> desert showdown. arizona faces a federal challenge to its immigration law. that and the rest of the politics on our "roundtable." george will, fox news greta van sustern. michel martin from npr and richard haass. and as always, "the sunday funnies." >> one fish, two fish, red fish, dead fish. good night, gulf. hello. and happy father's day. joining me this morning, the president's chief of staff, rahm emanuel. mr. emanuel, happy father's day. >> thank you, jake. >> before we start the questions, i'm interested in your reaction to the photographs from saturday's of bp's coe tony hayward in a yacht race off the isle of wight in the clean waters off of southern england. what goes through your mind when you see those pictures? >> well, to quote tony hayward, he's got his life back, as we would say. i think we can all conclude that tony hayward is not going to have a second career in pr consulting. this has just been a long line of pr gaffes and mistakes. but beyond that photo is really substance here that matters. that's clearly pr mistakes but he's made a number of those mistakes. what's important is are we capping the well? are we capturing the oil? are we containing the cleanup? are we following the claims? are we also cleaning up the mess? that's a mistake but this is also another big mistake. that's what's more important, do the people down in that area have their life back? do they have their livelihood back? so this is just another pr mistake in another long line of mistakes. but the thing you got to really measure is, what are we doing to deal with this problem? what is bp doing to containing the well and giving their $20 billion into the escrow account. that's the measure here. this will be fodder. as you would obviously ask this question people will chew over this. but don't take your eye off the major goals here which is dealing with problems in the well, dealing with problems in the region making it important for the people getting their resources to restoring their lives and that coastline to the environmental purity that it had at that point. >> let's talk about that. are you satisfied with what bp has done so far in terms of capping the well? >> well, you know, there's a test here. you know, bp was originally going to do one relief well. we forced them to do a second relief well. they weren't going to do that. bp had a plan of capturing a certain amount of oil. we forced that, as you know. today's reports, they're up to 25,000. by the end of june, we're making them do different things to get up to 50,000 barrels a day. by mid-july, we think we'll be able to get them to a point of being able to capture 90% of that. >> those relief wells, do you think they'll be working? >> also, jake, they originally weren't thinking about $20 billion and thinking about an escrow account. and we're forcing them to do that. there are certain things that they had to be pushed. not certain things, a lot of things that they had to be pushed to do. pushed to do faster, more of. and so when you ask me, do you we think that the wells will work, their original plan was only one. we forced them to take a step and have a redundancy in the system which is what you're also seeing in the capturing of the oil spewing right now. they had a system in place. not extensive enough. not fast enough. so we made them go from 25,000 to 50,000 barrels this month. we think by mid-july, by basically making them pick up their game, they can get down to 90%. >> i've been down to the gulf three times. the president has been down there four times. one of the things i hear is government bureaucracy and red tape stands in the way of a quicker response. here's a phone interview with alabama governor bob riley. >> if this is truly a war, then we need to begin to treat it like that, as long as you're having decisions made by committees, it's very difficult to do. >> are you concerned all that bureaucracy and red tape are standing in the way of the governors and coast guard being able to stop the environmental damage as quick as possible? >> first of all, you know, everybody knows by now the worst environmental disaster in recent memory. second, it's being met by the largest response ever organized by the united states government. there's over 6,000 ships in that area. to over 25,000 workers, dealing with containment and capture. and cleanup. and there's also 17,000 national guard on call for any governor that needs them and wants them at anytime that they need. now, there is, as the president said in the oval address tuesday night, there is -- given the size and magnitude of what we're dealing with, there are going to be problems. there are going to be bottlenecks. we want to know about them immediately and respond to them immediately. so when you're organizing something like this, there are going to be messups, there's no doubt about it. because of the changing weather patterns, et cetera, you're going to have to move and be flexible. what's happening in louisiana is not the same thing in florida. you're going to have to design a different response. this has never been done before, jake. are there going to be messups? like any other massive, major operation? yes. are you flexible enough, smart enough to be responsive and also realize when something is not working that is also being done. >> during bp hearings this week, were you given what democrats see as a political gift by texas congressman joe barton the ranking republican on the house committee. here he is. >> i'm ashamed of what happened in the white house yesterday. i think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what i would characterize as a shakedown. in this case, a $20 billion shakedown. >> barton apologized about his comments after pressure from house republican leaders. but the svengali of the president's political arm, david platte has called for him to step down. do you agree? >> you can say it's a political gift for us, and it is. but it's dangerous for the american people. because while the ranching republicans would have oversight on this, and the republicans would have actually the gavel on the chairmanship, that's not a political gaffe. that is a philosophy. that is an approach -- they see the aggrieved party here as bp, not the fishermen. remember, this is not just one person. rand paul running for senate in kentucky. what did he say? he said, the way bp was being treated was un-american. other leaders have come to the defense of bp and attacked the administration for forcing them to set up an escrow account and fund it to the level of $20 billion. these aren't political gaffes. i've been in hearings. joe barton was speaking from prepared remarks. ron paul who is running in kentucky, said bp, the way they were being treat said un-american. that was an approach, they think the government's the problem. on this balance, the difference here is bp made a mess. and the government and also in the president's view in certain areas like mms hasn't done its job. >> minerals management services. >> minerals management. and the approach here expressed and supported by other voices in the republican party, sees the aggrieved party as bp. not the fishermen or communities afternooned and that would be the governing philosophy. i think what joe barton did is remind the american people, in case they forgot, this is how republicans would govern. >> what do you say when you hear criticism that this administration has used too many strong-arm tactics when it comes to dealing with big business, whether health insurance companies or wall street firms? or u.s. auto industry? >> well, first of all, it's had a different approach based on the situation. and having seen the number of articles, let me kind of walk you through it. in the case of general motors, the prior administration wrote a check without asking any conditions of change. we said without a check from the american people, to get yourself right, we've got to make fundamental changes. they've made changes. now, as you know, general motors is going to have an ipo. and most importantly, they're going to keep open factories they were planning on closing. so we're writing an industry that was not doing itself or the american people or its workers the right thing. so it was a way of getting them to do the changes that they had postponed. in the case of also the auto industry, for 30 years this country has been debating whether they're going to raise fuel efficiency standards. we finally broke that logjam not just for cars but trucks by bringing that industry together and we have now a consensus. in the case of bp and $20 billion in the case of well point the way they were raising insurance premiums, we do want them to do what's right because there are equities. if we use all your tools, in some cases, it's job building, in some cases, it's building a consensus. in other cases, it's understanding if you need the government or the taxpayer resources you have to make the changes necessary for you to be a viable entity like in general motors. so there's not just kind of one tool out of the tool kit box, you apply it with a different way. i will also draw this consensus difference. as we're thinking about energy policy, in the past administration, it was just industry in the group. in this administration, you're going to have industry, labor, you're going to have environmentalists, you're going to have other expert as it relates to the climate. you'll have an entire approach weathering one voice, one representative. it's the same as joe barton expressed, he views that industry is the important voice. the president views it there are many equities and they all have to be at the table in finding a common ground and common solution. >> let's talk about the energy bill. in the tradition of not letting a crisis go to waste, you guys are talking about an energy bill. i'm wondering how important is it to the president that energy legislation includes a carbon tax? will he sign a bill that doesn't include that? >> he campaigned on the view that he had a deal with comprehensive energy and that energy bill has to have a climate component in helping us reduce our dependence on carbon. southwest our carbon reducing pollution. >> that includes carbon? >> jake, we'll walk through it. in the house of representatives, they passed an energy bill with cap and trade as a component. he spoke about this in pittsburgh, also spoke about it at the oval office. everybody who is coming to the meeting next week, there will be a meeting on wednesday. senators from both parties with an array of ideas are coming to the table. they know the president's perspective. he's been clear with them what needs to be done. his goal, now that the house passed the bill is to get the senate to pass a comprehensive energy bill that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, makes key investments in the areas of alternative energy and deals fundamentally with the environmental degradation that happens from carbon pollution. so that's what his goals are. he's trying to find a consensus working with members of both parties. the good news here, obviously republicans with a set of ideas like senator lugar who has introduced his legislation. there are good parts of that. senator alexander on the republican side, senators kerry and lieberman. all of those will be at the table to try to build that bipartisan census and get america on a different course that will strengthen this economy. >> your portfolio is a lot larger than just the energy and oil spill. i want to move on to afghanistan. we recently passed two grim milestones. more than 1,000 u.s. service personnel have died. and this war became the longest in our nation's history. the president set a july 11, 2011 deadline for beginning of troop withdrawal. in john alter's new book, he said, at the conclusion of an interview in the west wing office, biden was adamant. in july of 2011, you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. he turned at the door and said once more, bet on it. it appears general petraeus testifying before congress this week. >> there was a nuance to what the president said is that was very important that did not imply a race for the exits, a search for the light to turn off or anything like that. >> so what exactly does the july 2011 deadline mean? is it a whole lot of people moving out definitely, as vice president biden says? or could it be more nuanced as general petraeus said, maybe just a couple people leaving? >> everybody knows there's a firm date. and that firm date deals with the troops that are part of surge, the additional 30,000. what will be determined at that date or going into that date will be the scale and scope of that reduction. but there will be no doubt that that's going to happen. i look at both of those and they're not inconsistent. but remember where we were in afghanistan policy. that war had waxed and waned and really hadn't been i focus on how to bring that war to -- the effort with both al qaeda and taliban, to a point, given what was going on in iraq. the president raised the troop level and civilian participation to 30,000. this was creating a window of opportunity for afghanistan. we are now at that point in afghanistan, as a matter of fact for the first time in eight year, nine years, they're actually meeting their police recruitment requirements, as well as their army recruitment requirements. so they even tell us it's going to take more and more responsibility for the security of that country. second of all, more than half of al qaeda has been eliminated in the last 11 months. as you know, after the president's meeting with president karzai, he went back to afghanistan, held a peace jirga. s there also progress being made on that side. all of this will be convince only, in the sense we knew once we created this window of opportunity, we're going to focus on the resores necessary. where we're going to be making progress. the july 2011 date, everybody agreed on that date. general petraeus did. secretary gates did. also admiral mullen agreed. and the goal is to take this opportunity, focus on what needs to get done. then on july 2011, it's to begin a reduction in troops. >> it could be any number of people? >> that's when you evaluate based on the conditions on the ground. that is exactly -- but what hadn't happened prior to that was having a date that gave everybody, the nato international forces, as well as afghanistan, the sense of urgency to move. >> prime minister benjamin netanyahu who was to visit the white house earlier this month, he had to cancel that because of an incident with the flotilla. has that visit been rescheduled? >> when the president offered the date of july 6th when the prime minister netanyahu will be coming back to the white house. that will be the fifth visit by the prime minister to the white house and to work on a series of issues that are from the peace process to the security and state of israel. but also dealing with other issues in the region. >> do you believe that prime minister netanyahu is the kind of leader who is willing to take big risks to make peace? >> yes. he has been clear about what he intends to do. what he needs to do. and the president has been clear of what we need to do to seize this moment of opportunity here in the region to finally make peace. peace that where israel feels secure. and peace that's in balance with the palestinians' aspirations for sovereignty. that is possible. it was close in camp david in 2000. it is now the time, given where we are, to basically find that proper balance, that gives israel the sense of security it needs and the firm commitment that it needs on security. and measure that up with what with the palestinians need for their own sovereignty. >> you said that the administration has broken the back of the recession and that unemployment continues to hover around 10%. 1.2 million americans are scheduled to lose their unemployment benefits this month. and the president, in addition, has been pushing for $50 million for emergency spending that congress at this point has continued to ignore. steny hoyer with the spending fatigue and republicans and some democrats are pushing for spending cuts to offset the spending programs. the unemployment. that doesn't sound so crazy, does it? should the spending programs be paid for and offset with cuts? >> first of all, it's important to remember, jake, when we headed to office, the economy was shrinking by a little over 6%. today, it's growing by 3%. that's a little more. second, we're losing on average 700,000 jobs. the last three months, we've been adding on average 140,000 jobs. those are dramatic swings in the last 12 months. now, we have broken the back of recession. what we don't have is a fast enough, strong enough recovery. that's the focus of president's agenda on a going forward basis. we took decisive action as the president has indicated to break the back of the recession. in a spin that is something close to precarious. but this recovery is not quick enough. as you saw, the president spoke the other day about the 10,000 construction projects that are going on. what are the steps that are necessary? first and foremost, pass a comprehensive energy bill. second, in the closing days of getting a comprehensive sweeping, financial regulatory reform to give the market certainty. third, the house just passed this week and called on the senate to take it up, which they will in due time is a small business lending bill. and third, one of the headwinds for the economy is the fact that state and local governments, facing their own financial situation are laying off teachers. and it is the president's view, that it's better to have teachers in the classrooms than on the unemployment lines. we have to help those communities in this particular window of time, to help teachers stay in the classrooms. not make those cuts. they had to the unemployment when they have a responsibility in the classroom. in the long-term basis, as the president said, and this is a matter of sequencing, we have got to deal with our fiscal condition as a country. on a long-term fiscal situation. we have taken certain steps, instituting a pay as you go rule which has been in washington for ten years which is responsible for one of the reasons we added the largest amount of debt in the nation's history and in the shortest period of time. but these steps what the economy needs is to take critical steps in making sure we're dealing with the energy policy, small business funding and making sure teachers stay in the classrooms. rather than on unemployment lines. >> the national public radio poll this week in 60 independent congressional districts, stan greenberg who did the polling for you when you took back the white house in 2006 had bad news. which statement comes closer to your own view? president obama's economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis and are leading to economic recovery, 37%. obama's economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to end the recession, 57%. how many democrats are going to lose their seats because of the president's policy? >> hey, first of all, midterm elections are always bad for the party in power. i do know politics well enough to say this, anyone who tells you sitting here in the middle of june how low the number is doesn't know anything about politics. that's simple as that. there's a lot to happen here. by way of example, elections are choices, okay? there's a choice that joe barton has offered the american people a philosophy for the republican party which is that bp is the aggrieved party. rand paul in kentucky other members of the republican leadership, some members of the republican leadership think we don't need any reforms on wall street. now that they've gotten back from their financial help, we don't have to change any rules. we don't have to bring in another level of transparency, as well as enforcement. that's a governing philosophy. in the coming weeks, you'll see the president speak to the country about the competing differing philosophies. that is, do you only have environmental executives in the room or others to come to consensus on that policy. do you think that bp is the aggrieved party here? do you think that wall street should be left alone and not have any reforms? elections are about choices. those are what is fundamental. there's a difference in our philosophies. not only in our philosophies, how we make sure that america strengthens its economy. joe barton as the major voice for the republican party has just told you their view. in the coming weeks, the president is going to lay out a competing agenda, one that talks about an energy policy. one that talks about the essential need for passing reform for wall street. one that makes sure that small business companies are getting the capital they need to grow and expand. and one that also talks about the need that we also have a rebuilt america so the workers that the president was with yesterday don't have just this flip of a recovery. that we have a rebuilt america and major investments in our infrastructure so we're the most competitive economy going into the 21st century. >> finally, house republicans offered a view. senators romanoff and sestak. running contested primaries. i know the white house position is nothing illegal happened. nothing improper happened. are you at all worried you and the political arm of the white house have undermined the president's pledge to change the way washington works? >> jake, first of all, the white house introduced a report made it public and said nothing inappropriate. two of george bush's attorney, one that worked at in the justice department one that worked in the white house said nothing inappropriate happened. >> rahm emanuel, thanks so much for joining you. coming up next, "the roundtable" with george will, greta van sustern, michel martin and richard haas. later, "sunday funnies." >> i'd like to lay out what the battle plan is. >> you heard the man, we are at war! we've already got the posters printed and ready to go. ♪ this is onstar. i've received a signal .you've been in a crash., i'll contact emergency services. they're fishermen, they're shrimpers, they're laborers, they're deckhands, they're people who work in restaurants... these are the people of the gulf coast who need our help. i'm darryl willis. i oversee bp's claims process on the gulf coast. bp has got to make things right and that's why we're here. part of that responsibility is letting you know what we're doing to make it right. we're replacing the lost income for fishermen, small businessmen and others who aren't able to work until the spill is cleaned up. our claims line is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. people can call or go online and we'll help them figure out what information they need to file a claim. we've got about 900 people handling claims and 25 walk-in offices in 4 states. so far we've paid eighteen thousand claims, at no cost to taxpayers. more than fifty one million dollars. i was born and raised in louisiana. i volunteered for this assignment because this is my home. i'll be here in the gulf as long as it takes to make this right. if you were to stand at a road and the cars are whipping by, and all you can do is take a snapshot of the way the road looked 5 minutes ago, how would you know when to cross the road? 9 out of 10 organizations still make decisions this way every day... using out-of-date information. the organizations that are most competitive are going to be the ones that can make sense of what they learn as fast they learn it. that's what i'm working on. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet. coming up, our "roundtable" and "sunday funnies." coming up, our "roundtable" and "the sunday funnies." [ ma we just need the president to lay out reasonable time parameters. >> at the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the united states will not be against on any other country for the energy we need. >> by 1985 -- >> by the year 2000 -- >> within a matter of three or four years, we'll get after it and treat it like this is important. >> another great goal, to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the middle east by 2025. >> so nixon says let's get off of foreign oil by 1980. which somehow becomes let's not use as much foreign oil by 2025. >> the energy debate as seen by jon stewart, one of many topics for our "roundtable." with george will. from national public radio. michel martin. from the council on foreign relations, richard haass and fox news, greta van sustern. thanks for being here. george, i know you don't agree with what republican joe barton had to say, does this idea of the $20 billion escrow account make you feel uncomfortable? >> it does. look, there's no defense of bp which has an exorable safety record. from the refinery disaster in '05, '06, all of them. no apology for bp. but if you don't want to live in a northern hemisphere venezuela, you ought to be a little queasy about the fact that a president, any president of any party, using raw political party without recourse to courts that exist for this sort of thing under laws with due process, essentially confiscates $20 billion, about half of its shares held by americans, to be dispensed, again, without judicial supervision as the political branch sees fit. that is worrisome. even, they have even said that bp may be held responsible for the lost wages caused by, not bp, but the administration's own moratorium, six month s moratorium, on deep water drilling which may be more costly to the economy than drilling itself. >> a separate $700 million for oil workers. >> what a shock, i'm going to disagree with that. well, there are two questions here, does the president have the authority and is that an appropriate use of his authority. but we have heard a number of environmental lawyers this week that says there are any number of statutes that gives the president authority to do this. bp has access to the courts. they can challenge this at any time. they can challenge liability. frankly, is this a ceiling or a floor? there's a reasonable argument to be made that this represents a ceiling for their liability. the president also went on the record saying that he doesn't want bp to go away. it's in the interest of this disaster for bp to continue as a company, as an ongoing entity. >> he said it's about half of the $20 billion, though? >> well, i think you can argue it becomes the argument for a cap. it's not a legal cap. again,hey can argue over that. the courts have not gone away. the president has the authority to do this, and if he doesn't, i'm sure that the courts exist to address these claims. >> richard, i've mentioned to rahm emanuel whose famous quote about not letting a crisis go to waste. they are meeting with members of republican congress on wednesday. do you think that the government is seizing this? >> so far, no, they've not seized this that was the biggest weakness of the president's address from the oval office. it wasn't what he said, it's what he didn't say. it was very thin on the policy side. the united states uses one out of three every gallons of oil to transit. we've got to cut that back. ma i would say that argues for a much more ambitious so-called cap basis of knowledge standards. secondly, the administration seems obsessed with long-term fuels. what i would suggest, we have the answer here at home which is natural gas. you don't hear those words mentioned a lot. natural gas is competitive in price. it's incredibly omnipresent now in the united states and it's very good for the environment. instead of thinking about 30 or 40-year solution, we really need to think about the near term. >> greta, the congressional hearings with tony hayward, the ceo of bp testifying, provided a lot of good theater. what was your take on that? >> i thought it was great theater. that's all it was. the whole idea -- let's back up. i agree with george and everybody else here. bp is horrible. i think they got off easy at the white house with $5 billion. they could have paid $7 billion. >> $5 billion a year. >> yes. but the idea that congress who has the obligation to oversee the department of interior who has the obligation to oversee mms, they're sitting there for all of these years, they've let bp cut corners, create risks do a cheaper way of trying to extract this oil from deep down on the gulf floor. the idea that all of a sudden they're scandalized by what has gone on with bp. why weren't they checking up on the department of interior and mms? we hear the scandals, whether it's pornography or getting too chummy with bp. congress has the gull to sit and point fingers. they themselves ought to point fingers at themselves. that doesn't let bp off the hook. bp is horrible. but i thought congress was only grand standing. >> rahm emanuel seemed to seize on those barton comments as if president obama were on the ballot for the 2010 terms running guess joe barton. the democrats argue that barton's comments aren't out of republican mainstream are here some comments. 114 members of the republican party in the house saying, "bp's reported willingness to go along with the white house new fund suggests that the obama administration is hard at work exerting its brand of chicago-style shakedown politics. these actions are emblematic of a pretty prettization of an economy. >> among those asking that he has done so great, the economists of london which i think we all accept is a mainstream publication. they say in a section of their lead editorial called "vladimir obama," the collapse of bp's share markets suggests that he's convinced the american markets comparable to vladimir putin. if the president does not stand up to due process. he will frighten investors across the board. the damage to the environment is bad enough. the president risks damaging the economy, 200. that's not a partisan outfit, "the economist." >> richard, i read a story in "the new york times" getting your take on, it's about afghan president hamid karzai's skepticism about the campaign. in the story, it says, mr. karzai has lost faith in the americans and nato to prevail until afghanistan. the president of afghanistan has lost his confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government to protect his country." if karzai doesn't have confidence in the u.s. campaign, should we? >> the short answer is, i think there's reason to have real doubts. the administration has a very ambitious policy in afghanistan and it's to create conditions by building up our force's and training the afghans, so we can leave and the afghans essentially become self-sustaining. i think the odds of that being realized are extremely small. to build up a strong state is very un-afghan. karzai is an incredibly flawed leader. i don't think this is going to work. i'm also not sure it's worth it. there's nothing unique in afghanistan being a place for terrorists to operate. it doesn't necessarily hold the future to pakistan. pakistan does. we have real problems in places like north korea and iran. that's where we should be focusing. so i think the united states in some ways needs to listen to karzai. we need to move faster. so when july 2011 comes around it ought not to be faux. drawdown, it ought to be real. we ought to take out sizable number of troops. essentially, this is expensive in terms of human life, financially and militarily. this is an expensive investment, but the also a strategic investment. this ought not to be where the united states uses its limited resources in the world. >> george? >> well, part of the problem is that counterinsurgency as defined by general petraeus who literally wrote the book, the manual on this, involves protecting the population in order to win their affections. the problem with that is it requires rules of engagement that put our own forces in danger. >> can i interrupt you, you quote you, you have a column in "the washington post" called "few tilt in afghanistan" in which you quote an officer explaining why the rules of engagement for u.s. troops are too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve tactical successes." >> he talked about his particular unit, they were reluctant to grant air support, even artillery, even a smoke canister fired up to disguise their own movements or illumination canister in order to illuminate where the enemy is. because the canister falls to earth and it might hurt someone. that's fine. you want to minimize casualties. but you're putting your own forces at risk. beyond that, general mcchrystal in words i think he'd probably like to take back, said when we go into marja, we're going to have a government in a box. a transportable government. well, we don't know how to do nation-building and counterinsurgency as petraeus defines it. in fact, the purpose is to extend the writ of kabul throughout the government that terrifies afghans because the kabul government is even more brutal than corrupt. >> is it your argument that there ought to be a hard date for the draw john or a real drawdown, too? >> quite. >> we don't even know our goals yet. what's the goal of being in afghanistan? if we can get rid of the terrorist camps, we can probably do that from the air. every single day, i've heard the introduction, we've hit the milestone of 1,000 deaths with american troops. >> longest war in american history. >> i'm looking forward to next week's interview with leon panetta. see what he says about this. but this is not exactly a war that we're regrettably winning. this is not a war that is going well for us. >> michel, you and i were speaking before the show, and you were intrigued by the story that appeared in "the new york times," a different story. talking about the trillion dollars worth of mineral value that was suddenly found. although if you look back at other stories, the mineral wealth in afghanistan has been written about for literally more than a century. but this was a new report from "the new york times." what was your take? >> which was leaked. i'm just curious what the intention of it was, was it to say this is worth it because it's now worth it to stay in afghanistan that there are mineral resources that -- who will be exploiting resources? is it to solicit the argument to say this is now a war over resources over national security. >> it came to weeks of bad news. here's the answer to your question, greta. our mission is lithium. we're going to get the minerals. that's absurd. in the first place, it's decades away from being extractible. second, it raises the stakes for the taliban to want to win. >> i think they're trying to suggest that this would be a great economy, that they finally have some money because we're making all efforts to destroy their economy, because what their economy is, for better or for worse, is drugs. we've got to destroy their economy. then what do they have? >> which the leading indicator of public opinion, sort as night follows day, while a conflict is not going, while at some point, someone will pick his head up and is exactly what happened in iraq years ago, actually this is about oil, and now we're saying lithium? i'm not sure that the public is willing to tolerate the loss of life over lithium. >> it was a dumb leak. what it's going to do is raise the specter in afghanistan that we now have a real mission. it's not to liberate afghanistan stan, if you will, to protect them from the taliban, but to do something for else. increase the desire to kick foreign forces out. secondly, iraq is a questionable tale. you can never extract resources on any level that's meaningful until you create conditions of political and military stability. the one thing we all know sitting around this table there will be not be conditions of political and military stability in afghanistan for the foreseeable future. >> irony is, the public with all of the impatience, some of it legitimately so, it's a dumb leak because the public is willing to fight over values, but i don't think the public is willing to fight over lithium. >> greta, you interviewed the governor of arizona, jan brewer this week, about the immigration law. here's an excerpt. from that interview. >> i will tell you, greta. we are not going to back away from this issue. we are going to pursue it. we're going to be very aggressive. and we'll meet them in court. we will meet them in court and we will win. >> that interview that phone interview, followed an appearance by secretary of state hillary clinton on south american television. i'm not sure she knew it was going to find its way to the states in which the secretary said this. >> president obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. and the justice department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act. >> well, that's the first time that anybody in this administration said definitively that the administration is going to be sighing arizona. but parse secretary clinton's statement for us. >> okay. racial profiling is what people have been screaming about this document. i don't need to tell anybody here, racial profiling is horrible, it's bad, it's painful, it's all of those things. now, the question is, is sb-1070 does it provide for racial profiling? if you read the statute, i don't think it does. it was amended to try to handle that situation. if you listen to what secretary of state clinton said, she didn't say anything about racial profiling, what she said was policy essentially usurps state. the question is, is this federal immigration policy? a court will determine that. i go back and forth on that. i go back to the concentration, immigration isn't in the constitution, but it talks about invasion of forces. one moment, i think, yes, this does try to usurp the federal government so it will be unconstitutional. other times i thinks are no, this is simply an enforcement of the law. and illegal immigrants we don't give passes for people shoplifting so do we go back to people violating this law. i go back and forth. neither the president or secretary of state clinton talk about racial profiling which is a hot button issue, i don't understand why they don't put that issue to rest. because that would certainly calm things down a bit. what this standpoint does, it needs to be tested in court, and the justice department, if it's going to sue it needs to sue fast before we have problems. >> when you say put this issue to rest, i don't understand what you mean. they should unilaterally declare that it's not going to open the door to racial profiling? how can they do that? >> i think they've made the statement because i think they let it sit out there, i think that's why they're boycotting this state. everyone thinks this is racial profiling. that's horrible. that's a very bad thing. we even have the constitution talking about the importance of equal rights for people. and there should be no statute that has racial profiling, none. but they don't speak to it. instead, they sort of let that issue sit out there and percolate. >> then there is the law and then there is how the law is interpreted. the fact that the law hasn't barred race in jury selection for how many decades, but it still is. in 11 other states, it indicated that american americans are barred from juries at three times the rate of whites for reasons like, the prosecutor would say, well, because he had glasses. >> you and i do not disagree about that. >> the question is whether policies in place lead to that? because the policies are so stated or are not. >> no, it's when you look at the statute itself, you read the statute. and you read the words to the statute, people will take armed robbery and they'll racial profile armed robbery which doesn't speak about racial profiling. that is so horrible, that is so bad. you and i don't disagree on that. >> we don't disagree on the policy. we're talking about the implementation of the policy. >> you're talking about the law as applied. and since it won't be applied until july 29th, the reason we've heard nothing from the justice department about why they might challenge this is they don't know how to challenge it. first of all, they have to wait until it's applied to come up with as-applied violations. or they can say it is wrong for arizona to usurp current jurisdiction. and enforcing federal policy. and i think that's a very tough argument to make also. >> richard? >> it's got to be federal at the end of the day. you have to be not simply with security and not simply with those here without documentation. the biggest issue i actually think with this country with immigration is legal immigration. this is one of the keys to opening up the u.s. economy. unless this is dealt with comprehensively from the federal level, we will never have an immigration policy. >> but nobody will do that, because there are businesses on the right who like the cheap labor, so they'll fight against it. that's a special interest. then you have the special interest on the left that think this is potential voters. we've been hearing about it since 1986. >> we disagree. a tremendous number of businesses need a large number of talented people. foreigners who come here get their ph.d.s. we've got to find ways to keep them in the united states. this is one of the ways we're going to make this country economically competitive. >> i'm going to tell you, we do need something. i don't disagree with you on that. i just don't see an an tight for it on capitol hill. >> 1.2 million americans are about to lose their unemployment benefits and there's a big debate on capitol hill on whether it has to do with unemployment extension or $50 billion in funds for state and local, emergency funds, the president calls them. there has not been an appetite to pay for them with spending cuts elsewhere. here is republican tom coburn talking about this debate? >> look what the american people need to do, if we need to do these things find something somewhere within the federal government that doesn't make sense. don't borrow it from our children. >> richard, what's going on on here in terms of the debate on capitol hill? >> we're actually seeing one of those interesting moments in politics where we're seeing a fundamental debate about the role of the government in the economy. on one side, those who want a larger government role, talking about a longer stimulus package, extending unemployment benefits indefinitely. and there are others who want to bring down the deficit and basically say the role of government is to create an environment in which the economy can do well. have an open trade policy. have a more open immigration policy. don't overregulate. don't overtax. be predictable so businesses can prosper. this is a first order debate, in some ways, a defining debate between traditional democrats and traditional republicans. >> this is the third stimulus because of the stimulus of 2008 before the stimulus of february of 2009. the democrats are in the interesting position of turning to the country and saying washington is dangerously frugal right now and we have to spend some more money to stimulate things. otherwise we will lose, a magic figure comes up, 300,000 teachers. where did that number come from? aside from the ether it came no doubt from the teachers unions. this is the standard washington argument that says, if we're going to have to balance the budget, we're going to have to close the washington monument. >> this is a healthy discussion it seems to me about what exactly government is for. i think this is a healthy and appropriate discussion about the point at which you stop spending on one thing and start spending on another. i talk to unemployed people all the time. i had an interview with an man who lost his job on june 4th, as a consequence for the timing he will no longer be eligible for the cobra. subsidy that was part of the stimulus package. for people who lost their health insurance for whatever reason, you continue to buy it from your employer, a federal subsidy was offered which was a substantial benefit. this man is the sole breadwinner in his household. his held insurance costs alone for a family of four, $1,300 a month, and he doesn't know what he's going to do. i asked him the question, of course now the question becomes the deficit. and we're adding to the deficit which, of course, is a tax on your children and mine, how do you think those things should be balanced? he said, you know, i don't know, but i do know that i'm really scared right now. that's what we should be debating. >> what are the politics on that on capitol hill? >> well, they all want to win in november, so they cater to their clientele. the people back home. so that's the bad part about it. in terms of whether to extend the benefits, look, it's as richard said, it's a different political. do we want more spending, less spending. they're going to battle it off. there's no bipartisanship up there. we're going to hear lots of talk and chatter. >> it doesn't seem so crazy to say, can we cut spending elsewhere? >> well, no, of course it doesn't. the big picture is, the more we have to borrow overseas, the less sort of diplomatic muscle we get to solve other problems in the world. the more we're beholden to china, for instance, this deficit we're running up is not insignificant. but if you're back home in my hometown of appleton, wisconsin, and you've just run out of a job, it's real significant to you. everyone's got an interest in this. >> well the "roundtable" will continue in the green room on abcnews.com. we'll talk about the world cup there. and later on abcnews.com, you can also fact check the newsmakers courtesy of the politifact. coming up, "the sunday funnies." politifact. through good times and bad, when our clients' needs changed we changed to meet them. through the years, when some lost their way, we led the way with new ideas for the financial challenges we knew would lie ahead. this rock has never stood still. and there's one thing that will never change. we are, the rock you can rely on. prudential. no mor now in memoriam. >> oh, beautiful! >> try jimmy dean pure pork sausage and it might make every morning seem a little bit like this one. ♪ big john big bad john big john ♪ ♪ this week, the pentagon released the names of 17 service members killed in iraq and afghanistan. we'll be right back. that's not good enough.l p. we're not leaving this room unless we can cut something else. can they really keep us here? what about all this stuff? what stuff? all this stuff. what does it cost to create all this? time, effort, people. how much? it could be millions. ♪ millions. [ male announcer ] save money. trust your business processes to xerox. xerox. ready for real business. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment firms wouldn't even dream of overcharging people. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 inact, they'd spend all of their time dreaming up ways tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to give us more for our money. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i guess i'd just like to see a little more give tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and a little less take, you know? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if it was up to me, they'd spend a lot more time tdd# 1-800-345-2550 worrying about my bottom line. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 (announcer) at charles schwab, investors rule. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are you ready to rule? compare a well equipped lexus es, to a well-equipped buick lacrosse. get inside each. and see what you find. if perfection is what you pursue, this just might change your course. meet the new class of world class. the twenty-ten ! lacrosse, from buick. may the best car win. and now "the sunday funnies." >> in afghanistan, the u.s. has discovered large deposits of iron, and now "the sunday funnies." >> in afghanistan, the u.s. has discovered large deposits of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium. as most people would call it, not osama bin laden. >> i think we have a photo of the speech. look at this. how does this happen, every time he gives a speech, where do these -- >> the salahis. >> who invited them? >> a few weeks ago, hayward said, this is what he said, the environmental impact of the spill is likely to be very, very modest. by modest, you mean it's only destroying one of the solar system's eight planets, then, yes, it's modest. >> british, i know you are doing your best to keep the oil off of our shoreline. but you have failed miserably. i mean, how could i put that another way? let's just say that the oil was a ball and the coastline was a goal! score! >> we'll be right back. every heart beat, every breath, every anomaly... from over a thousand pieces of unique information per second. helping doctors find new ways to detect life threatening infections up to 24 hours sooner. on a smarter planet... analyze the data and you can predict what will happen faster. so you can do what they're doing in toronto... and build a smarter hospital. let's build a smarter planet. that while you may come from the same family... you know, son, you should take up something more strenuous. you have different needs and desires. - i'm reading a book. - what's a book? so we tailor plans for individuals, featuring a range of integrated solutions. - you at your usual restaurant? - son: maybe. see you tomorrow. - stairs? - elevator. to see how our multi-faceted approach... can benefit your multi-generational wealth, look ahead with us at northerntrust.com. be sure to join us next week with the exclusive interview with cia director leon panetta. until then -- happy father's day. [ male announcer ] progress. f do ars, with the help of visa digital currency. which lets troy reiners, manager of nebraska's child support payment center, put money into pre-paid visa accounts for just a penny... instead of mailing out checks for 59 cents each. now that's progress. visa. currency of progress. visa. announcer: whether it's earning a promotion... they're the culmination of lots of hard work. the graduate school has more ways to get you the knowledge you need to reach your next goal, your next great moment, with continuing education programs to fit your schedule and lifestyle. learn more. visit...