♪ our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: welcome to the program. it is a new fall season. congress is back in session. so we turn this evening, in the beginning, to bob costa of the washington post. mr. costa: we see a president who is grappling with his base. comesnts purity when it to immigration policy, who wants results, and his own instincts and advisers in the republican leadership want to show the republican party as more compassionate. appealing to hispanic voters. even though they know the

president is well-known known as someone who is supportive of a border wall and more aggressive taxes on immigration. and we continue looking at the situation in north korea with david sanger, david burns, andicholas lionel barber. >> there are a lot of things that the u.s. government could go do. some of them over to and some of them covert. they all suffer from the same while the war is plan and all of the times they gamedore game -- war this, you have the u.s. winning. but you have huge casualties along the way. it is something that president obama attempted including a cyber program against the missile launches. , some of thee

-- the bigams missile launches they've had this year for the long-range, they appear to have gone along pretty well. it is hard to get inside. and even if you are inside, it is good to know that it's working. charlie: and something we have just begun, called an archive moment. henry kissinger on north korea. kissinger: the best way would be to send some private .missaries it is our notion of the evolution of the region. military clash, it is inevitable.

experts weigh in on north korea and a moment with henry kissinger when we continue. we begin with this. the trump administration has thatit will end daca grants temporary status to undocumented immigrants brought to the uss children. jeff sessions announced the decision this afternoon. attorney general sessions: the program known as daca that was effectuated under the obama administration is being rescinded. the program was implemented in 2012 and essentially provided legal status for recipients for a renewable two-year term worker authorization and other benefits including participant tatian -- mostly adult to

illegal aliens. implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern. extend benefits on numerous occasions to this game group. it deliberately thought to achieve what the legislative branch was physically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional or size of authority by the executive branch. day backks the first for members of congress after their august recess. harvey,lem of hurricane they were faced with a heavy september workload. joining me from washington is the moderator for washington week on pbs and a political analyst for nbc news

and msnbc. welcome to the start of fall, bob. great to be with you, charlie. charlie: what were the pressures on the president? what were his instincts and why did he make the decision he did? a. costa: it was such revealing decision by the president to choose to delay making a decision. candidate, politician, and now a president who revels in being the decider. he decided to punt the decision to congress, to let republicans decide the fate of 800,000 mostly younger immigrants that came here and were protected under the obama era executive action. we see a president a grappling ,ith his base that wants purity wants results, and his instincts showdvisers, they want to

the republican party as more compassionate as appealing to hispanic voters even though they know the president is well known as someone who is supportive of a border wall. we see a president trying to navigate all these different forces and interest. and clearly in the context of what you said, his reference to children. aidessta: the president's tell me that he has wrestled with this for months. on immigration, he's seen as wholesale on the right wing of the republican party, except for this issue of dreamers. and because of the president's reluctance to move forward in an expected way, it has created a vacuum where congressional republicans and democrats think they can start to craft a policy.daca if they can keep thousands of these children and young adults

and adults here in the united states, it goes back many years to president trump. he said long before he was a candidate that he is sympathetic to the view that the dreamers and came here as children teenagers are not responsible for the mistakes of their parents. but we have seen this juxtaposition, charlie. , as you would expect press conference saying that no one can just come to the united states, that dreamers are here unlawfully. you have the president remarking that he struck an entirely different and more compassionate tone. it presents the administration with a challenge moving forward. what is this administration really going to do with the dreamers? will it let congress come up with a solution? or will he let it expire? that is the choice. charlie: what is his relationship with congress? an uneasy it is

relationship and it's only gotten worse over the summer. we've seen the president clash with leader mcconnell and he has afraid relationship with paul ryan. extending the debt limit, trying to get a budget passed before the government is set to shut down on september 30. so many other issues that have really begun to pile up here in washington. daca and to act on immigration policy. even though president trump is a hardliner, they want to make sure they appeal to hispanic voters and that is why they will try to come up with a solution. maybe not september, but this fall. charlie: they said daca is the wrong approach to his nation -- to immigration policy. as a reporter, my

response to senator mccain would be, let's wait and see. the president announced he would phase out daca. there is little clarity about what the future of this program will be. he says congress should decide and when sarah huckabee sanders was asked what that means, what does it mean the president will do? it means the president remains torn. he continues to be this hardliner but he also has the community and his own family saying you don't need to go that far on the dreamers. charlie: now that steve bannon is out, tell me about the factions inside the white house. mr. costa: steve bannon may be formally outside the white house that he is still talking to president trump by phone. i'm told by several people close

to president trump. he represents the breitbart policy. those voices remain very powerful in this fractured washington. sometimes bannon is seen as this overpowering presence. republican establishment controls congress. democrats are increasingly seeing new leverage because the republicans have all these inferent objections september. look for the democratic leaders to make some request if they get those votes. charlie: have they spoke in to the democratic leadership in a while? mr. costa: there have been many discussions behind the scenes. democrats have said to republicans, if you want to address daca, you better do it

as part of must past legislation. republicans and conservatives don't want to do that and mash all this legislation together. democrats say if you want our help, you have to do it our way. one of the big negotiating point this fall and this september will be how although legislative aims will be cobbled together. what will be attached to what in order to get the necessary votes. charlie: what will happen to the debt ceiling? mr. costa: the administration says it wants a clean debt ceiling. he wants to keep the markets from overreacting to some kind of standoff. for hurricane harvey in texas. they want to have a standalone so theythe debt ceiling won't have to be forced to pass it and have the texas vote tied to the debt ceiling.

how this figures itself out will be a test. charlie: is there alliance between the caucus and steve bannon and breitbart news? bannon met with mark meadows, the north carolina republican house member on monday right before congress came back this week to try to bannon andh how breitbart and the freedom caucus can truly be a thorn in the side of the republican leadership. mcconnell and ryan will be scrambled. saying the republican leadership sold them out. the president is being sold out by his own party. it remains a split party.

and the ban an element of this is important because it's also driven by his own personal x areas in the white house. close how jerod kushner, the president's son-in-law, and other moderates were pushing the president on daca. it may be let congress figure out a solution. bannon was appalled. he thought immigration was the issue during the campaign. to somehow walk away from that hardline stance would be of the trail to the voters. , seething in a way that the republican party is bringing this administration. distinction is bannon is going to war with the republican party and not with president

trump. if that dynamic ever changes, it will be real chaos in washington. but for now, bannon is trying to toe the line, stay with trump, and go to war with the parties. charlie: ed wall street and silicon valley, everywhere he believes they are resistant to the populist movement. mr. costa: that is right. if you are in silicon valley or wall street. there.talked to people they are somewhat happy with the possibility that stability could happen in washington. they could extend the debt limit cleanly. they could try to protect the thousands who are beneficiaries of the daca policy. maybe even cut taxes. that is the optimistic view. gone, baby trump and kelly can move in a more centrist direction.

again, looming overall is breitbart, bannon, a republican base that once the daca and -- wants daca and dreamers to be deported. bomb costa, thank you for joining us. a pleasure to have you as we begin this new fall season. we will be right act. stay with us. ♪

charlie: on sunday, north korea carried out the sixth and most powerful nuclear test to date. the country claims it marks the first successful detonation of an advanced hydrogen bomb. it is considered a major step forward to reach the mainland with a nuclear attack. nikki haley said pyongyang was begging for war during a session in the emergency -- security council yesterday. she asked them to have the strongest possible sanctions. putin questioned the effectiveness and warned of a potential global catastrophe. david ignatius, columnist for the washington post. nicholas burns of the harvard kennedy school. editor of theer,

financial times. i begin with david sanger. tell us about this test and the implications about its agonists -- bigness? >> we don't know that it was a hydrogen bomb. the best guesswork i've heard from american intelligence officials and from outside experts is that this was some kind of a boosted explosion. which means they are on the pathway to a hydrogen bomb. it is six to 10 times larger than the previous detonation they have been able to accomplish. which is to say it is probably six to 10 times larger than the bomb the united states dropped on hiroshima in 1945. politically, i'm not sure it makes that big a difference. like many nuclear powers before them, the north koreans have solved many of the biggest physics problems.

they are capable of detonating a weapon that could destroy a large american city. it doesn't mean they can deliver the weapon into a large american city. people are still wondering if they can fit this into a warhead or if they could make it survive reentry into the atmosphere. if they can't do it now, they will be there pretty soon. charlie: david ignatius, what are the implications of this? mr. ignatius: that they have this very large -- i've been hearing 10 times the previous detonation -- bomb. in addition to showing their technical expertise, they are aiming for a kind of city strike.

after an initial regional conflict, the u.s. and the city would be held hostage. would notgn that they be backing off. get a thing that strikes me is that this nuclear test in the last two missile tests follow a very deliberate effort i secretary of state rex tillerson to open the way for some kind of dialogue with north korea. to signal the u.s. willingness issues.ss a range of tillerson went through a series of promises. we won't seek regime change or send troops north of the 38th parallel. down the list of north korean demands. in the face of that forward leaning american posture, you have to see this is a real rebuff or slap in the face of a diplomatic solution. what do you think of

what vladimir putin said today and what the chinese said? >> posturing from the russians and chinese. no question this is heading to a new and dangerous phase. gosident trump has got to back to what he did so well in the cold war. fromtermine north korea ever using these weapons. secretary mattis went out and promised massive retaliation. if north korea used these orinst south korea, japan, the continental united states. take the north koreans believe that threat is credible. and we have to be arm in arm with our allies. i thought president trump very unwisely accused the south koreans of appeasement. he also threatened to withdraw the united states from the south korea free-trade agreement. if there was a time when you

needed a united front against north korea, it's now. and they will have to wrestle with washington, whether or not we could enter into some kind of negotiation down the road. satisfactory to a outcome. achieve.icult to it would be extremely irresponsible to drive this if you hadn't given what david ignatius was talking about. talking to this regime, i think it happens. >> it is going much faster than people expected.

they have had the increase of capacity. said 18 months before president trump took office, the north korea would be in a position that the former seems to be there now. the other big risk is miscalculation. -- kim jong-unon wants to make sure the regime is, in effect, invulnerable to change. so what happens if he uses this weapon, this arsenal for blackmail? even miscalculate and think that he could unify the korean peninsula by force. these are all calculations which the americans and their allies are having to figure out.

i also want to point out and echo what nick burns said. is a time when the trump administration needs to bring the allies close. and i think the notion that to abandonrump tried the free trade agreement and at the time trying to put them close, it doesn't make sense. to assess the military calculation and also the pursuit of integrated policy. everybody says there is no military solution. but is there something that the military, when general dunford talks about it, we have all these kinds of possibilities and options? what does he mean, david ignatius? mr. ignatius: we don't know. there has been a war plan for north korea for decades now.

it is updated every year. it is a labyrinth. the problem is, it takes two months for the forces that would be involved in the operations against north korea to get in place to act. you have the clock ticking. that you will move all this equipment and personnel into the theater. are other shorter-term special forces operations that we can only speculate about. it would involve going in and taking out certain facilities or leadership targets. and there is this completely unknown realm of the exotic, silver bullet new weapons. cyber weapons. david sanger is a real expert on this. that is the range from heavy operations that would take months to quicker special forces

operations to this really unknown new warfare. david is right. there are a lot of things the u.s. government could do. some of them overt, some of them covert. they all suffer from the same problem, which is while the war plan and all of the times that this showsar-gamed the u.s. and allies winning, you oul or have massive casualties along the way. obamahat president attempted, including a cyber program against the missile launches. but that -- if it worked, we don't understand how well it worked. and it seemed to stop working. missile launches

they've had this european to have gone along pretty well. difficulties with ciber is it is hard to get inside. it's hard to know if it's working. there are options short of this. i wrote this morning in the times about an effort to try to convince the chinese to go turn off north korea's oil as a sanction to drive them to negotiations. but it would require the chinese cooperating. they provide more than 90% of north korea's energy needs. never, the chinese have been willing to do that. the white house trying to set up a conversation between president trump and president ping from china. no, you're are the diplomat among the five of us. who could change the chinese

minds so that they can become more aggressive on north korea in terms of trying to find a solution? >> the chinese are clearly frustrated and they don't like him johkim jong-un. the chinese do not want a conflict in the korean peninsula. not for security reasons, not for economic reasons. careful about what we will get back. they prefer the status quote. the situation where the north -- and there is the capital aligned with the united states. wrote a veryer thoughtful op-ed a couple weeks ago on the wall street journal. the u.s. can't just ask china to

do it's in the interest of the united states. there has to be a diplomatic joint venture, closely intertwined with the government. where the four of us would have a diplomatic agreement to leverage the north koreans to get them to negotiate. the chinese and the russians, you asked about them earlier. they asked the u.s. to curtail military exercises. to give commitments that we would not seek the overthrow of the north korean regime. the administration has been trying to reassure them. it's only that kind of sophisticated campaign that is probably going to pay off. that might be the best we can hope for. charlie: is this primarily

n or do wekim jong-u believe the north korean establishment is behind what he's trying to do? is him or primarily him, is he subject to some kind of regime change which the chinese would approve? >> we know so little about this .ery opaque regime but what we do know judging from the time he took power is that he is achieved ruthless control of that government. he appears firmly in charge of that government. maybe people below him that would be willing to unseat him but it doesn't seem likely. it's not been the history going back to his father and grandfather. the trump administration will assume that they have to deal with him at some point diplomatically or at least his lieutenants. findie: but we could never a transition figure for a sod

when the most intense opposition was there. >> right. this is very different than syria. a government that's in control of territory and acting strategically. i have great respect for nikki haley but i did not agree with her statement in the council the other day where she said that north korea is begging for war. this doesn't seem to be a suicidal regime or an irrational regime. we have to beat them measure for measure and a sophisticated and diplomatic campaign ourselves. charlie: is it only interested in its own protection and defense? most people would think that ultimately it is a mafia like family. acquiring a vast number is the best way to ensure continuation and power.

>> he looked at the gaddafi example very carefully. qaddafi gave up nuclear weapons which was nowhere -- it was basically pieces and boxes. and it gets overthrown and the u.s. helps overthrow him. the u.s. government saying that it's not about regime change. but it can john kuhn looks at jong-unory -- if kim looks at the history here, if there was an uprising in north kim himself.t c we have assumed self-preservation is the number one objective here but i think it's very possible that blackmail, losing a weapon to

get aid, these are secondary but important advantages that he sees. the u.s. government will have to make a fundamental decision. do you accept north korea as a way you'veer the accepted pakistan, india, or others that did not sign the npp ? wedo you continue to say will never tolerate you as a nuclear power. charlie: but we have come to that decision quickly. >> the moment is here. i would be interested to hear if ,avid is hearing the same thing that every time i talk to them, they say our goal is full denuclearization of the korean peninsula and we will not ignore it north korea as a nuclear state. >> that is the aspiration. the question is the timing.

be the endpoint of a long negotiation. just coming back to what nick was saying. it has a key role here. they had a lot of this when i was in beijing for a few days, the americans -- you've got to do this. the one that has a leverage under this regime. questionable, by the way, about how much leverage they have. it and say,k at of regimeo the risk the population over the border into china, we would up -- have them bottles bottled up as a nuclear power.

believe, u.s. officials that chinese officials are so fed up with kim jong-un. they have warned him repeatedly about continuing with missile tests. and prior to this latest nuclear test, they specifically warned through one of their channels, if you do this, we will consider the possibility of going after oil supplies. this is what the chinese are telling the north koreans. >> this is an american version of what they are telling the north koreans. i think the chinese are fed up. the other point i would come , there is an understanding

across the united states government that a military solution, any conventional military solution to this problem is one that would be catastrophic. secretary mattis said it would be another stalingrad in terms of human suffering. there is a desire to move forward with the diplomacy. that we would be prepared to negotiate. finally a real peace treaty. would be prepared to discuss the future status of u.s. forces on the korean peninsula. we would eventually be willing to remove those forces. there is quite a number of things at the center of north korean demands. we seem willing to address. they is no sign yet that

are prepared to come to negotiations. in washington and maybe china can reconvene the six party talks. i'm told they have indicated they have no interest in that. they may be interested in talking directly to trump but the activity goes in another direction. the idea that this administration doesn't want a --lomatic solution to this they don't know how to get there. jong-un is looking at himself in the mirror every morning and saying, you are winning, keep it up? >> a serious nuclear capability with city strike. that is the story of the last six months. he's gone faster, further, than anybody expected. and what would stop that, how

you freeze the position now, it is very difficult to see how you get to that. charlie: nick burns, i mentioned the kissinger piece. table to talk the about that. what can we offer the chinese? what would the chinese consider a nudge for them to be -- burns: if china has the greatest leverage, we need to move. a tract china to our side of the table. you might liken it to what the bush and obama administrations did in iran. we gave up a certain degree of independence. i know president obama did and we brought china, russia, britain, france, and germany. appeared tossinger be saying that this has to be a true joint venture.

china listens to the united states concern. and if we can do that and get a g whatfrom president pin they want as a result, which might be quite different from us, it might be the only way to exact that kind of leverage through energy shipments and food shipments that would make, force, co-worst north korea to the table. and again, charlie, this is a very messy process. that that's where we are. a messy compromise that ultimately froze the program in place is far preferable to having this program continue unconstrained for the next several years. look forward to seeing you again soon. picking up on that point, it davids me of a piece that baker wrote in the times today saying "trump skills in the art of the deal have yet to pay off

." assume from a diplomatic standpoint that ,omeone is saying, as an envoy what is it you need in order to solve this? >> i think that's right. if you go back over the years and you talk to past american ,iplomats that dealt with this they tried on several occasions to engage the chinese in a conversation about what would happen if north korea collapses. how you would go after securing the nuclear weapons. they view north korea for all of its trouble and this is huge trouble to them as a very necessary buffer between american forces and south korea forces, keeping them.

can you change the chinese calculus enough. they're willing to demonstrate that there would be -- they would be able to turn off the oil which is the only sanction that would get kim jong-un's attention. i don't know if the chinese have made the decision to do that, but as they had to the party congress, all they want is stability around the peninsula right now. are seeinghat we with all of this talk of military action is the trump administration trying to convince the chinese that there won't be stability if they don't act. that would be a pretty strategic move. be thinking about significant military actions and you have to be, that north koreans are fueling up a missile

. that the more bluster we talk, the more it encourages believe that he has to have a nuclear weapon to protect himself and his own regime. right? that is certainly a risk. on the other hand, if you don't make the solid moves to show determinationt around there, he may conclude that he can continue on the path he's on which is build up as quickly as he possibly can. so if there is a discussion, he has frozen it at a very high level where he will have the capability for years to strike the united states. assume thatould notwithstanding, knowing those , there at the pentagon is an urgent consideration of

what possible moves we can take. had we prepare for the fact that it may be inevitable that we have to risk something? is job one for the pentagon and the cia. thepresident is saying options are limited. they are really pushing the envelope to think of ways the united states can have leverage in this situation. >> the point we keep coming back to is the u.s. sees china as the essential intermediary pressure unver in moving kim jong-i is correct. morning of the possibility of , boosting theict defenses of japan and south korea.

the deterrent ability is limited thee put in thad, antimissile defense system. grandson of thad. muche japanese move toward greater military capability of their own. these are all significant negative developments from china's standpoint and they are only going to get worse as long as kim jong-un remains unrestrained. wouldasons why china think, as much as we hate to take action, we've got to do something, pretty obvious. especially as president ping heads toward the crucial party congress at which the rest of his tenure, the rest of his regime as china's leader is going to be shaped.

not sure that would be in his interest either. in looking at policy, looking at the options on the democratic -- diplomatic front, forget what the president is saying. although that seems to be a factor. are there divisions between state and defense on this? or are they simply looking at separate responsibilities in terms of diplomacy and military action? >> a think there is very much an identity of interest. the lead player on this, i think, is rex tillerson.

the action inevitably shifts toward other theaters. so far, this team still seems to be together. >> i would say david's analysis is exactly right. i thought it was interesting over the weekend that after the nuclear test happened on sunday, president trump with his military advisers. and it was defense secretary mattis that came out to speak. it was not the secretary of state. monday., of course, on that havetements gotten delivered, they've been pretty silent out here. i detect in the state

department, some frustration that military options are being examined. are they being examined because that's what you pay the pentagon to do? they would be remiss if they didn't do that. or is that because president , as he has said, the time for talking is over. he has to do something more dramatic to get north korea's attention. and maybe turn back to diplomacy. i don't have the fidelity on the internal debate to know how consideration of military overcoat for action may be. >> you don't see the kind of divide that you saw 13 years ago, 40 years ago in the run-up to the war in iraq.

it was a gulf, a chasm. that's not the case. , thes been alluded secretary hasn't been that kind of -- anyway. the key player is general mattis. the first trip he made overseas was to south korea and japan. nervous.extremely the question, at some point, if you have a new member of the new country entering the nuclear club like north korea, might japan consider that? this changes the whole strategic calculus. point,l of the vantage including japan. i'm not saying japan will go nuclear. it would be a massive step.

on the other hand, when we hear a lot about, here in america, people are saying quite rightly that a missile strike against guam, seattle, los angeles would be intolerable. haveu are in tokyo and you a neighbor like north korea, .his is an existential threat diplomacy is hard if you have no military leverage. if you have nothing that accept -- backs up support of the president and the power of your military to be effective. it makes diplomacy all the more difficult. thank you, david ignatius, david sanger. great to see you. ♪

charlie: and we conclude this evening with our archive moment. henry kissinger talking about north korea. majorssinger: the development has been, on the one hand, to threaten north korea with consequences. and on the other, to ask china to help us. the threat is not fully effective.

because for the north koreans, oppressingdecades their people and depriving them to build these weapons. yieldy are not going to to threats very easily. charlie: threats of sanctions and the like? mr. kissinger: it will take tremendous physical threads to imagine them yielding. and on the other hand, china helping us. us. are not there to help they are there to help themselves. at a moment when the interests of america and the interests of want coincide, we don't nuclear weapons and north korea. my representative

to us and to others. , othere weapons remain countries in asia are sure to build nuclear weapons. and so the whole area will be nuclear rise. in these countries are in great tension with each other. it would be an extremely dangerous situation, of which china would be a greater target. it is conceivable that china could use its influence and pressures. that the north koreans might be , substantially, to reduce their nuclear threat. but at the end, denuclearization has to be the objective. charlie: this idea has been

there. even this president tried to talk to them about going light. if they would use their influence with china, was his approach wrong? >> with trade if they help with china. it looks like a commercial proposition. to extort economic progress. the problem for china will be that if north korea gives up nuclear weapons, it gives up the toy significant achievement which they can afford. and either to the collapse of the regime, and great unrest. it will lead to a period of major adjustment. ♪

so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver.

betty: stocks and long-term treasury were yields -- yields rise among talk of tax reform. >> the u.s. bands oil exports north korea but still need support from china and russia. betty: hurricane irma barrels across the caribbean as puerto rico and florida braced for the category five storm. >> another top vacancy at the fed, vice chair step