♪ >> from 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. and 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. who wants purity when it comes to hardline immigration policy, who wants results, and his own instincts, his own advisors even, and the republican leadership want to show the republican party as more compassionate 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. charlie: and we continue looking at the situation in north korea with david sanger, david ignatius, nicholas burns, and lionel barber. >> there are a lot of things that the u.s. government could go 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 they have war gamed this, you have the u.s. winning. in the interim, you may well have huge or casualties along the way. it is something that president obama attempted including a cyber program against the missile launches.ssile

failures, and then it seemed to stop working. most of the big missile launches they've had this year for the long-range, they appear to have gone along pretty well. so one of the difficulties with cyber is 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. mr. kissinger: i think a better someould be to send private emissaries to the chinese and say, here is our notion of the evolution of the region, if things continue as they are. clash by military

somebody is inevitable. charlie: the president's decision on daca, experts weigh in on north korea and a moment with henry kissinger when we continue. ♪ charlie: we begin with this. the trump administration has said it will end daca that obama era program that 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 attorney general sessions: the program known as daca that was effectuated under the obama administration is being rescinded.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 daca program was implemented in 2012 and essentially provided legal status for recipients for a renewable two-year term worker authorization and other benefits including participation to mostly adult illegal aliens.

the policy was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern. after congress reject did legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of the legal aliens. the executive branch, through daca, deliberately stopped to -- saw to achieve what the legislative branch was physically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch. charlie: today marks the first day back for members of congress after their august recess. with several legislative deadlines looming and the problem of hurricane harvey, the senate and house are faced with a heavy september workload. joining me from washington is robert costa, the moderator for "washington week cloak --

washington week" on pbs and a political analyst for nbc news and msnbc. welcome to the start of fall, bob. great to have you back. mr. costa: 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? mr. costa: it was such a revealing decision by the president to choose to delay making a decision. a man, a candidate, politician, and now a president who revels in being this decider. he decided to punt the decision to congress, to let republicans on capitol hill decide the fate of 800,000 mostly younger immigrants who came here and were protected under the obama era executive action. we see a president, charlie, who is grappling with his base, who is -- who wants purity, wants results, and his instincts and advisers, they want to show 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. and some more aggressive tactics on immigration. we see a president trying to navigate all these different forces and interest. charlie: and clearly in the context of what you said, his reference to children. mr. costa: that is exactly right. the president's aides tell me that he has wrestled with this for months. and it is different for the president because 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 in washington, where now congressional republicans and democrats think they can start to craft a revised daca policy. the deferred action for children program established by president obama. if they can keep thousands of

these children and young adults and adults here in the united states, charlie, this 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 who came here as children and teenagers are not responsible for the mistakes of their parents, but we are seeing this juxtaposition, charlie. givesessions on tuesday, this hardline press conference at the justice department saying no one can just come to the united states, that dreamers are here unlawfully. you have the president remarking to reporters, striking an entirely different and more compassionate tone. it presents the administration with a challenge moving forward. they are at a political crossroads. what is this administration really going to do with the dreamers? will it let congress come up with a solution? will he sign that bill, or will he let it expire? that is the choice. charlie: what is his relationship today with congress?

mr. costa: it is an uneasy relationship and it's only gotten worse over the summer. we've seen the president clash with leader mcconnell and he has -- continued to have somewhat of a frayed relationship with paul ryan. andthey are adding daca immigration policy to the pile. trying to extending the debt limit, trying to get a budget passed before the government is set to shut down on september 30. trying to deal with tax reform and so many other issues that have really begun to pile up here in washington. but the republican leadership, they want to act on daca and immigration policy. they think even the -- 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: john mccain said today the choice to eliminate daca is the wrong approach to his immigration policy. that is the view of

the mccain wing of the party. as a reporter, my response to senator mccain would be, let's wait and see. because, though the president announced tuesday he would phase out daca. there is little clarity about what the future of this program will be. he keeps saying congress should decide and when sarah huckabee sanders was asked what that means, to let congress decide -- what does it mean the president will do? she does not have an answer because 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 within the white house. mr. costa: when it comes to steve bannon, he may be formally outside the white house, but he is still talking to president trump by phone. i'm told by several people close to president trump.

he represents the breitbart element in the republican party who wants no compromise when it comes to immigration policy or trade policy. though bannon is gone, those voices remain very powerful in this fractured washington. but they are not the only voices. sometimes bannon is seen as this overpowering presence. and he is a major presence, but the republican establishment controls congress. the business community is in tight with the republican establishment, and democrats are increasingly seeing new leverage because they know the republicans have all these different objections in september, and they are going to need democratic votes. they are going to look for the democratic leaders to make some request if they want to get those votes. charlie: have they spoke in to the democratic leadership in a while? mr. costa: they have been in close contact, i am told. 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 pass legislation. republicans and conservatives don't want to do that and mash all this legislation together. but democrats say if you want our help, you have to do it our way. one of the big negotiating point this fall, in particular this september, is going to be how are all of these 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. i think you are going to see the debt limit extend. the president has said he wants to keep the markets from overreacting to some kind of standoff. the conservatives in the house -- the house freedom caucus is still saying they don't want to attach the debt ceiling to relief for hurricane harvey in texas. they want to have a standalone vote on the debt ceiling so they won't have to be forced to pass it and have the texas vote tied to the debt ceiling.

how this all figures itself out is going to be a real test for the republican leadership and president trump. can they navigate these competing interest and get some things done? charlie: is there alliance between the freedom caucus and steve bannon and breitbart news? mr. costa: in fact, steve bannon met with mark meadows, the north carolina republican house member on monday right before congress came back this week to try to walk through how bannon and breitbart and the freedom caucus can truly be a thorn in the side of the republican leadership. if you see those kind of alliances starting to form, which they are, that means what -- objectivesour are for mcconnell and ryan will be scrambled. if you have steve bannon eating the drum every day, saying the republican leadership sold them out. the president is being sold out by his own party. these dynamics make it messy for the gop. they want to do all of these

things, but it remains a split party. charlie: steve bannon says he is going to war with mitch mcconnell, the republican establishment, wall street and silicon valley. costa: the bannon element of this is important because it's also driven by his own personal experience in the white house. bannon saw up close how jerod kushner, the president's son-in-law, and other moderates were pushing the president on daca. to make sure they didn't just let the program end, to let congress figure out a solution. bannon was appalled with this side of the white house. he thought immigration was the issue during the campaign. to somehow walk away from that hardline stance would be of the -- a betrayal to the voters who lifted trump to the white house. you see him now working from his office at breitbart, seething, in a way, that the republican republican party is bringing this administration. the distinction is bannon is going to war with the republican

party, not with president. if that ever turns, if that dynamic ever changes, it will be real chaos in washington. but for now, bannon is trying to tow the line, stay with trump, and go to war with the parties. charlie: wall street and silicon valley, everywhere he believes they are resistant to the populist movement. mr. costa: that is right. because if you are in silicon valley right now or wall street, i have talked to people there, i'm sure you have as well -- they are somewhat happy with the possibility that stability could happen in washington. they could extend the debt limit cleanly. they could pass a budget and avoid a shutdown, and they could try to protect the thousands who are beneficiaries of the daca policy. maybe even cut some tactics -- taxes. that is the optimistic view of silicon valley. with bannon gone, baby trump and -- maybe trump and kelly can move in a more centrist direction, i am told that is the

hope of jared kushner, as well. again, looming overall is breitbart, bannon, a republican base that wants daca and dreamers to be deported. they don't want to see some kind of compromise. thisch as there is expectation that stability can come to washington, too many things are on the plate right now to have that the a realistic expect tatian. -- expectation. charlie: bomb costa, thank you for joining us. a pleasure to have you as we begin this new fall season. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: on sunday, north korea carried out the sixth and most powerful nuclear test it has taken to date. the country claims it marks the first successful detonation of an advanced hydrogen bomb. the move is considered a major step forward to reach the mainland with a nuclear attack. u.s. ambassador to the u.n. nikki haley said pyongyang was begging for war during a session -- an emergency session of the security council yesterday. she urged the council to have the strongest possible sanctions to teacher -- deter kim jong-un. vladimir putin questioned the effectiveness and warned of a potential global catastrophe. joining me from washington, david sanger, david ignatius, columnist for the washington post. nicholas burns of the harvard kennedy school. and pliable -- and lionel

barber, editor of the financial times. i begin with david sanger. tell us about this test and the implications about its bigness? david: charlie, we don't know if it was a hydrogen bomb. there are many stages to getting to 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. and that it was probably about 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. so, politically, i'm not sure it makes that big a difference. whether it is a hydrogen bomb or not, the message was that come the sixth test, like many near powers for them, -- nuclear

powers before them, the north koreans have solved many of the biggest physics problems. they are now 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 are not whether they can fit this, as they have claimed, into a warhead or if they could make it survive reentry into the atmosphere. but 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 of theirs, very large bomb, in addition to showing their technical expertise, they -- i think tells you they are aiming for a kind of city strike capability that, as the theorist think about this, would be there way of venting the u.s. from following through after an

, atial regional conflict u.s. city would be hold hostage -- held hostage. it is a sign they are really not backing off. the other thing that strikes me is that this nuclear test and the last two missile tests follow a very deliberate effort by secretary of state rex tillerson to open the way for some kind of dialogue with north korea, to signal the u.s. willingness to discuss a range of issues. 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. so in the face of that, fairly forward leaning american posture, you have to see this is a real rebuff, a real slap in the face of a diplomatic solution. charlie: what do you think of

what vladimir putin said today and what the chinese said? >> a lot of posturing from the russians and chinese. but there is no question this is heading towards the new and dangerous phase of the crisis with north korea and for president trump, he has got to go back to what he did so well in the cold war. he has to deter north korea from ever using these weapons. secretary mattis went out and on behalf of the administration with general dunford, promised massive retaliation. if north korea used these against south korea, japan, or united states forces in guam or the continental united states. we need to have the north korean -- make a 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. in a tweet over the weekend. 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 -- japan,

south korea, the united states, against north korea, it's now. third, i think they will have to wrestle with washington, whether or not we could enter into some kind of negotiation down the road, not right now, that would lead to some satisfactory outcome, some kind of freeze on north korea's program, very difficult to achieve. it would be extremely irresponsible to drive this if you hadn't given what david ignatius was talking about. secretary tillerson wanting to get to the table and talk to this regime, i think that has to happen sometime in the next several months. charlie: what does the murder -- regime want? clear what the intentions of kim jong-un are, other than everything is going much faster than people expected. -- the north koreans to be

pretending to have a firmer nuclear weapon, increased their delivery capacity, it looks as though things are -- people said before trump took office the north korea would be in the position it almost seems to be in now. that is this serious point. the other big risk is miscalculation. maybe kim jong-un wants to make sure the regime is, in effect, invulnerable to change. but what happens if he uses this arsenal for blackmail? he might 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 just want to also point out,

echo what nick burns said. because this really is the time when the trump administration needs to bring the allies close. and japan, as well as south korea. and i think the notion that president trump try to abandon the south korea free trade agreement at the time he is trying to hug them close, it doesn't make sense. they need to have integrated policy, they need to assess the military calculation and also the pursuit of integrated policy. ckery we ad ho have seen. charlie: 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: well, obviously, 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 with this, it takes two months for the forces that would be involved in the operations against north korea to get in place to act. so you have to start a clock ticking, announced of the world you are about to move all of this equipment and personnel into the theater. there are other shorter-term special forces operations that we can only speculate about. some of the most secret things our government does, but would involve going in and taking out certain facilities or leadership targets. and then, there is this completely unknown realm of the exotic, silver bullet new weapons, cyber weapons. david sanger is a real expert on this, so we should turn it over to him, but that is the range from heavy, big tail operations that would take months to quicker special forces

operations to this really unknown new warfare. charlie: david sanger? mr. sanger: 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 they have war-gamed this shows the united states and its allies winning, in the interim you may well lose seoul or have massive casualties along the way. the covert options include some attempteddent obama in his last few years of office, including a cyber program against the missile launches. but that -- if it worked, we don't understand how well it worked. there were a lot of missile failures, we don't know how many were as a result of cyber program. and it seemed to stop working.

most of the big missile launches they've had this year, for the long-range missile launches appear to have gone along pretty well. one of the difficulties with cyber is it is hard to get inside, and even if you are, it is 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 presumably drive them to negotiations. but it would require the chinese cooperating. the chinese provide more than 90% of north korea's energy needs. so far, the chinese have never been willing to do that. the white house is trying to set up a conversation between president trump and xi jinping of china and presumably that is the nature of the conversation. charlie: what could change the chinese mines -- minds so that

they can become more aggressive on north korea in terms of trying to find a solution? >> the chinese are clearly frustrated. they don't like kim jong-un, they have not invited him to beijing. they think he is a troublemaker in the region. the chinese do not want a conflict in the korean peninsula. not for security reasons, not for economic reasons. i think president trump has been focused -- right to focus on xi jinping from the beginning. but we have to be careful, as david sanger says, about what we will get act. they would prefer the status quo. to a situation where the north korean regime dissolved and there is the capital aligned with the united states. that would bring the united states right up to their border. henry kissinger wrote a very thoughtful op-ed a couple weeks ago in "the wall street journal," where he said in essence, 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. -- governments of japan and south korea, where the four of us would have a diplomatic agreement to leverage the north koreans to get them to negotiate. that would entail some very painful compromises for the united states because chinese and the russians, you ask about them earlier, they have 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. and get us to the table. that might be the best we can hope for. charlie: is this primarily

driven by kim jong-un or do we believe the north korean establishment is behind what he's trying to do? if it 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 very 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. i think the trump administration has to assume they will have to deal with him at some point, diplomatically or at least his lieutenants, at negotiation. charlie: but we could never find a transition figure for a sod when the most

intense opposition was there. >> right. this is very different than syria. we are dealing with the 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, the security council, where she said that north korea is begging for war. this doesn't seem to be a suicidal regime. it doesn't seem to be an irrational regime. they are calculating and we have to beat them measure for measure and a sophisticated and diplomatic campaign ourselves. charlie: does it seem to be a regime that is only interested in its own protection and defense? >> most people would think that ultimately, this is a mafia like family. they are interested in preserving this regime and kim jong-un seems to have calculated that acquiring a vast number is the best way to ensure continuation and power. charlie: cut off he and the other example.

qaddafi being the other example. >> he looked at the gaddafi example very carefully. qaddafi gave up nuclear weapons which were nowhere -- it was basically pieces and boxes. he turned that over to the united states in 2003 and then of course, gets overthrown and the u.s. helps overthrow him. no matter how many times, i agree with that it is important the united states government announce that it's not about regime change. but if kim jong-un looks at the history here, he may not believe the u.s. would resist the temptation to participate in regime change if there was an uprising in north korea against cam and -- against kim himself. while we have assumed self-preservation is the number one objective here, i think it

is very possible that blackmail, using a weapon to get aid, these are secondary but important advantages that he sees. that means the u.s. government will have to make a fundamental decision. which means, do you accept north korea as a nuclear power the way you've accepted pakistan, india, or others that did not sign the npp? or do you continue to say we will never tolerate you as a nuclear power. i don't think they have made the fundamental decision yet. charlie: but we have come to that decision quickly now, have we not? david: the moment is here. i would be interested to hear if david 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 -- acknowledge north korea as a nuclear state. >> that is the aspiration. the question is the timing. you can aspire to the

denuclearization of the korean peninsula, that maybe the endpoint of a long negotiation. just coming back to what nick was saying and david alluded to. china does have a key role here, but the problem has been, and i heard a lot of this when i was in beijing, is that the americans -- you've got to do this. you need to impose sanctions. you are the one that has a leverage under this regime. questionable, by the way, about how much leverage they have. beyond imposing oil sanctions, but they look at it and say, compared to the risk of regime change, the population over the

border into china, we would rather have them bottles up -- bottled up as a nuclear power. >> first, u.s. officials believe 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. charlie: this is what the chinese are telling the north koreans? >> certainly, the chinese are telling -- 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

back, for all of the bluster of president trump, fire and fury, 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. as secretary mattis has said, it another -- be stalingrad in terms of human suffering. for our friends in south korea. there is a desire to move forward with the diplomacy. they have floated to the north koreans the idea we would be prepared to negotiate, finally a real peace treaty. we only had an armistice that ended the war. we would be prepared to discuss the future status of u.s. forces and, implying we would be eventually willing to remove those forces. there is quite a number of things at the center of north korean demands. we seem willing to address. the problem is, there is no sign yet that they are prepared to

come to an -- negotiations. they were part of the six-party talks. there was hope in washington and maybe china can reconvene the six-party talks that took place a decade a code -- ago. i'm told they have indicated they have no interest in that. they may be interested in talking directly to trump but the recent testing activity goes in the other direction. the idea that this administration doesn't want a diplomatic solution to this -- i think is wrong. they do, they just don't know how to get there. charlie: should one assume that kim jong-un is looking at himself in the mirror every morning and saying, you are winning, keep it up? i'm winning, keep it up? >> because he is in pursuit of the ultimate insurance policy, which is a serious nuclear capability with city strike. that seems to me, 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. which we read and he was here at the table to talk about that. what can we offer the chinese? what would the chinese consider a nudge for them to be -- much more aggressive. centrals: this is the challenge for president trump and his team. if china has the greatest leverage, we need to move. attract china to our side of the table. you appeared to 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 sense from president ping what 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. charlie: look forward to seeing you again soon. picking up on that point, it reminds me of a piece that david baker wrote in the times today saying "trump skills in the art of the deal have yet to pay off."

you would assume from a diplomatic standpoint that someone 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 diplomats 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. so maybe, what we are seeing 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. they would be thinking about significant military actions and you have to be, that north koreans are fueling up a missile.

charlie: that the more bluster we talk, the more it encourages kim jong-un 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 that you've got determination 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. charlie: i would assume that notwithstanding, knowing those options at the pentagon, there 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? >> this is job one for the pentagon and the cia. the president is saying the 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 lever in moving kim jong-un is correct. warning of the possibility of military conflict, boosting the defenses of japan and south korea.

the deterrent ability is limited as we put in thad, the antimissile defense system. grandson of thad. as the japanese move toward much 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. the reasons why china would 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. charlie: 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. the u.n., of course, on monday -- the statements that have 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 trump, 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 serious their consideration of military covert 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. as has been alluded, the+++ of -- anyway. the key player is general mattis. the first trip he made overseas was to south korea and japan.

guam, seattle, los angeles would be intolerable. if you are in tokyo and you have a neighbor like north korea, this is an existential threat. charlie: 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. ♪

♪

♪ so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks. ♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver.

charlie: and we conclude this evening with our archive moment. this evening, henry kissinger talking about north korea. mr. kissinger: the major 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, they spent decades oppressing their people and depriving them to build these weapons. so they are not going to yield 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. they are not there to help us. they are there to help themselves. at a moment when the interests of america and the interests of china coincide, we don't want nuclear weapons and north korea. it threatened my representative

to us and to others. the chinese do not want nuclear weapons in korea. if those weapons remain, other 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 induced, 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. it looks like they are in business to extort economic progress. the problem for china will be that if north korea gives up nuclear weapons, it gives up the only significant achievement to 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.

you are watching bloomberg technology. it lets start with a check in your first word news. president trump plans to overhaul the first -- the text went in north dakota. you are looking live as he was joined with heidi heitkamp who traveled with them. the president is hoping for bipartisan support on his tax lamprey will have much more later in bloomberg technology. trump overruled congressional republicans to cut a deal with democrats that will fund the government and raise the federal borrowing limit for three months. he brushed aside calls from a gop lawmakers looking for a longer extension.