Face The Nation: Harris, McKenzie, Sanger

President Biden met with leaders of the G20. Those are the 20 largest economies in the world, notably missing Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping. We'll have more on the president's trip later in the broadcast. Vice President Kamala Harris has also been conferring with allies. We met up with her in Indonesia late last week for the ASEAN Summit, a network of nations in Southeast Asia. While we were there, our polling unit surveyed Americans about the job the vice president is doing back home. Her approval rating tracks similarly to President Biden's at 41%. Republicans have been focusing a lot of their attacks on Harris, highlighting that she would be in line for the job of president should anything happen to President Biden. And it is Republicans who say they have heard a lot about her work, more so than Democrats. Our conversation in Jakarta allowed us the opportunity to ask about her work and a lot more. So you're 58 now. If you win a second term, as you and the president are running to do, he would be 86 at the end of it. And we are seeing Republican candidates hone in on you in particular as being next up for that job. Nikki Haley says... A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for a President Kamala Harris. Chris Christie. I want to be clear that I pray every night for Joe Biden's good health. Not only because he's our president, but because of who our vice president is. Ron DeSantis. Harris is his impeachment insurance. People know if she were president, Katie barred the door as bad as Biden did, it would get worse. How do you respond to all of that? We are delivering for the American people. And the reality of it is that, unfortunately, very few of those who would challenge our administration actually have a plan for America. You look at what we have accomplished, Margaret. We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs in America. 13 million new jobs. Unemployment at record lows. We have capped the cost of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Capped the cost of prescription drugs on an annual basis at $2,000 for seniors. They're talking about what you would do as president as being a risk. They're honing in on you. Why do you think that is? How do you respond to those attacks? That's not about policy. That's about you. Listen, this is not new. There's nothing new about that. I mean, listen, I am, in my career, I was a career prosecutor. I was the first woman elected district attorney of San Francisco, a major city in this country, and reelected. I was the first woman attorney general of the second largest department of justice in the United States and reelected. I was a United States senator. I represented one in eight Americans, and I'm now vice president of the United States. They feel the need to attack because they're scared that we will win based on the merit of the work that Joe Biden and I and our administration has done. But even Democrats are worried about the president's age. The Wall Street Journal had a poll showing 2 3rds of Democrats say Joe Biden is too old to run again. Are you prepared to be commander in chief? Yes, I am, if necessary, but Joe Biden is gonna be fine. And let me tell you something. I work with Joe Biden every day. Under Joe Biden's leadership, we have transformed and are in the process of transforming America's infrastructure with an historic investment in not only roads and bridges, but high-speed internet, what we are doing around issues like lead pipes, and I could go on and on. Are you taking the threat of a second Trump presidency seriously enough? I don't understand the question. You were dismissive of some of the Republican criticism of you and the president. When you look at current polling, the front-runner for a Republican nomination is the former president, the 45th president. We will win re-election. You will win. We will win re-election. There is too much at stake, and the American people know it. In terms of delivering on promises, you, in your portfolio, have tackled the issue of the root cause of migration. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol saw a record number of migrant families cross the border in the month of August, this despite that record level of heat. Why is that happening now? You've rolled out new policies. Around the globe, we are seeing an increase in irregular migration, and there are a number of factors at play, an increase in authoritarian regimes, what we're seeing in terms of extreme weather occurrences, what we're seeing in terms of, in many places around the globe, increasing food insecurity. So there are many reasons for why this is happening, and America is not immune to that. The point has to be then to understand what we must do to deal with, one, ensuring that we have a secure, humane, and orderly policy about the border, but also what we must do in the long term to address the root causes of migration. The work that I've been doing in that regard has been to build public-private partnerships to the extent that we have now raised over $4 billion to invest in the countries in that region. But that migration data, according to CBP, is showing migrants from Guatemala are up, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru. So when the border crossings went down earlier in the summer, the administration said it was due to your policies working. Now they're going back up, as they did in the month of August. Does that show the strategy's no longer working? Absolutely not. What it means is that we have to stay focused on a number of issues related to the irregular migration that, again, we're seeing around the world and America is not immune. Do you think the strategy is working despite the numbers being up? Overall, we are seeing progress. But we're not gonna have a constant. There are gonna be fluctuations. That is normal, just like the weather fluctuates and circumstances fluctuate, such as elections in those regions and what that might mean. It doesn't mean that we keep our foot off the gas. We have to stay focused and understand there has to be a long-term strategy as well as a short-term strategy. And here's the bottom- So was it too early to say that the strategy was working when the numbers went down for two months? My point is that focusing on root causes and doing the work that we have been doing to bring U.S. investment into those countries in a way that is supportive of their economies and supportive of fighting corruption actually works. You have been very active on the issue of abortion and rallying behind the idea of this federal law to restore what was upheld in Roe versus Wade. But to do that, Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate. They need a majority in the House. They don't have. They need the presidency. The math doesn't add up. So don't you need to level with the American people and say this is not a realistic promise to make for 2024? Congress has the ability to put back in place the rights that the Supreme Court took from the women of America. In theory, it doesn't have the votes to do that. That's why we have elections. And that's why we are seeing around this country that when this issue is on the ballot, from Kansas to California, people vote in favor of upholding basic freedoms. The vast majority of Americans agree that the government should not be making this decision for the women of America. What is it that you believe? I mean, what week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off? We need to restore the protections of Roe versus Wade. We're not trying to do something new. Well, that was nebulous because it was about viability, which could be anywhere between 20 to 24 weeks. So no, no, no, no, no. Let me be very clear. The Women's Health Protection Act that the White House also endures. Let me be very clear. From day one, the president has been clear, I have been clear. We need to put back the protections that are in Roe v. Wade into law. Since the Supreme Court took it, Congress has the power and ability to pass legislation to put those protections back in law, and Joe Biden will sign that bill. So that is what we want. But does it need to be specific in terms of defining where that guarantee goes up to and where it does not, at which week of pregnancy? We need to put back in place the protections of Roe versus Wade. You know why I'm asking you this question, though, because- We're not trying to do anything that did not exist before June of last year. We are saying- It wasn't crafted into law, and that's why I'm asking you for the specifics there, because Republicans say the lack of a precise date in cutting it off. You know this. They say that allows Democrats to perform abortions up until, you know, birth. Which is ridiculous, statistically not accurate. And it's ridiculous, and it's a mischaracterization of the point. No, the point is- But do you need to be more precise? I am being precise. We need to put into law the protections of Roe versus Wade, and that is about going back to where we were before the Dobbs decision. But if there is the possibility, through legislation, to provide any kind of guarantee at the federal level, any kind of protection, like the Republican proposal of 15 weeks protection, is it worth doing something? Members of the Republican Party are also proposing a national ban. The thing that- I'm talking about the Lindsey Graham bill, as you know. And those proposals of giving some access, though that's 15 weeks. Why do you think it shouldn't be specific? You know, out in New Mexico, for example, the governor there says it shouldn't be nailed down to a week because it should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. There shouldn't be a precise number put on that. Is that what you believe as well? I believe that we should put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law. And the way that will happen is if we have a United States Congress who, regardless of their personal view for themselves or their family, would agree that the women of America should be trusted to make decisions about their life and their body based on what they know to be in their best interest. It's that simple. We'll have more of our interview with the vice president in our next half hour. We'll be back in one minute. Stay with us. Although it was not surprising that Vladimir Putin would skip the G20 summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping's absence was noted both there and at the ASEAN summit. President Biden told reporters today in Hanoi that he was concerned China was, quote, changing the rules of the game and that he met with Chinese Premier Li Cheng who did attend both meetings. Here's more of our conversation with the vice president. China's rewriting the global order. Your national security strategy says they are the only power in the world with the intent and the ability to do that. There's no question that we are very concerned about the Chinese government's actions on the South China Sea and how that is impacting the security and the future prosperity of the nations that are affected. For example, I was recently in the Philippines and I've been spending a lot of time with President Marcos. What is happening in terms of unprovoked actions against the Philippine interest in the South China Sea is significant and we have been very clear that we stand with the Philippines. They're a treaty ally. The US would have to militarily defend them. Not only is there a treaty relationship, but the very basic issue that the American people will experience and feel if we're not on top of it is what that will mean in terms of commerce flowing freely through those waters. How concerned are the leaders you spoke with here about the potential for a military clash? I think the issue that is most present here among the Southeast Asian leaders is that there be a respect for and enforcement of international rules and norms, but they hope that there will be an avoidance of conflict. And that there is a great symmetry between that and our policy toward China. We do not invite conflict, but we absolutely are prepared to and engaged in what is necessary to compete. So when President Biden said the other day that China was a ticking time bomb, he was talking about their current economic problems that they are experiencing. He said, that's not good because when bad folks have problems, they do bad things. What is the scenario that you are thinking about and worried about the most? We, as the United States, and our policy is not about decoupling, it's about de-risking. It is about understanding. It's not about pulling out U.S. It's not about pulling out, but it is about ensuring that we are protecting American interests and that we are a leader in terms of the rules of the road, as opposed to following others' rules. But President Biden was, I think he was talking about the economic problems within China right now. He seemed to be suggesting that Xi Jinping might take some kind of action. It's no secret that China is experiencing economic problems. And what you will find is, certainly in my conversations with American business leaders is that they are looking at the future in terms of their capital investments and taking into account which countries are engaged in practices that are about abiding by the rule of law and international rules and norms in a way that they can be guaranteed that there will be some stability so they can make long-term investments. There is increasingly an understanding that China may not be the best bet when you are looking for stability, when you are looking for an investment in a place where there is an adherence to and respect for international rules and norms. This November, the United States will host a big summit of leaders in San Francisco. China said a few days ago, their state security service, the U.S. needs to show sufficient sincerity before Xi Jinping agrees to visit. How important is it for Xi Jinping to come to America in November? Well, it is important to the order of things, if you will, the stability of things, that we keep open lines of communication. You were in the same room with China's number two. Yes, and I've actually met with President Xi as well. Did you talk to him today? Well, we exchanged pleasantries, yes, yes. But it's still a little tense. I don't think it's as simple, if you will, as whether there's tension. I guess there's tension when you are in a competition of any sort, but that does not mean that we are seeking conflict. And I think it's important to not conflate the two. Do we have disagreements, for example, very serious disagreements about what's happening in the South China Sea? Yes, and we're very clear about that. So one could argue that there's tension there, but you look, for example, at trade, 99% of our trade is not influenced by what we are doing in terms of the restrictions on exports. So you want Xi Jinping to come in November? I think he is absolutely an important player in this region of the world, and if he comes, then that will be, I'm sure, something that could be productive. North Korea's Kim Jong-un, as you know, is expected, according to U.S. intelligence, to go meet with Vladimir Putin in Russia in exchange for some military support, potentially, here. How destabilizing would that be for Asia? I think it would be a huge mistake. First of all, when you look at Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine and the idea that they would supply ammunition to Russia, well, it's predictable where that ends up. I also believe very strongly that for both Russia and North Korea, this will further isolate them. Some of the most sanctioned countries in the world at this point. But at some point, it's just a step too far. What is that step too far? I mean, what is it that Kim Jong-un is seeking? Is it nuclear submarines, as our allies in Seoul have said they're concerned about? Is it satellites? What does that do here in Asia? Our allies are telling you, us, about their concern about what's happening in terms of North Korea. We are all absolutely clear and unequivocal about our goal of the complete denuclearization of North Korea. But when we think about Russia's aggression in Ukraine, many, at most, are very clear also. It's an absolute violation of one of the most important agreements that we have around the world in terms of international rules and norms, which is the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. And, Margaret, on that matter, it is very clear that Russia has clearly, they're very desperate. They have already experienced a strategic failure. So clearly, this is an act of desperation on the part of Russia. But it would be a huge mistake for Korea to do this, for North Korea to do this. Our full interview with the Vice President is on our website and YouTube channel. We'll be right back. We go now to retired Marine Corps General, Frank McKenzie, who was the head of US Central Command from 2019 to 2022. Welcome back to Face the Nation, sir. Tomorrow- Margaret, good to be with you this morning. Tomorrow is the 22-year mark after the attacks of 9-11. And this Friday, a senior US intelligence official told reporters that Al-Qaeda's at a historic low point and a revival's unlikely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I wonder if you think we're at the point where the US can declare victory. Well, it's good news about Al-Qaeda. I think ISIS is actually the more enduring threat right now. Al-Qaeda is torn with internal theocratic debates. ISIS is not. And I do believe that ISIS, particularly in Afghanistan, is taking advantage of the vast ungoverned spaces that are there. And I believe they are, in fact, gathering strength. I would not dispute the judgment on Al-Qaeda. Well, your successor, the current CENTCOM commander, said ISIS could do an external operation against the US in under six months. How should Americans understand that threat from Afghanistan? Well, I believe ISIS has always wanted to attack us here in our homeland. It's a core tenet, a core belief of theirs. And one of the reasons that we were in Afghanistan was to prevent the use of that country as a base from which to gather strength and either to direct or inspire attacks on our homelands or the homelands of our allies. As a result of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is now far more difficult for us to pursue those objectives. Well, you've made no secret of the fact that now as a private citizen, you opposed both President Biden and President Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. In June, Biden was asked about some of the documented failures of that withdrawal, and here's what he said. Remember what I said about Afghanistan? I said Al-Qaeda would not be there. I said it wouldn't be there. I said we'd get help from the Taliban. I was right. What do you make of the president's characterization of the US working with the Taliban? Of course, I don't see that intelligence reporting anymore, but everything up until April 2022, which is when I stopped reading it, led me to believe that the Taliban would act only in the light of their very best interests, and while they might make some temporary accommodation, as they did when we withdrew from Afghanistan, they weren't to be trusted, and they actually have a long-term familial and customary relationship with Al-Qaeda, and it's very difficult to think that would change. I think that relationship is far stronger than any potential relationship they'd choose with the United States. You oversaw that evacuation, and you've testified to Congress previously that the US did not have any opportunity to take out that suicide bomber who took the lives of the 13 Americans who died August two years ago, but in recent months, a Marine sniper has testified to Congress that he had the bomber in his sights, and he was not authorized to take the shot. Do you stand by your initial statement? Yes, I do, Margaret, and the point I would make is this. As the days wound up to the 26th of August, which was the date of the strike, we were looking at four significant threats. We were looking at a vehicle-borne IED attack, a car with a bomb in it, that we thought was very real, in fact, was being prepared. We were looking at a suicide vest attack of the type that actually occurred on the 26th. We were looking at indirect fire, rockets or mortars directed against the airfield, and then we were looking at the possibility of an insider attack, somebody who got past our checkpoints with a bomb and was able to set it off either in the crowded terminal area or an airplane. So the point I would make is, look, there were a lot of threats being worked all the time. But there was nothing that you saw indicating that there was a decision made not to take a shot, nothing that would substantiate what this individual said under sworn testimony. What I can tell you is that tactical units on the ground went in with rules of engagement, what we call ROE in our business, that were robust enough to allow them to defend themselves, and we actually exercised that right on several occasions in defense of the airfield where we engaged targets that appeared to be threatening. So the rules of engagement were in place as to what actually happened on the ground at the tactical level down inside a rifle squad or a platoon. Well, Margaret, I don't know the answer to that, so I can't help you with that particular one. But I do know we had good rules of engagement. They were the standing rules of engagement that we've had. People were well-trained in those rules of engagement and knew how to apply them. I want to also ask you, as former CENTCOM commander, about Iran. We have seen a buildup by the administration of Marines, warships in the region, at the same time, a bit of a thaw with Iran with this potential prisoner exchange happening and the release of 6 billion in unfrozen Iranian oil reserve money. How should Americans at home think about Iran now, given what's happening? Iran remains the most significant threat to peace in the region, and they continue to pursue ultimately a policy of ejecting the United States and other Western nations from the region. That hasn't changed. That's a return to hegemonic power in the region. All those remain core goals of Iran. Now, they will do a lot tactically to gain sanctions relief, and that's, in my judgment, that's what they're doing now. The core problem of Iran has not gone away. In fact, it's worsened because over the last 10 years, Iran has significantly increased the capabilities and capacity of their ballistic missiles. They have thousands of those, of land-attack cruise missiles, low-flying missiles, and also drones, and those give them the capability to gain what we would call overmatch against their neighbors. That's a significant rise in Iranian capabilities. We tend to overlook that sometimes because we look hard at the nuclear issue, and the nuclear issue is important, but the issue that poses a threat this afternoon is the Iranian capability with their missiles. General, thank you for your assessment and your time today. We'll be back in a moment. We're back for some analysis with David Sanger of The New York Times and Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin. Good morning to you both. Good to have you here. Morning, Larry. Great to be here. You know, David, I wanna start with you. I know you've been looking a lot at great power competition. In the last Cold War, Southeast Asia, was an epicenter of this showdown, and once again, we are looking at Asia becoming a real focus here for great power competition, this time directly with China. I wonder how you think the Biden administration is doing so far in countering the balance. Well, so far, a lot better, I think, than most of their predecessors, and in that I would include both President Trump and President Obama. They have got a strategy to try to win back the allegiance of countries throughout the Pacific, and so you've seen agreements that have ranged down through the Solomon Islands and New Guinea, places that people really hadn't thought about in the United States very much, up through the Philippines, as you were discussing with Vice President Harris, and with Vietnam. I remember being on the first trip an American president took to Vietnam, it was Bill Clinton, and it was pretty much all about reconciliation with the war. What I thought was interesting about the president's press conference, which ran just as you began the show here, is there was almost no reference to the Vietnam War. It was really all about China itself and its influences, Russia and its influences. And what the president didn't say, as my Times colleagues have reported, is that Vietnam has just signed an arms deal secretly with Russia, and did so just before the president arrived. So you're seeing a lot of countries hedging and trying to keep one foot in both camps. And Josh, you were with me on that very long transit to Indonesia, and you spoke with Vice President Harris as well. One of the things, she didn't lay out there, but the broader strategy seems to be building this constellation of countries that don't really like Beijing, but aren't ready to necessarily claim allegiance. They just want a little bit more relationship management here. What is it that you think was accomplished? Right, well, I think, you know, we talk a lot about the U.S.-China relationship for obvious reasons, but the fact is that the Indo-Pacific strategy is a lot bigger than China, and where the real action is is with all of these other countries. And we see the geopolitical shifts in the region, Japan and Korea coming to Camp David for the first time. We see the Japanese and the Philippines working together more than they ever have before. This is not caused because of us, but there is an opportunity for the United States to take advantage of these demand signals coming from allies. And I think that's what Vice President Harris was there to do. And I don't know about your opinion, Margaret, but my opinion is that she did it, represented the United States admirably and skillfully, and showed that she had a command of the issues and a good rapport with several of these Asian leaders whom she has met with on many trips, many times. And did she solve all of the world's problems in 36 hours? No. And can she solve the fact that our Indo-Pacific strategy lacks a robust economic and investment component? No. But she did the hard work of meeting with these people and hearing them out. And what they said to her and to you and to me is very clear, is that they're stuck there in that region with China, whether they like it or not. They want America in the region. They don't know if they can count on our long-term commitment. They would like to see more money on the table, but this was a small step, I think, in the right direction. The one part that some of those countries can count on are those countries where there is an actual treaty, right? And I think it is worth reminding people that five of our seven treaty allies are in Asia. So the U.S. could get drawn into a conflict. So these skirmishes in the Philippines or things that are happening in these far-flung places actually could pull in U.S. military action and require it, David. This is our biggest risk right now, which is something accidental. You'll remember that the Bush administration, George W. Bush, began with its first big foreign policy crisis was an American plane that collided with a Chinese plane, both an intelligence plane and a fighter. And my dad took days to get the crew back. Right now, there is so much activity from the South China Sea down through the Philippines that that's a big risk. And you mentioned North Korea with her. And obviously, you know, the diplomacy that you saw President Trump engage in ultimately failed. The North Korean nuclear arsenal is larger than it has ever been. They've just brought out a submarine that may or may not be able to carry nuclear weapons. And the cooperation that we once had from China and Russia to solve this problem is gone. Why? Because the Russians need arms from the North Koreans. And looks like in the next few days, we may see Kim Jong-un show up to meet to meet Vladimir Putin. Exactly. And that's worth pointing out, because when we hear about international rules-based order, that's based on the U.N. And two of those actors you just talked about have veto power there. So we're really seeing this new territory foreign policy wise. Josh, you know, one of the things that strikes me is how carefully the administration parses and picks its words when it refers to anything having to do with China. Then U.S. Ambassador Rahm Emanuel tweeted, and he went there, President Xi's cabinet lineup is resembling Agatha Christie's novel, and then there were none. He's talking about the foreign minister going missing, the rocket force commanders going missing, the defense minister hasn't been seen in two weeks. He said, who's going to win this unemployment race, China's youth or Xi's cabinet? Fairly provocative, but pointing to some real internal issues potentially within China's top leadership. Right, I mean, we all know Rahm Emanuel. In Japan, I've been to Tokyo recently, they call him the Rahm-bassador. They call him like the junkyard dog that you chain up near the Chinese that can bark at them. And that's not exactly perfectly coordinated inside the administration, to be honest, but it's not as if they're stopping him either. And you saw in your interview with Vice President Harris and President Biden's press conference, they're very careful when talking about China. And then there's Rahm, but what he's saying is true, that the level of secrecy inside Xi Jinping's regime is unprecedented, and that, more than anything else, is what's causing a lot of the uncertainty and risk of miscalculation that could lead to the conflict that nobody wants. So if it has to be Rahm Emanuel that says the obvious, which is that when the foreign minister disappears off the face of the earth, no explanation, that's weird, okay? And when they are expanding militarily and say, oh, we want to have good military communication, but we won't establish the military-to-military hotline, then they're not telling the truth, okay? And these are just facts about our relationship with China that are unfortunate but need to be spoken so that people understand that, in the end, if the Chinese government doesn't want to engage like it says it does, there's not a lot we can do except to rally our allies to defend ourselves, which I think is what they're doing. And we'll see if Xi Jinping ends up coming to America in November, potentially, to meet with Joe Biden. We're taking bets. Yes, unclear. I don't know what bet you'd take on that one. I will defer. We're gonna have to leave the conversation there, though, and we'll be right back. Before we go today, we want to congratulate Coco Gauff, the first American to win the U.S. Open as a teen since 1999 when Serena Williams won at the age of just 17. This is her first major tournament victory. President Biden called her. That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week, for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.