This is a rush transcript of “Fox News Sunday” on July 11, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:Â I’m Chris Wallace.Â
Texas Governor Greg Abbott leaving the pushback to President Biden’sÂ
policies and calling a special session filled with hot button GOPÂ
priorities.Â
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE (voice-over):Â From changing voting laws to border security,Â
abortion, and critical race theory, lawmakers in Austin are meeting toÂ
tackle it all. We’ll discuss what’s on their agenda and what’s not. Plus, aÂ
possible election challenge from a Hollywood heavyweight.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, only on “FOX News Sunday”.
Then —Â
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:Â We’re ending America’sÂ
longest war.Â
WALLACE:Â President Biden moves up the deadline for U.S. troops to pull outÂ
of Afghanistan, even as the Taliban advances. We’ll ask Pentagon PressÂ
Secretary John Kirby what it means for America’s national security.Â
Plus, sharp reaction from the administration’s door-to-door vaccine drive.Â
REP. RONNY JACKSON (R-TX):Â This is still an experimental vaccine beingÂ
used under emergency use authorization. It’s none of their business who’sÂ
had it and who hasn’t had it.Â
WALLACE:Â We’ll ask our Sunday panel about the controversy as the deltaÂ
variant surges.Â
All, right now, on “FOX News Sunday”.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE (on camera):Â And hello again from FOX News in Washington.Â
Well, there’s an old-fashioned political showdown in Texas right now thatÂ
could shake next year’s midterm campaign across the country. The battleÂ
geared up in May when Democrats fled the state capital to block new votingÂ
laws the GOP wanted to pass.
Now, the governor is called state legislatures back into a special sessionÂ
to deal with that and other issues like the border wall, transgenderÂ
students sports, and critical race theory.Â
In a moment, we’ll have an exclusive in every with the governor of Texas,Â
Greg Abbott.
But, first, let’s bring in Casey Stegall in Dallas with a look at what allÂ
the fighting is about — Casey.Â
CASEY STEGALL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT:Â Chris, good morning to you.Â
The agenda is a mix of both unfinished business and a few new items, butÂ
they are all measures that appeal, no doubt, to conservative voters.Â
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEGALL (voice-over):Â Efforts by Republicans to pass so-called “electionÂ
security measures” died with a late-night Democrat walkout at the end ofÂ
the regular session.Â
UNIDENTIFIED MALE:Â A quorum is apparently not present.Â
STEGALL:Â They are now redoubled as House Bill 3 and Senate bill 1Â
introduced after the gavel on Thursday. The voting rights advocatesÂ
critical of the election reform bill say the efforts and plans to redrawÂ
congressional districts will effectively disenfranchise low income TexansÂ
and voters of color. Texas Democrats are promising not to back down.Â
NICOLE COLLIER (D), TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE:Â We’re defiant. We willÂ
defy the push to suppress our votes.Â
STEGALL:Â Also on the agenda, border security. The governor meeting thisÂ
weekend with border sheriffs to get updates on the security effort.Â
GOV. GREGG ABBOTT (R), TEXAS:Â They have incredible needs that have to beÂ
met if they’re going to be able to handle this massive influx.Â
STEGALL:Â Governor Abbott is up for reelection next year and faces twoÂ
primary challengers.Â
Last week, actor Matthew McConaughey teased a possible centrist run for theÂ
governor’s mansion.Â
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STEGALL (on camera):Â Republicans no doubt are banking on a victory duringÂ
this special session, with also hopes to energize the voting base and theÂ
conservative voters ahead of next year’s midterms — Chris.Â
WALLACE:Â Casey Stegall reporting from Dallas — Casey, thank you.Â
And joining us now, Texas Governor Greg Abbott.Â
Governor, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday.”Â
Joining us now, Texas Governor Greg Abbott.Â
Governor, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday”.
ABBOTT:Â My pleasure. Thank you, Chris.Â
WALLACE:Â Let’s start with the voting bill that Casey was talking about.Â
That became the big issue when Democrats were successfully able to block itÂ
in a regular session. Here is the — a Democratic state legislator. Take aÂ
look.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINA HINOJOSA (D), TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE:Â We do not have a voterÂ
fraud problem in the state of Texas. Our secretary of state testified thatÂ
elections in Texas were safe and secure. The 2020 election was safe andÂ
secure.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE:Â The Texas attorney general’s office spent 22,000 man-hoursÂ
looking for evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election and theyÂ
apparently came up with 16 cases — 16 — of people filing false addressesÂ
on their voter registration.
So, my question, Governor, is, is this a problem in search of a solution?Â
ABBOTT:Â Absolutely not, Chris. Remember this, and that was before that IÂ
was governor, I was the attorney general of Texas and I prosecuted voterÂ
fraud cases in the entire state and my successor, Ken Paxton, has beenÂ
prosecuting voter fraud across the state, including the most recent arrestsÂ
and indictments just taken place this past Friday.Â
However, I have to disagree with the statement that was just made as wellÂ
as the public perception because I’m going to give you the words of aÂ
federal district judge appointed by Barack Obama and the federal districtÂ
judge said that voter fraud occurs, quote, “in abundance” as it involvesÂ
ballot harvesting.Â
On top of that, Barack Obama and the Biden demonstration, when they were inÂ
office, they came down to the state of Texas to send an FBI team as well asÂ
a U.S. attorney to investigate and to prosecute a voter fraud scheme whereÂ
cocaine was being used to buy absentee ballots.Â
I will tell you this also, Chris, and that is even Democrats in the TexasÂ
House of Representatives, they agree that as it concerns mail-in ballots,Â
that is an area where improving the mail-in ballot system is a way toÂ
achieve greater election integrity, so what Texas is doing is we’re makingÂ
it easier to vote by adding more hours of early voting then we had inÂ
current law, but also making it harder to cheat with regard to mail-inÂ
ballots.Â
WALLACE:Â Well, Governor, let me ask you, though, about two other thingsÂ
that the GOP bills would do. I want to put them up on the screen. TheyÂ
would ban 24-hour voting and they would ban drive-through voting. Now,Â
there was no allegation of any fraud in either of those. Harris County, theÂ
Houston area, employed both of those and more than half of the voters whoÂ
showed up were people of color. So, you say you want to make it easier toÂ
vote, that’s going to make it harder to vote and the question is why makeÂ
it harder for some Texans to vote unless the point is to suppress voting byÂ
people of color?Â
ABBOTT:Â So you mentioned a couple of things that need to be responded to.Â
One, you mentioned how Harris County did this and it was Harris County —Â
for your viewers, Harris County is where Houston, Texas, is located. Now,Â
let’s go back to Article 1, Section 4 of the United States ConstitutionÂ
where it says in there that it is the states, not counties that have theÂ
authority to regulate elections.Â
And despite that constitutional mandate, this past election, Harris County,Â
a county, tried to create its own election system that had never been usedÂ
in the state of Texas. It was not used in the other parts of the state ofÂ
Texas, and so what the state of Texas is doing —Â
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE:Â But, Governor, why not — why not let it go on?Â
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE:Â Governor, I guess the question is if 24-hour voting worked, whyÂ
not continue it?Â
ABBOTT:Â Well, first, I can tell — I’m going to answer questionsÂ
specifically, but you need to go back to elections before now because theÂ
same allegations were made when Texas passed a voter ID law, and everyoneÂ
said the exact same thing, this is going to disenfranchise people of color,Â
it will reduce voting. And the fact of the matter is, after we passed voterÂ
ID, we increasingly saw every election cycle, more people go voted, theyÂ
did not make it harder to go vote. It was easier to go vote.
And the same thing applies here and that is with 24-hour voting, one thingÂ
that we want to make sure that we have is integrity in the ballot boxÂ
system and we need to have poll watchers and monitors and, candidly, it’sÂ
hard even for a county to get people to be watching the polls 24 hours aÂ
day. We are providing more hours per day for voting to make sure thatÂ
anybody of any type of background, any type of working situation, is goingÂ
to have the opportunity to go vote.Â
With regard to the drive-thru voting — listen, this violates theÂ
fundamentals of the way voting and for integrity has always bee achievedÂ
and that is the sanctity of the ballot box. Now, if you do drive-thruÂ
voting, are you going to have people in the car with you and it could beÂ
somebody from your employer, or somebody else, who may have some coerciveÂ
effect on the way that you would cast your ballot which is contrary to, youÂ
go into the ballot box alone and no one there watching over your shoulderÂ
so that your — the way you vote, only you will know what that vote willÂ
be. And to allow other people to pile into a car with you, it will alterÂ
that.Â
In addition to, it would violate state law because in state law, we haveÂ
prohibitions on electioneering close to where people cast their votes. IfÂ
you’re doing drive-thru voting, this is going to be electioneering. ItÂ
could be on the bumper sticker in the car right in front of you.Â
We do still, however, Chris, provide what’s called curbside voting forÂ
those who qualify for curbside voting, that continues to be in place.Â
The bottom line, Chris, is Harris County, under the Constitution, is notÂ
allowed to come up with their own rules. What Texas is doing where, byÂ
adding more hours, we’re making it easier for people (ph) to go vote.
One last point, Chris, and that is if you look at the hours of voting thatÂ
Texas provides, it is far more hours of voting than exists in the stateÂ
where our current president voted in where they had exactly zero hours ofÂ
early voting. It’s far easier to vote in the state of Texas than it is inÂ
Delaware and yet nobody is claiming that there is some type of voterÂ
suppression taking place in Delaware.Â
WALLACE:Â Governor, let me ask you about the special session in generalÂ
because some Democrats say — and this is the word they use — that you areÂ
using it to pander to Trump supporter’s on the far right of the RepublicanÂ
Party.Â
I want to put up some of the key agenda items: voting reform, as we talkedÂ
about. Border security, social media censorship, transgender studentÂ
athletes, critical race theory, abortion.Â
And your critics point out that what isn’t on the agenda for the specialÂ
session is the electrical grid in Texas, which broke down during the deepÂ
freeze last winter. A hundred — more than 150 people were killed, moreÂ
than 4 million Texans lost their power during that.Â
And the question is, why wouldn’t you address an issue like that thatÂ
affects people’s everyday lives?Â
ABBOTT:Â So, you raised two issues and let me answer both of them. One isÂ
if you look at all these issues that are on the special session agenda.Â
These aren’t new items. All of these items were up on the agenda during theÂ
regular session. They got close to the finish line and the only reason whyÂ
they didn’t get across the finish line is because, as you pointed outÂ
earlier, the Democrats decided to abandon their job and walk off the job,Â
did not give us the time to get those other items across the finish line.Â
So, all we’re trying to do is to continue to achieve exactly what we wereÂ
trying to achieve during the regular session.Â
I need to point out to you, Chris, exactly why the power grid is not on theÂ
special session, and that is because during the regular session, there wereÂ
robust laws that were passed by the Texas legislature that provide all theÂ
changes that are needed to make sure that we will have an effective powerÂ
grid.Â
I must point out, Chris, one very important thing that most people do notÂ
know, and that is, what was the main cause of the power grid failure in theÂ
wintertime, and it’s nothing what anybody knows. The main cause of theÂ
power grid failure of the state of Texas actually was a failure by theÂ
power generators in Texas to file a simple document with ERCOT, theÂ
Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
WALLACE:Â All right.
ABBOTT:Â And let me — Chris, I need to explain this very quickly, and thatÂ
is in Texas, like in many other states, whenever there’s going to be aÂ
temporary shutdown of power in a state, there are certain areas that areÂ
exempt from being shut down, such as hospitals, such as downtowns, such asÂ
police stations. In Texas before the winter storm took place, powerÂ
generators and power transmission entities, they were not subject to notÂ
being shut down. When ERCOT shut them down in the winter storm, they froze.Â
Had ERCOT not shut them down, this would have been a four-hour event asÂ
opposed to a four-day event.Â
Now, what is required —Â
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE:Â Governor, I’ve got limited time — sir, I’ve got limited time.Â
And the question — no, sir, the question I have is the power grid isn’tÂ
fixed. You talked about it being fixed by the legislature, but you had overÂ
a thousand unplanned outages in June and ERCOT, the agency regulating isÂ
already asking people in Texas to voluntarily conserve energy because it’sÂ
been in danger of being overloaded. So you haven’t solved the problem.Â
ABBOTT:Â Real quickly, Chris, well, what happened in June did not haveÂ
enough time for all the changes that were made during the regular sessionÂ
to go into effect. (VIDEO GAP) problem whatsoever what happened in June,Â
there were mechanical repairs that needed to be made to about 15 percent ofÂ
the natural gas and —Â
WALLACE:Â OK.
ABBOTT:Â — coal-fired power plants. And during those repairs, there was noÂ
blackouts, no rolling blackouts or anything like that. Just for a few hoursÂ
a day, calls for conservation.Â
WALLACE:Â Sir —Â
ABBOTT:Â Here’s the important point, Chris, and that is turned out thatÂ
during the summertime, there were exactly zero people who lost power in theÂ
summertime showing that the power grid does work very effectively.Â
WALLACE:Â All right, one last question. You’ve got 30 seconds to answer it.Â
You’re up for reelection next year and you may face a real high-profileÂ
challenger. Take a look.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, ACTOR:Â Something I’m trying to look in the eye andÂ
give honest consideration. What an awesome privilege and awesomeÂ
responsibility and awesome position of sacrifice and service, something toÂ
consider.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE:Â Governor, how seriously do you take Matthew McConaughey as aÂ
possible opponent?Â
ABBOTT:Â It doesn’t matter what the name is, I take everybody veryÂ
seriously, and it shows — I will tell you two things, and that is if youÂ
look at my polling numbers, they are very, very strong. In addition toÂ
that, I have $55 million in the bank already, and I’m a very aggressiveÂ
fund-raiser.Â
So I will have the resources and the backing of a lot of people across theÂ
state of Texas to ensure that whoever decides to run against me, we will beÂ
able to win.Â
WALLACE:Â Governor Abbott, thank you. Thanks for your time. I got to say,Â
some of your fellow Republican governors stick to friendly venues as lifeÂ
preservers. I appreciate you coming on and being willing to answer all ofÂ
our questions, sir.Â
ABBOTT:Â Thank you, Chris.Â
WALLACE:Â Up next, we’ll bring in our Sunday group to discuss the new BidenÂ
push to go door-to-door to promote vaccinations. Why has that set off someÂ
people?Â
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN:Â We need to go community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood,Â
and oftentimes door-to-door literally knocking on doors to get help for theÂ
remaining people protected from the virus.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE:Â President Biden laying out a new push to get Americans vaccinatedÂ
as the effort in this country has plateaued.
And it’s time now for our Sunday group.Â
Marc Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Pence. Julie Pace,Â
Washington bureau chief for “The Associated Press”, and Charles Lane fromÂ
“The Washington Post.”Â
Julie, let me start with you. I think it’s fair to say that PresidentÂ
Biden’s door-to-door comments started quite a controversy about his effortÂ
to get more people vaccinated. How frustrated is the White House by theÂ
fact that a third of all Americans are, it seems, pretty resolute inÂ
refusing to get vaccinations? And do they have a real plan to deal withÂ
this?Â
JULIE PACE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS:Â I think thisÂ
has become one of the biggest frustrations for the Biden White House. YouÂ
know, they went into this vaccination campaign always expecting that thereÂ
was going to be some group of Americans that was going to be hesitant orÂ
resistant to getting a vaccine but they thought that they would be able toÂ
overcome that hesitancy with more information and with proof thatÂ
vaccinations are working. And what they found is that it’s really hard toÂ
get that number to budge and that number is larger than I think theyÂ
expected initially.
And so, you’ve seen this effort to start to lean into the idea of reallyÂ
personal messaging. Biden floating the idea of essentially a door-to-doorÂ
campaign, and I think they were then additionally frustrated by theÂ
blowback to that because it did get a bit misconstrued, the idea that theseÂ
are people who are going to be coming with clipboards to check off whetherÂ
you are vaccinated or not, that there was some sort of government survey,Â
which is not really what they’re talking about, they’re talking butÂ
essentially trying to take trusted people and communities to make the pitchÂ
to people who are hesitant at this point, and they do think that that kindÂ
of personal interaction is the best way to get past some of theÂ
misinformation, frankly, that a lot of people are holding on to, to avoidÂ
getting vaccinated.Â
WALLACE:Â Marc, how do you feel about this idea of community — toÂ
community door-to-door intervention, and you know, they say these aren’tÂ
government officials. They are just volunteers because their community hasÂ
a stake in people get in vaccinated. How do you feel about that effort?Â
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO MIKE PENCE:Â Well, Chris, I thinkÂ
that’s really a medical miracle that we have three vaccines within theÂ
first year and I think it’s an incredible accomplishment, frankly, that 70Â
percent of Americans have at least had one dose of the vaccination. I thinkÂ
at this point, there really isn’t a lack of information or a lack ofÂ
access. The people who are choosing to not get vaccinated are doing so forÂ
their own reasons.Â
And so, I think at some point Americans expect the right to make your ownÂ
choice on health, and I think that probably better resources could beÂ
expended, perhaps, sending people down to the southern border where theyÂ
seems to be a greater influx of COVID coming across with the free accessÂ
than trying to send community organizers to people’s households.Â
WALLACE:Â I got to commend you on that pivot, Marc, that was very wellÂ
done.Â
Chuck, let me ask you about this, because there’s a fine line here. On theÂ
one hand, I think the government does have an interest in making sure thatÂ
people are vaccinated or trying to at least give them that option. But onÂ
the other end, you do run the risk of looking like big brother. And we sawÂ
that when HHS Secretary Becerra was asked about whether or not the govern –
– it’s the government’s business who’s been vaccinated.
And here was his answer this week.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
XAVIER BECERRA, HHS SECRETARY:Â It is absolutely the government’s business,Â
it is taxpayer’s business if we have to continue to spend money to try toÂ
keep people from contracting COVID and helping reopen the economy.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE:Â Chuck, Becerra — the blowback was so fierce, Becerra had to putÂ
out a statement about, is it government’s business, saying no, theÂ
government is not going to set up a database from this door-to-door thingÂ
and try to say, here’s who’s been vaccinated and here’s who’s not beenÂ
vaccinated. This is delicate.Â
CHARLES LANE, THE WASHINGTON POST:Â Sure, it’s delicate and you get theÂ
feeling that the unvaccinated and the White House are sort of talking pastÂ
each other. If you look at the data about who is unvaccinated, they areÂ
people who tend to be more in rural America and small-town America than inÂ
the big cities of the coasts.Â
And by nature, those people are little bit more distrusting of government,Â
so I think the Biden the administration, with the best of intentions, andÂ
with no real threat to anyone’s privacy, messaged this very poorly. I’mÂ
also struck by the fact that the government seems to not want to try toÂ
give people incentives, you know, monetary and other incentives to take theÂ
vaccine.Â
There’s a very interesting piece of poll data from Kaiser FamilyÂ
Foundation, a quarter of the unvaccinated say that they would go and get itÂ
if that got them into a lottery for a million dollars. So I sort of thinkÂ
this calls for some creative thinking to get that last few people —Â
there’s about a 20 percent hard-core that’s never going to do it, but maybeÂ
another five or 10 percent would be persuadable, maybe with some moreÂ
incentives.Â
WALLACE:Â And in fact as we know, some states like Ohio have set up thoseÂ
lotteries and incentives.Â
Julie, I want to turn to another big issue that I was discussing withÂ
Governor Abbott and that is this question of new voting laws, votingÂ
restrictions. The president met with civil rights leaders this week and,Â
you know, when you’ve got these red states like Texas imposing theÂ
restrictions, when you’ve got the Democrats in Congress with their bigÂ
reform bill which seems, at least for now, to be dead and you have theÂ
Supreme Court, which just in its final week of its session upheld two lawsÂ
in Arizona about voting restrictions.Â
How — let me put it this way, does the Biden White House have a plan as toÂ
how they’re going to deal with this pullback on voting in the country?Â
PACE:Â Well, I think what you’re going to start to see over the next coupleÂ
of weeks is a pivot from Democrats in the White House to move away from theÂ
focus on this big sprawling piece of voting legislation that, you’re right,Â
is pretty much dead in the water on the Hill right now and a focus more onÂ
restoration of pieces of the Voting Rights Act.Â
Now, that is difficult even though it is more narrow than the bigger pieceÂ
of legislation in one of the things that Democrats are keeping in mind asÂ
they try to pursue that legislation is that this is almost certainly goingÂ
to end up back in the Supreme Court. So, they’re trying to craft thisÂ
legislation in a way that could address them of the concerns we’ve seenÂ
from some of the more conservative justices, including in the Arizona caseÂ
that we just got the ruling out a few weeks ago.Â
But this is going to be a bit of a slog through the summer to try to getÂ
that voting rights legislation passed. If they do, you could fully expectÂ
that to end up in the courts.Â
WALLACE:Â And quickly, Marc, we got less than a minute left. I mean,Â
there’s no real reason to think that would pass muster in the SenateÂ
either, wouldn’t it? Are you going to get 10 Republicans to go into theÂ
John Lewis Voting Act?Â
SHORT:Â No, of course not, Chris. I think that unfortunately there’s aÂ
false dichotomy right now in the nation where it’s like if you’reÂ
supportive of these election reforms, that somehow you’re accused ofÂ
believing there was widespread fraud and it was stolen, or otherwise,Â
you’re like Major League Baseball, which requires a photo ID to pick up aÂ
ticket at Will Call, but says if your state imposes voter ID and aÂ
presidential election then you’re racist and if we’re going to move in all-
star game from Georgia to Colorado.Â
I think is a lot of people who fall somewhere in between, which is to sayÂ
there was not widespread fraud but because of all the problems of COVID,Â
you had states making unilateral decisions from unelected people who areÂ
extending voting days or allowing ballot harvesting and as Governor AbbottÂ
said in your last segment, that belongs to state legislatures to make thoseÂ
decisions for each state and the people can vote them out if they don’tÂ
like the changes they make. But that’s the appropriate process in theÂ
democratic system that we have.Â
WALLACE:Â All right, panel, we have to take a break here. We’ll see you aÂ
little later in the program.Â
Up next, we go live to Afghanistan as U.S. forces pull out and the TalibanÂ
makes gains. And we’ll speak with a top Pentagon official about the end ofÂ
the U.S. mission.Â
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE:Â Coming up, President Biden defends his decision to pull U.S.Â
troops out of America’s longest war.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN:Â The United States did what we want to do in Afghanistan.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE:Â We’ll ask a top Pentagon official what it means for our nationalÂ
security, next.Â
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: After 20 years, 2,400 American militaryÂ
deaths and $4 trillion, U.S. troops are leaving Afghanistan. And they’reÂ
leaving behind a fractured Afghan government, a surging enemy, and anÂ
uncertain future.Â
In a moment, we’ll speak with Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby aboutÂ
what it means for U.S. national security.
But, first, let’s turn to Greg Palkot in Kabul with the latest on theÂ
situation on the ground there.Â
Greg.Â
GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Chris, we have been back on theÂ
ground here in Afghanistan for three days now and there has been no let-upÂ
in fighting. New reports today of clashes between the Taliban and AfghanÂ
government forces in a very important southern Afghan city of Kandahar.Â
Diplomats said to be evacuating as the trouble spreads nationwide.Â
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PALKOT: The Taliban on the move, seizing district after district acrossÂ
Afghanistan this past week, gaining control of stretches of the country’sÂ
borders, including key crossings. The Afghan military often giving upÂ
without a fight. Militants displaying commandeered U.S. weaponry.Â
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): It is clear to you and to all theÂ
world that the Taliban has the control of 85 percent of Afghanistan’sÂ
territory.Â
PALKOT: That claim denied by the Afghan government as it said over theÂ
weekend it was taking back some overrun territory and announcing highÂ
Taliban death tolls, also unconfirmed.Â
What is sure is the bulk of U.S. troops have departed. The hasty exitÂ
including from the main Bagram base, triggering the Taliban conquests,Â
including a renewed threat to the rights of girls and women under aÂ
passable Taliban rule, people tell us they’re afraid.Â
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In our country, everybody, every second, every minute weÂ
are in the fear — we live in fear.Â
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is something that happened suddenly in AfghanistanÂ
because of the withdrawal of the U.S. troops.Â
PALKOT (on camera): People want to get out of Afghanistan now?Â
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Afghanistan, yes.
PALKOT: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s hard to live here.Â
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PALKOT: By the way, we were out at that huge Bagram Air Base today. WeÂ
spoke to Afghan soldiers there. And they told us they were surprised andÂ
unprepared for the speed and the manner of the U.S. troops exit from thatÂ
base. Unsettling times all around.
Chris.Â
WALLACE: Greg Palkot reporting from Kabul.Â
Greg, thanks for that.Â
And joining us now from the Pentagon, Press Secretary John Kirby.Â
John, the U.S. has spent almost two decades training up the Afghan militaryÂ
and the police. We’ve spent over $88 billion over that time training themÂ
up. Why are they failing so miserably in repelling the Taliban?Â
JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Well, you’re right, Chris, they haveÂ
much more capacity than they’ve ever had before, much more capability. AndÂ
they’ve got an air force, a very capable air force helping defend theirÂ
troops on the ground. They’ve got very sophisticated special forces whoÂ
have been in the fight, and they’re brave fighters.Â
So this is a moment of leadership. And I — you heard the president talkÂ
about that the other day. It’s their right and responsibility now to defendÂ
their citizens and their country. And I think when we look back, whateverÂ
the outcomes are, Chris, we’re going to look back and we’re going to beÂ
able to say that it came down to leadership, civilian leadership andÂ
military leadership in the field.Â
Now, the one thing that we can assure our Afghan partners is, while weÂ
aren’t going to been the ground with them going forward, we are not walkingÂ
away from this relationship. We’re going to continue to support them from aÂ
financial perspective, logistical perspective and certainly air craftÂ
maintenance. We’re not walking away from this relationship.Â
WALLACE: Yes, but — but, John, your talk about how well set up the AfghanÂ
military is. They’re giving up huge swaths of the country. The Taliban nowÂ
say that they control 85 percent of the country. I know you dispute that.Â
But the Long War Journal, which tracks this kind of thing, estimates thatÂ
13 million Afghans now live in areas controlled by the Taliban, 10 millionÂ
in areas controlled by the government —
KIRBY: Yes.
WALLACE: And 9 million in contested areas. And as you just heard GregÂ
Palkot report, the Taliban is now fighting for control of the secondÂ
largest city in the country, Kandahar, and people are fleeing the country.Â
Are you surprised that the Taliban is making these kinds of sweepingÂ
advances so quickly?Â
KIRBY: We’re certainly watching with deep concern, Chris, the deterioratingÂ
security situation and the violence, which is, of course, way too high, andÂ
the advances and the momentum that the Taliban seems to have right now.Â
I mean we’re not — we’re not unmindful of that, Chris. We’re — we’reÂ
watching it and monitoring it, which is why we are, again, working with ourÂ
Afghan partners to encourage them to use the capacity and the capabilityÂ
that we know they have. And we know that they know how to defend theirÂ
country. This is a time for them to step up and to do exactly that.Â
WALLACE: The big question from the U.S. point of view is, if the TalibanÂ
ends up taking over the country, which is certainly a possibility, willÂ
that increase the terror threat to the U.S. homeland?Â
Here is Republican Congressman Michael Waltz.Â
Take a look.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FL): Al Qaeda will come roaring back in the wake ofÂ
an Afghanistan — of a Taliban take over, much like ISIS did when ObamaÂ
pulled out of Iraq. And we saw what happened there with attacks across theÂ
Middle East, Europe, and the United States.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: John, President Biden talks and talked just this last week aboutÂ
our being able to — to blunt the terror threat from, quote, over theÂ
horizon, which means from not in country in Afghanistan.
KIRBY: Right.
WALLACE: But our closest military bases to Afghanistan are more than aÂ
thousand miles away. Are we really going to rely on that to protect theÂ
U.S. homeland from increased terror threats if terror groups find new safeÂ
havens in Afghanistan?Â
KIRBY: We always want to find additional options, Chris. That’s why we’reÂ
working with neighboring countries that are closer to Afghanistan to seeÂ
what the possibilities are. And we’re doing that as briskly and asÂ
energetically as we can to find additional options.Â
That said, Chris, and you know this, we have sophisticated and — andÂ
robust, over the horizon capabilities even without that.Â
Obviously, closing down space and time would certainly make it easier andÂ
faster for us to deal with any kind of threat emanating out of AfghanistanÂ
towards the homeland, but we have the ability to do it even from afar, evenÂ
from those bases in the Middle East, an aircraft carrier that’s off in theÂ
Indian Ocean, we can do that. And we’ve proven that we can done that, evenÂ
in recent years, in places like Libya. It’s not like we haven’t done thisÂ
before or that there’s a — a scrap of earth that we can’t reach if weÂ
absolutely need to.Â
WALLACE: But — but in fairness, when you talk about Libya, we think ofÂ
Benghazi and the fact that when that embassy was under attack — though IÂ
understand we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about them hatchingÂ
plots, it took hours for U.S. resources —
KIRBY: Yes.
WALLACE: To get to Benghazi —
KIRBY: Right.
WALLACE: And — and by the time they got there it was too late.Â
Let me — let me move on to another subject.Â
There’s also the question that I think a lot of Americans ask about theÂ
millions of girls in Afghanistan, and women, the girls in schools, theÂ
women leading full lives. What happens if the Taliban takes over and putsÂ
all of those girls and women back under sharia law, puts the women backÂ
under the burqa? Are we really in effect saying that’s not our problem?Â
KIRBY: I think — I think the progress of women and girls in Afghanistan isÂ
the world’s problem. It’s everybody’s problem. We, obviously, share theÂ
concerns over the progress they’ve made and the progress they still haveÂ
yet to make. That’s why we continue to call for a negotiated politicalÂ
solution to the end of this war that is Afghan-led, that the Afghan peopleÂ
have a voice in saying and it’s not imposed on them outside the country.Â
It’s got to be Afghan-led in a peaceful, negotiated sentiment so that thatÂ
kind of progress can continue.Â
The other thing I’d say, Chris, is that we — the president’s made clear,Â
we’re going to keep a diplomatic presence in Kabul. That means keepingÂ
diplomats at it. That means continuing the programs and the initiativesÂ
that we continue to espouse for women and girls, for literacy, forÂ
education, for advancement, and for reform. We’re still going to beÂ
committed to those programs going forward.Â
WALLACE: But — but diplomacy and peace negotiations, if the U.S. is out,Â
we have lost, and, more importantly, the Afghan government has lost anyÂ
leverage with the Taliban.Â
KIRBY: You had this argument that somehow if you have boots on the groundÂ
all of a sudden you have all this leverage has not panned — that hasn’tÂ
exactly panned out the last five, ten, 15 years, Chris, when we hadÂ
100,000 troops on the ground. So the idea that if you have boots on theÂ
ground all of a sudden that gives you leverage has not exactly been theÂ
historical record so far.Â
What — what we do have is a lot of diplomatic leverage and we’re usingÂ
that. We are still involved in trying to broker forward a negotiatedÂ
settlement in Afghanistan. And nothing has changed about our commitment toÂ
that. And the rest of the international community also needs to stayÂ
committed to that kind of an outcome so that it’s Afghan-let’s so that thisÂ
kind of progress doesn’t fall by the wayside.Â
WALLACE: I — I want to talk quickly about two other subjects with you.Â
President Biden talked to Vladimir Putin on Friday —
KIRBY: Right.
WALLACE: About continued cyberattacks from that country on the U.S. AÂ
senior official afterwards, on a readout of the call, said that the — theÂ
U.S. will, quote, take any necessary action to defend our infrastructure.Â
What kind of measures is the Pentagon’s cyber command prepared to take toÂ
defend the U.S.?Â
KIRBY: Chris, I think you could understand the last thing I’m going to doÂ
on national TV is talk about cyber operations in any great detail.Â
What — what I can tell you is that we — our job is to provide options toÂ
the — to the president. Options in the cyber realm. Options outside theÂ
cyber realm. And just because you have — you face a cyberattack doesn’tÂ
mean that that’s how you — you necessarily respond in kind. There’s a — aÂ
whole range of tools at the president’s disposal. Some of those toolsÂ
reside here at the Pentagon and at cyber command, and we’re going to beÂ
prepared and ready to tee up those options for him whenever he might needÂ
them.Â
WALLACE: And would it be fair to say that the president has at his disposalÂ
a — a wide set of cyber options from the Pentagon if he decides to go inÂ
that direction?Â
KIRBY: That is very fair to say, yes, sir.Â
WALLACE: OK.Â
Let’s finally turn to Haiti.Â
The — Haiti’s government asked the U.S. to send troops there to deal withÂ
the chaos in the country. Is the Pentagon prepared to send U.S. forcesÂ
there, first of all, to deal with the situation, and, secondly, now thatÂ
we’ve had the assassination of Haiti’s president, is the situation thereÂ
and the disarray, is that a matter of U.S. national security?Â
KIRBY: Well, Chris, as for your first question, we are aware of the requestÂ
by the Haitian government. We’re analyzing it, just like we would any otherÂ
request for assistance here at the Pentagon. It’s going through a review.Â
I’m not going to get ahead of that process.Â
And — and today an interagency team, largely from the Department ofÂ
Homeland Security and the FBI, are heading down to Haiti right now to seeÂ
what we can do to help them in the investigative process. And I thinkÂ
that’s really where our energies are best applied right now in helping themÂ
get their arms around investigating this incident and figuring out who’sÂ
culpable, who’s responsible and how best to hold them accountable goingÂ
forward. That’s where our focus is right now.Â
WALLACE: And — and — and, real quickly, is what’s going on in Haiti, isÂ
that a matter of U.S. national security?Â
KIRBY: I think we are watching the situation very closely, Chris. I don’tÂ
know that we’re at a point now where we can say definitively that ourÂ
national security is being put at risk by what’s happening there. But,Â
clearly, we — we value our Haitian partners. We — we — we valueÂ
stability and security in that country. And that’s why we want to send aÂ
team down there today to — to help them get their arms around exactly whatÂ
happened and what’s the best way forward.Â
WALLACE: John, thank you.Â
KIRBY: Thank you.
WALLACE: Thanks for sharing part of your weekend with us. Always good toÂ
talk with you, sir.Â
KIRBY: You too, sir, thank you.Â
WALLACE: Up next, we’ll ask the panel what happens if the Taliban take overÂ
Afghanistan.Â
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will not send anotherÂ
generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonableÂ
expectation of achieving a different outcome.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: President Biden standing his ground on pulling U.S. troops out ofÂ
Afghanistan as the Taliban make dramatic advances across that country.Â
And we’re back now with the panel.Â
Marc, President Biden is ordering this pullout, but President Trump, formerÂ
President Trump, was planning to do the same thing if he were reelected.Â
And, in fact, he had wanted to get all troops out by May 1st.Â
As you look at what’s happening in Afghanistan now, any second thoughtsÂ
about this policy of total withdrawal?Â
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO MIKE PENCE: Well, Chris, I think thatÂ
President Trump was right to initiate it and I actually think thatÂ
President Biden is correct to complete the withdrawal.Â
I think that Americans, men and women in uniform, should not be policeÂ
keepers across the globe, nor should we be involved in nation building.Â
Having said that, I do know that, at the end, the intelligence communityÂ
came to the Trump administration and said, if we could at least keep a hubÂ
at — at a base their because we’ve had so many effective counterterrorismÂ
covert operations with special forces and that would not require 100,000Â
troops, it would require enough troops to fortify a base.
And if you look at Afghanistan, strategically located between Iran andÂ
China, having that base to — continue to do covert operations I thinkÂ
would be beneficial to America.Â
So I support the withdrawal of the majority of the troops. I think it’s theÂ
right policy that the Biden administration is completing. I think it’sÂ
unfortunate, though, that the intelligence community was — was notÂ
successful in getting their wish to maintain some — some base of troopsÂ
there to allow us to continue to do counterterrorism operations.Â
WALLACE: Do — do you have any reason to believe that President Trump wouldÂ
have kept a counterterrorism force there?Â
SHORT: No, I don’t — I don’t think that at the time that their argumentsÂ
made their way with President Trump either. I think he was anxious toÂ
withdraw all troops and — and I think that that’s unfortunate. I think itÂ
would have been good — better to have had a base for the intelligenceÂ
community to continue to do covert operations.Â
WALLACE: Chuck, the president, President Biden, was categorical this weekÂ
that whatever happens in Afghanistan, ultimately it’s — it’s theirÂ
problem.Â
Take a look.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It’s up to the people ofÂ
Afghanistan to decide on what government they want, not us to impose theÂ
government on them.Â
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Chuck, the — the flaw in that reasoning, of course, and you heardÂ
it also from John Kirby, is the Afghan people may not get to decide theirÂ
government because it maybe won’t be the U.S. that imposes it on them, itÂ
will be the Taliban.Â
CHARLES LANE, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: The way they’re going to decide who’sÂ
the government in Afghanistan is probably through war. And that’s on theÂ
way. And that’s why in that very good report we heard from Kabul from Greg,Â
so many people in that city were expressing fear about what’s coming next.Â
It’s absolutely true that this would have been Donald Trump’s problem too –
– or his policy too, but it’s now happening on Joe Biden’s watch and it’sÂ
happening in some haste and I would say some unseemly haste. It’s almostÂ
like a bugout rather than a phased withdrawal.
And I think we all need to be concern, in addition to the humanitarianÂ
impact this will have on Afghanistan itself, on the prestige and theÂ
perceived power of the United States. I think one reason the Taliban isÂ
being so aggressive is they are going to try to create the spectacle ofÂ
humiliating defeat similar to Vietnam in 1974, ’75 for the United States,Â
not just to take back Afghanistan, but to create a spectacle in the worldÂ
that the United States is a weakens empire and a paper tiger.Â
And if that happens, and I hope it doesn’t, it will be happening on JoeÂ
Biden’s watch and better — for better or worse, he will own it.Â
WALLACE: I want to turn to the other big foreign policy story this week,Â
and that is the continued cyberattacks on the U.S. emanating from Russia.Â
It got serious enough that President Biden spoke to Russian President PutinÂ
for an hour this week and then had this readout.Â
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States expects, whenÂ
a ransomware operations is coming from his soil, we expect them to act ifÂ
we give them enough information to act on who that is.
REPORTER: You said, three weeks ago, there would be consequences. WillÂ
there be, sir?
BIDEN: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Julie, the president keeps saying to Putin, don’t do it, don’t doÂ
it, and then it happens again and he repeats, don’t do it.
Do they have a plan here as to how to deal with it?Â
JULIE PACE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, “THE ASSOCIATED PRESS”: Yes, you know,Â
this feels very similar to the arguments that we were hearing from theÂ
Obama White House in the final month of that administration where there wasÂ
a similar message being delivered, largely privately at that point becauseÂ
we were in the — in the 2016 campaign, but the message was, we know you’reÂ
doing this, we know this is emanating from Russia and you need to stop, andÂ
yet here we are several years later and this is still happening.
So I think, no, you know, the U.S. has not figured out at this point how toÂ
get Russia to change its behavior or how to get Putin to crack down on someÂ
of these bad actors within his country.Â
I do think that there is a pretty aggressive discussion happening withinÂ
the administration right now. John Kirby alluded to this. A lot of this isÂ
going to be classified. A lot of this is going to be — is — the responseÂ
is going to be carried out in ways that we’re not always going to see orÂ
know publicly. But until we see a change in behavior emanating from Russia,Â
I think the answer to this has to be that, no, there is not an effectiveÂ
plan at the moment.Â
WALLACE: Marc, there’s a danger when you keep setting redlines and theÂ
difference between what Obama was doing and what Biden was doing was BidenÂ
made those red lines very public at the summit in Geneva. There’s a dangerÂ
to setting red lines and then not enforcing them.Â
SHORT: Sure, Chris.Â
I think that previously the Obama administration often prosecutedÂ
cyberattacks, like the DOJ investigation and a crime.Â
One thing that’s been, I think, less reported is President Trump gave a lotÂ
more latitude to our military and to our intelligence communities toÂ
respond in kind to cyberattacks and to be aggressive with it. And I thinkÂ
it deterred foreign actors who were looking to — to — to attack theÂ
United States.Â
I don’t know whether the Biden administration has relapsed to a previousÂ
policy that’s pursuing it more as a criminal investigation, as to whetherÂ
they’re giving the same latitude to our military with cyberattacks. But I –
– I do know — I do believe that we have the — an extreme capability toÂ
cripple other countries who conduct these attacks on us. And whether or notÂ
our military is giving latitude to use them, I don’t know right now.Â
WALLACE: Chuck, I’ve got about 30 seconds left.Â
If these cyberattacks continue, and they continued after the warning inÂ
Geneva, now Putin’s gotten another warning. If they continue, how muchÂ
runway does Joe Biden have left before he has to act?Â
LANE: I think he’s got less runway now then he had before. And I thinkÂ
Putin is loving this situation because this is a perfect way to harass theÂ
United States and cause a perception of weakness by the president without –
– with deniability for Moscow and no cost to Putin.Â
WALLACE: Well, and that, of course, was the question, at some point, willÂ
there be a cost to Putin?Â
Panel, thank you. See you next Sunday.Â
Up next, our “Power Player of the Week,” cellist Yo-Yo Ma spreading hopeÂ
through his magical music.Â
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: He’s been a major figure in American music for decades. But as weÂ
told you this winter, he found a new way to reach us during the pandemic.Â
Here’s our “Power Player of the Week.”Â
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
YO-YO MA, CELLIST: Since you can’t be touched, you can’t be caressed, theÂ
music is the caress, is — is that piece of humanity that is missing fromÂ
your aloneness and when you need it the most.Â
WALLACE (voice over): World-famous cellist Yo-Yo Ma on the role music canÂ
play in the time of COVID. Despite quarantines and social distancing, MaÂ
has found ways to bring people closer together.Â
MA: This is a moment for invention. The thing that we then need to look atÂ
is the delivery system.Â
WALLACE: And deliver he has. Ma began a project called Songs of Comfort,Â
where he posts video on social media playing his cello.Â
MA: One of my colleagues said, you know, maybe we could do what we usuallyÂ
do in times of stress and disasters. How about if we do songs of comfortÂ
and hope? I said, done.Â
WALLACE: Ma’s videos have gotten almost 45 million views and he’s invitedÂ
other artists to post their own songs of comfort, like James Taylor.Â
JAMES TAYLOR, MUSICIAN (singing): Trying not to try to hard. It’s just aÂ
(INAUDIBLE).
MA: I think we’re all trying to figure out ways to find ways to help.Â
WALLACE: Music has always been a passion for Ma. Born in Paris, then raisedÂ
in New York City, he was a child prodigy, playing for President Kennedy atÂ
age seven.
Over the years he’s performed on a variety of stages, from Carnegie Hall toÂ
“Sesame Street” to President Obama’s first inauguration.Â
WALLACE (on camera): How difficult was it not to be in front of anÂ
audience, on a stage, for all these months?Â
MA: It was not difficult for me because I think I was constantly in touchÂ
with people. Music actually does play a part in helping.Â
WALLACE (voice over): And so Ma played songs of comfort for us and for you.Â
WALLACE (on camera): What a gift.Â
MA: Thank you so much, Chris.Â
WALLACE: Thank you.Â
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: You can hear more of Yo-Yo Ma’s music on his album, “Songs ofÂ
Comfort and Hope.”Â
Now this program note. Join me on Fox Nation as we mark what would haveÂ
been Nancy Reagan’s 100th birthday. Our special “Nancy Reagan: An AmericanÂ
Story” is available to stream right now.Â
And that’s it for today. Have a great week and we’ll see you next FOX NEWSÂ
SUNDAY.
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALLÂ
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. AllÂ
materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may notÂ
be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcastÂ
without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. YouÂ
may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice fromÂ
copies of the content.