Pentagon: US drone strike killed 10 civilians in Afghanistan
Fox News anchor Bret Baier offers analysis on that and other breaking news stories, on 'Your World'.
This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto" September 17, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right, the FDA says not a good idea, voting against recommending a COVID booster for people who are 16 years or older, but it's not quite that simple.
And owing to the confusion around what the medical community thinks, they're having a revote on a slightly reframed question, which most of the medical community seem to think would allow or be open to those with extenuating circumstances or compromised immune systems or the elderly to get this booster shot.
It is big news right now, on top of the tragic news we're getting, detailing about that devastating drone strike that claimed so many lives.
But, in the meantime, want to bring you up to date on this FDA development.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World"?
Well, in essence here was the president's push to try to make sure those even already vaccinated get an insurance shot, a booster shot, a third shot, if you will, that would protect them. The companies behind making these boosters -- and the only one that's been cleared for them right now is Pfizer, although Moderna is working on one that could get approval very soon.
But the rub is that it might not offer the great benefits that either company claims. Now, while it's welcome news, promising news, it came down to do you need it? Do average folks who've been vaccinated really need a booster shot?
That's why this rephrased question and the FDA panel voting on this is so crucial, because the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel had said, essentially, for the vast majority of folks, those 16 and older, presumably without any of these other extenuating circumstances, it really isn't necessary.
Well, they went on to say that this is calling into question and maybe fears that -- and this is coming from the medical community interpreting some of this thinking on the FDA -- that it will give people pause about even getting vaccinated in the first if the feeling seems to be that you need a booster shot, an insurance shot to make sure that you're still doing OK.
There's a separate camp that's built out there that says we have to treat this like we do the common flu, a vaccine shot or something similar every single year.
This would be a blow to the president, of course, who has been pushing this. Remember, his first call for a booster shot would be for those who had shots and roughly eight months after their last shot that they'd be open to this. Others have changed it to closer to six months.
But the bottom line here, unless we get clear wording from the Food and Drug Administration, is not necessary, at least not right now.
Peter Doocy on the development and where we stand -- Peter.
PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, Neil, something important to point out is that the two dozen or so doctors who are advising the FDA on an ongoing Zoom call right now are all very supportive of the protection granted by the two-dose regimen.
So, they want people to know that, if you go and get shots one and two, you still as of today have adequate protection against COVID-19, based on the available data; 65 and up and some immunocompromised is different. They are talking, though, about the general population.
Pfizer came. Some Pfizer representatives came and gave a presentation where they showed that they think immunity starts to wane over time, which is to be expected. But some experts just were not impressed enough with the Pfizer presentation, because only two FDA advisers on this board voted to recommend booster shots on the president's schedule; 16 voted against it.
Here's one of them.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DR. MEG SEYMOUR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH: To approve a booster without adequate safety or efficacy data undermines the integrity of the FDA.
It is unfortunate that the White House announced the need for and availability of boosters prior to FDA's assessment of the data.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
DOOCY: And that's exactly what the White House did. President Biden came out last month to say that people should expect to go eight months after their second shot to get a booster beginning on September 20.
And officials here were so confident in their plan, even though it wasn't approved by scientists yet, that they went ahead and just bought booster doses anyway.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. VIVEK MURTHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: This process is consistent with what we outline in August, where our goals were to stay ahead of the virus, to lay out an initial plan based on our clinical judgment, and to ultimately ensure that the final plan would be based on the independent assessment and recommendations of the FDA and CDC.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOOCY: Maybe White House officials knew this was coming. Maybe they did not.
But it is telling that the White House COVID advisory board decided that they wanted to speak before this decision was made, not after. It's also telling no White House briefing today, President Biden not taking any questions either. He is at his beach house in Delaware -- Neil.
CAVUTO: Real quickly, Peter, part of the problem here seemed to be a lack of communication, that when the president was pushing the booster shot idea, that he hadn't adequately bounced it off all the medical people around him.
Two people quit, which you alluded to in prior stories. They didn't like the way it was handled. And that really stuck in a lot of these guys' craw, that they were caught off-guard.
DOOCY: Absolutely, Neil.
And none of these experts are saying we don't think a booster dose will be necessary or helpful down the line. But they're saying, essentially, to Pfizer and to the experts who think that it's necessary right now, just show us the information.
A lot of the data that they're getting right now is from an Israeli study. But the Israeli study is a very small sample size, and also that country is vaccinated at a higher rate than in the U.S. So these experts are saying we just think this is apples and oranges, essentially.
If you want us to support, give our medical backing to a booster dose, just give us something. And the something is not there right now for a third shot -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Peter, thank you very much for that.
Again, to bring you up to date, if you just tuned in, the great wait as to whether you need a third shot, they're still waiting on that right now at the FDA. They are rephrasing the question. Remember, the key of vote was whether they would accept this as something for all Americans to try. And on that, they essentially said, no, we don't need to do that.
The effectiveness of the underlying vaccines that are already out there is such that you do not need to pump it up, so to speak, or take an insurance shot to boost that up, in other words, to get the boost, you would presumably get to increase your immunity to the virus.
Separately, they're taking up the issue, presumably -- and that's what they mean by re-questioning -- whether this might apply, though, to the vulnerable parts of the population of those with, again, compromised immune systems, the elderly, both, and that is sort of open-ended.
Most doctors seem to agree, maybe for this subset of the population, it might be a good idea, not that the FDA has ruled on that one way or the other. But when they do, we will, of course, pass that along to you as well. We will also be talking to top doctors on what they think this could signal and mean.
Keep in mind, among many of the unvaccinated, this whole debate and scientific argument over whether such booster shots are even necessary have them wondering, well, then why the heck should I get vaccinated in the first place, if I need to boost it up and they can't agree whether the booster thing is a good idea?
So, total confusion, total miscommunication, and a total point of what is next on dealing with this virus, where cases have sort of plateaued right now, but you can't get many more to get vaccinated.
And that is something that the administration is working on separately to all but mandate that with businesses and using OSHA and others. It's a mess. And probably this development for the FDA does not help that cause either. Again, we will have much more on that.
Meanwhile, the other big story we are following today, that military drone strike in Kabul that killed 10 civilians, including seven children. They laid it all out for us about a half-an-hour ago.
Lucas Tomlinson on the attack and what went wrong -- Lucas.
LUCAS TOMLINSON, FOX NEWS PENTAGON PRODUCER: Neil, on August 29, an American Reaper drone was orbiting high over Kabul, targeting a white Toyota Corolla, which the U.S. military thought contained ISIS fighters.
But, tragically, when it launched a Hellfire missile, destroying that car, it killed 10 civilians, including seven children.
The head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East called this a tragic mistake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: It's important that I emphasize that. We did not have the luxury of time to develop pattern of life and to do a number of other things.
We struck under the under the theory of reasonable certainty. Probably, our strikes in Afghanistan going forward will be under a higher standard.
That's a policy matter, not a purely military matter. But I don't think you should draw any conclusions about our ability to strike in Afghanistan against ISIS-K targets in the future based on this particular strike.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TOMLINSON: For context, Neil, 13 American troops had just been killed in a suicide attack three days prior to this drone strike.
And General McKenzie said that he was expecting more attacks against the 1,000 or so U.S. troops that remained at the Kabul Airport. As I mentioned, 10 innocent civilians, including seven children, were killed in the drone strike. Officials say there will be no discipline action taken.
General Milley said earlier this month there were massive secondary explosions. General McKenzie said today those explosions were likely from a propane tank behind the vehicle.
And once again, we're told that there will be no disciplinary action because the U.S. military is convinced that the intelligence that they had said there were ISIS fighters in here, in this vehicle, this white Twitter Corolla, based on signals intelligence -- Neil.
CAVUTO: This does not apply, or this investigation, to the first drone strike that took out a top ISIS-K operative? This did not apply to that attack, right?
TOMLINSON: That's correct, Neil.
That drone strike happened prior. That was in Nangarhar in Eastern Afghanistan, about an hour east of Kabul.
CAVUTO: Right.
TOMLINSON: In fact, General McKenzie was pretty bullish on that drone strike, said it killed the intended targets.
I asked him in the briefing does, not having U.S. troops on the ground going forward hurt the U.S. abilities -- U.S. military's ability to launch these kind of drone strikes and be successful? He wouldn't admit it this time. But, earlier, he said it's going to be very challenging without troops on the ground.
When I asked him if U.S. forces on the ground to help target this particular white Toyota Corolla, which the U.S. military thought had ISIS fighters in it and explosives, he said no, that no U.S. troops on the ground were part of the targeting package.
Part of the problem, Neil, is that this vehicle was driven by an aid worker and water jugs were being loaded into that truck -- into that car, this white Toyota Corolla. The problem is, if you're in a Reaper drone orbiting high overhead, you're seeing grainy video, what looked like explosives, which tragically where water jugs.
And General McKenzie took full responsibility for this and called it a tragic mistake -- Neil.
CAVUTO: But to your point, Lucas, and it's a good one, that if we have no troops on the ground anymore, and we decide to initiate strikes like this, it gets to be a little more complicated, right?
TOMLINSON: That's right.
I mean, these Reaper drones fly from an air base in the Middle East, from Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, about an eight-hour flight, Neil. Of course, you're not flying Iran. You got to go over the Arabian Sea. You got to fly around over an air corridor in Pakistan. And the time over to target in Afghanistan is limited.
I'm told it's about four hours. So you heard General McKenzie in that sound bite saying he did not have the luxury of time with this strike. I believe what he was referring to there was, you just had 13 Americans killed, let's not lose the context here, Neil, just three days prior on August 26.
So just a few days later, the intelligence, all the warnings are blinking red. We heard from the secretary of state, the president and from top U.S. military commanders they expected more attacks. So, when they had this car in the crosshairs, there was probably some kind of confirmation bias, officials have told me.
They thought there were ISIS fighters in here planning another attack. Tragically, it was 10 innocent civilians, including seven children, Neil.
CAVUTO: So tragic. Thank you, Lucas, very much. Great reporting on this.
Want to go To Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis on this.
Colonel, what we have learned, what do you make it?
LT. COL. DANNY DAVIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Yes, it's nice that the general says that he's responsible for it. But I don't -- I'm not buying the whole story there, that they didn't have a choice, because they did have a choice.
Look, all they had to do was just wait a little bit longer to verify. They would have then -- when that car pulled up, and then no one else went anywhere, the -- there was no explosives sent anywhere, they would have known that it wasn't right.
And just because we had a strike just -- we just had one against our troops, that doesn't give us the flexibility or the ability to just say, hey, we're just going to be careless with the lives of other people, because I'm telling you, this really hurts our credibility around the world and it creates more enemies, because now just think of all these people that are angry at us that were on our side.
And so we have to do a better job of this. We can't just accept that, hey, it was tough, so we lost these people here, and we will just do better next time. I mean, I think somebody needs to be responsible for these seven kids who have been killed.
CAVUTO: I wonder, though, Colonel, if you think of the backdrop for this, when this attack happened, right, our troops were leaving by the hundreds each day, right? We were dealing just prior with the attack right at the perimeter that claimed 13 of our soldiers.
And everything just -- you get a feeling it was all haphazard and everyone's running and leaving, and then you're coordinating strikes, and now there are no troops left there. And I'm just wondering, if we had to do this again, could we?
DAVIS: Well, look, this -- there's no doubt that this was a really chaotic and almost the worst-case scenario for having to defend yourself under pressure from enemy forces, whether it was Taliban or ISIS-K in this case.
But we have to have a higher standard of when we fire lethal weapons, because we have to defend our people. I'm 100 percent in agreement with that, believe me. I have been on the protected end of that several times. But we can't just say, well, I'm not going to worry about it, I think it might be, so let's fire away in a civilian area.
We knew it was in a civilian area. So we just have to be careful, because just all he had to have done was waited later. If that car had continued going forward, we could have tracked it all the way. If it was coming toward the airport, then maybe it would have been appropriate to take it out.
But that never happened. And we didn't give it a chance.
CAVUTO: Colonel, thank you very much, Colonel Danny Davis.
Want to go to Christian Whiton right now, a former State Department official.
Christian, a lot went wrong here. It's easy to play Monday-morning quarterback on all this. But one thing that comes through very loud and clear is this lack of communication, this lack of one side talking to the other.
In an unrelated case, it even seems to evidence itself in this FDA decision now that refutes a lot of the administration's claims about the wisdom of a booster shot to deal with COVID, not properly communicated to all the medical channels, and catching those channels off-guard.
This does seem to be a problem here, and that rears its ugly head at some pretty tough times. What do you make of this?
CHRISTIAN WHITON, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SPECIAL ENVOY: Well, I think you're onto something there, in that, in both instances, you wonder if political considerations really drove an incompetent process that we're seeing.
It has not been a good set of weeks for the Biden administration. I agree with Colonel Davis. This looks really, really bad. Beyond looking bad, it is really, really bad. I mean, this could be called a war crime, what happened in Afghanistan.
You pointed out how close it was the day on August 26 when a bomb went off, and we lost 12 Marines and, if I recall, correctly, one Navy Corpsman. And this reaction, this bombing just a few days later on the 29th, three days later, I mean, it looks to a skeptic, to a cynic that, frankly, that may have been urged along, that the Biden administration had to appear to react, and did react, and in so doing, did not kill an ISIS terrorist, but killed seven children.
I mean, this is just atrocious. And this is what we get from our $80- billion-a-year intelligence community and our $715-billion-a-year military"? It's really just more than a black eye.
And General McKenzie can say that he takes -- that he's accountable for that. OK, so he should resign and potentially face a court-martial. But the real question is whether the accountability goes higher, and whether the White House pressured the military to do this.
We know the White House pressured the FDA to take action. They declined to do so.
CAVUTO: So, we do also know that now, despite the earlier talk, Christian, that the military was a go with the president's call to take out our troops and that they thought the government would hang on, it turns out that a couple of them did not think that was the case, and were worried about it.
So, again, the narrative keeps changing, because the folks who are behind it now seem compelled to set their side of the story. What do you make of it?
WHITON: Right.
And, actually, a diversity of opinions ought to be OK. That's why you have the Joint Chiefs, which was the top uniformed person at the top of each of our armed services, and then a chairman and vice chairman. They're duty- bound to give their honest assessment to the president.
The idea that all of these individuals gave the same advice, which was it's OK to jump out of Afghanistan in a haphazard way, abandoning Bagram, sort of being stuck left with this very difficult-to-defend outpost at the Kabul Airport and the embassy, it's somewhat outlandish to think that that was actually the case.
Now, they may have sort of at the end of it say, OK, well, we understand your decision, that's all right. But President Biden, he's sort of at pains to say that he has gone beyond sort of the circus of the Trump administration, and that he is listening to the experts, he's listening to his generals, he's listening to doctors, the medical professionals.
And that just seems not to be the case. It seems like decisions are being made on very political bases, not on expert opinions. And, yes, it's also just the credibility factor, I mean, the fact that Biden has been saying one thing, and the military has been saying one thing, and the FDA has been saying one thing.
And the story keeps changing.
CAVUTO: Yes.
WHITON: It doesn't give you a lot of confidence.
CAVUTO: Real quickly, while I have you -- and I'm just dropping this on you now -- but France is recalling its ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over this sub deal, this three-way deal, Asian security deal the U.S. signed on to with the Brits and Australia.
And, obviously, France feels like odd man out. But they have already canceled what was to be a big event, a party in Washington today or tonight. And I'm just wondering that this plan to counter the Chinese and deal with aggression in that side of the globe, whether that too was poorly communicated, if you think about it, because the French were blindsided.
Of course, China, as you know, didn't know this is coming. But maybe that matters little here, but, again, a communication issue.
WHITON: Right.
Now, the French are being childish and showing that their priority is really sort of a mercantilist, commercial first foreign policy. But I disagree with what Australia, the U.S. and U.K. decided. It would be better for Australia, which has no nuclear power industry, just one experimental reactor, to have electric boats.
Instead of having eight boats, which they were planning, I think, from France, they're going to end up -- they mean it's eight. I think the cost of a nuclear powered submarine and the whole infrastructure, the whole expertise, all of the training you need behind that is so expensive that Australia's going to end up with just two or three of these things, at most.
So we have angered China. That's fine, if you need to do it.
CAVUTO: Right.
WHITON: But to do it sort of flippantly and to anger a NATO ally, it's a little bit odd.
CAVUTO: Yes, it's OK if China is upset. But we don't want her friends upset.
But, anyway, it's just a mess.
Christian Whiton, thank you very, very much.
When we come back, our lead story, of course, is what's happening with the FDA, still weighing a sort of nuance on that question of whether a booster shot to deal with COVID is wise. For the general population, no.
We're still waiting to hear, for special groups, maybe, maybe yes -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, I had a feeling it would end up this way.
Those 18 panelists who are voting on whether this third booster shot is necessary, I told you earlier that they did not think for the general population it was, voting overwhelmingly against us for everybody or even recommending it for everybody.
But on a nuanced question, as for the vulnerable part of the population and whether it might warrant a benefit for them, the 18 panelists, all of them voting for it, saying, essentially, that the focus would have to be on those who are deemed vulnerable in the population, again, as I was mentioning, those with certain immunity risks or elderly, anyone who has a high risk of severe COVID-19, even if they have been treated already.
Now, it's probably adding to your confusion over this, because this is sort of the split read, the FDA effectively saying, if you have been vaccinated, we think a third shot is a good idea, but only if you are a vulnerable part of the population, a fraction of that population.
And, as we suspected, and as doctors were telling us for quite some time, it would veer to those who need it, who have conditions as such that they are vulnerable, not only to recurrence, but infections and all the rest, elderly, et cetera, but not the general population.
Dr. Syra Madad joins us right now, the Special Pathogens Program senior director NYC Health and Hospitals.
Doctor, so good to have you.
I called it like a split decision, Doctor. How do you see it? And then how do you tell your patients about it?
DR. SYRA MADAD, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS: Well, I mean, as an infectious disease epidemiologist that's working in a health care setting, as we look at the decision that's being made today by the FDA, I think there's a couple of things.
First, as you have mentioned the recommendation for a third dose or a booster shot for the general population, those aged 16 and over, is not recommended at this time. But those for a subset population, for example, those over the age of 65, higher risk for COVID-19, the recommendation is to give that third dose.
And when we look at the science and the data behind these decision-making, it is concrete, in terms of what we are seeing. And so when we look at the general population, those over the age of 16, we are seeing that they are still protected from the worst outcome of COVID-19, which is severe disease, hospitalization and death.
So, these vaccines are still working remarkably well against that. As we look at the older population, even those in some of the higher-risk groups, so when we even look at health care workers that are in these occupational settings that put them at higher risk, would they benefit from a third dose? Those are some of the things that are being discussed.
And I think the one thing to add is, this is science evolving in real time. This is decision-making happening with the best information and data that we have. And I think that the American public should feel confident in the public health authorities that we have, because they are following the science, they are following the data.
I just do wish that we had more real-time surveillance and reporting, instead of relying on information coming from Israel and U.K. But, at the same time, I think that the decision made today is a good one.
The last thing that I will just quickly mention is, while booster shots is not recommended for those over the age of 16, generally, that may change as things continue to progress. So, as we continue on with this pandemic, as more data and science is collected...
CAVUTO: Right.
MADAD: ... that may continue to change.
But, at this moment, right now, booster shots will not be recommended for those ages 16 and over.
CAVUTO: I know the World Health Organization and others had talked about the possibility of treating COVID in the future like we do the flu with annual shots, vaccine shots and the rest.
What do you think of that?
MADAD: I do think he knows that, as we transition out of the acute phase of this pandemic, and we look at it becoming more endemic, meaning we're going to live with the virus, all that means is that we want to have enough immunity in the population that, when we do come across COVID-19, the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, that we have some immunity, that we can fight it off.
CAVUTO: Right.
MADAD: So it's not going to be something as detrimental as requiring hospitalization.
In order for us to get to that point of living with COVID-19, we just need to have more immunity in the general population, preferably through vaccination, not through natural infection, because then you have the risk of obviously having a much more severe outcome.
So I do think -- and, certainly, we are going to learn to live with this virus.
CAVUTO: Got it. Doctor, thank you very, very much.
The implications of all of this. Of course, the president was highly and strongly recommending it for all Americans, but that was not bounced off some of the top medical authorities. Why not?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: Well, it's one thing for China to be upset, but when you hear that France is recalling its ambassadors to the United States and Australia over that sub deal, then something bigger is going on, but what?
After this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: It was a deal meant to tick off China and worry China, but, all of a sudden, that security agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom and, of course, Australia now has the French upset.
It's a little bit convoluted here. They're the odd men out on this, thinking that they would be part of this, so none too happy, in fact, so unhappy, that they have gone ahead and recalled their ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over all of this.
To my colleague and friend Bret Baier, "Special Report" on just 90 minutes from now.
Bret, what do you make of this?
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Neil, it's actually a big deal diplomatically for an ally like France to pull their ambassador, Philippe Etienne, back to Paris from the U.S.
That is -- just shows how really angry they are about this deal coming together and that they were blindsided by it. Just to frame it a little bit, this is a deal about nuclear submarines with the U.S., Australia, the U.K.
And you're right to say that it's meant to kind of put the pressure on China in that neck of the woods. However, to do that, Australia ripped up a deal to do French nuclear submarines for the tune of $90 billion. And the French didn't see it coming. And they are really blaming the Biden administration for not keeping them in the loop.
CAVUTO: You know, you don't want to draw different incidents together.
But there is a bit of a commonality here, Bret, if you think about it, the way this whole China thing was orchestrated and communicated, and how the confusion with the FDA that apparently was caught off-guard by the president's recommendations on getting a booster shot, even if you want to include Afghanistan and mixed readings about whether this had been thoroughly vetted among all the president's military commanders and top defense folks.
And I'm just wondering if that pattern is worrisome there, that communication, communication, communication?
BAIER: Well, listen, I think his critics, the president's, on Capitol Hill say it fits into this broader narrative of competency, and how this administration is dealing with all kinds of different things at the same time.
This drone strike in Afghanistan, they took this as a pushback on the criticism they were getting for the Afghanistan withdrawal, if you remember Jen Psaki coming out saying, well, we have done this over-the-horizon attack and taken out ISIS fighters, the Pentagon coming out saying there were extra explosions from the car, meaning they had explosives in there that could threaten U.S. troops.
And it turns out that they were civilians, an aid worker and seven children, in that drone strike. This is a really bad week for the Biden administration, Neil. It's -- there's no doubt about it.
This booster back and forth with the FDA advisory committee -- by the way, they did vote unanimously to advise boosters for 65 and over and those who are compromised.
CAVUTO: Right.
BAIER: But they didn't on the younger people.
And that was kind of all botched up as far as communication goes. And then the Afghanistan part about listening to advisers, it's becoming more clear that President Biden did what he did, made those decisions over and above and outside of what his advisers were telling him.
CAVUTO: I'm just wondering what the implications are of that, especially if you're at any agency and all. Let's say another decision comes up and you wonder if the president or his people are going to vet you and your thoughts on something.
It's quite common. Obviously, presidents will decide against the advice that they're given sometimes from military, medical advisers. I get that. But, oftentimes, it's never even sought out in the first place here. And that is a little different.
BAIER: Joe Biden is unique. He has 50-plus years of Washington experience, and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as vice president, and he has his own thoughts about things that have come out over the years.
One of those was that sometimes he is expressed publicly that he felt the military was dragging administrations along, including the Obama administration, and that something needed to happen firm.
It may be that we find out that President Biden decided this on his own, outside of all of the advice that he was given. We will see over time, and I think a lot of that will come out in this hearing that we will get on September 28 with chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley and others.
I just think, overall, this is not a great week. The drone strike aside, there's protecting U.S. forces. There's all kinds of things that happen in war, but it adds to this narrative, and I usually hate that word, but it is this week, a narrative that his opponents are jumping on.
CAVUTO: Yes. Yes. This was supposed to be the week of the pivot, and he pivoted into even more hot water.
Bret, thank you very much, my friend. Look forward to seeing you in about 90 minutes.
Bret Baier.
BAIER: You bet.
CAVUTO: Meanwhile, we were mentioning this French development here.
The U.S. has responded to this, saying that it regrets France's decision to recall its ambassador -- our ambassador -- its ambassador to our country, and will be engaged in coming days to resolve differences.
There are many.
We will have more after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, there are still hordes at the border, even though a lot of feds tried to make it impossible to see that. But we see that, as does Bill Melugin right now in Del Rio, Texas, where the crowds are gathering.
And these numbers look surreal, and so do the images, while we had them. Now we kind of have them back right, Bill?
BILL MELUGIN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Neil, we do. Good afternoon to you.
Just a little over an hour ago, we had a chance to go on an exclusive ride along with Texas DPS up in the air in one of their helicopters. And wow is all I can say what we saw from up there. Take a look at some of the footage right here.
What you're looking at here is that massive group of thousands of migrants crammed underneath the International Bridge right here in Del Rio. Sources telling us that number has now crept up to about 11,000 migrants.
Keep in mind, just a couple days ago, on Wednesday, it was a little over 4,000 migrants. So, that number has now almost tripled in just over 48 hours. What's going on is Border Patrol is completely overwhelmed. Their holding facilities or overcapacity.
So, when these migrants, mostly from Haiti, cross the Rio Grande illegally and arrive under that bridge, there's just nowhere for them to go at the moment because everything is overcapacity.
Take a look at this second piece of video. We were watching streams of hundreds of migrants just literally walking from the Mexican side directly into the United States. They would walk across the Rio Grande over a dam from Ciudad Acuna right into Del Rio in the United States. We're talking hundreds at a time making a long line across the river, no resistance anywhere whatsoever, not on the U.S. side, not on the Mexican side.
Once they get to shore on the U.S. side, take a look at this third piece of video. There's a dirt path they all start walking on. We saw once again, a long line of migrants, hundreds of them, walking that dirt path. Where does that dirt path lead? Right there, underneath the International Bridge.
So when Border Patrol buses some of those people out, more of them show up, and they can't keep up with the numbers right now. The mayor of Del Rio issuing a local disaster declaration. He's a Democrat, and he's sounding the alarm. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRUNO LOZANO (D), MAYOR OF DEL RIO, TEXAS: There's people having babies down there. There's people collapsing out of the heat. There's people -- I mean, there's babies in diapers.
They're getting aggressive, rightfully so. They have been in the heat day after day after day. And it's something that it's very challenging to describe in words, but it's extremely chaotic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELUGIN: And, again, we are told the majority of the migrants showing up at that bridge are from Haiti.
That country has a COVID-19 vaccination rate of less than 1 percent. The mayor of Del Rio and local law enforcement officials say their intel is that there's currently upwards of 10,000 more migrants who are on the way right now, getting ready to cross over into Del Rio.
So border agents out here need some serious help, because it sounds like there is another huge wave of people coming our way. And we saw that from the helicopter today, Neil. We will send it back to you.
CAVUTO: Yes, Bill, it looked like an army.
Thank you, my friend, Bill Melugin.
Chris Cabrera now, the National Border Patrol Council spokesman.
Well, don't say that Chris didn't warn you about this.
But what I found interesting, Chris, was first ban the drones, no more drones. They are dangerous and all of that. And, obviously, your folks were helping to try to get these images back regardless. But it's very obvious to see that there's a lot to see and a lot more to see, because it just seems to be getting more crowded and more unmanageable.
What do you think?
CHRIS CABRERA, VICE PRESIDENT, BORDER PATROL UNION: Yes that's a purely political move of banning the drones.
I'm guessing the administration just doesn't want the American public to see what's really happening. There is no danger to us by FOX News flying a drone overhead. We see drones every day, whether it's news, our drones, little kids with drones. It happens all the time. That's just nonsense.
I think where the danger is, we're just letting everyone just walk into the country. It makes no sense why we're not denying them the ability to walk across this river. I mean, if you can walk across the river, there should be some way for us to get there and then not give them access to cross.
CAVUTO: You know, even if you're on the ground, Chris, I mean, even if you were to just stand back a little bit and just hop on a ladder, I mean, you would be able to get a sense of the dimension of this.
Where are all these people going?
CABRERA: You know, that's the million-dollar question.
They come in, they claim asylum. If we even process them, sometimes, we will do prosecutorial discretion, because we don't have the manpower to deal with that. They get on a bus somewhere and they just disappear into the country. So we don't even know where they're going. We know where they tell us they are going, but they don't necessarily tell us the truth.
CAVUTO: Chris, thank you very much, for all your hard work too, Chris Cabrera, the National Border Patrol Council spokesman.
We're getting an update on this $3.5 trillion package they're working on in Washington from our Hillary Vaughn, with whom we will be speaking shortly, that the Progressive Caucus chair is pushing up to block the bill on September 27 unless the reconciliation bill passes the House and the Senate first. In a word, mess.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, just when you think it can't get any wackier in Washington, you remember that bipartisan infrastructure bill, the one that had the backing of Republicans as well?
Now it's kind of being held hostage to the infrastructure bill passing the House and the Senate first. So that would block the planned vote on that puppy on September 27.
I can't make sense of this, but I know who can, Hillary Vaughn on Capitol Hill.
Hillary, this looks like a very, very big roadblock.
HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It is Neil.
And the reason why this is significant, these are comments coming from the head of the Progressive Caucus in the House, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. She told Bloomberg News that her members and progressives in the House will vote no on the hard infrastructure bill on the 27th unless the reconciliation package passes the House and the Senate.
Two things at play here, why that's significant. Today, Leader Steny Hoyer reiterated plans to have that hard infrastructure vote on the 27th. And, additionally, that only leaves six ordinary business days in the House for them to get the reconciliation package put together, get the House, all members in the Democratic Party on board to pass it, and also get everyone on the Senate on board to pass it there, before, it seems, like progressives are willing to let this hard infrastructure package come through.
But when it comes to where the money's coming from the reconciliation front package, President Biden has not left any mystery around where he wants to get the money from. He said he wants the rich to pay their fair share, so that he can pay for this $3.5 trillion social programs spending spree.
But when you look at the math about who actually shares the majority of the tax burden, a lot of the wealthy do share a big chunk of that. Looking at IRS data from 2018, the top 1 percent paid more than 40 percent of income taxes. When you take the top 10 percent of earners, they paid more than 70 percent of the income taxes.
And when you take the top 25 percent, they paid about 87 percent of all income taxes. But this tax the rich talk is popular among progressives, who continue to try to push their party away from capitalism and towards socialist policies.
And, today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this morning that she thinks capitalism in America could use a makeover.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I can't say, in America, capitalism is our system. It is our economic system. But it has not served our economy as well as it should. And so what we want to do is not depart from that, but to improve it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUGHN: And, Neil, when it comes to the fate of this reconciliation package, we even heard from White House economic adviser Brian Deese this morning, who said the president is willing to compromise, which seems to indicate that the price tag and the pay-fors are not exactly set in stone - - Neil.
CAVUTO: Capitalism has not helped our economy? I'm thinking of the tens of millions of jobs, the private enterprises that grew up as stand-alone businesses, have not helped?
I'm at a loss, Hillary. I'm at a loss.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: Hillary Vaughn, thank you very much.
I don't know how Hillary does it day in and day out. She gets all that stuff. But the numbers don't lie. They are what they are. And that reliance on the very rich to pay for all of this, even if you took everything away from the 1 percent, taxed them at 100 percent, which to some might be a version of a fair share, you couldn't pay for this package.
But I digress.
Let's go back to the very big story and, of course, that drone strike tragedy that killed 10 civilians, including seven children.
Commander Kirk Lippold with us right now.
Commander, again, a lack of communication. Some maybe thought the timing looked desperate or what have you. It is what it is. I'm not here to Monday-morning quarterback. But it is just another reminder of our hasty retreat and what was left in its wake. What do you think?
KIRK LIPPOLD, FORMER COMMANDER, USS COLE: I agree, absolutely.
This is obviously very tragic circumstances. The fact that seven children are dead because we had General McKenzie at Central Command and General Milley as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree to surrender Kabul to the Taliban to be able to control access to the airport, where we thought we'd be able to conduct a noninterference type of evacuation, clearly did not work out.
Following the IED attack by ISIS-K, clearly, we wanted to strike back and strike back hard. Part of the tragedy that also feeds into this that I think the American people need to understand is that the results of this investigation have been known for a couple days. And you will note that they waited until a Friday afternoon to try and bury the story over the weekend before they rolled it out.
So, shame on Secretary Austin and the spokesman, John Kirby, because, quite frankly, the American people need to know this stuff up front, earlier, and when it happens, and when they know it. At this point in time, we deserve better.
CAVUTO: We don't have a lot of time, Commander.
I would be curious here. Without any troops now on the ground -- and I raised this earlier -- are we more vulnerable for this sort of thing, if we were to try a strike again or to go after any nefarious groups, certainly in Afghanistan?
LIPPOLD: Absolutely, Neil.
Any time you don't have that critical eyes on the target and have that ability on the ground to understand what's going on, to be able to talk to sources to know what the movements are around, to what may be out of the ordinary, you're going to create a window of vulnerability where you're not going to get the exact information that you may need.
The United States has been very successful in tracking down and killing terrorists around the world. Part of why we have been able to do that is that we have invested to have our people deployed forward in harm's way to be able to safeguard the United States.
We have been able to kill these people because we have had people there. The fact that we have hastily pulled them out, that is now going to create a larger and growing window where we are going to be vulnerable here in the homeland, because we don't know what's being planned, how it's being planned, when or where they're going to strike.
CAVUTO: Very sad.
Commander Kirk Lippold, thank you very, very much.
Of course, the attack on the USS Cole in October of 2000 would be a reminder of what was to come about a year later. He saw it then and warned us then.
That'll do it now.
Here's "The Five."
Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox