Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Chaos on Capitol Hill; Pinned Down in Afghanistan; Pinned Down in Afghanistan; Assange Makes bail: Wiki Founder Out of Prison; Larry King Hangs Up the Suspenders

Aired December 16, 2010 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer.

Tonight, chaos on Capitol Hill. No other word for it. More about that in a moment. But first you should know that a new poll out just today from Gallup shows the American people basically hate Congress. Only 13 percent approve of the job their elected officials are doing, an all-time low -- let me repeat that. An all-time low for Congress.

Now let's show you why America feels that way. This is the floor of the House of Representatives. What are they doing right now? Well, for the past couple of hours they have been spending your tax dollars in a debate about -- and I don't know how else to say this -- how they're going to debate.

That's right. A debate about how they're going to debate.

PARKER: They've been arguing about what rules they should follow once they actually get around to having the debate and, finally now, they have started the debate and it's about something very important. Tax cuts. Whether you should have them come January 1st.

If you're middle class or lower income, you're hoping they'll finally decide whether or not to extend the Bush era tax cuts. And if you're rich, whether you need the money or not, you're probably going to get it.

Well, we're hoping they'll get around to something tonight, voting sometime very late tonight. But judging by what we're seeing today, who the heck knows?

SPITZER: I tell you, Kathleen, it is quite a sight.

On the Senate floor right now, they're discussing what they need to do for the rest of the night. That's the only way I can think to describe it. We hope that soon they'll be getting a debate on the all-important START treaty that will finally cement a nuclear disarmament agreement with the Soviet Union.

And they're also talking about the budget. At least we hope a vote will happen sometime tonight. Late as it may be.

PARKER: But, you know, Eliot, even though this process seems silly to absurd at times --

SPITZER: Right .

PARKER: The content of what's taking place is not silly or absurd, it's serious. There are serious and tough ideological differences about --

SPITZER: Yes.

PARKER: -- important issues that affect the way we live our lives.

SPITZER: Well --

PARKER: Go ahead.

SPITZER: Absolutely. Both taxes and the START treaty, and what's really driving this in the House of Representatives is House Democrats are basically in open rebellion against the president of their own party, of course. House Democrats saying to the Democratic president --President Obama -- we do not like the deal you cut with Republicans.

Too much money for the rich. Not enough job creation. The estate tax agreement gives money to extremely wealthy families and the middle class and the poor are seeing Social Security -- they argue -- being stripped of over $100 billion needed to keep it solvent.

A very difficult ideological battle at the core of this.

PARKER: Well, and in the Senate, they're talking about essentially the budget. Do we keep the lights on in the Capitol? Do we keep the government running? This is not a small deal but I've got to say, too, it's frustrating because -- you know, there are a lot of people who were actually pretty happy that we had this bipartisan agreement on the tax deal.

I mean the Republicans and the Democrats did come together, at least the president and Mitch McConnell came together.

SPITZER: Look, let me tell you. This wasn't a bipartisan deal. This was President Obama caving to the Republicans. It was capitulation. But to come back to the budget for a minute, what is one of the more -- you know there's a lot of hypocrisy in the Senate right now.

All the Republicans who said no more earmarks, no more earmarks, $8 billion of earmarks in the budget that's being debated today. The Tea Party is staging a rebellion now against a lot of the Republican senators saying, hey, a minute. Just last week you said no more earmarks and now $8 billion worth.

So that on the Republican side, also a lot of tension.

PARKER: Well, this is a big deal for the Republicans.

SPITZER: Absolutely.

PARKER: This is the first big event where the Tea Party people are pushing -- putting -- pushing their weight around and, you know, it's actually -- I mean if you're just an observer without a stake --

SPITZER: Right.

PARKER: -- it's rather amusing to watch them sort this thing out.

SPITZER: Well, of course --

PARKER: But destructive ultimately if they don't figure it out.

SPITZER: But we all have a stake in this because what it is at stake is the START treaty. We haven't talked about that. This critically important treaty to limit the number of nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads that are pointed by the Soviet Union --

PARKER: Sure, sure, sure. Well, that's obvious.

SPITZER: No, but also, let us not lose sight of the fact that this is the first step in the presidential campaign in '12 and on to the Republican side, a lot of the folks are positioning themselves on earmarks, on the deficit.

PARKER: Oh, yes. Oh yes, yes, yes. This is --

SPITZER: And so this is --

PARKER: This is trying to out conservative each other and you know they were against the earmarks before they were for them.

SPITZER: That's right. We've heard that -- we've heard that line before. And of course, this will have a big impact on how President Obama looks as we go forward. Will he be rebuffed by his own party?

PARKER: Our headliner tonight is one of those Democrats who's vehemently against the deal, Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon. Thank you for joining us again for a second night in a row.

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: Thanks. Appreciate the opportunity.

PARKER: Yes. We've been pestering you regularly because you state your case so clearly. Now you've been leading this revolt trying to prevent the extension of tax cuts to everyone.

Do you have any chance of succeeding?

DEFAZIO: Well, today they had begun the process of moving the legislation forward and then they abruptly canceled or recessed the House. We've been noticed now to go back in.

A number of us met on the floor with the speaker after they figured out they didn't have the votes to push forward. And said we wanted more of an opportunity to change this bill. Not just targeting the estate tax, but looking at all the high income tax cuts, getting rid of the very troublesome provision of robbing $111 billion from the Social Security trust fund.

And, you know -- and also, looking at some measures to create some real jobs so the package we have proposed would save enough money from what the president has proposed that we could make some direct investment in infrastructure investments which we know will create jobs, unlike some of these, you know, debt financed, supposedly consumer driven recovery measures with these tax cuts.

PARKER: But this delay, though, really puts in jeopardy some of the things you care deeply about. I mean, we may not have the extension of unemployment benefits, for example. I mean, why have you done this delay at this point in the day?

DEFAZIO: Well, we didn't call for the delay. They called -- the leadership called for the delay because clearly they didn't have the votes. They were going to allow one very small amendment targeted on at the provision -- providing tax relief to estates over $10 million.

And a number of us have grown more and more concerned the more we investigate and think about the implications of the Social Security -- you know, reduction in income to Social Security. In fact I had one very conservative Republican call me, heard me speak today on this issue, and he said, you know, I share those concerns.

He said, you know, we can't -- he said, on our side it's a mantra that temporary tax -- cuts are not temporary and they can never go back up. He said if we reduce the income to Social Security, he says we will never get that back and that's the trap we think that is being laid for the president by those who want to privatize and further undermine Social Security. So concern is really growing in the caucus around that issue.

SPITZER: You know, Congressman, I not only agree with your substantive positions on all these issues but it seems to me that what is being reflected right now is the White House misjudged the degree of opposition to the compromise that it has proposed and consequently on the other side misjudged the degree of strength it would have had if it had taken a harder line with the Republicans earlier on in negotiating this package.

Am I right about that?

DEFAZIO: Absolutely correct. I mean, come on. You're an experienced litigator and negotiator.

SPITZER: Thank you.

DEFAZIO: And you know how this -- you know how this works. I mean, basically, the White House telegraphed they could have everything they want before they entered into the negotiations. I mean, what kind of negotiation is that?

This was not a tough negotiation. And we didn't -- you know, we're saying is, this is at the highest cost with the least benefit compared to other packages that could be put forward. We believe there's lower cost, higher benefit packages for those who are unemployed, for those who's seeking work, for those who really want to rebuild this economy, than what's come out of the White House and Mitch McConnell. This was written by Mitch McConnell and then, you know, the big concession is, well, we get an extension of unemployment benefits. I believe, just like they did in September, the Republicans in the Senate would give in and at least temporarily extend unemployment benefits.

They would not be so cruel to cut them off before Christmas if we just put that simple measure forward.

SPITZER: I agree with you. And, you know, in every negotiation you pretend you have a partner outside the room who's weighing in on your side. In this case, the White House really did have a partner outside the room. That was the Democrats in the House and the Senate, as well.

But they didn't use you. They didn't point to you and say, look at all these rubble, rousing crazies out there who are forcing us to say no to you, the Republicans, and therefore we can't agree. Instead they just caved and I think what you're highlighting here -- not only are your right substantively, you're highlighting their failure to negotiate with anything close to the care and wisdom they could have.

DEFAZIO: Right. And then we gave them a second chance last week. I mean, unprecedented that the Democratic caucus took a near unanimous position against a -- you know, a major initiative by a Democratic president, and you know we opened the door for them to go back to the table.

Opened the door for our leadership to go downtown and none of that happened and until today they were steaming ahead with this one limited amendment and now we're not quite sure what's up.

PARKER: Well, Congressman, the president obviously took a big risk, a big gamble with this. And so far it's not going very well for him. How do you think this is going to affect him in the presidential campaign coming up in a couple of years?

DEFAZIO: I think we help him tremendously if we kill some of the worst provisions of this bill. What is he going to do a year from today just like the conversation I have with the conservative Republic on the other side.

When the Republicans say you're increasing taxes on every worker American restoring the Social Security tax and by putting the money that's necessary into the Social Security trust fund to pay future benefits? You know, how's he going to -- what's he going to do? Is he going to raise taxes at that point? The -- his recent record shows no.

At the same time, then that means borrowing another $110 billion to back fill Social Security or maybe at that point the Republicans will say, hey, we are not subsidizing Social Security anymore. We're just going to have to cut it.

PARKER: Congressman, you said something --

SPITZER: Congressman Peter DeFazio, thank you for being with us. We showed you a few moments ago Harry Reid on the Senate floor.

Breaking news right now. A dramatic moment in the U.S. Senate. Majority leader Harry Reid has pulled the $1.2 trillion spending bill from the floor. That bill included more than $8 billion in earmarks and the senator is now saying that Republicans who said they would vote for the so-called omnibus bill are now telling him they would have to vote against it.

The move avoids a threat by GOP senator Jim DeMint to force them to read the entire spending bill which could have taken up to 60 hours. Reid says he and Republicans will work instead on a short-term continuum resolution to keep the government funded at current levels without any changes.

We'll be back in just a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER GALBRAITH, FORMER U.S. DIPLOMAT: Local power brokers operate in a predatory way in the Pashtun areas from the top to the policeman on the ground.

ANDREW EXUM, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY: That's a gross generalization.

GALBRAITH: They are ripping off the population.

EXUM: That's a series of gross generalization about not just Afghan people but also the government of Afghanistan.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Today as he announced his administration's annual review over Afghanistan war effort, President Obama restated his goals.

Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: From the start, I've been very clear about our core goal. It's not to defeat every last threat to the security of Afghanistan because, ultimately, it is Afghans who must secure their country. And it's not nation building because it is Afghans who must build their nation. Rather, we are focused on disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: But here's the problem. Al Qaeda really isn't in Afghanistan anymore. They're in Pakistan, at least according to CIA Chief Leon Panetta.

Let's listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEON PANETTA, CIA CHIEF: I think the -- you know, the estimate on the number of al Qaeda is actually relatively small. I think at most we're looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less. It's in that vicinity. There's no question that the main location of al Qaeda is in tribal areas of Pakistan.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: So our troops are in Afghanistan. But al Qaeda isn't. They're in Pakistan. But our troops aren't even allowed into Pakistan because the Pakistanis, supposedly our allies, don't want us there.

As long as extremists have a safe haven in Pakistan, we can never really meet the president's goals which bringing us to a critical question. Why are we even there?

PARKER: Joining us tonight in "The Arena" are two people with strong thoughts on this question. We have Peter Galbraith, who is a foreign policy expert and former U.S. diplomat. Excuse me.

In 2009 Galbraith served as the United Nations deputy special representative for Afghanistan where he helped uncover massive fraud in the country's presidential elections.

Andrew Exum served as U.S. Army captain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and worked with General Stanley McChrystal as a civilian adviser in Afghanistan. Exum is now a fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Peter, Andrew, welcome.

GALBRAITH: Thank you.

EXUM: Good to be with you.

PARKER: Peter, so the question is, why are we in Afghanistan? We know that al Qaeda and affiliates are growing stronger in other places, in Yemen and northern Africa and certainly in Pakistan. So why do we have a quarter of our military in Afghanistan?

GALBRAITH: Well, obviously, if our goal is to combat al Qaeda, it makes no sense to have 100,000 troops to be spending $117 billion as is projected in the next fiscal year to fight what the CIA director says between 50 and 100 fighters.

So our reasons for being there are, in fact, something different. They are to defeat the Taliban insurgency. We are engaged in a counter insurgency strategy. The difficulty with that strategy is that it requires a credible Afghan partner.

And the government of Afghanistan is, from top to bottom, corrupt, ineffective and now as a result of fraudulent elections illegitimate.

SPITZER: Andrew, let me bring you in. It was fascinating in the public part of the document that the White House released today, the name Karzai did not appear at all. So Andrew, you are a proponent of having -- I think I'm correct about 30,000 troops, almost in perpetuity, in Afghanistan. Can it work without -- as Peter said -- a credible partner?

Nobody thinks Karzai is credible. The White House didn't even want to mention his name today. So explain your strategy and how you think it might take us forward.

EXUM: Well, there may be a couple of different reasons why the White House didn't mention the name of Hamid Karzai. One of the reasons being that his term is going to be up in 2014 when we expect to have fully transitioned over to Afghan sovereignty.

Let me just take all the objections that Ambassador Galbraith, whom I have much respect, that he raised and I think there's a lot to be said for it. We do have an Afghanistan government that has a crisis over legitimacy. It shouldn't surprise us that they're facing a persistent insurgency.

But legitimacy is a relative concept and the Taliban aren't very popular either. I think what we're trying to do in Afghanistan is we're trying to transition from a very resource intensive counterinsurgency campaign, create time and space to build up certain key institutions within the Afghan state, specifically the security forces, and get us down to a much more manageable troop deployment in Afghanistan and a more limited counter terror mission.

Because I think when we hear the president's goals to defeat al Qaeda, we see that we've got a bit of a resource mismatch.

SPITZER: Peter, I hear you say that we're -- the real enemy is the Taliban. I hear Andrew saying that the two are really sort of merging at some level. Can we beat the Taliban without getting involved in nation building, which is something the president has said today specifically we were not going to do? And how do you begin to measure success? What are the metrics that this becomes an unlimited pool of resources that we send over there?

GALBRAITH: Well, to be clear, I don't think we should be in the business of defeating the Taliban because I don't think we can do that. In order to do that, we need to have a full-out counterinsurgency strategy, we need to engage in nation building, and we need to have an Afghan partner.

We don't have an Afghan partner. And the rest of it is horrendously expensive. We -- 100,000 troops, $117 billion. You have to say, is this the most important national security priority for the U.S.? What about Iran? What about North Korea?

The cost is not proportionate to what it is that we might gain and we have very little chance of success.

PARKER: Is it possible to say we're seriously going to take out al Qaeda if we can't go into Pakistan ourselves and move freely?

GALBRAITH: Well, let's say if al Qaeda is our top priority, then that's another way in which Afghanistan is the wrong war. Fifty or 100 there, the leaders in the tribal areas of Pakistan. There are also many more in Yemen and Somalia, probably in Europe.

So our priority is wrong. Now I'm not saying that we should go into Pakistan. There are a lot of issues that relate to that. It's a very large country with nuclear weapons. You know, in the end we have to work with the Pakistani government.

And here the Obama administration has made progress. The trouble in Pakistan is there isn't one government. There's the elected government. It's in office. Not in power. The people who really run the country are the military and we -- you know they have been playing a double game for decades and we're making some progress with them but there's a long way to go.

SPITZER: Look. If al Qaeda is the enemy and al Qaeda really is in Pakistan, Peter, you're saying, intimating there has been some success. As an outside observer, I haven't had access to any of the classified information.

What can you tell us, to give us comfort that in the fact we are making progress in Pakistan? Because there does seem to be a game of smoke and mirror, duplicity and outright laws.

GALBRAITH: Yes. But Pakistan is important not because of Afghanistan, but because it is itself an extremely important country -- 180 million people, 60 nuclear weapons, and a place where the population and government are against extremists but where extremists have a lot of influence.

There is a civilian government that's so much better than the dictatorship that existed. It is a very pro-American government and it is slowly beginning to exercise some authority in the country.

SPITZER: Wait a minute.

GALBRAITH: Those are good steps.

SPITZER: Wait a minute. But wait a minute. Now I'm completely confused. We start off fighting the al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Then it was al Qaeda in Pakistan. Now it's not even al Qaeda in Pakistan. It's to preserve the Pakistani government and that's why we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan?

GALBRAITH: We don't want --

SPITZER: This is worse than a real --

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: What are we doing here?

GALBRAITH: Look. You have to step back and say what are our overriding interests? Our overriding interest in that part of the world is in a stable Pakistan.

SPITZER: Correct.

GALBRAITH: That is country again with nuclear weapons, 180 million people, and this is my point. Our priorities are misplaced.

SPITZER: Right. I agree.

GALBRAITH: Look -- Andrew talks about Afghanistan. Trying to build Afghan institutions. Well, the WikiLeaks revealed that is the assessment of the U.S. embassy, one incidentally I share, that only -- that one out of the 20-plus Cabinet ministers in Afghanistan is honest.

You know, the administration -- they privately refer to Afghanistan's government as a criminal syndicate from top to bottom. It's not capable of being reformed.

PARKER: So let me just clarify. Andrew wants to leave 30,000 troops and focus our efforts mostly on strategic special forces strikes. You're saying get out now?

GALBRAITH: No. I would keep 15,000, 20,000. But I think the difference is that Andrew would continue the counterinsurgency strategy for a period of time, continue with the 100,000 troops, $117 billion and, frankly, that is a waste of resources.

And to my view, it's even immoral because you're committing men and women to a mission which you know cannot succeed because you have said it requires a credible partner and you know there isn't such a partner.

SPITZER: Andrew, is that -- is that right from your point of view?

EXUM: No. Ii mean, first off, let's leave out the moral judgments here. I mean, I think if -- you know, I can make out a similar argument that if we were to have a rapid transition to just 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, that would have tremendous moral consequences for the Afghan people.

So, I mean, let's leave that out. I think we broadly agree on U.S. interests. We broadly agree where we're going to go to. I think that the transition has to be conditions based. It has to take place in a responsible manner.

I very much respect Ambassador Galbraith but it's interesting that he is on the one hand expressing a degree of optimism about our relations with the Pakistani government and a degree of pessimism about our -- about our relations with the Afghan government.

Last I checked there is -- there's quite a lot of corruption in Pakistan, as well. You're not going to find a perfect partner in this part of the world. You're not going to find a perfect partner in Washington, D.C., for that matter, but having said that, I think that what we have to do is have a responsible transition in Afghanistan, away from a resource intensive counterinsurgency operations to build up certain key institutions than the Afghan state, that's eventually going to leave us with the type of counter terror capabilities that we can use to target al Qaeda.

But let's leave the moral judgments out because, quite frankly, there are a lot of hard moral choices that everybody from the president on down to your platoon leaders on the ground in (INAUDIBLE) River Valley make every day. There -- it's a lot of competing goods and competing dangers.

GALBRAITH: Let's look at this. We have a vision. And our strategy is based on the idea that there are two sides in Afghanistan. There is the government and the Taliban. And the government is kind of imperfect but it's fighting the Taliban.

But in reality, they collaborate. There's not two sides. There -- among the Pashtuns in the government, they have relatives in the Taliban. They do business deals with each other. In fact, they have a shared interest in extracting as much money from us as possible.

SPITZER: They're doing a good job at that.

EXUM: But --

GALBRAITH: And they're doing -- and that's why this is really is a mafia state.

SPITZER: Andrew, but I got to ask you this question.

EXUM: Yes .

SPITZER: Andrew, you say that you want to handle the transition when we have built up sufficient institutional foundation for us to sort of give the Afghan government the responsibility we're now shouldering.

EXUM: Yes.

SPITZER: How do you measure that? I mean I keep -- I hate to use the word metrics. It sounds so false, but what are they? I mean everything you read speaks to the corruption that is as deep as Peter describes, the instability of every institutions, the inability to have any sort of democracy of any form.

How do you ever get to the point where you say, yes, we in fact have a stable society?

EXUM: Yes, I mean --

SPITZER: And therefore we can step back.

EXUM: I don't think we're pushing for again Switzerland and Central Asia. But I also think that Peter is dangerously simplifying I think the understanding of leaders on the ground about the environment they're operating.

We know that it's not a binary conflict and we know that there are contacts between the leaders in the Taliban and members of the Afghan government. I mean, I think that's understood. What we're trying to do is build up certain key security forces to where Afghanistan is not going to be a safe -- we're not going to see a return to the safe havens in pre-September 11th. We can't do that overnight.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: But Andrew -- Andrew, look.

EXUM: And you talked about -- hold on one minute -- one minute, Eliot. You talked about metrics. I think what we're trying to do, and this is -- this is a case where I would fault the administration and fault the NATO command.

I don't think we've spent enough time and effort training the Afghan national security forces in the way that we should have. We really only got serious about it a year ago. We have a tremendous shortfall in key trainers for the NATO training command in Afghanistan.

And when we start measuring things, we shouldn't just look at the number of troops that are trained. We should look at the effectiveness of Afghan army and police units.

PARKER: We'll be right back with Ambassador Peter Galbraith and Andrew Exum in Washington.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: We're back with Ambassador Galbraith and Andrew Exum in Washington.

SPITZER: One of the things I've never quite understood is this notion that we have to teach the Afghan people how to fight. It seems to me that the history of the past couple of thousand years suggest they know how to fight when they want to.

You ask the Russian -- certainly, the Afghan army knows how to fight.

ANDREW EXUM, FMR. ADVISER TO GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Yes.

SPITZER: This notion that we need to teach them to fight and that's what's holding us back just seems crazy to me. It seems to me we have lost the hearts and minds of the general public there, or else they would be fighting with us. Am I wrong about that?

EXUM: Yes, I think you are wrong, actually. I mean, you're talking about 30,000 Taliban. You're talking about a much larger Afghan national security force. For example, I mean, the Taliban has been bludgeoned over the past six months. The difficult thing is they'll come back if we don't have progress on the sanctuaries in Pakistan and as Peter has pointed out, if we are not able to create some sort of effective governance at the local level. The problem is that we created a highly centralized Afghan state in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Taliban. That highly centralized Afghan state is not conducive to effective governance of Afghanistan. Bu I think what we're going to be able to do over the next six months, we have an opportunity to build up certain resilient institutions that are going to allow us to transfer, again, to a much less resource intensive operation. I mean, I think that's -- Peter and I agree about the in- state where we're trying to go. I would caution against trying to do that overnight. You're not going to be able to get 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops out of Afghanistan overnight. It's going to take time. And that if you want chaos, if you want to return to the safe havens, then by all means go with a rapid transition.

The only difference between what Peter and I are saying is that I think it's a process that has to take place over 36 months not six months, and that's a process that's been ratified by not just the U.S. government but also our NATO allies and the Afghanistan government or the government of Afghanistan at the Lisbon accords.

SPITZER: Peter.

PETER GALBRAITH, FMR. U.S. DIPLOMAT: The proof is in the pudding. There are 30,000 Taliban. They operate on a budget we estimate between $50 million and $200 million. And each and every year, they have been making progress against a NATO force, the best troops in the world, of 140,000 troops -- 100,000 from the U.S. plus several 100,000 Afghans. There's something wrong at a cost of $120 billion. There's something wrong with that picture. And what is wrong is that the -- is that the -- our side, the government's side, local power brokers, operate in a predatory way in the Pashtun areas from the top to the policemen on the ground. They're ripping off the population.

EXUM: That's just a generalization.

GALBRAITH: And the -- we can train them to fight. We can train them on how to do policing. We can't train them to be honest and we can't train them to be loyal to the government. Everybody's making their deals and they have their connections with the Taliban. That's why it doesn't work.

EXUM: I think that's -- first of all, that's a series of gross generalizations about not just the Afghan people but also the government of Afghanistan. I'm not trying to defend local power brokers, especially not in, you know, Kandahar like Ahmed Wali Karzai or any of the --

GALBRAITH: The president's brother.

EXUM: Exactly. Or any of the big power brokers in Kabul. But you are seeing effective local governance take place in Kandahar province.

GALBRAITH: Where?

EXUM: In Kandahar City itself.

GALBRAITH: The governor of Kandahar? The Canadian?

EXUM: Excuse me. You're starting to see, for instance, in Kandahar a municipal government making connections with local tribal, you know, with the (INAUDIBLE) with the local tribal structures. That's positive. I would encourage Ambassador Galbraith to actually go back to Afghanistan. I just got back on Tuesday. Go back to Kandahar. Go to Kandahar and go to Helmand. There are -- there is progress that's being made. You are seeing government established. You are seeing effective local security forces, and you are seeing a change in the security dynamics. Go back to Afghanistan.

The key is that has to survive the cyclical nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. It is too soon to say, well, that's been successful in a strategic way or whether it's been unsuccessful. You're going to have to wait until after the summer, after the fighting season. We'll know whether or not we've been successful in the long term in Helmand and in Kandahar. But, you know, I just caution Ambassador Galbraith about making these generalizations about everyone in the Afghan government or all Afghans being corrupt. I mean, that's bigot.

SPITZER: And will give you, Peter, one short rebuttal and then time runs.

GALBRAITH: Well, first, I would love to go back to Afghanistan but I can't because Hamid Karzai said -- issued an order to arrest me if I go back. Why? Because he accused me of organizing the fraud that got him re-elected in April, which shows you a bit how weird he is. And that's our partner. I mean, he steals the election and then he blames the U.N. for having conducted the fraud.

PARKER: Well, and he also said, he told General David Petraeus that he considers the U.S. and the Taliban to be his enemies but given a choice he would side with the Taliban.

GALBRAITH: The Taliban. I mean --

PARKER: How do we win?

GALBRAITH: This is the nature of the problem and the question comes back to is this worth the kind of effort we're making? Do we have other priorities in the world? Do we have the better use for $117 billion? And what about those lives that are at risk?

PARKER: All right, Peter Galbraith, Andrew Exum, thank you both so much for joining us.

EXUM: Sure thing.

SPITZER: Thank you, guys. Thank you.

Later on PARKER SPITZER, a tribute to CNN's Larry King on his last night doing a live program on this network. You won't want to miss it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN ASSANGE: It's great to smell the fresh air of London again. If justice is not always an outcome, at least it is not dead yet.

During my time in solitary confinement, in the bottom of a Victorian prison, I had time to reflect.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Tonight, our "Person of Interest," Julian Assange. After nine days in a London prison, the founder of WikiLeaks was freed on bail of 240,000 pounds. It was quite a show. Accused by our country and others of releasing top secret documents, wanted by a Swedish court on rape charges, Assange was greeted by his cheering supporters.

PARKER: Some were cheering, but some weren't. Assange still faces a hearing in January on his extradition to Sweden. Meantime, he has to wear an electronic monitoring device and he has a curfew while his under house arrest. But for the first time since his imprisonment, Julian Assange spoke for himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS FOUNDER: It's great to smell the fresh air of London again. If justice is not always an outcome, at least it is not dead yet.

During my time in solitary confinement, in a bottom of a Victorian prison, I had time to reflect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Well, bless his heart. Take a look at where he's going to be kept under house arrest or as his lawyer calls it, under mansion arrest. It's called Ellingham Hall. It's a 10-bedroom country estate outside London owned by Vaughan Smith, a free speech advocate and former captain in the Grenadier Guard. The place features a grand dining room and a wine cellar with only the good stuff.

SPITZER: It's quite a nice little house. But here's the thing I don't get. He's going to be under house arrest with the ankle bracelet, the whole thing. But does he have wireless Internet access. It seems to me where he is matters a lot less than what he's doing online. So the guy may have the most sophisticated Internet set-up in the world.

PARKER: That's a good question.

SPITZER: He could still be perpetrating the crimes he's alleged to have committed.

PARKER: Well, I agree that the jury is still out and we don't know exactly what the long-term consequences of this will be, but I'm not sure it's even an either/or. You know, is it either a hero or a villain? Sometimes, you can be both. And he's clearly an absolutist. And you know, though I've been a journalist over 30 years and I'm completely for open government transparency, you can also go too far. And I think in this case, you know, that may be the case. And certainly diplomats have the right to feel that they can have a confidential conversation and conduct business on behalf of our country without it being exposed. SPITZER: Look, it is easy to state the absolutes on either side, either the absolute capacity for governments to have secrets because it needs to be able to conduct diplomacy, or the absolute position on the First Amendment, the right to publish. It is in that grayer area where you know there are some secrets that must be maintained but the need to disclose when government is doing things that are fundamentally wrong, which is what Ellsberg did and that's why we applaud him and other examples through history. Where this will fall in the larger ark of history, we don't know yet. But certainly right now we are learning a lot. It is a fascinating controversy day by day.

PARKER: Well said. Good summary, Eliot.

All right. Well, when we come back, how do you say goodbye to a legend? We're going to do our best to try. Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN POLLAK, COMEDIAN: I mean, of the topic of the Tea Party organization, at Thanksgiving, I like to soak in the gravy boats before the guests arrive. Schenectady, hello.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: In just a few minutes, Larry King will begin his final live broadcast. Actor and comedian Kevin Pollak has been a guest on Larry's show and is famous for his Larry King impersonations. Kevin debuts next week as host of "Million Dollar Money Drop" on FOX and he joins us tonight to help celebrate Larry's extraordinary run on CNN.

Welcome, Kevin.

KEVIN POLLAK, COMEDIAN: Thanks, very nice to be here.

SPITZER: You know, Kevin, you have been on Larry's show and you've watched his brilliance, his wisdom over the years. Is he the greatest interviewer ever?

POLLACK: Are you OK?

(LAUGHTER)

No.

SPITZER: Just giving you the set-up here. You're the comedian. I thought you'd run with that one.

POLLAK: That would be a falsehood, sir. Not the greatest but perhaps one of the most memorable without question.

PARKER: Well, certainly one of the most popular. Now you have a story about, you know, a prank calling in to Larry's show. Can you tell us about that? POLLAK: Well, yes. Your producers apparently saw this little clip from my one-hour stand-up comedy special recently, "The Littlest Suspect" now available at amazon.com just in time for Christmas. I did call in Larry's show once when he was interviewing a hero and a former co-star of mine, Alan Arkin, the great actor, won an Academy Award in "Little Miss Sunshine" a couple of years ago. Incredible career. So I'm flipping through the dialogue and I see Larry interviewing Alan. I stop what I'm doing because I had done Larry's show, as you mentioned, and I had the hotline number. SO I called in and told the producers not to tell Larry around that it was me but rather when Larry goes to open phones, just tell him it's Los Angeles. So Larry says, we go to Los Angeles, hello. And it's me, Larry? Larry, it's Alan Arkin. What the hell is going on here? Who is this guy? Arkin is bent over the counter in hysterics. Can't believe I had the nerve to do this.

Meanwhile, Larry is in a panic, right? Chicago, hello? Still me, Larry. St. Louis. And then, finally -- and then finally, Alan Arkin looked into the camera and said, "Kevin, I'd like my soul back."

PARKER: That's good.

SPITZER: Yes, must be fun to get a host on TV and throw them off their stride with a phone call like that. And you have a game, a Larry King game that you play with the guests on your show. What is it?

POLLAK: Yes. Every Sunday afternoon, people can tune in Kevin Pollak's chat show on the inter webs and I have to give credit to my girlfriend Jamie who came up with "The Larry King Game." And now I have all my guests play the game, be in Jon Hamm, Matthew Perry, Paul Rudd. Oh, the list is endless. Andy Richter will be on this Sunday, actually. I forced them to play "The Larry King Game."

The rules are very simple. You must do a bad Larry King impression as I gave an example of. It takes all the pressure of having to do a good one. And then we want you to act out that moment of Larry sharing something on the air that no one needs to know. And then you go to the phones with the name of the city is funny sounding, it's helpful. All right.

PARKER: All right. Give us an example.

POLLAK: I'll give you an example. Of the topic of the Tea Party organization, at Thanksgiving, I like to soak in the gravy boats before the guests arrive. Schenectady, hello.

SPITZER: Not a pretty picture. Not a pretty picture. What is it? You know, what is it about his interviewing that made everybody want to be on his show and made everybody want to watch him?

POLLAK: Well, first of all, you've got someone who's genuinely curious. The way he make that is clear is by making everyone aware that he's done no research whatsoever. God bless him. That's one of my favorite things. No research. Just brings genuine curiosity to the interview. And you can poke fun at that. But the truth of the matter is you have someone who absolutely is riveted on every work that comes from the guest. And, you know, he got famous over the years for serving up some softballs but it wasn't his bailiwick to cut too deep as it where, and rather have the show be entertaining. You can't knock him so much for that.

PARKER: Well, that's how real life is. That's how real conversations go. You know, you don't have --

POLLAK: Yes.

PARKER: When you have people over for dinner, you don't do research on them beforehand. Well, Eliot probably does. But you and I don't. So, you know, that was good for Larry to do it that way, I think.

All right.

POLLAK: Yes.

PARKER: So we're just a few minutes away from the very last show. Do you have anything to say to Larry before he signs off?

POLLAK: I would like to offer my goodbye to Lawrence in the guise of Christopher Walken, one of the all-time great guests on Larry's show.

Hi, Larry. How are you? God bless. Hell of a career. And we see you into this great good night with the congratulations and our deepest respect. Wow.

PARKER: Very good.

SPITZER: Kevin Pollak, thank you so much for being here.

Up next, she's Larry King's favorite guest host. Joy Behar joins us as we toss to Larry one last time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOY BEHAR, HOST, "THE JOY BEHAR SHOW": Larry is very funny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes.

BEHAR: I think that he has a next career is going to be as a stand-up comedian. In fact, he said it. He's very, very funny as you saw in that clip.

PARKER: Yes.

BEHAR: Of course, I brought it out in him.

PARKER: I think that's right.

BEHAR: I made you, Larry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: In just a few minutes, Larry King will begin his final live show. It's the end of a remarkable 25-year run.

SPITZER: You note that Kathleen and I are wearing suspenders in honor of Larry's signature look. I actually feel more like Larry in these. Kind of fun. But first, let me introduce a special guest. We've asked Joy Behar, host of her own show on our sister network HLN and frequent guest host for Larry to join us in a tribute to the "king." She and Larry have a wonderful, long relationship.

JOY BEHAR, HOST, "THE JOY BEHAR SHOW": Yes. I'm his tenth wife.

(LAUGHTER)

PARKER: Well, Joy, thank you so much for joining us, which we realize you're doing for Larry -- for Larry and not for us.

So we want to start with this clip of when Larry was on your show.

BEHAR: Oh, OK.

PARKER: Let's a look.

BEHAR: All right.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BEHAR: Larry, mi casa es su casa.

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": I made this for you.

BEHAR: You did.

KING: We made you, I made you. Never forget it.

BEHAR: I know that.

KING: I anointed you.

BEHAR: I know.

KING: I remember the first time we booked you on.

BEHAR: Yes.

KING: Joy Behar from "The View."

BEHAR: Yes.

KING: We'll ask her questions and you tried to dominate.

BEHAR: I did not.

KING: And it was a plan. You had a plan.

BEHAR: The whip was a giveaway, I'll say.

KING: You had a plan. And I'll tell you what the plan was. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the plan?

KING: I'm going to get my own show. Either this guy is going to fall over, I'll get his show.

(LAUGHTER)

If I don't get his show, I'll get over on the other side.

BEHAR: And it worked.

KING: Yes. I'll go to Helen.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BEHAR: I bet you didn't know he had a dominatrix fantasy. You didn't know that.

PARKER: And you didn't know that you were the star of it. I think he's funny.

SPITZER: And you wait until tonight to bring it out in public?

BEHAR: Yes.

PARKER: Did he make you?

BEHAR: Make me what?

PARKER: That's what he said, he made you.

BEHAR: Oh, did he make me. I made you.

Well, he did in a certain way. Barbara Walters, I have to give her credit and then Larry, yes. Because I was on show quite a bit as sitting in for him and he said, you know, let her keep doing it and then the powers that be looked at me and said, she's a natural.

PARKER: But you got your own show and your own suspenders.

BEHAR: Yes. Well, I will wear them as a homage to Larry as you are.

SPITZER: Do you have his interviewing style. I mean, he is -- as everybody says, he just kind of opens it up and says talk to me. And it works with him. That's not your style.

BEHAR: Yes. Eliot, when's on your mind?

SPITZER: That's good. I'm not going to tell you.

BEHAR: But he has his own style which is let -- this is how I see it. Let them hang themselves. He puts Ahmadinejad on and Ahmadinejad shows you without being interrupted what a jerk he is. See what I mean?

SPITZER: Yes. BEHAR: Well, Larry -- I'm more confrontational with people and like you.

SPITZER: Well, what do you mean like me? I take that personally. Where are you from?

BEHAR: It was meant personally.

SPITZER: With men I would get? Where are you from? Is that why?

BEHAR: Yes, I'm from Brooklyn, New York.

SPITZER: That explains it.

BEHAR: Why? You got a problem with it?

SPITZER: I'm from the Bronx. The Yankees, we're going to be like this.

PARKER: You know, I would love to see you two on a show because you both like to talk a lot. Some talk show host like to talk and hear themselves out and some like to post a question and listen. I would say Larry and I are in the listening category and you too are in the yak --

SPITZER: Listening isn't part of it. I didn't know that was part of it.

BEHAR: Are you saying we talk to hear ourselves talk? Is that what I heard you saying?

PARKER: Did I say that, Joy. I don't know.

BEHAR: You know, you did. It slipped out, Kathleen.

SPITZER: It's not a listening show. It's called a talk show. That's what they asked me to do.

BEHAR: Where are you from?

PARKER: I grew up in Florida.

BEHAR: Oh, whatever.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: That's part of New York, right? Florida's OK.

PARKER: Yes, on a subdivision of New York known as Florida.

SPITZER: But Larry actually makes a big thing out of his New York heritage. I mean, he's always saying I'm a New York Jewish.

BEHAR: Yes.

SPITZER: Came from Brooklyn. He's kind of used that to sort of -- he seems to diminish himself that way. He wants to create but he doesn't, of course. I mean, he's really saying I'm common sense. I understand.

BEHAR: That's a trick when people say, hey, I'm just a good old boy from Brooklyn.

SPITZER: Right.

BEHAR: They're bragging.

SPITZER: Right.

BEHAR: Yes.

SPITZER: But we say that about the Bronx, too.

BEHAR: I'm from the Bronx. You know, the Bronx.

SPITZER: Right.

BEHAR: The Bronx zoo, yes.

SPITZER: I was right.

BEHAR: That's redundant.

SPITZER: Oh, now you're hurting me.

BEHAR: Kidding.

SPITZER: Anyway --

BEHAR: I taught in the Bronx. OK? I've got a friend in Bronx.

SPITZER: That's where you live. But it's kind of like somebody saying I'm a country lawyer. You know they're pretending to be small but, you know, be careful.

BEHAR: Yes.

SPITZER: This guy really knows how to get down. That's what you do.

BEHAR: But Larry is very funny.

SPITZER: Oh, yes.

BEHAR: I think that his next career is going to be as a stand-up comedian. In fact he said it, he's very, very funny as you saw in that clip.

PARKER: Yes.

BEHAR: Of course, I brought it out in him.

PARKER: I think that's right.

BEHAR: I made you, Larry.

SPITZER: Do you --

PARKER: Go together.

BEHAR: But he and I, we could go on the road together. I know, we could do that, actually.

SPITZER: Does he come back as a comedian? I mean, he has that -- he would walk on a stage and everybody would just want to listen and laugh. When he laughs, you laugh.

BEHAR: I think so.

SPITZER: He has a remarkable magnetism.

BEHAR: I think he could definitely have another career as a speaker. You know, you have speaking engagements, big theaters, people come and they want to hear stories. He's got a million stories.

PARKER: Yes.

BEHAR: And he'll be great on the road.

PARKER: Great stand-up dinner guest, right? Just to tell you everything about everybody.

BEHAR: Yes.

PARKER: Why did everybody want to be on his show?

BEHAR: Because he lets you talk. Like you said before, he gives you a lot of time. I don't know if that's going to continue that format. But that was his.

Larry is a great listener, as we said. You know, he listens. I mean, the whole thing in interviewing and acting and everything else, in marriage, sex, everything, listen. Just listen. And he really does that more than best, better than anybody I've really seen on television. He actually does listen to you.

PARKER: Joy, thanks so much for being with us.

BEHAR: Thank you.

PARKER: That's our show for tonight. Please join us tomorrow. Good night from New York.

SPITZER: And for the last time on behalf of all our colleagues here at CNN, Joy, we'd like you to do the honors.

BEHAR: OK. This is for you, Larry. "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.

I miss you, Larry, so much already.