that's it for "360." thanks for watching. "larry king" starts now. see you tomorrow night. >> larry: tonight, u.s. diplomacy exposed. embarrassing embassy cables exposed on wikileaks for the whole world to see. >> there's nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations. >> larry: president obama orders

a security review after speaking his mind. >> the president was, as an understatement, not pleased. >> larry: do the leaks compromise national security? are lives in jeopardy? journalist bob woodward and others are here to tell us what it all means for america's standings with our allies and our enemies, next on "larry king live." >> larry: john bon jovi was scheduled to be with us tonight. we taped it earlier. it will air next week. since this weekend, the whistle-blowing website wikileaks has published hundreds of classified u.s. diplomatic messages -- the first of what the organization says is a quarter million similar documents. in addition to being published on wikileaks' website, the documents were acquired in advance by five major newspapers in europe and the u.s. cnn declined a last-minute offer to discuss advanced access to

some of the documents because of a confidentiality agreement requested by wikileaks that cnn considered unacceptable. cnn has committed to carefully and responsibly reporting on the documents already published by wikileaks and the five newspapers. focussing not only on what the leaked documents say, but what their publication means for global relations and u.s. diplomacy. joining us, daniel ellsberg. in 1971, he leaked sot-called pentagon papers, a secret study of u.s. decision making about vietnam to the media. he's the focus of the 2009 documentaire "the most dangerous man in in america." jamie rubin was chief spokesperson for the state

department aduring the clinton administration. he's now adjunct professor at columbia school of international public affairs. and finally, michael hastings, contributing editor of "rolling stones." his article, "runaway general" led to the ousting of general stanley mcchrystal. and he's the author of "i lost my love in baghdad -- a modern war story." okay, daniel, what do you make of all of this? should this have been published? should we know what things in the diplomatic area are being said by one official to another? is that our right to know? >> well, nothing in those documents, embarrassing as they are to some people and their kind of snarky comments, nothing remotely compared to what michael hastings published, what he overheard in general mcchrystal's headquarters, and i thought properly published. it really threw into question civilian control of the military, and i think president obama made the right decision when he acted on michael hastings' reporting. in other words, presidents can

learn things from reporting that they don't know through channels. >> larry: knowing how you released things, what should not be reported? >> all kind of things. mostly things above the classification of this. communication intelligence, the names of covert agents. for instance, valley plame's name should not have been revealed by scooter lib bior karl rove or dick cheney. that was irresponsible. in fact, i don't think i ever had a colleague that would have done that. she was doing important secret work. they destroyed her career. >> larry: james rubin what do you make of this? >> i think there's no question that all of these documents are a compelling read for those of us interested in foreign affairs. they are kinds of documents i haven't seen now for several years. i've enjoyed reading them. i've learned some details, but i think what i make of it overall is that somehow an organization that was originally intending

perhaps to effect the debate in this country affect the iraq war, say, or the war in afghanistan has somehow morphed into an anti-american organization whose very purpose appears to be to weaken the ability of state department diplomats to do their job. and the irony, larry, is that diplomats at the state department have really not many tools at their disposal. it's not the pentagon who has weapons or the treasury department that has financial wherewithal. the state department's basic tool is the trust it develops with foreign governments, diplomats in those countriecoun human rights workers in those countries, or others who are sharing information based on trust. and no matter what any of the organization's proponents will say about this or supporters, in one way or another, the trust between the united states and many foreign governments has

been weakened. it hasn't been destroyed forever, but it's been weakened. and i think there will be occasions when things that might have happened otherwise, whether that's attacking a terrorist cell in yemen or sharing the views of the king of saudi arabia, things that would have been said before may not be said. and that can hurt us for no apparent purpose. there's no policy debate. it's not like daniel ellsberg's case where the vietnam war pentagon papers showed the government lying to its people about the cause of the war or the approach of the war. all this shows is that the u.s. government is doing pretty much the same thing in private, trying to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and north korea from advancing its cause. the same thing in private as it's doing in public. >> larry: michael? >> the whole rationale has been thrown overboard. >> larry: michael, what are your thoughts? do you think wikileaks is anti-american? >> no, not at all.

i'm a fan of the state department, but this idea that the wikileaks dump is going to undermine american credibility overseas is somewhat laughable. i think we need to put this in the larger context of responsible foreign policy. and over the past decade, we've seen a war launched in iraq that was totally irresponsible, while we ignored a war in afghanistan for eight years, and now we learn in these documents that we're spying on our -- we're telling our diplomats to spy on our allies, which also seems to be somewhat irresponsible. those things taking unilaterally in the past decade has done much more for our standing with allies than wikileaks could if they published 100,000 documents every day for the next 20 years. >> larry: the obama administration is scrambling to deal with the fallout. secretary of state hillary clinton has condemned the disclosure, watch.

>> so let's be clear. this disclosure is not justice an attack on america's foreign policy interests. it is an attack on the international community, the alliances, the negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. i am confident that the partnerships that the obama administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. >> larry: daniel, doesn't she have a point? >> i think there hasn't been a secretary of state since the second world war who wouldn't have said exactly the same words about the pentagon papers. and as a matter of fact, the secretary of state then, secretary rogers and later secretary of state henry

kissinger did say almost the exact same words. that's why they saw me as the most dangerous man, i'm sure, as the most dangerous man in america. i'm sure they see julian assange as the most dangerous person in the world. >> larry: doesn't james rubin and secretary clinton have a point? does she not have a point? >> if there's really no criteria other than diplomats can lie abroad for their country without being embarrassed by it by anybody at home in a democracy, if tles. >> a monarchy or a dictatorship where there's no public responsibility for public policy at all and no real need for the public to know more about what policy lie ahead and what it is we're doinging right now, then there really wouldn't be any strong reason for the public to be informed of this sort of stuff. but actually there is. for example the notion that there's really nothing the american people should know in this or that everything is being said in public that's being said in private, quite the contrary. when the foreign minister or the deputy prime minister actually

of yemen says in a joke, i lied to parliament saying that the cruise missiles, some of which, by the way, have killed yemeni district chiefs, not all by mistake, i lied to parliament and said they were ours, not yours. and the prime minister said well, continue to say they're ours. we're lying at the same time when we go along with that. we're lying to the american public. shouldn't we know who we're shooting cruise missiles at? >> larry: i'll have your reply right after this. [ male announcer ] this is steven, a busy man. his day starts with his arthritis pain.

that's breakfast with two pills. the morning is over, it's time for two more pills. the day marches on, back to more pills. and when he's finally home... but hang on; just two aleve can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is steven, who chose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

don't want to deal with a lot of flibbity-flab or mumbo-jumbo. sounds like you need to name your price. no gobbledy-gook? never. do i still get all the dagnabbit coverage i need? sure. we give you a quote and you can adjust your price up and down to find something that works for you. ♪ this thing is okey-mcsmokey skiddly-doo. great! i think. diggity. oh! still not sure. the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. call or click today.

>> larry: we should mention that none of the diplomatic documents disclosed thus far is regarded as top secret. in fact, many aren't even classified. all right, james, how do you respond to daniel's point? >> well, i would like to say first of all that daniel ellsberg was involved in a fundamental issue of national security, a war, that many people in this country didn't believe in. some did. and he made his decision, and "the new york times" made their decision. but that was an issue of principle. that was an issue where there was a war going on and strong views on both sides.

that's not what this is. this is a case of journalists, quite understandably, finding fascinating all the details of diplomatic exchanges. but some of them, particularly mr. hastings, not having a very firm grasp of what the diplomatic community is all about. if governments and the rest of the world don't believe that when they share information with the united states government that that can be kept secret, they're not going to tell us certain things. that's simply a fact. it's not a criticism of mr. hastings to point out that in other cases where sources have been revealed or other governments have chosen to do things differently, actions, operations, policies can't be pursued. the state department is trying to solve issues peacefully most of the time. and this anti-war organization somehow got all confused in what it was doing when it got access

to all these documents, and has basically put all the diplomats who have done all this hard work, talked to human rights workers, talked to foreign governments, and wrote it all down as their job and everyone now is looking at it. that's not a good things for the united states, larry. it's a bad thing for the united states. >> i have a pretty clear idea how things go in diplomatic circles, and i've been a firsthand witness of failure of diplomacy many times over the past few years. i would like to point out that protecting the king of saudi arabia, one of the most authoritarian regimes in the middle east and sort of concocting a scheme so he can lie to his population to protect our interest, and then doing the same thing with yemen, as daniel ellsberg mentioned, to sort of cut these back room deals where these authoritarian leaders are lying to their population on our behalf is the most undemocratic thing one can imagine. and i think trying to smear wikileaks as anti-american this or that totally misses the point.

this is an organization that supports diplomacy, supports freedom and supports transparency. and when wikileaks breaks stories about china and russia and other governments, we applaud them. i think we have to hold ourselves to the same standards. i don't think that the fallout that's being claimed about the damage this is going to do is going to actually come to pass, as it hasn't in the previous two cases with iraq and afghanistan. >> larry: i don't want to gang up on james. do you want to make a quick point daniel? and then james can respond. >> yes, what is the secret that runs through a plot of this diplomatic -- and it is actually something for the public to know is how sensitive the various countries, not only yemen, but a number of countries in the middle east, how sensitive they are that we keep the secret that they're helping us, that they're working with us. why does that have to be secret? because their population is very opposed to their helping us, which puts quite a damper and a constraint on our ability to deal with the war on terror. we need their cooperation. why is their public so opposed to it?

because we're pursuing wars in iraq and afghanistan, which i have to say to jamie rubin, that i'm as outraged by as i ever was about vietnam. indeed, the iraq war was a clearly blatant case of aggression. a prime against the peace. it was outrageous that americans were involved by their leadership in that. the escalation in afghanistan is as foolish, unwise, reckless, irresponsible. michael hastings put it very well. whatever assange did or will do in the rest of his life can't compare with the recklessness and irresponsibility of these administrations. >> larry: we'll take a break and i'll have james rubin respond to all of this right after this. that i want to do completely on my own -- i like to discuss my ideas with someone. that's what i like about fidelity. they talked with me one on one, so we could come up with a plan that's right for me, and they worked with me to help me stay on track -- or sometimes, help me get on an even better one. woman: there you go, brian. thanks, guys. man: see ya.

fidelity investments. turn here. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] print from any mobile device so your ideas can be there even when you're not. introducing the new web-connected printers with eprint from hp.

>> larry: all right, mr. rubin, it's your platform. i don't want to gang up on you, but ellsberg and hastings are in agreement. it's two against one, so go. >> okay, larry. well, they do appear to be in agreement about the iraq war being a bad thing for the united states, and they may even agree on afghanistan for all i know. but that's not really the point. and i think people who are against the war in iraq and the

war in afghanistan have every right to be against the war in iraq and afghanistan. people who don't want the king of saudi arabia to lie to his people should go out and do something about it. but here in the united states, we're trying to respect the views of other governments and people from the guest, which your two guests clearly are, have long said the united states shouldn't impose our will on other countries and our culture and our attitudes. the king of saudi arabia, the president of yemen, this is their culture. this is their way they want to do business. we have to respect that. i can assure you that the u.s. government would prefer to be able to acknowledge publicly the extent of its cooperation with saudi arabia and yemen, but those governments don't want to. and so if mr. assange or dan ellsberg or mr. hastings want to go report on something happening in saudi arabia, let them do that. the united states government has to protect our own people. and one of the ways, not the

only way, but one of the ways it does that is to make arrangements with foreign governments to act against terrorists. and mr. hastings seems to have a very casual view of all of this. and he's sure based on all the things that he knows in his life that none of this will make any difference. and i'm telling you, having actually served in government, having spent eight years in the state department, but also being a pretty big advocate for freedom of the press that sometimes secrets actually matter. and to draw a broad brush and throw out 250,000 documents without reference to any specific policy you're supporting or reference to any particular goal, other than secrecy being unravelled for its own sake, seems to me to be missing the purpose of good journalism. bob woodward did good journalism. he uncovered watergate. other reporters in recent times for other newspapers have done great journalism. this is not great journalism.

this is stealing documents and putting them out on the internet. and that harms the ability of the united states government to protect its people and many other human rights workers and others around the world that presumably mr. hastings and mr. ellsberg would be supportive of who have shared their information with the u.s. and now we're reading about it. >> larry: michael? >> well, i think wikileaks so far has handled these doms responsibly. but let's talk about terrorism, which mr. rubin mentioned that i have a very casual view about. i actually don't. and the question is, is the foreign policy we're pursuing actually protecting us against terrorists? when we are cutting deals and launching drone strikes in yemen which are tremendously unpopular and creating much more anti-americanism than we would if we could find some sort of peaceful means. >> what's the peaceful means?

there isn't with these people. >> use law enforcement, you fry to arrest people, you use intelligence gathering by our 16 intelligence agencies. you don't think there's -- >> with al qaeda cells -- >> if you don't think there's peaceful means to solve some of the world's problems -- yes, do some terrorists need to be killed? certainly. i have a list myself. but at the same time, the question is, are we doing that in a way that in the end are going to harm our interests more than hurt our interests -- more than help our interests. i think so much of our policy is often shortsighted. >> well, larry, it's fine to criticize our foreign policy. this isn't about that. >> but it is. we now know that -- >> mr. hastings is a -- >> larry: one at a time. >> mr. hastings is perfectly able to go around and write his articles and criticize u.s. foreign policy. i have no problem with that.

god with with him. >> i'm glad you agree in some democratic principles. >> hold on a second. the issue is whether the u.s. government is allowed to have a private conversation with a foreign government in order to advance the interest of the american people. and by leaking all of the documents, by making a broad brush without reference to different policies that one might agree with or disagree with, one is trying to deny the u.s. government the ability to operate. when mr. hastings sits down with his editor and plans out how he's going to go after general mcchrystal, i'm sure he wouldn't want those conversations reported to the world. >> i'm happy to report those conversations to the world. >> people who do their job in journalism -- >> oh, man. >> -- in medicine, in every profession, in law. there's such thing as attorney-client privilege. >> yes. and this is a massive national security state where 3 million people had access to these documents, right?

our government is creating thousands and thousands of private conversations where our citizens are supposed to take them at their word. i don't buy that. when we have the ability to see how these policies are made, that will help -- >> larry: we have to -- >> just a second. for instance, now we know our so-called allies in the middle east are trying to get us to attack iran. i think that's a very important fact that these documents showed. >> but everyone -- >> larry: we're out of time. >> secrecy matters sometimes, larry. >> larry: bob woodward will be next. we'll have you back, daniel. got a little carried away. bob woodward is next. out of the very best america had to offer. ingenuity. integrity. optimism. and a belief that the finest things are the most thoughtfully made -- not the most expensive. tsds today, the american character is no less strong. and chevrolet continues as an expression of the best of it. bringing more technology to more people

than ever in our history. inventing new ways to get around our planet while helping to preserve it at the same time. exploring new horizons of design and power. and making our vehicles amongst the safest on earth. this isn't just any car company. this is chevrolet. and the strength of our character can be found in every car and truck we make. it's why, today, tomorrow, and on into a bright future, we can proudly say... ...chevy runs deep. ♪ until the combination of three good probiotics in phillips' colon health defended against the bad gas, diarrhea and constipation. ...and? it helped balance her colon. oh, now that's the best part. i love your work. [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ look at that car, well, it goes fast ♪ ♪ givin' my dad a heart attack ♪ [ friend ] that is so awesome. ♪ i love my car [ engine revving ] [ male announcer ] that first chevy, yea, it gets under your skin.

♪ >> larry: you can say a lot about this show but one thing you can't say is we're not diverse. our guests the rest of the week includes stevie wonder, vladimir putin, the prime minister of russia, mike tyson, the former heavyweight champion, carlos slim, the richest man in the world, terry fetta, the the brilliant impressionist and ventriloquist and james levy who wrote a best seller about mickey mantle. speaking of best sellers, bob woodward is the associated editor of "the washington post" with his latest "obama's war," a runaway best seller. we'll hear more from him after hillary clinton's reaction to the latest wikileaks document leaks. watch. >> the united states strongly

condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. it puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. >> larry: all right. no one knows more about revealing things, judging things, reporting on things. you've heard the first half of this show. you've heard from the secretary of state. what do you think, bob? >> well, i guess i would take a moderate position. first of all, a lot of it is not new. there was much hand wringing about the disclosure, that it was our weapon that was used in an attack in yemen. actually, that's been on the front page of the newspapers for a long time. it hasn't been officially confirmed, but the sources were

so good and the reporting was so deep on this, and it was never denied by the government. a lot of these things just aren't new. so the old data is being run up the flagpole. i think first, you have to filter it out. is it new? >> larry: what about that which is new? >> well, some of it is indeed new. and i think it is known that a lot of the arab leaders in the middle east want to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, as the king abdullah of saudi arabia in one of the cables is quoted. let's cut off the head of the snake in iran. they felt that way about iraq. in some way, it's not totally surprising. i think the dilemma here is the scale. 250,000 documents is something

you and i wouldn't read in the rest of our lifetime. how do you sort through it, the kind of massive publication of it, i have to label mindless. how can anyone figure out what it means, decipher it. i do agree with secretary clinton on part of this. if you're just going to put this all out and not check with the government or sources you may trust, you may get somebody killed and actually end a very important operations that this country is involved in. it is clearly a dangerous time. >> larry: didn't mr. hastings and mr. ellsberg make some good points, though? >> well, they feel very strongly about transparency. i share their strong feeling about transparency. we need to make the government more transparent, but to -- you

know, you need to step back from this. the forces are lying up against it. not just in the government, but a lot of people are just saying hey, wait a minute, what's going on here? does this make sense? is this good for the country, is it good for diplomacy. and as we have seen, as ellsberg saw when he leaked the pentagon papers, the government is quite capable of striking, investigating, and holding people accountable. i think that may happen here. at the same time, only several hundred of these documents have been examined and printed. so, you know, what's in the other 249,800. we don't know. >> larry: we'll be right back with more bob woodward on top of this scene. right after this. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 absolutely. i mean, these financial services companies

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are still talking about retirement tdd# 1-800-345-2550 like it's some kind of dream. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's either this magic number i'm supposed to reach, or... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's beach homes or it's starting a vineyard. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 come on! tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just help me figure it out in a practical, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 let's-make-this-happen kind of way. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 a vineyard? give me a break. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 [ male announcer ] looking for real-life answers tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to your retirement questions? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 get real. get started. talk to chuck. tdd# 1-800-345-2550

>> larry: we're with bob woodward. all right, in your opinion, is wikileaks a responsible organization, or as peter king, the congressman who is going to take over the homeland security committee in the house thinks they're a terrorist organization. what do you think of wikileaks? >> well, i don't look at them as a terrorist organization. they have their purposes. they need to moderate what they're doing.

there is a way to release classified material. i've dealt with it for 40 years as a journalist and author. and what you need to do is be careful, because you really can, as i was saying, get people killed. you know, if that's the goal of wikileaks, then the congressman is .right. i don't see evidence of that. larry, i think one of the other issues in all of this is, what are we seeing? one of the publications that devoted a lot of space to this said that the publication of these cables provides an unvarnished look at the way the government makes its really big decisions. that really is not true. these are state department cables. there are apparently some references to intelligence and military operations. but as we know, policy is made

in the white house by the president on these issues. there's no evidence i've seen so far -- now that may change -- that have president obama saw these documents, that they somehow figured in his decision-making. what the documents are, part of the building blocks of making the policy that eventually comes out of the white house, the state department or the pentagon. it's not as if we are peering in and have secret tape recordings of what's going on in the white house. >> larry: but what secretary clinton informs him might be based on information she's received from those cables, correct? >> yes. >> larry: so it could affect decisions. >> they are building blocks. they could affect decisions, but this is not -- we are not seeing

some unvarnished examination of how big decisions are made. that is just not so. yet. >> larry: does this overall trouble you? >> you know, i think it depends -- i hate to be so tentative here, but there's so much we don't know about what's in these other documents. apparently none of them are top secret, as we know. the really sensitive matters are classified top secret. so, you know, what are we not seeing. i don't think we should get overly exercised and somehow think this is the pentagon papers. the pentagon papers were details about the highest level deliberations, highest level classification and had a theme. and the theme was the government wasn't telling the truth about the vietnam war. i have not seen a theme. there is a suggestion that some of these things are unknown, but they are not at all of the

magnitude of what went on wi the pentagon papers. >> larry: we'll take a break. when we come back, i'll ask bob if he thinks this could possibly lead to damaged relations between countries when they learn what they're thinking about -- you know, what one country thinks another country is thinking about that country. we'll come right back.

>> larry: we're back with bob woodward. "obama's wars" remains a major best seller and a book everyone should read. do you think the release of

documents like this could damage relationships between countries? >> not in a serious way so somebody thinks the king or a leader is a fool or weak. i've reported just in most recent book, comments made by people in the obama administration at the very high level about president karzai of afghanistan, that he's delusional, not just weak, that he's on his meds, off his meds. so there are things like this that get into the press and books all of the time. diplomats have to live in the real world and they know, and i think secretary clinton made the point -- somebody said to her, imagine what we say about you. and i'm quite sure that's true. there wouldn't be these kinds of assessments and derogatory language if there's something

revealed about secret operations or money or something like that, it could have an impact. when i was working on the last book, i went to the intelligence people with classified information and secrets i, and i asked, i'm going to publish this and in this form, will it do damage? so i could listen to their arguments. we got to one issue and one very senior person said, if you publish that, it's going to be a real problem. i asked, on the richter scale of 0 to 10, what is it? he said a 9 and made a case why it should not be published, and it's not in the book. the stuff we've seen now in the cables and what's been published so far on the richter scale is a 4 or 5. not something really serious. now, again, the caveat, that may

change. >> larry: ahmadinejad's thinking about what his neighbors are thinking about him and lead him to take some sort of forceful action based on that? >> i don't think so. no, i don't think he would. and, you know, maybe he's delusional, too, and he thinks the saudis love him and the emirates love him and so forth. i doubt it. this is -- and jamie ruben was making the point that this is harmful to diplomacy. i'm sure it's not helpful, but sophisticated diplomats know when they say something, it may get out, even if it's done in private. there are private meetings where there's no note taker, where only the senior people are there.

and if there are notes, cables, they're given higher classification. apparently, those are not part of what wikileaks has. so we're getting a very mid level examination of what goes on. not a high level. >> you are not saying, are you, that this is much adieu about nothing? >> no, of course not. and it's serious and the attention it's received, i think it's appropriate. the press is to be commended for dealing with this responsibly. "the new york times" which had advanced access said they are withholding some data that might harm operations or reveal sources. so it's being done in a more responsible way at their level. but as they pointed out, wikileaks is going to put this out and somebody is surely going to publish all of it. i mean, i guess at some point it's all going to be available

on the internet. if somebody wants to take a ten-year vacation, they can read it all. >> larry: more with bob woodward right after this. [ sneezes ] you're up next.

yeah. aww...that oj needs alka-seltzer plus. fast powder packs are a taste-free fizz-free way to transform your drink into a powerful cold fighter! there's a cold front moving in, but relief is on the way. [ deb ] people don't just come to ge capital for money. they come to us for help. at ge capital, we've been financing taylor guitars for over eight years, helping them build a strong dealer network. bringing music to people... i like that. ♪ ♪ [ bob ] i didn't know you could play. i didn't either. ♪ climate protection. challenges as vast as the space race a generation ago. and vital to global security. to reach this destination,

our engineers are exploring every possibility. from energy efficiency to climate monitoring. securing our nations clean energy future is all a question of how. and it is the how that will make all the difference. >> larry: anderson cooper returns from his hero's expedition and he will anchor "ac 360" at the top of the hour. what's our lead tonight, anderson? >> the supreme court rejected an

birther-based appeal about president obama's citizenship. they want no part of it. but state lawmakers around the country are keeping it alive. leo berman, the guy behind the birther bill in texas. how did his claim stand up to facts? we're "keeping them honest." and in "don't ask don't tell," we talked to john mccain as he does an about-face several times over the year, including his newest remarks that the policy is working just fine. our question is, is he stretching the truth to make his case? "keeping them honest." and a car bomb at a christmas-tree lighting right here in america. sit could have been tragic if the alleged bomber wasn't being played by the american law enforcement. a minute by minute account in tonight's "crime and punishment." a lot more at the top of the hour, larry. >> larry: that's "ac 360," 10:00 eastern and 7:00 pacific. back with bob woodward. how about the revelation about china getting a little weary about north korea and its behavior, acting like a spoiled child. do you think that might have

some affect on future happenings? >> no. but i think it's good to see that the chinese are being realistic about their ally in north korea which is this rogue regime that not only can do damage in south korea, in asia, but to china. so, you know, i think that's a revelation that is somewhat heartening if i understand it correctly. >> larry: let's go to another area. a month after the election, the republican and democratic leaders are going to sit down with the president tomorrow. 's called the slurpee summit. 7-eleven will cater it. will it change anything? >> who knows. hopefully somebody is there taking good notes and we'll find out exactly what they said. what the body language was with the attitude -- whether the attitudes have changed. do both sides realize or going to have to work together to

tackle some of these problems. we'll see and i'm sure soon there will be readouts from that very important meeting. >> larry: what do you know about the pentagon report tomorrow about "don't ask don't tell"? and apparently, the mccain flip-flop? >> i don't know. that's going to -- that obviously is an issue that i think it's going to change. the question is, when. i was thinking about the wikileaks matter and the questions your earlier panelists were bouncing around about -- how does it connect to a policy? how does it tell us something that we need to know, which i think is the critical question here. recently, somebody sent me a declassified secret document that don rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense wrote, in the summer of 2001, three or four months before 9/11. and the secret memo was to

condoleezza rice and dick cheney and colin powell, then the secretary of state. it's a long memo in which rumsfeld said we have to have meetings and get serious about iraq and doing something about saddam hussein. now, i wish in the summer of 2001 wikileaks or somebody had been around to leak or provide that document so we would have known at that point, the secretary of defense was mightily agitated about iraq and wanted to do something. want topped see if regime change was possible and was laying out some quite radical options. that is a point where if there had been transparency or leak, that would have been very useful to people and, i wish there was more of that. but the stuff i've seen here, what does it tell us about what the government might do in the

future that needs more examination? more debate? as we did not have in the run-up to the iraq war. alcium c t adththod easy-to-swallow petes. ♪ an accidental touch can turn ordinary into something more. moments can change anytime -- just like that. and when they do men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven, low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain,

as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

>> larry: vice president joe biden was our guest recently and bob woodward's name came up in our conversation. watch. >> the white house shot down the rumors that you and hillary clinton were going to do a switch. >> i tried but it didn't work. >> larry: you wanted state, didn't you? >> no, no. look, here's the deal. the president and i, there is never any serious talk, ever that anyone ever heard, about me not being on the ticket with him or her not staying in the state. >> larry: woodward started it, though. >> if you look at it even bob backed off on that. what he said -- and i read his book -- what he basically said

was, when she was being considered for secretary of state, it was suggested by one of her pollsters she should take it because maybe there would be the opportunity to be vice president. hillary has made it clear from the first time i came out, joe, i don't want to be vice president. the president has made it clear, joe i expect you to be on the ticket. i want you on the ticket so it was really kind of, you know, a washington parlor game. >> larry: any comments, robert? >> he's right. in the book i report at the time that obama offered the secretary of state position to hillary clinton, one of her political advisers said. look, take it because in 2012, obama may be in trouble. he may need you. he may want to make you vice president because of the voting groups like workers, women, hispanics, that she really carried in the primary. so it was set in that time, as the vice president said. and this resurfaced as i was out

doing some interviews on the book and all of a sudden it's a headline in the drudge report and it was set in a time before she became secretary of state. at the same time, i think if president obama's in trouble like any politician, they will dump their vice president if it's to their advantage. jerry ford dumped nelson rockefeller for bob dole to run against in 1976. so stay tuned. >> larry: he never lets it go. i love woodward for that. he never let's it go. what are you working on now? >> i'm not sure. kind of seeing -- there's an awful lot going on. listening to anderson and you. i mean, in foreign affairs, domestic affairs, the obama presidency is being tested every