be playing highlight shows. i -- i am i don't know what to say except to you, my audience, thank you. and instead of good-bye, how about so long

there are serious and tough ideological differences about important issues that affect the way we live our lives. >> absolutely. taxes and the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and what's driving this in the house of representatives is house democrats are basically an 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. estate tax agreement gives money to extremely wealthy family and the middle class and poor 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. >> well, and in the senate,

talking about essentially the budget. do we keep the lights on in the capitol? keep the government running? this is not a small deal but i have to say, too, it is frustrating because, you know, there are a lot of people pretty happy that we had the bipartisan agreement on the tax deal. the republicans and democrats came together, at least the president and mitch mcconnell came together. >> this wasn't a bipartisan deal. it was president obama caving to the republicans. it was capitulation. but on the budget for a minute, when's one of -- there's a lot of hypocrisy in the senate. republicans saying no more earmarks, $8 billion of earmarks in the budget that's being debated today. the tea party is staging a rebellion against a lot of republican senators saying, hey a minute. you said no more earmarks and now $8 billion worth. >> this is a big deal for the republicans. this is the first big event where the tea party people pushing their weight around and, you know, it's actually -- if you're just an observer, without a stake, it's rather amusing to watch them debate it. >> we all have a stake in it. it's the s.t.a.r.t. treaty to limit nuclear warheads pointed by the soviet union -- >> sure, sure, sure.

obviously. >> but let us not lose sight of the fact this is the first step in the presidential campaign in '12 and the republican side, a lot of the folks positions themselves on earmarks and the deficit. >> oh, yeah. yeah, yeah, yeah. trying to out conservative each other and against the earmarks before they were for them. >> right. we have 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? >> a headliner is a democrat who's against the deal, congressman peter defazio of oregon, thank you for joining us again for a second night in a row. >> thanks. appreciate the opportunity. >> yeah. we have been pestering you regularly. you state your case so clearly. you have been leading the revolt trying to prevent the extension of tax cuts to everyone. do you have any chance of succeeding? >> 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 social security trust fund. >> yeah. we have been pestering you regularly. you state your case so clearly. you have been leading the revolt trying to prevent the extension of tax cuts to everyone. do you have any chance of succeeding? >> 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 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 the tax cuts. >> 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? >> well, we didn't call for the delay. they called -- leadership called for the delay because, clearly, they didn't have the votes. they were going to allow one small amendment for 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. one very conservative republican call me, heard me speak today on this issue and he said, i share those concerns. you know, we can't -- he said, on our side it's a mantra that temporary tax cuts are not temporary and can never go back

up. if we reduce the income to social security, we'll never get that back and we think that's the trap 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. >> congressman, i not only agree with your substantive positions on these issues but it seems to me what's reflected is the white house misjudged the degree of opposition to the compromise that it's 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? >> absolutely correct. i mean, come on. you're an experienced litigator and negotiator. >> thank you. >> 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, for those seeking work, for those who 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 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. not be so cruel to cut them off before christmas putting that simple measure forward. >> i agree with you. in every negotiation you pretend a partner outside the room weighing in on your side. in this case, the white house did. that was the democrats in the house and the senate, as well. but they didn't use you. they didn't point to you saying look at the crazies forcing us

to say no to you, the republicans and therefore we can't agree but they caved and you're highlighting their failure to negotiate with anything close to the care and wisdom they could have. >> 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 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 the 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. >> 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 will affect him in the presidential campaign coming up in a couple of years? >> i think we help him tremendously if we kill some of

the worst provisions of this bill. what will he do a year from today just like the conversation with the conservative republic on the 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 will he do? raise taxes. the recent record shows no. at the same time, 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 have to cut it. >> congressman defazio, thank you for being here. we showed you a few moments ago harry reid. breaking news right now. dramatic moment in the u.s. senate. majority leader reid pulled spending bill from the floor. that bill included more than $8 billion in earmarks and the senator's now saying that republicans who said they would vote for the so-called omnibus bill say they have to vote against it. it removes a threat of senator

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 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. local power brokers operate in a predatory way in the pashtun area. >> that's a gross exaggeration of the people of afghanistan. and the goodness of dairy gives you a little slice of happy. and happiness comes in 25 delicious flavors. yoplait. it is so good. when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too.

medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. . your part b e or eligible for, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... with all you need to enroll. put their trust in aarp medicare supplement insurance. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. the prices are competitive. i can keep my own doctor. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. call now to get a free information kit. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. and the advantages don't end there. choose from a range of medicare supplement plans... that are all competitively priced.

we have a plan for almost everyone, so you can find one that fits your needs and budget. with all medicare supplement plans, there are virtually no claim forms to fill out. plus you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare. and best of all, these plans are... the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. when they told me these plans were endorsed by aarp... i had only one thing to say... sign me up. call the number on your screen now... and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan. you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, to help you choose the plan that's right for you. as with all medicare supplement plans, you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare, get help paying for what medicare doesn't... and save up to thousands of dollars. call this toll-free number now.

today as he announced the administration's review, president obama restated his goals. let's take a listen. >> from the start, i've been very clear about our core goal. it is 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. >> but here's the problem. al qaeda really isn't in afghanistan anymore. they're in pakistan, at least according to cia chief leone panetta. >> at most, 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. >> 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. if they have a safe haven in pakistan, we can never meet the president's goals bringing us to a critical question. why are we even there? >> joining us tonight, two people with strong thoughts on this question. we have peter galbraff, former diplomat. in 2009 he served as the united nations deputy special representative for afghanistan where he helped uncover fraud in the presidential elections. andrew axim was in afghanistan and pakistan and worked with general mcchrystal as a civilian adviser. peter, andrew, welcome. >> thank you. >> good to be with you. >> peter, so the question is, why are we in afghanistan?

we know that al qaeda and affiliates are growing stronger in other places, yemen and northern africa and certainly in pakistan. so, why do we have a quarter of our military in afghanistan? >> 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 to fight what the cia director is says between 50 and 100 fighters. so our reasons for being there are, in fact, something different. they are to defeat the taliban insurgency insurgency. we are engaged in a strategy. the difficulty with the 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 ill legitimate. >> andrew, 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 right. 130,000 troops in afghanistan, can it work without as peter said a credible partner? nobody thinks karzai's credible. the white house didn't want to mention his name today. explain your strategy. >> there's reasons why the white house didn't mention the name of hamid karzai one being that the term is up in 2014 when we expect to have fully transitioned over to afghan sovereignty. let me take the objections that the ambassador whom i have much respect he raised and i think there's a lot to be said for it.

we do have an afghanistan government with a crisis of legitimacy. it's a relative concept and the taliban aren't popular either. i think what we are trying to do in afghanistan is we're trying to transition from a very resource intensive campaign, create time and space for certain key institutions in the afghan state, specifically the security forces and get us down to a much more manageable troop deployment and 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. >> peter, i hear you say that we're -- the real enemy is the taliban. andrew saying they're merging at some level. can we beat the taliban without getting involved in nation building, which is something the president said today specifically we would not do and

how do you measure success? this is an unlimited pool of resources that we send over there. >> 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 an afghan partner. we don't have an afghan partner. and the rest of it is horrendously expensive. 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 we might gain and very little chance of success. >> 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? >> if taliban is a top priority, afghanistan is wrong war. they're also are many more in

yemen and somalia, probably in europe. so, our priority's wrong. now i'm not saying 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. here the obama administration made progress. the trouble in pakistan is there isn't one government. there's the elected government in office. not in power. the people that really run the country are the military and we -- they've been playing a double game for decades and we're making some progress with them but there's a long way to go. >> look. if al qaeda's the enemy and it is in pakistan, peter, you are saying there's some success. as an outside observer, i haven't had access to the classified information. what can you tell us to give us comfort that, in fact, we are making progress in pakistan? there it does seems to be a game of smoke and mirror and outright

laws. >> yes. but pakistan is important not because of pakistan 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. >> wait a minute. wait a minute. now i'm completely confused. we start off fighting al qaeda in afghanistan. and then it was al qaeda in pakistan and now not even al qaeda in pakistan. to preserve the pakistani government and why we have troops in afghanistan? this is worse than a -- what are we doing here? >> 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. that is country with nuclear weapons, 180 million people and this is my point.

our priorities are misplaced. >> right. i agree. >> andrew talks about afghanistan. trying to build afghan institutions. well, the wikileaks revealed the assessment of the u.s. embassy and one i share 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 is not capable of being reformed. >> so let me just clarify. andrew wants to leave 35,000 troops in and focus efforts mostly on strategic special forces strikes. you're saying get out now? >> no. i would keep 15,000, 20,000. but i think the difference is 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 is 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. >> andrew is that right from your point of view? >> no. leave out the moral judgments here. i mean, i think if, you know, i can make a similar argument with 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 he's on the one hand expressing a degree of optimism about our relations with the pakistani government and pessimism about

the relations with the afghan government. last i checked 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 won't 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 that's going to leave us with the type of counterterror capabilities to 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 make every day. it's a lot of competing goods and competing dangers. >> 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's kind of imperfect but it's fighting the taliban. but in reality, they collaborate.

there's not two sides. 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. >> doing a good job. >> and that's why this is really a mafia state. >> andrew, i have to ask you this question. you say you want to handle the transition when we have built up sufficient foundation for us to sort of give the afghan government the responsibility we are shouldering. how do you measure that? i hate to use the word metrics. what are they? everything you read speaks to the corruption as deep as peter describes, the instability of the institutions and to have any sort of democracy of any form. how do you get the point to say, yes, we have a stable society? and therefore we can step back? >> i don't think we're pushing for,switzerland. and simplifying the understanding of leaders on the ground and the environment they're operating.

we know it is not a buy their conflict and conflicts 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. >> andrew, look. >> you talked about -- hold on a minute. you talked about metrics. i think what we're trying to do, this is a case where i fault the administration and the nato command. i don't think we have spent enough time and effort training the afghan national security forces in the way 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. >> we'll be right back.

we're back with ambassador galbraith and andrew exom in washington. >> one of the things i never understood is the notion to teach the afghan people to fight. it seems to me history tells me they know how to fight when they want to. ask the russians. the notion to teach them to fight and that's what's holding

us back seems crazy to me. we have lost the hearts and minds of the general public there. am i wrong about that? >> yeah. i think you are, actually. 30,000 taliban and much larger afghan security force. for example, the taliban is 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 if we're not able to create an effective governance at the local level. the problem is there's a highly centralized afghan state in the aftermath of the overthrow of the taliban, that state is not conducive to effective governance of afghanistan but i think what we're going to be able to do over six months, we have an opportunity to build up certain resilient institutions to allow us to transfer, again, to a much less resource intense give operation. i mean, i think that's -- peter and i agree where we're trying to go. i would caution against trying to do that overnight.

you are not going to be able to get 100,000 u.s. and nato troops out of afghanistan overnight. it takes time. if you want chaos and a return to the safe havens, go with a rapid transition. the only difference of what we are saying is i think it's a process to take place over 36 months not 6 months and that's a process ratified by not just the u.s. government but nato allies and government of afghanistan at the lisbon accords. >> 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. but several hundred thousand 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 push ton areas from the top to the policemen on the ground. >> that's just a generalization. >> they're ripping off the population 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 connections with the taliban. that's why it doesn't work. >> i think that's -- first of all, that's a series of gross generalizations about the afghan people and the government. i'm not trying to defend the power brokers and -- >> president's brother. >> exactly. or any of the big power brokers in kabul but you are seeing

effective local governance in kandahar province. >> where? >> in kandahar city itself. >> the governor of kandahar? the canadian? >> excuse me. you are starting to see, for instance, in hand car a municipal government making connections with local tribal, you know, 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 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's too soon to say if that's successful or unsuccessful. you have to wait until after the summer, after the fighting season. we'll know whether or not we have been successful in the long term in helmand and kandahar. i caution ambassador galbraith about the generalizations about everyone in the afghan government or all afghans being corrupt.

that's bigots. >> a rebuttal and then time runs. >> i would love to go back to afghanistan but i can't because hamid karzai said -- issued an 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. he steals the election and then he blames the u.n. for conducting the fraud. >> he told general petraeus he considers the u.s. and the taliban to be his enemies and given a choice he would side with the taliban. >> the taliban. >> how do we win? >> 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 live that is are at risk? >> all right, peter, andrew, thank you both so much for joining us. >> sure thing. >> thank you. >> thank you, guys.

thank you. later on "parker spitzer," a tribute to larry king on the last night doing a live program on this network. you won't want to miss it. >> 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. you don't decide when vegetables reach the peak of perfection. the vegetables do. at green giant, we pick vegetables only when they're perfect. then freeze them fast so they're are as nutritious as fresh. [ green giant ] ho ho ho. ♪ green giant

tonight, our person of interest, julian assange. after nine days in a london prison, the founder of wikileaks freed on bail of 240,000 pounds. it was quite a show. accused by our country and others of releasing top secret tookments, wanted by a swedish court on rape charges, he was greeted by cheering supporters. >> some weren't cheering. he faces a hearing in january on the extradition to sweden. he has to wear a monitoring device and a curfew under house arrest and for the first time since the imprisonment, julian assange spoke for himself. >> 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. >> well, bless his heart. take a look at where he's going to be kept under house arrest or as his lawyer calls it, mansion arrest. it's a ten-bedroom country estate outside of london owned by a free speech advocate. the place features a grand dining room and a wine cellar with only the good stuff. >> that is quite a nice little house. here's the thing i don't get. he is under house arrest with the ankle bracelet, the whole thing. does he have wireless internet access in 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. he could be perpetrated the crimes alleged to have committed. >> the jury is out and we don't

know what the long-term consequences of this will be and not sure it's an either/or. sometimes a hero or a villain? he's clearly an absolutely ist. i'm completely for open government, transparency, you can also go too far and i think in this case that may be the case. he's certainly diplomats can feel they can have a confidential conversation and conduct business on behalf of the country without it being exposed. >> you can state the absolute capacity of governments to have secrets or the absolute position on the 1st amendment, the right to publish. it is in the grayer area you know there's secrets to be maintained and the need to disclose when government is doing thing that is's fundamentally wrong and why we applaud him and other examples in history. where this will fall, we don't know yet. but right now learning a lot. it is a fascinating controversy

day by day. >> well said. good summary. how do you say good-bye to a legend? we are going to do our best to try. stay with us. >> on the topic of the tea party organization, thanksgiving, i like to soak in the grave sy boats before the guests arrive. in just a few minutes, larry king will begin his final live an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit...

with all you need to enroll. put their trust in aarp medicare supplement insurance. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. the prices are competitive. i can keep my own doctor. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. call now to get a free information kit. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. and the advantages don't end there. choose from a range of medicare supplement plans... that are all competitively priced. we have a plan for almost everyone, so you can find one that fits your needs and budget. with all medicare supplement plans, there are virtually no claim forms to fill out. plus you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare. and best of all, these plans are... the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. when they told me these plans were endorsed by aarp... i had only one thing to say... sign me up. call the number on your screen now... and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan.

you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, to help you choose the plan that's right for you. as with all medicare supplement plans, you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare, get help paying for what medicare doesn't... and save up to thousands of dollars. call this toll-free number now.

in just a few minutes, larry king will begin his final live broadcast. kevin poll lock is a guest on the show and famous for the larry king impersonations and debuts next week on fox and he joins us tonight to help celebrate the extraordinary run on cnn. welcome, kevin. >> thanks, very nice to be here. >> kevin, you have been on larry's show and you have watched his brilliance, his wisdom over the years. is he the greatest interviewer ever?

>> are you okay? no. >> just giving you the set-up here. you're the comedian. i thought you'd run with that one. >> that would be a falsehood, sir. not greatest but perhaps one of the most memorable. >> of course one of the most popular. off story of a prank calling in to larry's show. can you tell us about that? this is beautiful. this is a pe won an ademy award. i see larry interviewing and stop what i'm doing because i had done larry's show and i had the hotline number and i called in and told producers not to tell them that it was me and larry goes to open phones, tell him it's los angeles.

it's me, larry? larry, it's alan arkin. who is this guy? arkin is bent over the counter in hysterics. can't believe i had the nerve to do this. larry's in a panic, right? chicago, hello? still me, larry. st. louis and then finally -- and then finally alan looked into the camera and said, kevin, i'd like my soul back. >> must be fun to get a host on tv and throw them off the stride with a phone call like that. you have a game you play with the guests on your show. what is it? >> yes. every sunday afternoon people can fun in to kevin pollak web chat show and i have to give credit to my girlfriend that came up with the larry king game and now all the guests play it. jon hamm, paul rudd, the list is endless. andy richter this sunday.

the rules are very simple. do a bad larry king impression as i gave an example of. takes the pressure off of a good one and act out that moment of larry sharing something on the show that no one needs to go and then go to the phones with the name of the city is funny sounding, it's helpful. >> give us an example. >> i'll give you an example. off the topic of the tea party organization, thanksgiving, i like to soak in the gravy boats before the guests arrive. schenectady, hello. >> 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? >> 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. 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 word that comes from the guest. and, you know, he got famous over the years for serving up softballs but it's -- it wasn't his bally wick to cut too deep. you can't knock him so much for this. >> that's how real life is and conversations go. when you have people over for dinner, you don't do research on them beforehand. eliot probably does. you an i i don't. it was good for larry to do it that way, i think. we are a few minutes away from the very last show. do you have anything to say to larry before he signs off? >> i would like to offer my good-bye to lawrence in the guys of christopher walken. hey, 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. >> very good. >> 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. >> larry is very funny. >> oh, yeah. >> i think that he has a next career as a comedian. he's very, very funny as you saw in that clip. of course, i brought it out in him. >> i think that's right. >> i made you, larry!

in just a few minutes, larry king will begin the final live show. the end of a remarkable 25-year run. >> you note that we're wearing suspenders in tribute. i feel more like larry in these. kind of fun. but first, a special guest. we've asked joy behar host of her own show on hln and frequent guest host for larry to join us in a tribute to the king.

she and larry have a wonderful, long relationship. >> yes. i'm his tenth wife. >> well, joy, thank you so much for joining us which we realize you're doing for larry. >> for larry and not for us. >> we want to start with this clip of when he was on your show. let's a look. >> larry, mi casa es su casa. >> i made you. i anointed you. i remember the first time we booked her on. ask her questions and you tried to dominate. >> i did not. >> it was a plan. you had a plan. >> the whip was a giveaway, i'll say. >> i'm going to get my own show. either this guy will fall over, i'll get his show. if i don't get his show, i'll get over on the other side. >> it worked. >> i'll go to helen. >> i bet you didn't know he had a dominatrix fantasy. >> you didn't know you were the star of it. >> he's funny.

>> you wait until tonight. >> did he make you? >> make me what? >> that's what he said. >> like i made you. >> did he make you? >> well, he did in a certain way. barbara walters, i have to give her credit and then larry, yes. i was on show quite a bit 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 is a natural. >> got your own show and suspenders. >> i wear them as an homage to larry as you are. >> do you have his interviewing style. he opens it up. that's not your style. >> eliot, when's on your mind? >> that's good. i'm not going to tell you. >> but he has his own style which is let -- this is how i say it. let them hang themselves. he has ahmadinejad on and ahmadinejad shows you without being interrupted what a jerk he is. see what i mean? i'm more confrontational with people and like you.

>> well, what do you mean like me in i take that personally. where are you from? >> it was meant personally. >> where are you from? is that why? >> brooklyn, new york. >> that explains it. >> you got a problem with it? >> i'm from the bronx. we'll be like this. >> i would love to see you on a show. you like to a lot. some like to hear themselves talk and others say something and then they listen. >> i didn't know that was part of it. >> we talk to hear ourselves talk? >> did i say that, joy. i don't know. >> it slipped out, kathleen. >> not a listening show. that's a talk show. >> where are you from? >> i dwru up in florida. >> whatever. >> that's part of new york, right? florida's okay. >> yeah. subdivision of new york known as florida. >> larry makes a big thing of the new york heritage. he used that to sort of -- he seems to diminish himself that way and doesn't of course. he is saying i'm common sense. i understand. >> that's a trick when people

say, hey, i'm a good old boy from brooklyn. they're bragging. >> right. >> yeah. like when you say i'm from the bronx. you know, the bronx. the bronx zoo. >> i -- >> redundant. >> oh! now you're hitting me. >> i taught in the bronx. >> that's when you went. that's kind of like somebody saying i'm a country lawyer. you know in they're pretending to be small and you know be careful. this guy knows thousand get down. that's what you did. >> larry is very funny. >> oh, yeah. >> i think she has a next career is going to be as a stand-up comedian. he's very, very funny. as you saw in that clip. of course, i brought it out in him. i made you, larry! >> does he -- >> go together. >> but he and i could go on the road together. we could do that, actually. >> does he come back as a comedian? he would walk on a stage and everybody want to listen and laugh. when he laughs, you laugh. >> i think so. >> he has a remarkable magnetism.

>> could have a career as a speaker. he's got a million stories. he'll be great on the road. >> great stand-up dinner guest, right? tell you everything about everybody. why did everybody want to be on his show? >> he lets you talk. like you said before. he gives you time. i don't know if that will continue that format. that was his. larry is a great listener. as we said. you know, he listens. the whole thing in interviewing and acting and everything else, in marriage, sex, everything, listen. just listen. he does that better than anybody i have seen on television. he does listen to you. >> joy, thank you so much for being with us. that's the show for tonight. join us tomorrow.