about. what kind of society we want and what kind of social institutions do we want. so that to i would like to read the book. its ministers at a dedication. it's not sarcastic. a lot of my friends would disagree about principles. i say look it is their principles, i mean, my own view is it much more of a liberty guy. but i keep libertarianism out of the book. . .

mr. rascon in the middaugh chronicles, which new inhere? >> there's a lot new inhere about bernie and ruth, wachovia to do it, and his total lack of remorse. well to take a close look at who was was likely involved despite his claims that he did. >> did mrs. middaugh have a role? >> she certainly did. she taxidermy folding card table where she was so book the day he was arrested. and she didn't know directly she certainly was along for the ride. derelict on and cried. maybe bonny didn't buy her, but certainly was part of the scene. >> to think the story will continue with more trials on the

road? >> dartmoor trials as the layers of the onions are peeled. the sec investigators whereafter madoff again and again from 92 on. they always missed it. why was that. their defense was they were inexperienced and incompetent. i don't know if that's a satisfying answer. >> a set of the investigative unit for abc, when is the first time you heard of bernie madoff? >> tonight he was arrested. we just finished reporting on rob okoye veg and my friend got an e-mail from the fbi saying bernard madoff arrested, $50 billion scam. i soon found out. >> what kind of resource dated you and your unit turnover? cannot clear the entire abc investigative unit immediately

launch into action. much of it for broadcast but there were so many great details and facts that just could not sit into the world news pipeline for 2020 so we just ended up doing this book. at the first book i've written. >> it is your first book. >> i'm a rookie at this. and here i have as much as i wanted. >> how cabbage how did she say writing this into your work? >> 430 caulk in the morning was a good time to write and they gave me time off over the july 4 weekend. so over june i really swung into action. >> did you have a chance to talk to any of the madoff or anyone close to him? >> i got very close with his secretary for 25 years. and she brought a stack of documents that she took out of the office. she felt so betrayed and angry at madoff himself so badly to

her friends that she's the one answered the phone to bernie. and when they called they said it's not true, eleanor. she was in tears when she came to see me. she wanted to do anything to bring this man down. that's how we got the little black book which is published in our boat. she gave copies to the fbi and copies to me. >> it's the "the madoff chronicles," includes his little black book and is published by hyperion. the author, brian ross. >> it was an interesting moment when governor bush was sort of settling in on his vice presidential choice. he liked cheney as opposed to the others who were looking at, the other nine.

he liked the guy who was in charge of the process. he called me at home and is coming in off the road he said i want you to come over and he was against cheney. there were five or six of us who knew about this. each one sworn to secrecy. he said i want you to come over tomorrow morning to the governor's mansion and lay out the case for cheney. and i just said, come and be prepared, tell me what you don't think it out to be cheney. so i went to the governor's mansion and sat them in small room, the austin library, with him. sitting just about as close as i am to you. and for about herby or 35 minutes, maybe a few spaces further apart. any reasons why we didn't need to worry about wyoming, dick cheney and a conservative member of congress from wyoming and would have to defend his voting record and putting voting against resolution, calling for the release of nelson mandela from prison. he had a heart attack in his mid-30's and would have to defend questions of his health and fitness.

this one on for about 30 or 35 minutes. as i lit up the casecome, kaisha you figure it out but what if i said this and i disagree with that and would you say if i said that? do it on for about 30, 35 minutes. at the end i exhausted my list. he said you're been anything else? maxey says deal tierney questions for karl? and invited me over he didn't say she was going to dick cheney there. he goes to show a couple things about roche. one thing he views this as a governing decision on a political decision. becoming the next interviewer right on most or all that stuff, but that's politics. my job is to worry if something happened to me who would the country have confidence in? second abolish of his style which is he likes to have people around him who have strong opinions or in many not agree with this and are willing to lay him out in a respectful, straightforward way in front of others who might have a different opinion. and it was quite an experience.

>> host: did your opinion of dick cheney change over the eight years? >> guest: well, my opinion of him when i left the room i said great as irritated the guy who will be the next vice president. and then we became friends. he never help it against me. he said that was my job. my job was to go to those questions and not take it personal. >> host: with a roving campaign? >> guest: is not what is normally depict it. the ugly things that people say are at the heart of campaigns iran, most of which are fear-based mudball politics. and i got a couple of great quotes in it from people who have commented on them. rove and his minions never stops surprising me in being able to come up with something that will shock a 60-year-old great hound bus station. there are very negative view of

the electorate. the electorate can be won over by that kind of politics. and i don't see the american voters, particularly the high profile races for senate or governor or president are motivated by those kinds of base instincts. in fact, i think they reject them and people who cross those lines and when those kind of campaigns tend to lose. in fact, tend to lose a lot. but a roving campaign is one based around first volley that authentic idea, what is it that that man or woman running for office wants to achieve. because at the end of day that the voters are going to principally judged by us. what is their vision and also to the other capacity come in the background, experience, the persona. he gives people confidence the field to achieve the vision. the best way to look at a political campaign is to consider it as like the emperors new clothes, the childhood fable. at the end of the parade, built

the reservoir. hopefully they'll see you on a better day, but they will see reservoir. candidates who lack essential values are core belief and just run on the basis of something completely phony tend to lose. >> host: then why is there a feeling about you by a lot of folks that you are negative and divisive? >> guest: idea with some of these myths. for example, in south carolina, john mccain's campaign held bush responsible and i was easier to attack than bush. i was supposedly responsible for this e-mail from a professor at jones university that let john mccain had fathered an out of wedlock black baby and it was ugly, a vicious little smear. but a couple things. one if i had nothing to do with it. even jonathan karl working at cnn got a hold of the professor who basically said, i did this

on my own and so what. i have a right to do it. but it was a vicious, a gated smear on john mccain. the kind of things that look come to south carolina voters are not attracted by that. it was the thing that on the surface didn't help anybody who didn't want john mccain made president. it was the kind of thing that people naturally reject. then, what happened if mccain stood up and said george bush is behind this. south carolina republicans like mccain and bush and liked them both. not one in a thousand would believe george bush was capable of doing that. my personal viewpoint it happened was i was afraid because i thought mccain with these upon it to talk about himself. the story behind he and his wife's adoption of a young baby from a bangladesh orphanage run by mother teresa is an incredible story of compassion and love, just the kind of thing in a campaign that would explain

a lot about to john and cindy mccain and serve as the norma's plus for them. but instead of saying hold on, let's wait a minute, here's what i want the people of south carolina and america to know. instead, he said bush did this and shame on bush and i have no evidence that bush did it, but you know, shame on bush. and as a result -- it was the whole mindset. this kind of attitude made itself evident in other ways that i talk about in the book. and lost the primary for mccain and hence lost the nomination in the presidential election. >> host: you've also talked about and if that were you a chance to meet with john mccain that iran. >> guest: in 2004, mccain offered three longtime aide and a person than i know that mccain would campaign for us. and they made an appearance with president bush in washington state, which was nonpolitical and the president has that look on this first wing qaeda wants

you along, but you can work out your problems with mccain later. and laughed. he thought that was funny. so the first trip i spent with mccain was then florida. we flew to pensacola, florida, then took a bus to niceville and seaside and at the end of the day panama city. and what we got on air force one at andrews, the president had his cia briefing suicide go back and talk to mccain. entertainment came in telling ready. while this is awkward because mccain's campaign, even mccain's wife at the she famously said was asked if she ever had a chance come away to stab me in the back? and she said no, i'll stab him in the front. there were high emotions about this. so we go to the back cabin and it's a nervous conversation, but then we start talking about pensacola where mccain had his naval aviator flight training and he started talking about his days there.

and it evolved little sports cards and lots of alcohol and exotically named women and it was funny. i've never laughed so hard in my life. he was one wild young aviator. and we then flew into panama city, actually pensacola where he'd done his training and we went to a stadium, a facility that held about 10,000 people. it was packed to the gills with people. when they announced mccain and the president was a sea of noise and discombobulated mccain was so wild of a scene. this is where the two of them take off their jackets, which raises his arms, mccain praised arms of the president and they realize because of us were just can't raise his arms above here. and so the president is leaving, mccain is talking to the president and this is the famous photograph of the democrats using in 2008 where he looks like has his head. and bush is shoulder. but we campaign the rest of the day it was an extraordinary day.

i mean, more sheets were sacrificed and turned into campaign sign a day than you've ever seen in and the children lined the roads and mobs blocked highway 38 at the site and stopping physically stopping the bus. and all along sitting in the bus and mccain starts going, look at that, look at that. i had them in the arm. my arm by the end of the day is literally black and blue. we end up in the driving rain of panama city, 25,000 people at a time of 100,000. we pull up and tracy byrd is the country western singer saying he's the only guy who strive. he's undercover on the stage. just as the bus pulls up in mccain and bush get out, the cloud parts, the sun begins to set in the gulf of mexico and the two men emerge on the stage, a fantastic moment. and we ended up the next day in phoenix and at the end of the

day i possibly gave mccain by theodore roosevelt cufflinks because he's such a tr bus. >> host: karl rove, which he used that picture if of you with the opposition? >> guest: i don't think that ultimately helped them. i think you made them look petty and small. it was easy and simple to do, but it made them -- i mean, people did not think john mccain was george w. bush. if he wanted to say republicans there were other ways of doing it. in politics you can do things that if you win the campaign everybody thinks were useful and effective but in reality they weren't. i frankly think barack obama's inspiring rhetoric, not red states, blue states got his remark was focused on central policies, his post-partisan bipartisanship, i think those were far more effective than him saying john mccain is george bush three. >> host: this is the book,

"courage and consequence." karl rove is the author. 202-737-0001 if you live in the east or central time zone. 202-737-0002 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zone. booktv@c-span.org is our e-mail address. unfortunately, we're not taking any tweets today. it broke and so will put that to the side for now. you wrote right you like being in the middle of a political firestorm. >> guest: i don't know if i said i liked it, but i found myself in them. he made to be comfortable there or find another line of work. >> host: by patrick fitzgerald quote, scared the hell out of you. >> guest: he did, a special prosecutor absolutely. let's get back. we now know some things. we know that the allegation was i leaked valerie claims name to robert novak. i didn't. richard armitage did.

the allegation was that was done in order to damage or has been politically. we now know that richard armitage did it in order to explain why in response to a question by joe wilson was sent to africa. the allegation was that this was a violation of law, but armitage's leak was a violation. we know from the special prosecutors there was no line of defense. we know what joe wilson said in his july 6th op-ed in "the new york times" was wrong. he said that he had been sent to africa to investigate the claim of the british intelligence that saddam hussein had attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium in africa by dick cheney. not true. he was wrong when he elected that his report would've come back shared with administration officials, the president, vice president at the highest levels of the white house. not true.

when media adviser condi rice at block the president, that was not true. never even made it to the white house. wei said he tried to members of vice cheney's staff and they had assured him it had been blocked to the passage of the president, that was simply not true. he was wrong when he said he disapproved of the british claim. he never understood and never knew the basic of the british claim was. he said he was conclusive in attempting saddam had never do it. he came back and reported about a previously unknown accounts by saddam's people working through third-party to force the government to accept a trade delegation. and the government said we only trade one thing. we're not taking saddam's trade delegation. we know that he was one. in fact find out lied when he said he was the guy that disproved the italian forgeries. documents to show up a month after he returns from africa, that he had no role in

disproving. in fact i was later questioned by the senate intelligence community he said he had a literary lion, and kept at the end of this in order to investigate the claim that his wife name had been leaked, there was a three year long investigation and in the book i write about it in detail. and after four visits to the grand jury over a two-year period, the special prosecutor patrick fitzgerald says to my attorney, one claim to indict her client you come to chicago and will discuss it. when my lawyer, bob raskin, goes to chicago in recent than he is astonished to find what fitzgerald is focused on and what is stumbling block is. >> host: you obliquely referred to how much that cost you. have you ever said publicly how much? >> guest: note. financially? no. >> host: six figures, seven

figures? >> guest: none of your business. >> caller: hi, i'm so glad to be able to speak with you. congratulations on the book. i believe that history is going to show that george bush was not just a good resume, but he was a great president. >> host: why is that, george? >> caller: well, i believe that he stuck to his conviction. he believed in what he believed and he didn't listen to the polls. he made his decisions anyway were worried. and i really respect that. i actually am from houston, texas and i was on the red raider little league eightball team and i used to play against neil bush who was on the fogs. he was a pitcher and he was a very good teacher. and i really respect you coming on the show today because i know

you're going to get a lot of calls that are going to say that you caused them out on by naturally colored that you lied about the weapons in iraq and even that you caused 9/11. and i would like you to know that there are millions of people out here who support you and you are going to listen to those calls and just think, god, here's another person who really isn't informed. i blame a lot of this on the press. i think they have a terrible liberal bias. i mean, come on, george stephanopoulos -- >> host: okay george, lots on the table there. >> guest: history over time make different judgments about presidents. harry truman left with 22% approval in the history books out in as a statesman who put in place the institutions and tools that were used by his successors, republicans and democrats to fight and ultimately win the cold war.

and we are going to a little bit of oak revision right now where people are looking not an earlier president and the 11th president and making decisions about him based on looking at the historical record. i hope it doesn't take that long for george w. bush's record -- and frankly i had an interesting experience of the airport the other day real quick. a guy came up to me that you are karl rove. i didn't vote for bush either time. i said i voted for obama. good, you won. he said i've learned something last year. it's not as easy as it looks, is that? i said no it isn't. he said you tell bush things for keeping our country safe. >> host: the gentleman also referred to the media. you talk about the media like the play-by-play better than brought names. >> guest: there's a wonderful book by patterson called out of order which he charts the focus in presidential campaigns on process not substance that i think this is a failure of our

system. were more interested in the latest poll come in and of the warfare inside the campaign as opposed to the big issues are big pronouncements dividing candidates and their various courses in politics. >> host: next call for karl rove author of "courage and consequence." dairy in bloomington, illinois. >> caller: hey, how are you? mr. rove, it's nice to talk to you. >> host: please go ahead, dairy. >> caller: do you believe the executive branch has a higher authority than the other branches and if so when you've been asked to go speak to the other house, to the house and senate committee and you refuse, do you think that's a bad example for any administration to set because there should be some form of transparency between these parties? >> guest: that's a good question. you actually two questions.

let me divide them and take them one at a time. the first question is does the executive branch of the time of war have higher authority? i would say yes, but the constitution and practice. for example, the constitution to liberally makes clear that the president of the united states is the commander-in-chief in the military. this is to make certain there is no division between authority that had a bad experience with some of the powers of the continental congress exercised over the direction of the military so they made a deliberate attempt to clarify that it was the president to as a the civilian elected official held primacy over the military. congress retains the power of the budget and the purse strings. they wanted to make certain that the president was in charge. now obviously this has been disputed at times. for example, during the civil war there was a special joint congressional committee which attempted to micromanage the civil war, which lincoln had to constantly battle with. the second question you talk about is my refusal to speak

before congress in response to congressional subpoenas from the house judiciary committee regarding the u.s. attorneys controversy. and in this instance, i wasn't a free actor. it wasn't my decision not to respond to the subpoena. i did set the direction of president george w. bush, who retained the right under our constitution to have confidential advice given to him by his senior aides. this is well established under separation of powers doctrine and upheld by the supreme court, which is held at the top aides to the president, the most senior advisers, generally the assistant to the president i like hearts of the president's persona. and so were not subject to the call of congress at their discretion. now, because of what this involved, the u.s. attorney situation, the president said do not respond to the subpoena. but they did give us the leeway to provide the information to congress in a way that would

protect the formative presidents privilege while giving him the substance of the information they wanted. over the course of the year and half or two we provided them on five separate occasions options for doing that. congress remains stalled intent upon breaching this wall between the executive and the legislative by requiring presidential aids of any nature to be brought before the congress at the congress is called. but president obama got into office in march 2009, she basically -- as people basically said except the offer and they told the house judiciary committee to accept the offer that we had made to them for two years of having me provide the information under oath, but not in response to a congressional subpoena to protect the presidents privilege, the form of it, was the same congress what it wants. because of the intervention by president obama, i went before the house judiciary committee staff and was questioned by a

democratic congressman from california and republican congressman from virginia and by staff for two days. in that testimony is available on my website rove.com for anyone who is so bored they would like to go and read it. and i thought it was one of the president obama to tell the democrats in congress to agree to accept what had been offered them for two years. and as i say, it makes for boring reading, but it was important principle. postcode you write one of the greatest mistakes of the bush administration was not responding to critics of the reasons going to war in iraq. >> guest: jack, on july 15, 2003, ted kennedy gives a speech saying bush lied about wmd. later that day senate leader tom daschle holds a new conference on which he repeats the chart. the next day john kerry makes a speech come again we iterate in the charge and john edwards in a committee hearing makes the same charge. and at the end of the day

they're joined by congresswoman jane harman, the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. thereby begin play several years and which the democrats allege that bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. and i try and make a point in the chapter of the book but if you believe that bush lied, then he got to deal with the fact that it's large number of democrats, bill clinton, al gore, hillary clinton, the four or five people i names. rob graham, democrat chairman, jay rockefeller, the ranking member of the committee and a member of the committee at the time. even opponents of the war like barbara boxer all said that iraq had wmd. this was a consensus of the intelligence community shared broadly throughout the government, sure probably to the government under clinton and bush and shared widely to western intelligence communities. and the preponderance of the evidence was that he had wmd. so in fact their 110 democrats who vote for the war resolution.

149 who oppose it. 110, 67%% on the 4000 senate and say saddam had wmd. if you want to say bush lied to have to say everyone of those people lied including people like that kennedy and barbara boxer who oppose the resolution. we now know that he didn't have it. we found he had 500 times uranium yellowcake. we found tens of thousands of artillery shells and other delivery vehicles that had contained biological and chemical weapons that had degraded over time. but we didn't find wmd operative and usable, which is what we feared. in fact, as we approach baghdad, the third infantry approaches baghdad, we are chatter of the radio from the iraqi scene when are we going to get permission to use the weapons? we now know because of two reports, one by charles toffler and one by david kay, weapons inspectors, that saddam did

retain interest in these weapons. his attitude was the west is going to lose interest and its sanctions on iraq. oil for food will be wrote and i saddam and going to do everything i can to erode it. i will divert tens of million dollars a year out of the program to undercut it. i will take that money and spend it on keeping together the dual use facilities like chlorine gas plant and the engineers inside technicians who know the systems and how to deliver them, so when the sanction a road that can reconstitute these programs. the chemical and biological programs, some of them would take weeks to restart. the nuclear program would take a lot longer. and his attitude was loved, this is important to me. i need people to think about this stuff. bbb thought he actually did have the staff. in my neighborhood, as it keeps people from messing with me. my own people, keeps them in line because they know i've used the stuff of my own people and killed hundreds of thousands of people using all kinds of

methods. and it also keeps the west from messing with me because of the carrier. they don't want to mess with me if i've got this stuff. and you know, we had to act on the basis of the information we knew. and the information we had was that he had done and it was a threat. i would remind you, intelligence gets it wrong the other way too. after we took out the taliban and those pressures ratcheting up on iraq, libya says, you know what, if there's taken on them, they'll take on me so i better cough up my programs and without western intelligence estimates of how dangerous his programs were long eared they underestimated how westernized his chemical and biological programs were and how far along the nuclear program was. >> host: suzanne e-mailed to you. i'm the mother of u.s. marine who served as an infantry unit in iraq in vermont he dreamed 07. i believe you and your cronies are horribly wrong on the issue

of waterboarding and that the slippery slope of condoning waterboarding leads to escalating evil by those who think they are well-intentioned. >> guest: i respect that. i disagree. we waterboarding u.s. military personnel every year in order to help them train for invasion and escape. and waterboarding was used in a very carefully described in proscribed way. i put the memos about its use up my website, rove.com so people can see how careful these lawyers at the department of justice were in making certain our commitments under our law and their international commitments were met. and that was used only in the case of three high-value targets in the information we received once the technique had been used and resistance had been broken. save lives both here and abroad and oil thought some of which are known to the public and some which are not. postcode gail and west river, maryland. good afternoon or good morning.

>> caller: good morning. mr. rove, i think you should have named your boat, lies and disaster. >> host: y., gail? >> caller: because first of all, we know your administration came into office already determined to invade iraq. we would have to disbelieve dozens of books to believe your rewriting of history that's in this book reviewers. first of all, let's not forget that it was the memo from the vice president's office to armitage that begins to stir up all the stuff about valerie plane. and you were the source for both hoover and novak, a confirming source. libby was the confirming source for miller. and we also know that roger rather michael ledeen from the american enterprise institute was inspected as being involved

with that italian group of thugs who broke into the office -- postcode gail, a lot on the table. let's get a response from karl rove. >> guest: obviously, she has not read my book. i understand that people have to ventilate about it. first of all, it's a joke to suggest that president bush is determined that he arrives and not just to invade iraq. that is paranoia of the worst sort. with all due respect, she got to stop swamp water because it's giving her bad fevers. second memo from art and check armitage, the vice president items that you send a memo to armitage but he does call the cia and say, in essence, i want to find out more about this claim. i mean, he examines the evidence. you know, bob novak, i was not

the source. we now know that richard armitage was the source. my discussion with bob novak was that valerie plane recommended he go to niger. first they can't be got to talking about because i didn't know wilson's wife name was valerie plane. when he says wilson's wife sent to africa paper that too. if novak had said to me, i need you to confirm something to me, i would've said i can't confirm it. but i could've confirmed it. and again, my point is, is that the allegation was i late to name. we now know that i didn't. the allegation that it was done for political purposes, we now know that novak asked armitage, why was he sent to africa as yet no background in these issues and doesn't seem well suited for an intelligence gathering mission, a high price for ambassador, why did you send

him? it was not done for political purposes. and again, there was no underlying offense. if there was an offense of richard armitage would be a much different place than making a living by being an international consultant. because obviously there was no underlying offense. you know, that this is the kind of intensely polarized where people thought it was me, they cared about this. they camped out in front of my door says with low horns and protesters in newsgroups. but in august of 2,742,006 when it was revealed it was richard armitage, suddenly the interest went away. there was a part of the washington senators not a political guy who came up from texas with bush. >> host: a good portion of this book is dedicated to the joe wilson affair. a chapter called joe wilson and another chapter called anything for his scalp. president bush is absent from all of that.

>> guest: no, he's in there. in fact, early on when to start to bubble up and become a matter of public controversy with the leak, it weakens the league in violation of federal law, that there is now an investigation underway into the circumstances around the valerie planes again becoming public. i went to the chief of staff in the white house counsel and said this is the contact i had with robert novak immediately and the president called me from the overlapped or visiting with him them and says tell me, which i did. now interestingly enough, the white house never knows about richard armitage's conversation with bob novak. it's unclear exactly when during the process of july, august, september 2003, secretary of state powell becomes aware of it. at the end of september he appears on abc news week and says in essence we don't know anything about this.

postcode you dedicate this book to andrew, derby, lewis and breathe out. who they? >> and turin derby are my son and my former wife of louis and rebar my parents. postcode derby is throughout this but. person.ngton hard on marriages? we are very close. we have great affection for each other, but washington was very hard on her and very hard on her marriage as a result. postcode tell us about reba. >> guest: she was my mother and she and my father met when they were very done. they married in their very early twenties. he was a student at colorado school of mines. they were different. she graduated from high school, never went to college. he was a very smart. graduated and became a mining engineer, a geologist and he was interested in reading and art and she wasn't, but they were very much in love for a number

of years it was, you know, they had five children and it was a remarkable relationship. postcode she committed suicide. >> guest: she did. they separated in 12 years later the rest of hope at the age of 51 after what turned out to be a failed her marriage, she drove into the desert north of reno, nevada and took the tailpipe and fixed a host to it and put it in the cab of her pickup truck entering the car and killed herself. >> host: how long did that take to adjust? >> guest: i don't think you ever can adjust to that. i mean, i know it has some of my siblings who lived near her and were much more in touch with her in closer to her than i was. i was living in texas. and rarely saw her. it affects everybody. i mean, when the book came out, one of 13 children, one of my

nieces reached out to me and told me things about how she was still trying to grapple with each day and she was a very small child when the topping. >> host: janine, palm coast, florida. you're on the air with karl rove. >> caller: mr. rove, in your book you state that president bush would not have invaded iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction. that's not exactly true. the memos show that in january january 2003, 2 months before we attacked iraq, bush told prime minister tony blair that he was determined to invade iraq with proof of wmd, a document that both bush and blair agreed there were no wmds and bush even discussed painting a plane with american colors hoping to entice the iraqis to shoot down using that as justification for attacking iraq.

>> guest: that's maddie. the idea that george w. bush and tony blair involved in a conspiracy to invade iraq knowing that there was no wmd there. >> host: have you ever heard that one before? >> guest: know, i haven't. >> host: wire you capitalized unless to talk about liberal politicians or politics? >> guest: well, it's the left and the right. it's sort of the places on the political spectrum. actually, there's also tinkled editor and styled manual. you can't hold me responsible for every editorial inside manual in the book. >> host: what the process was like writing this book? 's how much editing was done on this book? >> guest: a lot. i'd fantastic editors.

i had a fellow reader to make recommendations. p., a colleague of mine. the editor -- i'm his sister is brilliant. and she was very tough. i mean it was challenging. she would read something if they want us to be your voice in conclusion but here are things you need to deal with. and that now that we brought in a an outline editor to shorten it all up to with my editor of the journal who was a genius. and priscilla and i were in all with what he suggested to make it crisper, sharper, fast pace. then i have the unnamed copy editor at scheinman and sister. and i see no in the publishing business they assign you one called scheinman and sister so i know is this person has very nice handwriting and writes very clearly and red pencil and was a very sharp writer. and that we had to buy the lawyers and went back to one massive edit with ursula,

brendan and died. >> host: how much vetting by the lawyers? >> guest: a lot. as you see in the book, 521 pages but as 40 some odd pages of footnotes. and i had even more pages of footnotes available. and so, the editor was actually the lawyer was pretty good because he had a lot of material that he could fall back on. and his were mainly changing words, softening it a little bit. but he had a lot of back a. >> host: troy, los angeles. good morning. >> caller: mr. rove, i was curious in your book why you didn't address the 2004 atlantic magazine profile of you that claims in the 1990's you started a whisper campaign against a political opponent in alabama in which you claim that you as a pedophile. >> host: have you read the book?

>> caller: guess i did. >> guest: then you missed something. this was involved in an alabama supreme court said the allegation is that we attacked this person has been a pedophile because he was involved in a very influential and respected group in alabama devoted to children's issues. and again it's completely false or to permit that kind of allegation you would've think it would've appeared in a single newspaper story in alabama and it didn't. there's not a single story that talks about this. extensively, and involves a whisper campaign. look come you can't affect the outcome of the race in a state with millions of voters out there are out there are in the state of alabama by starting a whisper campaign. again, to send something about the voters that is demeaning to the voters that an unverified unsubstantiated rumor that i think the allegation was and is being spread through law students is somehow going to be widely accepted and believed and

be heard by hundreds of thousands of voters and change their opinion. chapter 34, rove: the myth. i also talk about it in the roving campaign. >> host: why then are there so many of these stories about you out there? is very starting point to all this? >> guest: look him in the one particular for the atlantic is available. he's been on a couple of these. he also bid on the theory that in the campaign involving 1996 campaign involving harold c., college professor at the university of alabama law school was running for the supreme court in alabama, that one might one tactic i got involved was to prevent large numbers of players attacking harold c. with the idea being that this would be widely spread around and would generate a wave of sympathy for her old seat. and again, the writer of the

questions global because again there is no such flyer and the idea again that you're going to affect millions of people by teaching as he describes in there, you know, garbage bagful of these flyers and throwing them on people's wants is just absurd. there's not a single story that appeared in the entire campaign about this and nobody, call i call people in alabama that have you ever heard this before? nobody i talked to is ever familiar with this charge. and then, what he missed was that in this particular campaign, the democratic candidate runs an ad attacking harold see that cbs news after the election picked out as the worst mud all after the entire campaign. and this writer for the atlantic when it comes up with this goofy screen of rove concocted a fire flyer that attacked harold c. that would affect response to millions of people around the world. he comes up without a bit of evidence and lisa's mudball ads

thrown up against harold c. in the final week of the campaign that was so egregious and so over-the-top that after the election cbs says that while the trash we saw this year, this is the most egregious. >> host: you are a student of history. are there other political consultants who have kind of tag your reputation in some circles? >> guest: jeanneau, lee atwater was on the receiving end. tictac was a democratic assault on training consultant. there were allegations of jim farley under franklin roosevelt. the look, you can't compare what went before with what we have today because we have cable tv. we have c-span, we of the internet, with a plethora of channels and politics that tightly polarized. somebody will print it. for example, there's one story that every count in the book about an attack made on me by jake tapper who suggested that i

had taken the bush campaign debate materials in some done to the gore campaign in 2000. we later found out that it was a disgruntled employee of a media adviser who got her hands on it and sent it to tom downey who is helping prepare core for debate. he said this sounds like rove and quotes a number of people who say it sounds like rove. he then puts in there, there's no evidence for this, but simply repeating the charge a lot. i put it in the book and he took covered with it and said i really didn't say that rove did it. in fact, i said that he didn't do it. but i was looking for writing this rove style. people write about this and assume that there's no evidence rove did it, that's proof enough for me. by god he is that good that we can't get his fingerprints on it. >> host: brian and michigan. you're on with karl rove whose book is "courage and consequence." >> caller: hi, karl. i have respect for you and

president bush. we do have differences. i spent time in the middle east. i don't claim to know everything, but especially after -- let's not get confused. need to get confused. now the department of homeland security, i was totally against that because in effect what we've done is obviously we've got another layer where i can see we're still not connecting the past. we still don't hold people accountable. the change of not only 51 but the biggest change in our society now, karl, is let's go back to the pool. that commander there failed and i say he failed because because he didn't protect his ship you have been in there numerous times. were never so much hyped and alert us when we pulled in the aden. we knew were getting into. no one could've ever gotten close to our ship without dying first. they just couldn't have done

that. >> guest: i think he's right that there are instances where we failed to either connect the dots or we fail to put death in the case of the colt tickets out to key votes away and that in essence suicide honor, the boat with a bomb built into it got too close to the: people died. and i understand this issue of people not wanting to up another layer of bureaucracy. the creation of the homeland security department did was take a wide number of agencies spread throughout the government to a roughly similar mission, that is to say protecting the homeland about them together in a place where their activities could be cordoning unconsolidated. it didn't make any sense to have -- june is spread out to the commerce department inadequate cultural department and the transportation department and elsewhere if they all have the same mission. you know, we have border agencies, stand alone or within the treasury department.

they're better off being able to coordinate their activities. now, that's not to say it's perfect because anytime you try and jam that much government together and then rationalize it, it's a complicated puzzle. and also, even if you get the management issue right, the counterterrorism center which is responsible for taking a flood of data, like a part for the person to get their hands around the concept of the data and analyze it in the a way they could get disturbing pattern of pop out and become obvious is a very complicated task. and even when you're the best people in the world motivated by the best instincts and given extraordinary training, you're still going to let mistakes. i mean, we saw with the christmas day bomber. why is that the state department didn't pass on the warnings that they received? why is that there weren't warning bells going off when you have a guy who buys a ticket in one country to board a plane in

another country and is paying cash with a one-way ticket that's coming into the united states. and it is a sobering reminder that all this got to do is get it right once. we've got to get it right every time. >> host: you write beyond the debate team in high school told me that offense was important and once you're on defense with her to regain control the dialogue. >> guest: also have to think how an argument is going to play out cu can analyze how things might closely you can continue to bend in your direction. >> host: frank, maryland. you're on with karl rove. please go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i'm surprised mr. rove is tempered and i have so much respect to you for taking a call off the air without reiterating. i give you that. i want to ask you a question and

then i hope i get an answer. much before september 11, mr. louis farrakhan and his final calls reported a letter was sent to clinton signed by dick cheney and the so-called neocons waiting for the overture or for them. are you aware of that or are you going to say that you never heard of it? if that is true, then how do you come and say that it wasn't -- that he came into office without those people in those specific points. thank you. >> host: is he referring to the gary schmitt letter? >> guest: i think that's it. but also there was a bipartisan consensus under president clinton that regime change should be the policy of the united states. and the united states congress house resolutions calling on the back by the administration.

in fact, i believe it actually required a signature by president clinton and the iraq liberation act and the title of the bill is. there is a broad consensus bipartisan in nature to go back to the 90's and see this emerge with democrats and republicans believing that saddam represented a threat. after all, remember he invaded kuwait, threat in saudi arabia. he then expelled by kuwait after the united nations authorized coalition action led by the united states. and then over the court said the 90's, he stiff armed about i think the total is 14 by one count, 17 by another, resolutions of the united states and live up to the terms of surrender the surrender agreement he made in the aftermath of the first gulf war. in fact, in the late 1990's is when blix representing the international weapons inspection regime find biological and chemical stocks and material in an active weapons program. it is in the mid-90's, mid-to-late 90's that we uncover a robust nuclear program after

this guy has surrendered after the first gulf war and agreed agree to give up this material. so you know, there's a bipartisan effort underway in the 90's that has the backing of the clinton-gore administration, that regime change in iraq must be the policy of the united states. it's a lot different than saying we're going to invade and that's why the authorization of the use of force resolution in the united states resolution authorizing the use of force if he failed to comply with one less set of demands for the united nations was so important. >> host: what do you think of the term neocon? >> guest: you know, i'm not certain exactly what it means. neoconservatives was originally a domestic term. i think quite by irving kristol and it was a liberal who's mugged by reality. i think it has been used in a different way to apply to foreign policy -- a foreign-policy school that says the expansion of democracy is in the security interest of the

united states. that a world that is more democratic and more for he is also going to be a world more stable and more peaceful. >> host: do still try to president bush regularly? >> guest: i do. i tacked to it every couple days in e-mail every day. >> host: what are you reading? >> guest: i'm reading too much right now. and we did a book about letters. in fact, you think you ought a program on it. i'm suffering to see your moment in a book tour mullet. i reading word was, empire of liberty. and i'm nearly finished with the persian expedition. >> host: next call for karl rove. >> guest: let me mention one thing. i made the mistake of mentioning on fox and friends that michael was to read a book a week this year. something outturn so many people have said i'm going to put my list on rove.com. >> host: >> caller: hello, mr. rove.

i'm calling first bought my question is for steve scully. i would like to know if you give me the chance to rename karl rove's both. >> host: will have to ask you if you that. >> guest: it's not up to me. it's up to simon & schuster. >> host: go ahead with your question to karl rove of what you would like to rename the book. >> caller: okay, i would like to rename it untruths above the iraq war. mr. rove, most of the biggest thing i have a question to you about is i totally disagree with you on a statement that you say is that the only people we tortured with a high valued detainees or whatever because it's a proven fact in the documentary that it was done by contractors all over in iraq and

afghanistan. >> guest: first of all, i don't agree with the word torture. our laws do not allow torture in these techniques enhanced interrogation techniques were designed to elicit cooperation that was in the limits of our laws and international commitments. and look again, i appreciate she doesn't agree with me on iraq, but again i find it hard to believe that she's even read the book. read the book here and all i ask is a fair reading and we can have a reasonable disagreement about it. but the sort of i want to retitle the book without reading the book a short minded. >> host: could share she have that dialogue with you on your website whacks >> guest: i have it on my face but age and i also have it on karl rove.com or accept e-mails. if people are brewed in a few nikos to the trash. >> host: allen, gary, indiana. >> caller: good morning. i know oftentimes there's a statement or statements made

about how safe the country was after september 11. the deadly coral to explore the idea of how safe we were september 10th and before, given richard clarke's admonition about the dangers of terrorist taking over aircraft and doing damage in this country. and i'm also kind of curious about what carl's take would be on the cycle psychodrama that appear to have happened with president bush with this virtually been an empty suit. >> host: cary, why do you say or al vardy say he's an empty suit? >> caller: it's pretty obvious that when you rely on looking into other foreign leaders i've