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@@j

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 itroaches 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@@@ @ 2

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. is washington hard on marriages? >> guest: it is. she is a remarkable person. 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@@@@ jje

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 for direction, as he did with boot and i believe, it's kind of trouble someone you rely on things like that because you can't rely on an education in history or something in the more serious nature. you're liable to repeat the psychodrama where you try and outdo your father in history. >> host: let's get a response from karl rove. >> guest: first of all, before

9/11, we were as safe as we were after 9/11. he put his finger on one which was where the divide between the fbi and the cia not been able to share information. so we weren't able to act upon information that the cia might have the fbi might have that the other one might appeal to shed a light on how dangerous that information was.

father and the son, but it is typical of people on the left who make this thing -- let's go back to the only specific thing he said. i'm just gonna ignore this psycho drama. let's go to one specific thing he said, which was a comment by president bush when he's asked at a press conference, i believe in slovenia, where he's meeting with putin for the first time. an associated reporter said to

president bush, do you trust him? you're standing there with the leader of russia. you're trying to establish a good working relationship with this major power. you got choices. you can say yes or no. bush chose yes. imagine what would have happened if he had said, well, i don't know if i can trust him? what if he said, no, i can't trust this guy? what kind of personal relationship and what kind of diplomatic relationship would the united states have with this major power? i think the president took the right tone, which was to say, i think we can have a good relationship with him. i looked in his eyes and i believe we can trust him. that's how you establish a personal relationship, which will help further the diplomatic relationship of the major power. did we think he was our friend and ally on each and every moment in no. were we weary of his intentions? you bet we were. but in diplomacy it's important to establish that on a strong a

footing as possible. that was the right thing to do. >> host: you write about president bush's management style. it left the impression he was board when the truth was that the meeting needed to end. it >>'s interesting. al mentioned history. bush was a history major at yale. he was a harvard mba. couple years ago john lewis ganist, the famous cold war historian, was speaking at a yale alumni meeting. having been bush's teacher at yale, he was impressed with the cast of his mind, his ability, his recall, his thought process, how smart and abled he was. he shared these reflections with the yale alumni group, which sounded a lot like al, dismissive of it. it is -- in part a failing that bush brings on himself by playing the good old boy from midland, but he is a well-read, thoughtful history major from yale who then went on and got

his mba from harvard. >> host: did you plead david plus audacity to win? >> i have got it on my stack to read, but no. >> host: who is bill chrisoff? >> bill chrisoff and chris chrisoff appear in the book. they are a remarkable couple with two extraordinary sons nathan and austin chrisoff. nathan chrisoff was a marine first lieutenant who was killed in an b.a. r in 2006. i met his parents and his broeshg literally the fine week that i was at the white house pip went with president bush to the american legion convention on tuesday, the last week of august, 2007. and it was sort of an emotional thing for me because it would be the last time i was on air force one. it would be the last time i would be the senior aide to the president on a trip, certain responsibilities you have and that kind of deal. and i was going home. i spent part of my childhood in nevada. and i knew that the president would give a speech to the american legion.

i knew afterwards we would have to go meet with over a dozen families who had lost someone in iraq or afghanistan. the president did this almost every week from november of 2001 on. and this particular instance it was the first time he had been to northern nevada with time to spare since he had become president, since the balloon went up in afghanistan. and so after the speech, he went back behind the curtain and met with each family individually. and when we walked into the room and met the chrisoffs, i stood over in the corner to take notes. christine chrisoff began to speak. she is one of the more remarkable people i have ever met. she was calm and cool and focused, and very, very fluent. really remarkable person. she talked about the love that she had for her two sons. she talked about the kind of relationship she would have with her son when he would come off combat patrols. they would e-mail or talk to

each other over the lap top. she talked about the global war on terror and the kind of world she hoped to see if she were allowed to have grandchildren. talked ab her pride in her younger son who was going go into combat in march of 2008. when we finished, about 20 minutes or, so the president said, is there anything i can do for you? bill chrisoff, who had not said a single word, spoke up and said, yes, mr. president. there's something you can do for me. i'm an orthopedic surgeon. when my son goes into combat in march, i would like to be in the united states navy medical reserve, providing health care to the marines but they won't let me baz eem 61. will you give me an age waiver. and part of my last week at the white house was spent getting his paperwork, checking him out and getting him in the hands of pete pace. when thursday came to see the president and the president handed him the paperwork i saw pace outside the office, outside the oval office after he finished the meeting on other subjects. checked with him to see that he had gotten the paperwork. he said i'll give you a quick

answer. i'm leaving tomorrow at 3:00. and get it to joe hagan, my colleague. and sure enough, they gave him an age waiver. he passed basic training at the age of 61, was commissioned in november, december of 2007 as a lieutenant commander in the navy. he sent me last april photographs from his surgery room and surgery suite in baghdad with a little bit of complaint that he was doing too many sports injuries and he felt he would be better used in afghanistan. pictures of him in front of an osprey. his commanding officer let him fly over on the milk run, the supply run to anbar so he could have lunch with his son who was serving. and couple weeks ago he america,

which is something everyone up here on this panel is dedicated to. my name is paul hutton. i am a professor at the university of new mexico, which i hope you won't hold against me. [laughter] >> i am the executive director of the western writers of

america. and our topic today is indeed the american west, and history as a seller. this particular session is sponsored by the alliance bank of arizona. we want to thank them, and the presentation will last approximately an hour. and we will go about 40 minutes. will open it up for question. if you do have questions, you need to come up here to the microphone and ask your question at the microphone. so i will give you kind of a high sign and you can form a line if you want to. and we need to do that, because we want to welcome c-span2 hour session. they are broadcasting this today. and we of course are internally grateful for c-span and all they do to keep the book a lot and literacy alive and especially american history alive. in our country. and so we welcome them. at the conclusion of our session, please join us in the office at the signing area, which is area one.

and it is 10 to be. we ate may want to write and when you are writing down and reaching for events, we turn over internal cell phones off, too, if you would. it i so remember to do my. and anyone, tent b is located southwest and the authors will be autographing their books. let me introduce to you our panel. all of whom have have had great success recently. recently, with history books. and books about the american west. at the end of the table is jim donovan, the founder and president of jim donovan literary, literary agency in dallas, texas. he as a graduate of the university of texas. we take that kind of art in new mexico were iphone, but that's all right. he has worn many hats in his life in the publishing business beginning his career in publishing and and awesome bookstore back in 1981, moving

to douse any for to become a buyer for a retail bookstore chain. he's been an editor and he is an agent and even more important for our purposes, of course, is a best selling author with his recent book a terrible glory, published by little brown on custer and the big one which los angeles times said was the last word on the last stand, somehow donovan and i both know that's not true. it will never be the last word on the last stand. and now since he is absolutely evidently infatuated with people invading other peoples countries and getting wiped out, he is doing the alamo. [laughter] >> i always like to come you go to someone's backyard and they shoot you and then you are a hero. it's very good. >> jeff guinn has written 15 books in his career.

is also a graduate of the university of texas. researchers used the book editor at the fort worth star-telegram, and he just informed me that his publisher has informed him that his book, the autobiography of santa claus a list in 2003 has now sold 500,000 copies, which is pretty sweet. so congratulations on that. and actually won children about santa claus and had a huge success you would want to write about psychotic killers. and so -- [laughter] >> just been turned to the true untold story of bonnie and clyde, published by simon & schuster in 2009. he is currently working, decide to switch sides and go with the law after seeing what happened to bonnie and clyde. is now working on wyatt earp. and at the end of the table is hampton sides, who did not go to the university of texas. but did barely crawl through yale university.

[laughter] >> and it acts within the paper. i didn't believe it until he showed it to me. he is from memphis where he was born and raised. he's had a very successful career in journalism. is editor at large with outside magazine, which i know many of you read. his book, ghost soldiers in 2001 about the but and network and a i wrote rescue attempt in the philippine campaign was made into a motion picture. and, of course, his blood and done, the story of kit carson and america was published by doubleday in 2006 has been an enormous success. at that sort of resurrected the name of kit carson and american history. hampton is now, he was it in santa fe. he phoned kit carson west and south i it did for a while. and he is just completed held down on his treo, which is the story of the king assassination and the manhunt for the assassin which will be published by doubleday next month.

so we are all looking forward to that. i think a good place to start discussion like this and we would just start with jim, is why did you select this topic? i actually know why donovan selected. he has the same tactic addiction that i have to custer. there are no 12 step programs but you're doomed for life. but how in the world do you take something that you love, a story that you love and that you have always been fascinated with and turn it into a bestseller, nevada, convinced a publisher that they need to publish a book on something that everyone believes they already know about? >> are you finish? >> i am done. you are on. [laughter] >> we might get a word in edgewise here. i had an early book, a coffee table book on the subject of the battle of a little bit corn. as you know coffee table books arno