>> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays future live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy this. and every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> here's a look at some books that are being published this week.

look for these titles in bookstores this week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and booktv.org. >> booktv is on facebook and

twitter. light and follow us for book industry news, booktv schedule updates, behind the scene looks at author events and to interact with authors during live television programming. here are a few from this past week. we tweeted an article about authors including salman rushdie who has protested russia's stance on free speech. we tweeted information about this months of tv book club selection, women's history for beginners. >> the biggest challenge for me, let's say as an american educator is that women, women's studies frighten people because the assumption is all women's issues are about the body, therefore, all women's history will be somehow about birth control, therefore it's not appropriate for a kindergartner or a middle school class. >> you can watch this entire interview at booktv.org. on facebook we posted a link about the first degree in self-publishing to be offered at

the university of central lancashire and to recognize the 10th anniversary of facebook we posted david kirkpatrick's presentation of the facebook effect. >> on facebook you have to be yourself in order to get the benefits that the software is designed to give you. in other words, you can pretend to be someone you're not but you won't really have a lot of friends because the whole point of facebook is to connect with people you really know and they will not know each if you don't usual real name. >> follow was on tour at booktv and life goes on facebook, facebook.com/booktv. for more news on booktv. >> at the time the central intelligence agency had really taken a beating. they had been through grueling hearings before congress about who should be blamed for 9/11 and whether the cia had failed to watch list certain individuals and otherwise failed

to share information with the fbi that might have foretold of or allowed the fbi to investigate the plots on 9/11. the cia, i think it's fair to say, was really buffeted by these particular hearings, and then the 9/11 commission came along and had another set of hearings which really were very, very tough. indeed, the chairman of the 9/11 commission noted that their staff statement about what happened was the cia did on 9/11 was really an indictment of the agency's performance. a second factor that occurred that contributed to this momentous change of events in the fall of 2004 was really the 9/11 commission itself. they were a group of nationally prominent men and women who were able to build a national audience through a series of hearings about what had happened on 9/11, and really they had a lot of influence.

and, indeed, they constructed their own strategy to be able to build a legislative proposal that would have a chance of succeeding and could be acted on very swiftly. the third factor occurring at the time was it this failure or the assessment was coming into stark relief in the summer of 2004. senate intelligence community's report came out, and again the cia was at a very low level of prestige at the time. finally, you have to know of course the presence of the 9/11 commission family, became quite a powerful special interest group advocating for reform of the intelligence community, joined forces with the 9/11 commission and was able to have tremendous influence over the process. the last thing, and really the conventional wisdom is, is that

we created a director of national intelligence and a national counterterrorism center that the 9/11 commission recommended because of the presidential election of 2004. i think the conventional wisdom is a little bit wrong for the reasons i just state. i think that the looming presidential election in which the performance of george bush and whether he had made the country safer were undoubtedly incredibly powerful factors and influence to the likelihood of congress and the president to take on intelligence reform. but it's not the only factor. there was exhaustion with the cia and we had not one but two spectacular intelligence failures, really in the same to the three-year period. so what did the nine 9/11 commission recommend? what they recommended was a director of national intelligence, really a super empowered spymaster who would have the ability to come in an increasingly complex world of proliferators and stateless

international terrorists, be able to come in the 9/11 commission's words, we needed a quarterback, someone very agile would be able to move dollars, people, and analysts to be able to organize quickly to meet with the determined was perhaps a more greater intelligence for national security challenge than the soviet union had been. and the 9/11 commission's estimation the soviet union, while foreboding, at least in an intelligence sense, there were indices from which to recruit spies. there were armaments to look at through satellites and other particular government agencies to intercept recommendations. but this wasn't the case with terror cells. so we need to be able to organize differently. on the point about there being a particular electoral impact,

john kerry, the democratic nominee for president, endorsed the 9/11 commission recommendation 17 minutes after the commission recommendations were announced in july 2004. george bush endorsed the dni in concept 10 days later. so this speaks to the tremendous force, the incredible forces that were outplayed at this particular time. however, while a lot of members of congress and the two leading individuals of each political party endorse the 9/11 commission's recommendation nearly immediately, it inspired tremendous bureaucratic opposition. and this is really the heart of "blinking red." it is a tale of bureaucratic power and jockeying for influence really over the $80 billion intelligence enterprise who would be able to control the intelligence assets of the united states. ..

>> next on book tv this mail talks about his novelo