you never know when something will increase. we've had a difficult summer with terrorism. so certain regions where i may have sent students prior, i can't. or i might approach it in a different manner. in a different manner. i'm constantly seen legal counsel and consulting them. we do have a push, pull relationship because i want to have as much opportunity presented to students in as much of the world open to them but legal counsel can say no, we have to have these legalities covered as well and this is the language we have to use. so i use my language, they use their. we usually find a great marriage in terms of the sort of document in the end. you have to visit it. also different groups, groups, it's not just necessarily your international study abroad campus group. it applies to businesses. any committee or any group that has knowledge of risks oversees or ideas of what they want for their future can provide input with those documents. any other questions that we may

address? >> a few years ago what i was doing some work i heard about. [inaudible] with small business. certainly i came out of that learning that. [inaudible] you need to protect yourself can you talk about that expect at all. >> so i wanna make sure i understand your question. >> you agreed first service at a certain price and perhaps even though you have a contract there different understanding of what you do. >> you talk about contract that's a good start, if you you don't have anything in writing, you're in trouble. typically. really, you always want to have, if possible reputable company or group that is helping as the middle sort of person in your transaction.

slightly different from what you're talking about but i think it relates is that we had a professor and it was actually in texas where she decided when she was taken a group to egypt that she wanted to have arrangements made herself into it herself. you really never want to do that because she took a group to egypt which was fine, but while while in egypt decided she wanted to, -- and i put as coordinator pearl. she took this group of students on horses through an arranged guide along the nile. it sounds very nice and beautiful. and so this guide with horses and her students on horses, and he no longer met the agreement that you are to state near the nile. we are are going to ride near the nile. and he started to diverge from the path and she got nervous. she said that is not what we

agreed on, and he demanded that the group get off the horses immediately. he and his horses left and rode off into the sunset. so here was this group in the middle of egypt, had no idea where they were, didn't know if the area was dangerous or not. and there is some friction sometimes with americans in egypt now. but she really felt she was in a vulnerable state and was fortunate they were able to come after couple of miles on their way to some familiar ground. they knew knew they were open to real problems. i guess that's a long answer to say, yes, you want to make sure you have something contractually in place, never never try to make arrangements on your. certainly not while you are abroad. get that all short up before you ever go overseas. >> thank you everyone for coming. >> thank you is very thorough information.

>> i'm very happy to share this i hope i did some good. thank you very much. >> if everyone would like to grab a slice of pizza before you leave you're welcome to do that. [applause]. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> c-span, created by america's cable television company about two as a public service. >> afterwards is next on book tv.

alberto gonzalez discusses his time as attorney general and counsel to the president during the george w. bush administration. his new book is called true faith and allegiance, true faith story of service and sacrifice in war and peace. he is interviewed by brent kendall of the wall street journal. >> host: alberto gonzales, currently law school dean, former counsel to the president of george w. bush, texas bush, texas state supreme court justice, now author of a new book, memoir recounting his life both in texas and working for governor bush in texas and his time in washington. welcome. >> guest: thank you, it is good to be here. >> host: let's start with why the book, why now, what motivated you to write it. i know several of your colleagues who work within the bush administration have written books about their time there. what prompted the book? >> guest: it is something i've

been working on for many years. obviously i've met several distractions in the interim. i thought coming up on the 15th anniversary would be a nice mark to try to hit. i was also motivated by the fact, you're right, there have been several memoir's written, people's perspectives have been out there. i perspectives have been out there. i thought it might be important to add my for my son's sake. quite honestly there is been a lot written and set about me. some of it true, some of it not true. i wanted him to get my perspective about the events that shaped me and really affected their lives as well. >> it was certainly an impact time both when you served in texas and when you served in washington. briefly before we get into that, the first part of your book you talk about your likely path to service. both in texas and washington in that bomb politics were an acquired taste for you. i thought it would be nice if

you could talk people through briefly where you came from and how you got yourself in the position to serve. >> i grew up in texas and it town called humble texas. i grew up in a poor family. there were eight of us to the son of a construction worker who had a second grade education and my mom had a six grade education so we were poor. we lived in a small two bedroom house in texas. and you're right, the politics and law were things we did not talk about her think about. my dream was to play centerfield for the san francisco giants because willie mays was my hero and i really loved baseball.

quite honestly when i graduate from high school even though i was a good student, to not have much encouragement to go to college and so i listed in the air force and got stationed in alaska where i managed a couple of air force academy graduates who saw something in me and appointed me to the academy which i did. from there, i left the academy because my eyesight fail me. i wanted to to be a fighter pilot and transferred to a small private school in houston and from there to harvard law school. after graduating from harvard i went to work in houston and a law firm for 13 years. then i met george w. bush and that change my life. >> host: let's talk about that. you are in private practice and you say in the book that you got a little restless doing that and you slowly gravitated toward politics. what sort of of guided you in that direction? what issues were really motivated to. >> so i was restless. i thought i was not using my law to agree, i do not feel fulfilled. so i so i got involved in organizations in houston texas, organization primarily focused on education and focused on hispanic issues.

and i felt like i wanted to make more of a difference in the lives of other individuals. with a law degree and my experience working in a big firm it set me up well to be involved in some very important events in houston. and that is how i got to know george w. bush when he was elected governor 1994. >> you say in the book that he felt the republican party was a pretty natural fit for you, you said you did not did not agree with everything the party stood for but that the party promoted truth is you sought and better represented core hispanic values. and this is one of the themes that you return to several times in the book. i'm curious as to what your views are on that now that we have had a heated and highly unusual presidential contests that were the middle of. are your views on the party and given some of the things that donald trump is set on immigration, have your views changed and how do you view how

things are going now? >> guest: i'm a lifelong republican and i still believe in the balance of the republican party. the party is not defined by one individual or the experiences of one individual. so like some republicans, i have some concerns about our nominee. i have equal if not more concerns about the democratic nominee. so my sense of my loyalty, my affection affection and my respect for the party has not changed. i think we are early, were still early in the presidential cycle. that is why were going to have debate so we can become more educated about these two

candidates. i want to see them standing side-by-side answering questions. i will make up my mind as to who is best for my perspective to serve in the white house, who is best for me and my family. and all voters should do the same. irrespective of party they should look at irrespective of party they should look at the person who believe is best to lead our country. >> host: at one point in the book you caught a speech that president bush gave in which she said, fearful people build walls, competent people tear them down. was that in any way, a commentary on the current political debate, or not? >> know is really more commentary on the thinking of president bush. i think it is one of the reasons why he was so effective in his outreach why he was so effective in his outreach to the hispanic community. they believed in him. they viewed him, i think as a messenger for him, with the right message in the right tone. it was really a commentary on president bush and his ability to reach out to various and diverse communities in this great nation. >> host: i will ask you to talk briefly about how you met i got to note the governor and then president bush who clearly hit it off with right away. i wanted to read a passage from the book, you say he had an

amazing command of important issues in a face-to-face conversation that was nearly impossible not to like him. i certainly did, he said looking back i realize it it was not about politics, i would've supported george w bush had he been a democrat. so how did you get to know each other and how did forge this bond? >> guest: my wife said we met in 1988 when his father was running for president. i do do not remember that meeting. what i do remember in 1993 when he was announced he was going to be running against ann richards, popped the governor of texas. i was asked to set up a meeting for my firm for hispanic leaders in houston so he could meet them. i could meet them. i was happy to do that. i remember when he came and spoke i liked him. but i really thought he had no chance to beat and richards and he proved me wrong. again, i really do not know the man. so two weeks after the election i got a call from one my partner saint i just heard from the governor, he has asked whether not you would be

interested in being on his general counsel. so two weeks later i go to austin and i sit down with governor bush and talk about what he expected of me. i had questions about the job. at the end of the conversation i asked him, i have to ask you, why me? you don't know me. they're 75,000 lawyers in texas you could've asked to do this job, why me? and this job, why me? and he relayed the story that back in 191988i interviewed for some positions in his father's administration. i ultimately declined, i was offered some junior level position at hud and the va, but i wanted to stay and make partner my firm, the firm had never had a history hispanic partner and i wanted to be the first. i thought by making partner it would give me more opportunities in the future. so. so i said no to his father. suffice word to austin and george w. bush said you turned down my old man for a job and

that i got a my radar screen. so that's how we got to know each other. we didn't know each other before then and i really believe that for george w. bush, the son of a president, my story resonated with him. i think you took great pride that someone with my background could achieve things that i achieved and of course he was very instrumental in some of those achievements. >> host: before we turn to your service in washington, you start this council and then become secretary of state and then governor bush appointed you to the texas supreme court. and there's a chapter in there when you talk about the core service and it becomes part of a theme in the book where you are frustrated with the way democrats treated you during your service. but you expressed frustration from conservatives treated you during your time in one of the early examples you cited from your time and your texas supreme court and some of the cases you had to deal with with the abortion statute dealing with parental notification. can you speak speak to what those cases were about and why you felt like

those became an issue and how some on the conservative side he felt unjustly were skeptical towards you? spee2 the texas legislator past notification statute which allowed a minor female to get an abortion through a traditional bypass by going to a judge. if certain conditions were met so for example if she was mature and well-informed. if in telling her parents it would not be in her best interest, and so there are three conditions laid out. it fell upon the courts to try to interpret what is the legislature intent in passing the statue. again, again, this is not about abortion, it was a

statutory construction case in terms of trying to discern what it is a texas legislator intended when they created these exceptions to a minor having to notify her parent. now as a parent i would have of course wanted to be informed of this decision. so i was not crazy about the statute, nonetheless, the legislature had created these exceptions. i had to honor the decision by the legislature and so there was some tension upon members of the court about how broad to interpret those, and i think the fact that i did not interpret the as broadly as somewhat of liked in a conservative wing, i think it hurt my standing in the conservative circles. again, i do not support abortion, i believe in the rights of parents to know about the health of their daughters and the decisions made about a series procedure like an abortion, but from my perspective it was not write my role as a judge to take that into account. my job was to try to understand and discern what

it is the legislator intended when he passed the statute. >> so he moved to washington, president bush wins the election, he decides to leave the state and the supreme court enjoin him. in washington was that a difficult decision are pretty much a no-brainer if you asked if you join? >> guest: i was happy being on the court. it was a great to be in. i'll a lot of speculation to on the campaign of who might be going to washington. so my friends told me you're for sure going to go out, but i was happy being on the court. in september i was i had a conversation with a conversation with clay johnson, the president who was heading up the transition and i let them know that there is interest in me going to washington as counsel. i'd talk to my wife and said it would be a opportunity we cannot pass up.

for the remainder of the campaign we watched carefully how the campaign went, knowing what the outcome could fundamentally alter the trajectory of our lives. so you ask whether not without a hard decision, not really. we had the opportunity to work in the white house as a senior staffer for someone that you know well and respect and someone you believe would be good for the country. that made the decision quite easy. >> i wesley you come washington in the september 11 ask happen and that changes everything and we will get into that in detail, before we do i wanted wanted to touch on a few other areas after you come to washington, be in a texan and and at this point you knew president bush well, but really part of the washington establishment which you talk about several times in the book, you you mention one time early on, again there was speculation that perhaps you would be a supreme court appointee someday.

you talk multiple times again about some conservatives having suspicion of you. you mentioned a speech in which they booed you at one point. there is also some very heated discussions within the administration on a supreme court case when the high court was looking at the university of michigan affirmative action program. in which it took weeks if not longer to work out what the administration vision was going to be in in the end you say you are satisfied with it but also felt like perhaps it may have damaged tears standing somewhat within some conservative circles. can you talk about that briefly? >> there was a lot of speculation about me going on the court. a number number of stories written by national publications about the fact that president bush wanted to put a hispanic on the court for the first time and it would be a historic pic. i was viewed as a leading contender given my relationship

with the president and given my experience on the texas supreme court. there was concern or skepticism. and that was very visible concern about my credentials and my views about certain issues. like abortion, because the parental notification votes that i rendered, but also because of my perceived role in the michigan affirmative action case, i think the perception out there was that i was supportive of quotas and i wanted to uphold the michigan program. that was not true. i felt both the university program and the law school program were both light quotas. they put too much emphasis on race and therefore it was unconstitutional and cannot be supported for that reason. but for whatever reason the narrative out there was, amongst the conservatives that i was supporting the michigan programs

, but that just was not the case. i think the narrative was also that karl rove was supporting the national programs and that was not the case. in the end what i promoted i promoted was what the president wanted. he did not want to be on record at opposing affirmative action. if the courts wanted to say that race can never be considered in a decision by universities he would leave it up to the courts. his position was, these programs are too much light quotas and therefore he cannot support them. >> so he thought middleground of those cases and there are some difficult discussions with others at the time who wanted to take a stronger position that diversity was not a legitimate educational goal. the administration, then we ended up with middleground rulings from those cases on the supreme court and obviously we began having these issues back before the supreme court and the university of texas case which i'm guessing you also followed. in the end, what a your thoughts

on how the law was shaken out? >> quite frankly this is where president bush was in terms of i think his view was it is probably okay given the circumstances to have that as of one. the educational experience is enhanced with people from different backgrounds obviously it is unfair. if you give race it so consideration that is the overriding factor. so where we are today think is something that president bush would support. i'm i'm comfortable with it although i clearly understand that many conservatives still believe it is inappropriate to ever consider race as a factor under the constitution. but the supreme court, at least today has it disagreed with that position. >> host: so moving out to national security in the

september 11 attacks. obviously that immediately shifts the administration's focus, the tax were shocked the nation and raised a host of legal issues that presidents often had to confront in some perhaps never at all on those landed on your desk. there are several we can dive into, i suppose the first is, let's talk about the captive detainees after military operation started in afghanistan. and where to put them on their captured and not surprisingly, there is a a good bit in your book about the decision to house detainees at guantánamo bay. and you said basically it was the best but not very good options of what we could do. obviously

this is a complicated issue and you point out that president obama, despite his plan to close gitmo still has not. i wonder if if you could speak to the decision-making process there and as time has gone on and you have more time to think about it what your reflections are at this point? >> you outlined the fact that there is a difficult decision. we've looked at a number of decisions outlined in the book and concluded that the best option wasn't quintana moore. that was a recommendation to the council that was presented to the council and president bush accepted that recommendation. one thing thing that's very important to emphasize, president bush did i want to be the world's jailer. he wanted guantánamo closed as well. the problem is we could never give him a viable alternative and that we kept capturing people and those that we had captured we had to keep somewhere, we could not give them a viable alternative so in his term ended the obama administration came in

with that pledge to close guantánamo but he apparently was never presented with good options and for that reason guantánamo remains open today. it's a decision that both bush and president obama struggled with because of the very nature of the kind of people these people are and because of the nature of the war on terror. >> the decision to not house them here, stateside, do you do you feel at the end of the day that was the legal consideration or political consideration through the primary driver there? >> i would say they're both very important, politically again we are talking about was still 2001 in early 2002 and were capturing people. new york is still smoldering from the attacks and we just thought that politically the american people would not stand for the government bringing in

these dangerous terrorists. thousand political consideration, but also legally once they step foot on american soil we were unclear over what constitutional rights based upon precedents. without without that clarification from the court we just thought that a safer course would be to house them at quantum obey. >> and additional addition where to house them, there is obviously heated and important discussions about how to interrogate them. as he's in the the book, some of these people, you know they are hardened terrorists and not likely to just tell you information because you ask them. so then the question becomes, how to get them to divulge things they do not want to divulge and where exactly the line is between legal conduct an illegal conduct. the cia cia and defense department did interrogations during this time, there were a lot of difficult debates on some of that and you say is sort of rightly or wrongly that you have become the

public face for a lot of the doj recommendations there. can you walk us through a bit about what's at the crux of some of these debates were? >> let me begin by saying that former senator current senator schumer has publicly said in the judiciary committee hearing that there be instances where he felt it would be appropriate to torture someone in order to get information if that information new obama was about to go off in new york city for an example. bush took a different abuse view. we have an anti-torture statute that says it would be unlawful to intentionally inflict severe, physical or mental pain or suffering, that is all the statute says. it does not outlaw specific techniques. i just quoted for you what the law says. it you what the law says.

it was the job of the lawyers to try and take that language and provide guidelines for the interrogators at the cia, it took them about four months, there is a lot of debate and discussion about how much of the law would allow. what most people do not understand is that one the united states entered into the convention against torture, we agreed to criminalize conduct that constituted torture. it also talks talks about cruel and humane treatment. that cruel and inhumane treatment is due for the torture. torture is the highest form of pain that can be inflicted on an individual. meaning that we could do something that may be cruel, it may be inhumane, but but it doesn't necessarily mean it's torture or that you have violated the antitorture statute. so that is sort of the context for what we had to deal with i don't mean by trying to do this that what we did would not be

torture. and i get that, i merely meant to describe in the book our efforts to try to get it right. sometimes we got it right, maybe sometimes we did not get it right but we are just tried to do our very best to make up the constitution and the laws passed by congress. >> at the end of the day looking, it under international law it was lower than what you thought it should be in terms of the type of enhance techniques that were permissible, correct? >> know, the ball that was low was in the definition of cruel and unusual treatment. there are certain cores that interpreted those words cruel and inhumane treatment to say that if you put a person in cell that didn't have it open bathroom or window to the outside would constitute cruel

and unusual treatment. so they took resolution when the treaty was ratified that that would mean that it would only shock the conscious under the circumstances. . .

>> >> and is it lawful clacks and i told him in dash judgment i will tell you if it is lawful and effective. and if it is necessary and he was fine with that. he could have vast of course, we would have given it to him but knowing that we were engaging in this with the lawyers including john ashcroft. and the interrogators that the cia the individuals there is no other way to get the information that

decision was made to go forward to give the specific details to the president. :the cia began the interrogation can you talk about that process a little bit? >> but to get involved to make decisions or given vice the there are concerns about that pirate policy but with my own moral views and influence and legal interpretation of the law. but as a hispanic i have very strong policy views and and i may convey those tajo

-- and the president may say i appreciate that or he may say that i was elected by the american people. so sometimes it is those policy decisions that i worry about. with that reputation of george w. bush. for what the law required or are allowed. >> but from reading the book is seems that the end of the day that these techniques were effective in those that

provided a legal basis after they became public and to damage that reputation that it was vital to protecting the nation. >> with their are others that testified under oath to keep america safe but in terms of law school with the senior leadership, i remember having a conversation that assured me this was viewed of the leadership.

and that is about that legal justification for some of these. but given us circumstances. >> another that comes through particularly but you felt like the justice department leadership. better you second-guessing is this part of the interrogation? >> i think it is important to assure the lawyers at the department of justice are

providing advice consistent with their professional dues. sometimes they will question the rationale or motivation sewed to me that could be dangerous because the criticism to be invested and prosecuted but that urges the lawyers from doing their job for that legal the vice the taping is solid because here they will be investigated or prosecuted but perhaps critical of the decision made by the and ministrations.

and to be possibly a prosecuted. >> bigger than the interrogation was a classified programs after 9/11. to learn about intelligence failures and to keep that from happening again. for those that go into this. there were three baskets of the administration. to keep an eye on the terrorist during the time.

and then we will talk about the one flashpoint for with the officials came. >> it took the u.s. government precisely because of this sort of want to be careful about what i say. about these activities. obviously don't want to compromise what we did but i can say because of the reason, i was very clear with that initial drafting of the book but things became less clear what that

particular area where really don't understand what happened. i could have more activities one related to the content collection. the international and intelligence officer. that is the only program that was publicly exposed by the new york times december 2006. but the second basket put the third was a collection of the e-mail message data. than the dispute that occurred between the white house, we were not listening to innocent american phone calls.

said then we can go on to other questions. hopper. >> as i a understand did that the metadata use the information to help target where you need to be more specifically for a potential terrorist. >> assuming people still get telephone bills with the date and the time but the supreme court has said there is no expectation of privacy with metadata. so there is no constitutional issue but whether or not the collection was violating a statute that outlines how

electronic communications can be captured or collected by the government. that was the source between the white house and department of justice. with this important point to the dispute activity that the attorney general ashcroft approved over two 1/2 years. we were walking along doing fine but then he gets ill and goes into the hospital. the program is reauthorize by the president every 45 days or so. and in connection with that we authorization is the signature by the attorney general. it is about to expire in general ashcroft become sicking goes into the hospital so the

authorization falls to the ed deputy attorney general james komi. >> at the time we also have new people and the justice department legal counsel rendering opinions on the legal justification up parts of this program from the earlier opinions. >> yes. looking back at the disagreements that existed among the of lawyers all related to the president have the authority under the constitution to have a primary source of authority one is express constitutional authority this second statutory when congress passes a law to tell the president you can do this the third is the constitutional authority and some people believe that

should be of limited others have a more expansive view but as commander-in-chief in the time of war. so we're really centered on differences of opinion on the scope of the constitutional liberty as commander-in-chief in the time of war. >> now the fbi director call me when general ashcroft was in the hospital the deputy attorney general list opinion to issues and there were heated discussions between him and the white house which led to the infamous hospital visit. i will let you walk us through that. walked through the visit and then the resection in the book were using virtually every description of this

event has been inaccurate or skewed. so tell us about the event and why hasn't it been portrayed correctly but. >> we have a disputed activity of the deputy attorney general call me -- to 20 no one activity signed off last to unhappier soprano there is not a basis we come up on the 45 days president bush makes a recommendation he will shut it down. so they invite the congressional leadership to the situation room they receive a briefing about the program and basically they say we have the problem with

the department of justice that don't think it is in the authority to do this so we want your help with legislation. they said no not without compromising the existence of the program. so basically there was a consensus to continue. after the meeting we go to the residence to meet with the president and tell him about the meeting. they say that we should go to the hospital to ask general ashcroft as a former senator that would carry weight and he would be persuaded to continue the program and additional 45 days and tell it was sorted out. so we're directed by the president to meet with the attorney general he had surgery was a serious

illness of you was walking around that day. as a walk back from the residents to the rose garden and that all the way to the hospital which talked about concerns of general ashcroft not being confident we did not want to be accused of talking to was acquitted me the one of us was uncomfortable as he was not confident we would not ask. introduce ourselves and basically he spoke for 10 minutes about his understanding of the problem and what was advised and bolts and elliott is in progress it doesn't matter i am no longer the attorney general. so then there was an additional conversation and we left without ever asking him to do anything for having the opportunity to

even tell him about the meeting with the congressional leadership. i testified about this under oath. also to the inspector general if they want to question there is no basis. i have testified under oath. we were there at the direction of the president to run for attorney-general the meeting of the congressional leadership and ask if we. ♪ continue to sign off on another 45 days the activity he signed off on the previous two 1/2 years when we learn to was no longer the attorney general. >> did you know that at the time? >> we did not know but when we got back to the white house to inform the of president at the time of war he is nodding command he was

understandably very upset. in july wish it never happened? yes. i think it hurt both of us professionally. of course, the story alleges went to take advantage of basic me and. that just is untrue we went with direction from the president will learn to was no longer the attorney general be left. >> one of the things that i find remarkable they were so focused on general ashcroft you did not realize that to 20 was in the room at the time. it is hard to understand but the room was dark and you are reduced to people being around of president like security detail i assumed it was semi did not pay attention i was focused like

a laser on the general -- john general ashcroft. his wife was at his bedside that is all that i focused i had no idea until we got back that jim teach 20 and goldsmith was also in the room. if i had known that i probably would have stopped outside and wanted to talk to them. but it didn't happen. >> to be clear the administration wanted the justice department to sign-off because previously the president could go ahead without the justice department acquiesced but that is a more dangerous path for the president as at the end of the david ministries and made changes to the program that caused concern? >> i think it is always dangerous politically berger

you're always worried about that but more important as our ability to continue this activity with the telecom carriers and without that signature from the department of justice it wouldn't continue to cooperate that is why it was important to get the signature but going to general ashcroft again it was an extraordinary act, but under the extraordinary time but sure enough the next morning we woke up to the train bomb in matra. we were very worried what was going on at the time. that is what we went to the hospital. >> i was under the impression you were fairly hard on director teach 20

with the testimony he gave of testimony about the hospital room incident. and usa it damaged you're standing and career. do you still have frustrations bob? du feel they had done you a disservice? >> i honor his sacrifice to his country and from his family. we simply had a difference of opinion. i had a hard time understanding with the circumstances ashcroft approved this over to unhappier over the of legal issues.

so why don't i just wait? ashcroft would be recovered it would be much easier to except his view given the fact he authorized this the previous two unhappier so it was hard to render stand what was motivating of deputy general. he said it was hard nitride to be as factual as i could buy. >> there is a passage of this testimony. >> was going to address that. if you go testify about something, with your service , on a sensitive subject or if you are a

high-ranking official, you would notify the department of justice or the white house and it was disappointing to me that he would not have the courtesy to do that. i have read newspaper accounts that we retried to do something to stop him. first volatile think we can do anything to stop him but why would we try? that was foolish and sophomoric the notion to stop the testimony. i do disagree with that. >> that shows how remarkable of a time to have 45 members -- minutes into this conversation we have not even talked about iraq. but those decisions to engage militarily and what

we thought we knew. what to focus for your book is the day of the of the authority for taking action in iraq. there is a discussion about the evolution of anticipatory self-defense and when it is okay for a country to take military action against another but not necessarily when the attack is imminent towards you and talk about literally if you need to be in a situation if you are caught fire after a series or a broader view in terms of a heightened threat down the road. and there is a section in your book before the military action starts.

what about my authorities? are they airtight? and those questions are still being asked to. >> not really for protection it wanted to abide by the constitution and the international and domestic obligation. for other than these were very difficult issues than they worked very hard. there was a lot of discussion and debate about the glove authorities of course, ultimately be have the military force of congress but that question that we wrestle with was whether or not under international law to be have legal authority with that un

resolution in the and we have several countries in the coalition to take military action in iraq. ims to talk about this in the book is going into iraq was a mistake putting the problem asking that question is with the 2016 mentality. we began looking at iraq in 2002 as a leader of the 9/11 attacks with president bush and white house. there was not a similar attack happening again so what we learned iraq had a relationship without ida and their weapons of mass destruction share those without cited then that was a serious issue. he was not going to allow another attack to happen.

sitting here today we cannot appreciate the pressure that president bush felt in 2002 about potentially all kinda getting weapons of mass destruction from saddam hussein. but based on that information that we had with the degree of weapon of mass destruction. with that relationship with the outside the. -- a oxide etch. >> you were more comfortable at the end of the day that the u.s. had a longer-term threat from iraq to justify under international law to take action?

>> guess. it wasn't just us. was in did fight -- and it is devising the government also u.k. to join the coalition. i know there is a disagreement about this. but obviously there were lawyers in various countries >> the rest of your book is it in the white house as counsel and then you go to doj did nominate you to the attorney general. >> we get 350 pages in the book before restart discussing your urd doj service plot of that was

over the removal of several u.s. attorney's. as well as for you portray areas of public misunderstanding of your actions. can you talk to us briefly through that? use said there may have been some mistakes the whole issue was handled but nothing improper effort to place. >> we did a terrible job in communicating what we did and why. question and a half to except blame for that. that the end of the day it was fully investigated by congress and the department of justice there was nothing improper purpose of the president lee attorney-general star political and they really are and the removals' is okay as long as it doesn't

obstruct the ongoing investigation. the special prosecutor that was appointed all walked to determine nothing improper happened. >> it is 2007 and you weathered a good bit of that. then the director testimony then late summer 2007 a decision was made it had gotten to the point you're having difficulty being effective as of us to permit to justice and you resigned. that was the shock to the system after being involved all these years