>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight the president speaks out about syria in a speech to the nation from washington. >> for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. indeed, i'd ask every member of congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack. and then ask: what kind of world will we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way. >> rose: we continue this evening with a visit from raffa nadal, the great tennis star from spain who just won the u.s. open. >> i feel emotionally very focused, very happy and enjoying every moment, no? when you are coming after the lower moments and you come back,

you feel stronger, no? and this summer have been just amazing for me winning in month reel then in cincinnati and now here in new york in the u.s. open. it's just a dream for me. >> rose: we conclude this evening with a conversation with a. scottburg and his biography of woodrow wilson. >> and it's what i tried to do with this biography of wilson which was to write the presidential biography from inside rather than from outside. i wanted to follow the man as he grew up and grew into the shoes of the president because this was one of the most emotional and passionate men and i'm not forgetting lincoln whoever inhabited the oval office. >> rose: the president speaks about syria, raffa nadal talks about his victory of the u.s. open and scottburg talks about woodrow wilson when we continue.

a scottberg. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: we begin this evening with the president's add tkroesz the nation on syria. momentum has been gathering to avert american military action. in a press conference on monday, secretary of state john kerry suggested bashar al-assad could avoid strikes against his government if he handed over his chemical arsenal to the international community. >> sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week, turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that. >> rose: the idea was quickly jumped on by russia and then syria as a workable solution. russia's ambassador to the united nations, vitaly churkin, spoke on pbs newshour last night. >> why should the american government, the u.s. government, see this as a serious move that could change the situation within a matter of days? >> because it is a serious move and it is a response to what the

secretary of state of the united states said and, of course, it can be disregarded or it can be somehow interpreted in a negative way and the united states can go ahead and do this military strike which would eliminate any chances for a political settlement which could have catastrophic consequences for syria and which would make that war another american war. >> rose: also last night president obama gave six interviews to six networks in which he addressed the evolving proposal. here is what he told skoept of cbscott pelley ofcbs news. >> it is a potentially positive development. i don't think we would have got on the the point where they would have put their something out there publicly had it not been a credible military threat from the united states and those who support serious responses to what happened inside of syria. >> rose: during my exclusive interview with syrian president bashar al-assad on sunday he seemed to suggest that he could be willing to hand over his chemical weapons stockpile even though the issue had not become public at that time. the president is prepared to

strike and perhaps will get the authorization of congress or not. the question then is would you give up chemical weapons if it would prevent the president from authorizing a strike? if that is a deal you would accept? >> again, you always imply that we have chemical weapons. >> rose: i have to, because that's the assumption of the president, that is his assumption and he is the one who will order the strike. >> it's his problem if he has assumption. but for us in syria we have principles. we'll do anything to prevent the region from another crazy war. tse. >> rose: you'll do anything to prevent the region from another crazy war? >> yes. >> rose: you recognize the consequences if there is a strike? >> it's not about me, it's about the region. >> rose: it's reported secretary kerry will travel to meet his counterpart sergei lavrov. in a special prime time address to the nation president obama laid out his views.

>> my fellow americans, tonight i want to talk to you about syria: why it matters and where we go from here. over the past two years what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of bashar al-assad has turned into a brutal civil war. over a hundred thousand people have been killed. millions have fled the country. in that time america's worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement. but i have resisted calls for military action because we can not resolve someone else's civil war through force. particularly after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. the situation profoundly changed, though, on august 21 when assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people including hundreds of children.

the images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children lying in rows by poison gas. others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. on this that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons. and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war. this was not always the case. in world war i american g.i.s were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of europe. in world war ii, the nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the holocaust. because these weapons can kill on a mass scale with no distinction between soldier and infant the civilized world has spent a century working to ban

them. and in 1997, the united states senate overwhelmingly approved an internation agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. now joined by 189 governments that represent 98% of humanity. on august 21, these basic rules were violated along with our sense of common humanity. no one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. the world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures and social media accounts from the attack and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. moreover, we know the assad regime was responsible. in the days leading up to august 21 we know assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. they distributed gas masks to their troops.

then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. we know senior figures in assad's military regime reviewed the results of the attack and the regime increased the shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. we've studied samples of people from with blood and hair at the site that tested positive for sarin. when dictators commit atrocities that depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. but these things happened. the fact cans not be denied. the question now is what the united states of america and the international community is prepared to do about it. because what happened to those

people, to those children is not only a violation of international law it's also a danger to our security. let me explain why. if we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reasons to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. over time, our troop would face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. if fighting spills beyond syria's borders these weapons could threaten allies like turkey, jordan and israel. and a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden assad's ally, iran, which must decide

whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path. this is not a world we should accept. this is what's at stake and that is why after careful deliberation i determined that it is in the national security interests of the united states to respond to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. the purpose of this strike would be to deter assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that's my judgment as commander-in-chief. but i'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes i believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security too take this debate to

congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of congress. i believe that america act mrs. effectively abroad when we stand together. this is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force. now, i know that after the terrible poll of iraq and afghanistan the idea of any military action no matter how limited is not going to be popular. after all, i've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. our troops are out of iraq, our troops are coming home from afghanistan, and i know americans want all of us in washington-- especially me-- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to

work, educating our kids, growing our middle-class. it's no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. so let me answer some of the most important questions that i've heard from members of congress and that i've read in letters that you've sent to me. first: many of you have asked "won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war?" one man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in iraq. a veteran put it more bluntly "this nation is sick and tired of war." my answer is simple. i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. i will not pursue an open-ended action like iraq or afghanistan. ly not pursue a prolonged air campaign like libya or kosovo. this would be a targeted strike to deter the use of chemical weapons and degrading assad's

capabilities. others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out asaod. as some members of congress have said, there's no point in doing a pinprick strike in syria. let me make things clear. the united states mill doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. is i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we learned from iraq that doing so makes us ponsable for all that comes next. but a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions involved the dangers of retaliation. we don't dismiss any threats. but the assad regime does not have the threat to dismiss our

military. any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threat wes face everyday. neither assad nor his allies have any escalation that would lead to his demise and israel can defend itself as well as the unshakable sport of the united states of america. many of you have asked a broader question. why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicatedded and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. it's true some of assad's opponents are extremists but al qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic syria if people see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. the majority of the syrian people and the opposition we work with want to live in peace with dignity and freedom.

and the day after any military action we would redouble our efforts to have a political solution that strengthen those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. many of you have asked why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force. as several people wrote to me: we should not be the world's policemen. i agree. i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations. but chemical weapons were still used by the assad regime. however, over the last few days we've seen some encouraging signs. in part because of the credible threat of u.s. military action as well as constructive talks i

had with president putin the russian got has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. the assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and have said they join the chemical weapons convention which prohibits their use. it's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed and any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. but this initiative that has potential to remove the threats of chemical weapons without the use of force. particularly because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. i'm sending secretary of state john kerry to meet his russian counterpart on thursday and i will continue my own discussions with president putin. i've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies--

france and the united kingdom. we will work together in consultation with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u.n. security council requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control. we'll give inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on august 21 and continue to rally support from allies from europe to the americas from asia to the middle east who agree on the need for action. i've ordered the military to maintain their posture to keep the pressure on assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails and i give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

the united states has enforced international agreements for seven decades. the burdens of leadership are often heavy. and so, to my friends on the right i ask you to reconcil to my friends on the left, ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor. for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. indeed. i'd ask every member of congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack and then ask what kind of world will we live in if the united states of

america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? franklin park zoo once said our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglement cans not prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged. our ideals and principles as well as our national skrurt at stake in syria along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensuring that the worst weapons will never be used. america is not the world's policemen. terrible things happen across the globe and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. but when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run i

believe we should act. that's what makes america different. that's what makes us acceptional. with humility but with resolve let us never lose sight of that essential truth. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. >> rose: the president laying out his views on syria. tomorrow an assessment of his speech and other developments. but now we turn to tennis and the u.s. open champion ral yelena dahl. rafael nadal is here. he is the 2013 u.s. open champion. last night, he won his second crown at flushing meadows in a dramatic four-set victory over novak djokovic. here is a look at match point.

(cheers and applause) here's the trophy that yo you w, aassume. the united states lawn tennis association, the united states open tennis championship, men's singles. your name goes on the back or somewhere. when you collapsed at that moment what were you thinking? what was the emotion that overtakes one when they know this is the last grand slam of the season. >> well, it's very difficult to think a lot in that moment because you are focused on trying to win it. but emotions are there and thinking about all the time that

i had not the chance to become enjoy days like i did yesterday. and all these things have that people with me that are supporting me in my books makes the victory special and emotional. >> rose: where are you a year ago? >> i had been -- a year ago i was in majorca at home. >> rose: thinking what? >> enjoying the final. i am a spectator of the sport in general. i like the sport, i love tennis and i went to the great final between two great peoples like novak. >> did you know then, did you believe then that you could be playing in the finals in 2013? >> in that moment the only thing

i did was to work hard to recover so i never expected something like this. >> you love the competition with novak? >> i love the competition in general. so playing against a player like novak that brings your tennis to the limit. it's a very special thing because you know you have to play 100% your best if you have any chance to win. >> but this year has been since wimbledon remarkable. did you have a sentimental confidence that all of a sudden your game was as good as it had ever been? everything was coming together? >> well, i feel emotionally very focused, very happy and enjoying every moment. when you are coming after the lower moments and you come back you feel stronger and this

subjecter has been just amazing for me winning in montreal and this in cincinnati and now in new york and the u.s. open. it's just a dream for me. i went day by day so it's difficult to say i felt especially comfortable. the confidence arrives during the competition. >> rose: has your game changed? >> over my career i try to -- >> rose: make it better? >> to make it better and work hard to improve every aspect on my game so during the years i'm sure my game is changing. >> rose: what do you think has improved the most? >> i think i improved my position on court. it's better than what it used to be. >> rose: what does that mean? >> that means i play more inside the court. before i was playing to too defensive sometimes and running too much. today i'm able to play more

aggressive. more closer to the base line, in terms of shots i'm sure i improved a little bit myself. >> rose: i mar valued at your top spin. if this line is the back court it seemed to know exactly where it was. i realize that's what practice does but it was extraordinary. there were very few unforced errors for you last night. >> i think i played -- the first set was amazing. >> rose: 6-2. >> i played very well but i feel in the end of the second set and beginning of the third novak was on fire. >> rose: it seemed to be slipping away and people -- we were all looking and saying "what's going on here? what's he feeling? where is it happening? >> i needed to resist the

moment. i needed to be strong mentally and fight for every ball and try to don't let him focus on the score. it was very important for me to win that game in the second set. 2-0 for him. >> rose: you came back. >> i saved myself. i had only one break against you have to chance to come back and then for sure the decisive moment was three break points that was -- that was probably the key. >> rose: that was the turning point. >> rose: what a comeback! what a hole for nadal! >> i felt that the first set was decisive. after that first set i needed to start the fourth strong and if this happens -- i had the break

early so then i am in a big advantage because two sets to one after very long rallies, being hard match mentally and physically then there's no point in a tricky situation but playing against novak, all the matches i -- always very, very hard and anything can happen until the end. it's very difficult to save because he's a great champion and a great fighter. >> rose: what was your strategy? >> well, strategy when you're on court playing against novak, you know that that if you are not playing perfect, plaguing your best you will not have chances then thinking about a strategy. i try play more aggressive than before if i lose court, it's impossible because he's winning the position inside and then

he's going to stop from there so i try to don't lose the base line and when i was able to do it i had good success. >> rose: that seems to be for me what's different about your game. you are occupying the center of the court. you are inside the baseline. that's the difference from where it used to be. certainly four or five years ago, yes? >> i think, yes. i think that's very important. but it's true that if you are not having the right feelings it's very difficult to play inside because you are playing with less time and the control is less so to play what i am playing today i need to feel confident, i need to feel quick, i need to feel that the ball is going more or less where i want because it's not -- if not you are not in the right position. >> rose: for people who play on the weekend they constantly say things like "play to his back hand because he has a week back hand." is there anything that you did

like that, larger more sophisticated way with novak? >> i know i cannot play lot a lot against his back hand. his back hand is the best back hand on tour. so i needed to create him a little bit of confusion because i need change direction quick against his forehand to have chances and i cannot play with a lot of angles because if you open angles against him you need to be 100% perfect because his movement has been unbelievable. he's so flexible and able to open the court better than me so i need to wait for the right shot to attack. >> rose: he's able to open the court better than you? >> i think so. >> rose: are you sure? >> i am. (laughs) i am. >> rose: the game continues -- there is no sense on the part of you that in the game is -- each

year gets more exciting for you because your skills are better, your emergence says this will make you number one in the world again. >> not yet. we'll see. i hope. >> rose: what does that mean for you to regain place. >> for me it means a lot. it means everything, the victory of yesterday. winning the u.s. open again. and that's -- helps me to have big chance to be number one and be number one would never be a goal for me because i always felt that you are number one or you are not. you cannot try to be number one. i go day by day, i try my best every month during the season and if i had the chance to be number one at the end of the season that's great because at the end i take that at the start and finish in november and at the end of number one, at the

end of the season is the winner of the league so that motivates me, i'm exciting about that. >> rose: what do you do in off season? >> we don't have much time. >> rose: (laughs) >> in tennis it's not long period of time that you can rest and have plans. you need to adapt a little bit the kwrepblg yule during the year to find your moments. and then in december i'm going to do a few things for my foundation and play so much as in south america and the place that i don't have the chance to go very often and i feel very close to the people in south america and latin america. and practice for the next season. that's all. >> rose.>> rose: when you look , why you? why is raffa nadal as good as he is? what made you who you are?

>> combination of things. first inge i have to say thank you very much to life to give me the conditions because the conditions is coming from every physical performance. but then it's true that i always had the right people around me, especially my coach and uncle. that was decisive in my career, my family. >> rose: what did he give you? toughness? >> yeah. when i was a kid it was hard with me. he let me practice everyday with the highest intensity. let me practice everyday under pressure and i'm 100% sure that because of that today i am able to be strong mentally and to be strong in tough situations. >> rose: how did he do it? >> (laughs).

>> rose: tough, demanding? >> he was hard on court. he was very strict. he was -- he let me play with prefp your because he pushed me in every moment a lot. >> rose: off remarkable elegance in the way you handle the postgame. it comes from the hard more than anything else, yes? >> well, then you immediate to feel it. much as like yesterday you need to be involved in these kind of matches when you are a kid to have the opportunity to be there. so for me that's just amazing. i try to play with everything that i have. i try to enjoy every moment as much as i can. i play with my heart and try to

be ready for all the challenges but the most important thing is top has beenpy and -- >> rose: you have nothing not to be happy about? >> no, i feel very lucky to be where i am, seriously. >> rose: do you -- sports has been defined by great rivalries in tennis. think of sampras and agassi. think of mcenroe and borg. are we looking at that kind of a rivalry between nadal and djokovic? is that where it's at? is that going to bring even more attention and even appreciation of tennis? >> well, i had the great one with roger. >> rose: yes, you did. but you won most of those. >> i won and i lost. >> rose: you won many more than you lost. didn't you win 21 out of 31

great matches. >> 21, something like this. yes but with roger we played a lot of important matches in our careers and with novak we already played a lot of matches very important for our careers so both rivalries that i am having with novak with roger have been very special and the only thing that i can say is i feel very proud to be part of them. >> rose: my sense is you don't think about being the best in history. that you're simply focused on making your game the best it could possibly be. or do you think about being the best in history. >> i go day by day. >> rose: day by day. >> i am winning and all what i did seems that day after day is more than what i ever dreamed. >> rose: it is. what happened is more than you ever dreamed. >> i never thought about winning

or what i did so i did all of this working hard everyday and without thinking that far just keep working and being positive, playing with the right antidote until the success arrives so you know, the moment to change. not the moment to change. >> rose: no, it's not. they say you dance with what brought you. there is also this finally. i know it's been a late night and a great time to celebrate. what is it about being a champion. i mean, it's hard for us mere mortals to understand what it takes to play at the level that you play. it's obviously enormous, years go into it, it's focus, it's emotion, it's -- >> yeah, i will say a combination of things that you said but most important thing is the passion for the sport and the passion for the game.

you need to enjoy suffering. you need to enjoy that tough moments and you need to feel the game that's what brings you to the next level. >> rose: thank you, raffa. >> a pleasure. thank you very much. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: this year marks the 100th anniversary of woodrow wilson's inauguration as the 28th president of the united states. he led the nation through world war i and instituted many progressive reforms that shaped the country today. a. scott berg spent 13 years writing "wilson" a new biography of the former president. winning the national book award is many of the things you have received. what is that that excites you about biography? >> telling life stories.

i've been more interested in reading real life stories than fiction. ever since i was a child i always got into them. the task for me is to write nonfiction as compelling as fiction. >> rose: is that easy if you have an interesting life. >> so far i've been lucky because i've had fascinating lives to play with. nun has been more dramatic than wilson's life. >> rose: why do you say that? >> for two reasons, i think. i don't think i know of another president in the 20th centuried who who had a greater effect on the century. and second, i don't know of another personal story that ever unfolded in the white house as dramatic as woodrow wilson. >> let's take the first and go to the personal story. what was it that he did that so impacted an entire century? >> where to begin? if we work backwards with foreign affairs i would say-- and you've been a party to this

just this very week-- but the very foundation of 20th century and now 20 2-1st century american foreign policy all goes back to one speech woodrow wilson gave on april 2, 1917 when he said "the world must be made safe for democracy." and basically almost even policy decision since then has been based on that fundamental. but wilson also instituted his whole progressive agenda in the -- mostly in the first term of office and that starting with the federal reserve system has become basically the bedrock of our economy as well. and also along the way in a bigger sense he redefined the function of a president. he was the great active president of the 20th century that other leaders, the f.d.r.s, the l.b.j.s, the ronald reagans all followed. >> rose: where do you rank him among the great presidents if he's approaching being great?

>> i rank him high. i'd say in the top four or five presidents. there was a period where everyone ranked woodrow wilson in the top four or five presidents and in the succeeding decades in mid-century he began to fall out of favor and by the end of the century he was among the near greats -- between the greats and the near greats. >> rose: often when you think of woodrow wilson you think of the failure of the league of nations. you think of an idealistic foreign policy. you think of a man who was an academic and did not come up in the rough and tough tumble of politics. >> that's right. >> rose: those fair assessments of what stand out in terms of the public image before this book is written? >> well, all those things are accurate to a point. he was 2 t academic. he was our only ph.d. president. he had the most meteor i can

rise in american history. s that a man who in 1910 is a president of a small men's college in. >> rose: called princeton. >> in 1912 he's elected president of the united states. it comes out of the blue. all that being said, he was a great student of american politics and governance and the amazing thing is once he got into office briefly as governor of new jersey and then eight years as president of the united states he proved to have very sharp elbows. he proved to be a very canny politician and he worked it. >> rose: you argue when people make comparisons between president obama and president wilson that one thing that differed among them is the ability of wilson to play inside politics well? >> i would say they play very differently anyway. without characterizing president obama i would say wilson had a unique skill set that he really worked and that was he had a

real belief in sustained dialogue he believed the two major branches-- the executive and legislative branches-- should co-operate. i mean that literally. he believed they should co-operate the government. so he called 25 joint sessions of congress during his presidency. wherever he had an important measure to discuss, hi would gather both houses of congress. he'd make them sit through the sum -r and work and he would go down there everyday not just to give a speech but he'd sit in a room called the president's room across the hall and grab them as they walked out of the senate chamber he would sit there and twist arms and reason with them. he would have dialogue with them. so even when senators, congressmen disagreed with him they had an on going relationship with him. that's where he has really differdifferddifferd from presi.

>> rose: how did the civil war affect him? >> i think deeply. he was born in 1856 in the south. he grew up in four confederate states during the war and during reconstruction. and he saw the devastation that happened to the south. he saw cities burn down. he saw just the whole economic collapse of that part of the country. he carried are that with him for the rest of his life and i just know that was really what was underlying his sharp resistance to getting into world war i. he fought for years to keep us out of it and ran for reelection that he kept us out of war and he knew how devastating it would be. >> rose: when congress issued the declaration of war he broke down crying? >> wilson gave this magnificent address i remind you also woodrow wilson was the last president to write his own

speeches so these magnificent speech he is sat alone in a room, did the first draft in short hand then typed it up himself but after that one speech he went back to white house t white house and sat his head down on the table and sobbed. sobbed. >> rose: because he had a sense of what was coming? >> he knew what was coming. he knew essence he signed the death warrants of perhaps hundreds of thousand thousands f american boys and that devastated him. >> rose: what did the war do to him? >> the war -- actually, the war invigorated him, as it invigorated the united states. wars do have a tonic effect as well as a toxic one and they rally us all together and there was a great slogan that wilson urged upon the nation and the legislature especially that which was politics is adjourned. for the few years that we were fighting in the war america did adjourn politics and everybody came together and we became

another nation during that period. by the time it was winding down and ending after the exultation he was devastated. it broke his heart. he always took the rap. one of the most moving speeches wilson ever gave was at the american cemetery just outside of on memorial day in 1919 and he looked at all the graves and said "i sent all these boys here and i have a responsibility now so that a president can never send another boy to die." >> rose: that's when he came whom the search for peace. >> came home with his 14 points basically enacted in the peace treaty, the 14th of which was an arthurian dream, a league of nations. >> rose: and his personal life and life in the white house? >> well, this is to me really what interests me most at the

end of the day it's what i tried to do which was to write a presidential biography from the inside rather than the outside. i wanted to follow a man as he grew i the shoes of the president because this was one of the most emotional and passionate men-- and i'm not forgetting lincoln-- whoever inhabited the oval office he was married twice. his first wife became a professor's wife and a college president's wife he trusted her impolicety. he was his greatest critic and editor. she was a lovely artist and then they're in the white house one year and she dies of kidney failure. and the president is deaf devastated. he has three daughters all of whom are up and grown and he's alone in this cavernous house and can barely get out of bed as

world war i has just broken out. it's just this strong presbyterian sense of duty that got him going everyday and then almost -- well, he would say profit usually, i was going to say magically but he met a beautiful young widow who lived in washington and instantly fell in love with her i think he was desperate to fall in love again but he did and convinced her to marry him and they did and it turns out she had great historic significance shortly thereafter. >> rose: what was? >> which was wilson in trying to promote his league of nations around the country in very poor health in the middle of this great 29 city tour collapses and they rush him back to the white house where a few days later he suffers a stroke which they keep

a tse tkpret the people of the united states. they keep a secret from everybody in the white house. only a handful of people, including wilson's doctor and his wife really conspire to keep this from the world. and during that period as i try to trace in the book you see the rise of mrs. wilson rather eneducated, politically unsavvy, no lady macbeth but she does function as many have said the first woman president of the united states. >> rose: how did she handle the job? >> well, as she would tell you, as stew sword. she says she did nothing her husband would not have done and in essence i think she would have served more as a chief of staff but for months and ultimately more than a year and a half virtually nobody saw woodrow wilson during his second term in the last year and a half

of his office. and any document that had to go before the president had to pass before mrs. wilson's eyes first. >> rose: what access to information did you have that other biographers did not have? >> when you spend 13 years on a book even a hundred -- even a hundred years after wilson's presidency amazingly new papers begin to surface and i was given access to two wonderfully person caches of papers. one came forth when wilson's last surviving grandson died and in going through his house they found trunks of papers from the grandson's mother, that is woodrow wilson's daughter. and there were thousands of personal letters from wilson to the daughter, the daughter to her husband just all talking about woodrow wilson. so a lot of things that fleshed him out, a second cache surfaced

when woodrow wilson's most intimate friend and doctor dr. carey t. gray son, when his last son died there in the garage they found trunks of his paper. he who kept meticulous notes of his famous -- >> rose: did he introduce wilson to his second wife? >> he did. dr. wilson new edith bowlingtkpwalt, this rather famous widow in town, and he set them up basically, very cleverly without letting either of them know it was a set up. >> without letting them know that they would be perfect together. >> with the intention that the president would have company. woodrow wilson loved being around women, he loved playing to women. mrs. tkpwalt was -- well, she was like catnip for him. >> rose: some of the criticism. you think he was a racist? >> i definitely think he was a race usist because he was sitting here in 2013, yes.

if we go back 100 years to 1913 and examine where washington, d.c. was, where the united states was and where a boy who grew up in the south in the middle of the 19th century was i would say he was a centrist in his day. he did introduce jim crow to washington, basically introducing segregation into federal offices. which, in effect, sanctioned further segregation across the country. >> rose: separate but not equal. >> separate but not equal. but the law of the land in that moment was separate but equal and wilson was inclined to give it to t benefit of the doubt. when i say the law of the land, that was a handful of years before -- it wasn't even 20 years before wilson took office. he really did believe that the races should be integrated but he just didn't think the country

or certainly the south, certainly washington, d.c. which was a sleepy southern town was ready for it then. so i suggest he didn't believe segregation was subject negotiation. he thought if a generation two could pass then indeed we could all get together. but he quickly realized that separate was not equal and he did nothing about it. >> rose: also suppression of civil libber sneeze. >> he suppressed civil liberties during the third world war. this is as black a mark as his racial opinions, i think. i would say in his defense-- and i certainly don't want to excuse him but i would like to try to explain him-- a lot of things were happening in the world for the first time. there was international terrorism. there were bombs being sent to elected officials to offices. and the president -- it was dealing with an invisible enemy.

it wasn't like he could say okay, we're going to attack germany and lick this thing so during the war he did impose all sorts of impositions on civil liberties. >> rose: what was his capabilities? what were his fact you will tease like during the time that she and the doctor were running the white house? >> well at first woodrow wilson's fact you will tease were quite diminished. he did suffer a stroke. it was, i would say, a medium-sized stroke. >> rose: what was the effect on him? >> the effect was he was paralyzed on his left side. he did not lose his ability to speak and basically his ability to think. that being set -- and he maintained his memory and so forth, you know, we know more now about strokes than we did then which is how it affects one's emotional life, too. so he was making perhaps some judgments that came out of the blue that we can't fully decipher. but all that being said, he could gradually give the

occasional speech or statement but basically the last year and a half in office is just pathetic and much of the time-- certainly the last months-- he spends just watching movies everyday in the east room. douglas fairbanks had sent him a motion picture projector and he watched silent movies, including-- and this is so touching-- he would watch the newsreels of his famous arrival in paris after the war when he was the savior of the earth. he was the greatest man on effort. >> rose: congratulations, scott. >> thank you very much, charlie. >> rose: book once more is called "wilson" by scott berg. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by

media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is nig"nightly busines report" with tyler mathisen and zng zj brought to you by. >> sailing through the heart of historic cities and landscapes on a river, you get close to iconic landmarks, to local life, to cultural treasures, viking river cruises, exploring the world in comfort. triple digit gain. stock is up, oil is down as the u.s. attack on syria fades and president obama plans to deliver a speech to the nation. >> the dow's big facelift. goldman sachs, nike and visa are in the index. bank of america and hewlett packard out. what the moves mean if you're out of the shares or might want to some day. new phones, new price, new colors. apple