After words is next on book tv. Alberto gonzales 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, the story of service and sacrifice in war and peace and he is interviewed by Brent Kendall of the wall street journal. Alberto gonzales, Current Law School dean, former attorney general and advisor to george w. Bush. Texas Court SupremeCourt Justice and author of a new book , mm moore recounting his life both in texas and working for governor bush. He spent time here in washington, welcome. Thank you, its good to be here. Lets start with why the book, why now, what motivated you to write it . I know several of your colleagues have written books about their time there. What prompted the books . Its something ive been working on for many years. Obviously there were several distractions that i met in the interim but coming up on the 15th anniversary would be a nice worker to hit. I was also motivated by the fact that there have been several memoirs written and peoples perspectives have been out there and i thought it might be important to add mine for my sons sake. Theres been a lot written and a lot said about me. Some of it is true in some of it is not true and i wanted them to get my perspective about the events that shaped me and their life as well. It was certainly an actionpacked time that you served in texas and here in washington. Briefly before we get into some of that, the first part of your book come you talk about your unlikely past two service, both in texas and in washington and law and 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 this position to serve. Sure. I grew up in texas, i grew up in a town called humble, texas and i grew grew up in a poor family. There were eight of us, the son of a construction worker who had a second grade education and my mom had a six grade education so we were pretty poor. We live in a small house in texas. Youre right, the politics of the law were things that we didnt talk about or think about. My dream was to play centerfield for the San Francisco giants. Quite honestly when i graduated from high school, even though it is a good student, i didnt have much encouragement to go to college so i enlisted in the air force and got stationed in alaska where i met a couple of air force Academy Graduates who saw something in me and encourage me to get an appointment with the academy and i did and then i left the academy because my eyesight failed and i wanted to be a Fighter Pilot so i had to transfer to law school and then i went to work in houston at a big law firm for 13 years and then i met george w. Bush and that changed my life. Lets talk about that. You were in private practice in use in the book, you got a little restless doing that and you slowly gravitated toward politics. What sort of i did you in that direction . What issues really motivated you . Yes i was restless, i felt that i wasnt using my law degree, i didnt feel for filled so i got involved in organizations in Houston Texas that focus primarily on education and hispanic issues. I really felt that i wanted to make more of a difference in the lives of other individuals and with a law degree in my experience working at a big firm, it set me up well to be involved in some very important events in houston and thats how i got to know george w. Bush in 1994. You say you felt the Republican Party was a pretty natural fit for you, you said you didnt agree with everything the party stood for but you thought the party promoted truth as you saw it and better represented core Hispanic Values this is one of the themes that you return to several times in the book. Im curious what is your view on that now that we have a heated and highly president ial contest that were still in the middle of. Are your views on the party, and given some of the things donald trump has set on immigration, have your views changed and how do you view how things are going now . I am a lifelong republican, and i still believe in the value of the Republican Party and the party isnt defined by one individual or the experiences of one individual. Like some republicans, i have some concerns about our nominee, im have equal if not more concerned about the democratic nominee. My loyalty, my affection and respect for the party hasnt changed. I think we are still early in the president ial cycle, thats why were going to have a debate so we can become more educated about these two candidates. I want to see them stand sidebyside answering questions and ill make up my mind as to who is best from my perspective, who is best for me and my family and all voters should be the same. Irrespective of the party, they should look at the person they believe would do the best job. At one point you quote a speech that president bush gave that said scared people build walls and confident people tear them down. I was commentary on the thinking of president bush. I think its one of the reason 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 them with the right message in the right tone so it was really a commentary on president bush and his ability to reach out to the very Diverse Communities in this nation. I will ask you to talk briefly about how you met and got to know the governor and then president bush you clearly hit it off with right away. I wanted to read one passage from the book here. You said he had an amazing command of important issues. In a facetoface conversation it was nearly impossible not to like him. He looking back it wasnt about politics, you wouldve supported him if he had been a democrat. How to do to get to know each other and how did you forge this bond . I wife met him in 1988 when his father was running for president. I. I dont remember that meeting. What i do remember is in 1993 when he announced he was going to run against and richard was a popular incumbent governor and i was asked to set up a meeting so that he could meet them. I was happy to do that. I remember when he came and spoke, i really liked him, but i really thought he had no chance to beat and richards but of course he proved me wrong. Again, i really didnt know the man so two weeks after the election, i got a call from when my partner saying i just heard from the governor elect, he has, he has asked whether or not you would be interested in being his general counsel. Two weeks later i go to austin and sit down with the governor and he asked questions of me and i asked about the job and at the end i asked, why me, you dont know me. For 75,000 in texas you could get a lot of people to do this job. He relayed the story that back in 1988 i went to washington and interviewed for a position in his fathers administration. I ultimately declined, i was was offered a junior level position at hud but i wanted to stay and make partner at firm. The firm had never had a hispanic partner and i wanted to be the first part i thought by making partner it would give me more opportunities in the future so i said no to his father. Fastforward to austin and he told me you turn down my old man for a job and thats how you got on my radar screen. Thats how we got to know each other. We didnt know each other before then and i really believe that for george w. Bush, the son of a president , my story resonated with him. A thicket took great pride that someone of my background could achieve things that i achieved and of course he was very instrumental in some of those achievements. Before we turn to your service in washington, in texas you served as counsel and then you became secretary of state and then governor bush appointed you to the texas Supreme Court. Theres a chapter in there when you talk about their service and it becomes a theme in this book, you are frustrated at the way democrats treated you during your service but you also expressed frustration in the way some conservatives treated you during your time. One of the early examples you cited was from your service on the texas Supreme Court and some of the cases you had to deal with with abortion statute dealing with parental notification. Can you. Guest those cases and why you felt like it was an issue that some felt unjustly or worse skeptical towards you . They passed a notification statute which allowed a minor female to get an abortion through a judicial bypass by going to a judge. If certain conditions were met, for example if she was mature and wellinformed, if and telling her parents it would not be in her best interest and so there were three conditions laid out and it fell upon the court to try to interpret what did the legislature intended and passing the statute . Again this was really not about abortion, it was a statutory construction case in terms of trying to discern what it is the Texas Legislature intended when they created these exceptions to a minor having to notify her parent. As a parent, i would have wanted to be informed of this kind of decision so i wasnt crazy about the statute, but nonetheless the legislature had created these exceptions and i had to honor that decision by the legislature there was some tension among members of the court about how broad to interpret those exceptions. I think the fact that i did not interpret exception as broadly as some would like in the conservative wing, i think it hurt my standing in conservative circles. Again, i dont support abortion and i believe in the rights of parents to know about the health of their daughters and the decisions made about a serious procedure like an abortion. From my perspective, it wasnt my role to judge and take that into account my job was to try to understand and discern what it is that the legislature intended when they pass the statute. So we went to washington and president bush wins the election and you decide to join him. Was that a difficult decision for pretty much a nobrainer when he wondered if you were asked if you would be joining him. I was very happy to be on the court, the great position to be in there was a lot of speculation during the campaign about who from texas might be going to washington. Had several friends tell me youre for sure going to go but i was happy being on the court. In september i had a conversation who is heading up the transition and clay let me know that he was interested in me going to washington as the council. I talked my wife rebecca about it and we both agreed that would be an opportunity we could not pass up. The remainder of the campaign, we watched watched carefully how the campaign went and knowing that the outcome would fundamentally alter the trajectory of our lives. When you ask if that was a hard decision, not really. When you have the opportunity to do work in the white house as a senior staffer for someone you know well and someone you respect and someone you believe will be good for the country, that made the decision quite easy. Obviously you came to washington and the september 11 attack happened and not changed pretty much everything. We will get into that in detail. Before we do, i want to touch on a few other items after you come to washington. Being a texan and you knew president bush well but you werent really part of the socalled washington establishment which you talk about several times in the book. You talk about one time early on, again there was speculation that perhaps you would be a Supreme Court appointee someday. Talk about a speech in which they booed you at one point in there also some very heated discussions with this administration on the Supreme Court case when the high court was looking at the university of michigan and affirmative action program. It took weeks, if not longer to work out what the Administration Issue was going to be in in the end you say you are satisfied with it but also felt like perhaps it may have damaged your standing somewhat. Can you walk us through that . There was speculation about me going on the court. There are publications about public president bush wanting to put a hispanic on the court for the first time and i was viewed as one of the leading contenders given my relationship with the president and my experience on the supreme texas Supreme Court. There was concern or skepticism and it was very visible about my credentials and my views about certain things like abortion because of the votes that i rendered but also because of my perceived role in the michigan affirmative action case. I think that perception out there was, i was supportive of quotas but that was just not true. I felt the University Program and the Law School Program for both like quotas. They put too much emphasis on race and therefore it was unconstitutional and cannot be supported for that reason. For whatever reason, then narrative was that i was supporting michigan programs. That just wasnt the case. In the end, what i promoted was what the president wanted. He did not want to be on record in opposing affirmative action. If the courts wanted to say that it could never be considered, his position was these are too much like quotas. He thought a middleground diversity was not a legitimate educational, the administration. [inaudible] we ended up with middleground readings from the Supreme Court and obviously we began taking these issues back before the Supreme Court. Obviously in the end, what are your thoughts on how the law has shaken out in that regard . Quite frankly, this is where president bush was. I think his view was that its probably okay given the circumstances to have that race as one consideration and the educational experience is enhanced. I have people of different backgrounds. Obviously its unfair. If theres so much consideration, that the overriding factor. Where we are today think is something that president bush would support. Im comfortable with it although i completely understand that many believe its inappropriate to ever consider race as a factor under the constitution, but the Supreme Court, at least today, has disagreed with that position. Moving now to National Security and the september 11 attacks, that immediately shifts the focus. It raised a whole host of legal issues that they hadnt often often had to confront and perhaps some never at all. Can we dive into the first . Lets talk about detainees after military operation started in afghanistan. Theres a good bit in your book about the decision to house detainees and you said basically it was the best of what we could do. Obviously this is a complicated issue and you point out president obama still has not. I wonder if you could. Guest the decisionmaking process there as time has gone on and youve had more time to think about it, what your reflections are . It was a very difficult decision and we considered a number of options which are outlined in the book and we also concluded that the best option was guantanamo. That was a decision that was presented to the president and president bush accepted that recommendation. One thing thats very important to emphasize, he does not want to be the worlds jailer. He wants Guantanamo Bay closed as well but we were never able to give an alternative. We had captured people that remained danger door had intelligence value and we had to keep them somewhere. We couldnt give a viable alternative so when his term ended, the Obama Administration came in with that pledged to close Guantanamo Bay but he was never presented with a good option and for that reason it remains open today. Its a decision that both bush and president obama have struggled with because of the nature of these people and the nature of the war on terror. The decision to not find a way to house them here states that at the end of the day, was that legal consideration or Political Considerations as the primary driver . I would say both. Politically we are talking about that we are still in 2001. New york is still smoldering from the attack and we just felt that politically that people would not stand for the government bringing in these dangerous terrorist. We were unclear, the lawyers were unclear and without having the clarification of the court, we felt the safer course would be to house them at Guantanamo Bay. So the decision on where to house them, it was obviously heated an important decision regarding how to interrogate. Some of these people were hardened terrorist and not likely to tell you information because you asked them. Then the question becomes, how can you get them to divulge things they dont want to divulge and where exactly the line is between legal conduct an illegal conduct about the cia and the defense department. They did interrogations during this time and there are a lot of difficult debates. You say, rightly or wrongly you become the public face for a lot of the doj recommendations there. Can you walk us through what some of these debates were . Let me begin by saying that former senator current senator check Chuck Schumer has said that there would be instances where he felt it would be appropriate to torture someone to get information if that person is about to go out to new york city with an attack in an hour or something. The other stances that we have an anti tech torture statute and it says it would be unlawful to intentionally in inflict severe physical, mental pain or suffering. It doesnt outlaw specific techniques. I just quoted for you what the law says. It was a job at the lawyers to try to take that language and provide guidelines for the interrogators at the cia. It took them about four months. There was a lot of debate and a lot of discussion about how much the law would allow. What most people dont understand is that when the United States entered into the convention against torture, we agreed to criminalize conduct that constituted torture. It also talks about cruel and Inhumane Treatment and that cruel and in the is di