MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

For the last two weeks, a new book by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has made headlines with Ridge‘s suggestion that politics may have played a role in the thinking and the discussions about our national security alerts. That book is called "The Test of Our Times." It‘s in bookstores now.

And Tom Ridge, the former governor and former homeland security secretary, joins us now from New York. He is at 30 Rock. I know exactly where he is.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I‘m holding a copy of your book in the air right now.

TOM RIDGE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF: OK.

MATTHEWS: See, I‘m holding it right below my head here.

RIDGE: airplane

MATTHEWS: Should we believe every word in this book?

RIDGE: Well, I hope you do, Chris, because, in that book, I say-I repeat things that I said as secretary. I repeat things that I told you on HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: I repeat things time and time again that-let me finish.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, this book, this is the bible according to Tom Ridge?

RIDGE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: This book I‘m holding in my hand? OK.

RIDGE: It is my...

MATTHEWS: So, let me go through some of the...

RIDGE: ... my reflection on what transpired. We were never pressured.

The system was designed...

MATTHEWS: OK. No, I-I just want to know. I‘m going to be tough here, my friend.

RIDGE: OK.

MATTHEWS: I‘m going to ask you about what is in this book...

RIDGE: Go ahead.

MATTHEWS: ... and if you stand by it. This is the book I‘m holding in my hand again.

RIDGE: I got it.

MATTHEWS: Let me read some passages from the bible of truth, from your-quote-and this is a discussion of a meeting that was held the weekend before the 2004 election after the release of a bin Laden videotape.

Let me quote to you your own words: "A vigorous, some might say, dramatic discussion ensued. Ashcroft"-that‘s the A.G.-"strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department, none. I wondered, is this about security or politics?"

RIDGE: Right.

MATTHEWS: You stand by that?

RIDGE: I wrote-I certainly stand by it.

But your interpretation is...

MATTHEWS: So, what did you-no. I‘m asking-I‘m not interpreting a word. I‘m reading it. What part did I misinterpret? I‘m reading it.

RIDGE: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

RIDGE: You...

MATTHEWS: "I wondered, is this about security or politics?"

Do you stand by that?

RIDGE: I stand by the words that I wrote, Chris.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: I stand by the process that I helped design. I stand by the notion that nobody pressured anybody.

We had those meetings on several occasions about which you will never know when people rendered opinions. The process worked. Nobody pressured anybody. But, at that time, the weekend before the election, as the one responsible for homeland security, I mused, because we didn‘t see any justification for going up, but my two respected colleagues did, is there something that I‘m missing?

This is a muse. This is not suggesting that their motives on that occasion or any other occasion was to either pressure me or to impose politics. Every decision that they made and every recommendation that they made on multiple other meetings that day and many, many times before, many of which you don‘t know about, because we did not raise the threat system, was based on their assessment as what was in the best interest of the country. They weren‘t trying to pressure anybody. They were trying to keep a country safe.

MATTHEWS: You said there was no support within your department for raising the threat level, right.

RIDGE: That‘s right. Right.

MATTHEWS: None, as you put it to emphasize the point.

RIDGE: That‘s right.

MATTHEWS: Then you said at the time of this meeting, "I wondered"-this is Tom Ridge wondering.

RIDGE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: "Is this about security or politics?"

What you were wondering about at that time?

RIDGE: Well, I‘m wondering at the time, Chris, this is a dramatic-the weekend is dramatic, but the process is something we had dealt with the entire time.

As I say there in book-and you will look earlier in the book, I say, there is no way that anybody can manipulate the process, because it was designed to get the collective opinion of the president‘s Homeland Security Council.

MATTHEWS: Right.

RIDGE: And if there was a-if there was a collective opinion that we raise the threat, then either General Gordon or Fran Townsend went in.

But if you talked to those members, nobody felt pressured. They rendered honest opinions.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: But it is also a dramatic weekend or year, because, earlier that year-and I‘m thinking-and I have got to be thinking about, if you are responsible-because you are-we go up, what are the implications long term for the governors and the mayors?

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: It was also the same year and a couple months after a terrorist attack changed, altered the political outcome of an election in Spain.

I think you remember that. We probably talked about it.

MATTHEWS: Sure. I remember it well.

RIDGE: So, I‘m writing the book, and I‘m musing.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: We don‘t think we go up. Some trusted colleagues think we go up. They were not making...

MATTHEWS: Yes, OK.

RIDGE: ... the recommendation because they thought it was politics. They were making the recommendation because they thought it was the right thing to do.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: I‘m musing. I‘m not speculating about their motives.

MATTHEWS: You‘re musing. You‘re wondering, is this about security or politics, you asked yourself.

RIDGE: That‘s right.

MATTHEWS: Then-then, later, you say-quote-"It seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country‘s safety."

You stand by that?

RIDGE: It is there. That‘s exactly right. I‘m...

MATTHEWS: What could be-what‘s something-what was afoot?

RIDGE: Well, you know, this is all in the context of the timing of this discussion, the effect of the-of a terrorist attack in-in Madrid, Spain.

And, as the author, I‘m thinking about that dramatic moment. I don‘t recount everything that was said. Some people have actually said that there was a political discussion there. I don‘t remember that at all. I‘m just musing about what happened. And, at the end of the day, the system worked.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RIDGE: And, remember, Chris, this is not the only time this group met. And more often than not, when we met, we did not raise the threat level. Nobody was pressured.

MATTHEWS: I know.

(CROSSTALK)

RIDGE: And everyone made decisions based on what they thought was the best interest of America, pure and simple.

MATTHEWS: But you said it seemed possible to yourself and other others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the government‘s-the country‘s interests.

RIDGE: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, who were the other people around the table who had these concerns that something might be afoot?

RIDGE: Chris, let‘s-let‘s-let‘s talk about this.

There was a lot of speculation in the media about that time because of what had happened in Madrid, because of the bin Laden tape. Will we postpone the election? Will we-are some people thinking maybe we ought to go up?

And I‘m speculating, I‘m musing at the time, wonder if it is good idea. Will America fell more secure going to the polls if we raise the threat level? Will they not?

I-I‘m an author. I‘m writing about this.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RIDGE: And I‘m telling you here today, now, that we had that discussion on many occasions, Chris. You and I talked about it. I held press conferences.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RIDGE: Nobody has ever bothered to look beyond the colors to learn how the process was working and the process worked very effectively because it was immune from any political manipulation. You had strong people who had strong opinions. It was competitive intelligence. They rendered the opinions, Chris, and when the opinions said we ought to go up, we went up. And the opinions were always rendered on what these men individually thought was in the best interests...

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: ... of keeping America secure.

MATTHEWS: The third quote is, "I believe our strong interventions had pulled the go-up advocates back from the brink," which is consistent with what you‘re saying.

RIDGE: Yes, there was...

MATTHEWS: "But I consider that episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington‘s recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security."

RIDGE: Right.

MATTHEWS: And that episode-well, "After that episode, I had-I knew I had to follow through on my plans to leave the federal government."

RIDGE: Chris, I talk about several instances because in an after-911 world, Chris-you and I have had many conversations about this-terrorism became very much something that both parties used, and sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly. The debate about what we needed to do to combat terrorism was robust, rigorous, a partisan divide on many issues.

And let‘s face it, the decisions about Dubai Ports, the decisions around going after Max Cleland that I talk in the book, were an intersection where politics, fear, security and government came into play. It was just a statement of fact of the new world, new threat, new environment...

MATTHEWS: OK.

RIDGE: ... as something else that we plug into our calculations. Unfortunately, that‘s the world we live in and I mused about it, but I did not want to speculate...

MATTHEWS: OK...

RIDGE: ... and I will never speculate on the motives of my colleagues.

MATTHEWS: The-"USA Today" has the headline after an interview with you following this book, where it says...

RIDGE: Backpedaling.

MATTHEWS: ... "Ridge backpedals."

RIDGE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Was that an accurate headline? Did you backpedal on what you wrote in the book?

RIDGE: Well, I...

MATTHEWS: Or is this article wrong?

RIDGE: Well, listen-well, it‘s obviously wrong. I think I told the woman that interviewed me (INAUDIBLE) the same thing I told you, but obviously, she didn‘t believe me, and perhaps you don‘t. But if you go back and take a look at the history of my public statements, take a look at that earlier section in the book, where I say regardless of what agents, bloggers-regardless of what columnists, bloggers, critics, commentators say, well, you can‘t-the system works. You can‘t manipulate the system because...

MATTHEWS: OK, I think you‘re saying...

RIDGE: ... you have to have a consensus.

MATTHEWS: I think you‘re saying two things differently-two different things that are very consistent. Let me try to say it my way.

RIDGE: OK.

MATTHEWS: You‘re saying that you sensed when you went to those meetings there were people with politics on their mind. You said it two or three different ways. But then you said, but in the end, nobody tried to strongarm you.

RIDGE: Well, who knows what...

MATTHEWS: I think that‘s what you‘re saying because I think you‘re not backtracking...

RIDGE: No, I‘m not backtracking.

MATTHEWS: ... on these words, which are going to be quoted in the history books because you said them. And by the way, you‘re not going to go back when you have to do the paperback version or later-you‘re not going to change any of this, are you?

RIDGE: Well, I‘m going to ask you to do the narrative because you like the book so much!

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking, are you going to change any of this?

RIDGE: I‘m not going change...

MATTHEWS: In the next edition?

RIDGE: I‘m certainly not going to...

MATTHEWS: So you‘re standing by all these words and you don‘t feel any need to clarify your position as written in this book.

RIDGE: If we go into paperbacks or the next edition, I‘ll probably change the cover that says I was pressured because thee‘s nothing in the book that says I was pressured, and I don‘t believe I was ever pressured.

MATTHEWS: Well, why do people get that idea from reading the book?

RIDGE: Well, I don‘t know. I frankly think people got the idea because they didn‘t read the book, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, I‘m reading it right now! I‘m looking at it!

RIDGE: Well, you can draw your own conclusions.

MATTHEWS: I didn‘t go by any press release. OK, we‘re not...

RIDGE: Chris, the process worked.

MATTHEWS: ... getting anywhere. I think it‘s possible that you‘re consistent here, Governor, and I think your consistent statement is you smelled politics in the room, but nobody twisted your arm. That‘s what I think the message is. And if you want to counter that in two seconds, go ahead.

RIDGE: No, I...

MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

RIDGE: Chris, it‘s HARDBALL. You can draw your own conclusions. You normally do.

MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t! Governor, let me ask you one last time, and I‘m not going to bug you again about it.

RIDGE: I‘m going to stand by the words in the book.

MATTHEWS: "Is this about security or politics, I wondered. It seemed possible to me and others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country‘s safety. But I consider that episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington‘s recent history but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security."

Any reasonable person would hear those three citations and say, This guy smelled politics around that table.

RIDGE: This guy knows that after 911, politics somehow, someplace, somewhere, right or wrong, was involved in a lot of the decisions we made. This guy also does not believe that politics was ever a factor in the decision-making that we had in order to raise the threat level.

MATTHEWS: Only at the table, but not in the decision making.

RIDGE: Right.

(LAUGHTER)

RIDGE: You‘re not going to...

MATTHEWS: I just think you‘re on a totally...

RIDGE: You‘re not going to convince me...

MATTHEWS: OK, Governor...

RIDGE: ... and I‘m not going to convince you, no matter how hard I try.

MATTHEWS: No, what I think you‘re doing-I think you‘re doing a different emphasis. I think your emphasis in the book was the politics you smelled. The emphasis you‘re putting on it now, since the book has come out, is to emphasize the fact that you weren‘t strongarmed. But that‘s what I think is consistent in your argument. It‘s just a different point of view.

RIDGE: That‘s all right, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Different point-Senator-Governor-I give you all these titles tonight, but the only one that matters is author Tom Ridge, "The Test of Our Times," now in your book stores. And this guy‘s going to be-by the way, you‘re-you‘re on Ron Owens (ph) out in San Francisco today.

RIDGE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: You were on "RACHEL MADDOW" last night. Jesus! Well, at least you‘re getting a lot of attention!

(LAUGHTER)

RIDGE: Hey, well, I...

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much...

RIDGE: The book was designed to generate some light. Unfortunately, it generated heat in the wrong direction. But I‘m grateful to have the chance to talk to you about it. Thanks.

MATTHEWS: As long as you got the editors you got at that publishing house, you‘re going to have a lot more heat. Anyway, thank you, Governor Tom Ridge...

RIDGE: All right.

MATTHEWS: ... who stands by every word in this book.