the article was getting at a way to perhaps try terrorists where the information could be part of the evidence. it could be for legal reasons. even though i do cover federal and state information, i have no idea how military issues work. it could just be to avoid more details about how these interrogations worked and what kind of information they do k do not yield. .

guest >> we are discussi party or the other party is wrong and everything should be kept behind closed doors until they come to a conclusion. and i think personally it doesn't need to be discussed by any newspapers or any member of congress until they come to a conclusion who was right, who

was wrong, and then they can itemize things and say this man is guilty and he needs to go, this man is guilty, he needs to go. and i personally think that it should be kept behind closed doors until they come up with a solution who was right and who was wrong. and if it is higher up in congress, get rid of them. and if it is c.i.a., get rid of them. if it is f.b.i., get rid of them. guest: there are a lot of people who feel that way, that this should not be something -- with regard to talking about interrogation techniques, how they are developed and used -- that this shouldn't be talked about publicly at all. mr. miller, who again -- jeff miller -- the ranking republican on the subcommittee, told me last night that he intends to come back to d.c. monday and ask

that the same hearing that was held thursday be held in open sessi session, which again would allow members to even more clearly enunciate what they are told. host: as a ranking member on the subcommittee, how likely is that to happen? are there ways for the minority party to be able to do this, to open up a hearing? guest: that is a good question. we don't yet know if through a resolution or letter they can force this to happen. but there's some speculation that we were headed in that direction any way with regard to democrats wanting to have these hearings held in a manner where they could actually open up the process and talk about what they learned with regard to the interrogation techniques, their development and use.

host: rose mill, michigan, sam has the last question for jared allen of the hill. caller: i would hope that your next guest would be a democratic reporter because this one is so one-sided. one thing about this segment is at that meeting the republican senator that left the meeting running his mouth is the one who left the meeting extremely early, so how can he even tell you what happened at the meeting? and you keep saying we when we referred to the republican party. i thought the reporters walked the middle of the line. host: sorry to cut youoff. are you in fact republican? guest: i'm a journalist. and i will say to sam that this was an issue that did in fact come up. the ranking member who held the

hearing did accuse mr. klein of leaving early and not having all the facts. she would not say, though, what might have been different had he stayed for the whole hearing. and the republicans, mr. klein and mr. hoekstra -- mr. hoekstra said he discussed this with a number of members of the panel and that -- of the subcommittee -- and he drew the same conclusion. but the point is taken that we don't know if there was information that may have led these republicans to draw a different conclusion. they may in fact be sayihearingt they want to hear.

we may know if this process gets opened up. host: jared allen, thafrg you f -- thank you for being on the program. in a minute we will talk to john mcmanus, author and historian from st. louis. we will talk to him about the 65th anniversary of d-day. first, we want to look back at the invasion of the normandy, d-day, and we will look at ceremonies to commemorate the 65th anniversary. president obama will speak at normandy in the tradition of past presidents. we want to show you some of the anniversary speeches of past presidents including president reagan, president clinton and the second president bush. >> here the allies stood and fought against tyranny in the giant undertaking unparalleled in human history. we stand on a lonely wind swept

point on the northern shore of france. the air is soft but 40 years ago at this moment the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and roar of cannon. at dawn on the morning of the 6th of june, 1944, 225 rangers drufrpd o jumped off a craft and their mission was one of the most differ and daring of the invasion. to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the allies had been told some of the mightiest of the guns were here and they would be trained on the beachs to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades and the american rangers began to climb. >> 50 years ago the first allied soldiers to land here in norm day came not from the sea but

from the sky. they were called path finders. the first paratroopers to make the jump. deep in the darkness they descended on these fields to light beacons for the airborne assault that would soon follow. now, near the dawn of a new centu century, the job of lighting those beacons falls to our ha s hands. to you who brought us here i promi promise, we will be the new path finders, for we are the children of your sacrifice. >> with us today are americans who first saw this place at a distan distance. in the half light of of a tuesday morning long ago. time and providence have brought them back to see once more the

beaches and cliffs, the crosses and the stars of david. generations to come will know what happened here, but these men heard the guns. visitors will always pay respects at this cemetery, but these veterans come looking for a name and remembering faces and voices from a lifetime ago. today we honor all the veterans of normandy and all their camp radios who never left. host: joining us from st. louis, john mcmanus, associate professor at the university of missouri at ralla to talk to us

about the 65th anniversary of - d-day. what is the significance of d-day in terms of how they think of warfare in the 21st century? guest: in some respects it is the event of the 21st century because many hitching believe it is the pivotal moment of world war ii in europe. from an american perspective it is really the moment when the united states becomes a military superpower. in a larger sense you see that in the summer of 1944 in many parts of world two, but the normandy invasion is the leading element of that. it is probably the quintessential amphibious invasion in human history from a military tack ithticiatachticia view. host: in many cases we use the words d-day and normandy

interchangeably. but d-day was a separate event from the battle of normandy. explain that. guest: exactly. d-day was just the beginning. the invasion itself is known as d-day, june 6, 1944. that is one of the points i like to make. it is only the very beginning of a long drawnout campaign that will take almost a year to defeat yaegermany. the fighting that follows from june 7 through may of 1945 becomes even more bitter at times and more costly. it is a larger enterprise. so, d-day, i like to say, is just like compared to opening day in baseball. it is the first game, it important, but there's an entire season ahead, too. host: there are going to be -- there is a smaller number of veterans returning year after year to normandy.

why is it so important for them to go back to normandy more so than, let's say, troops from the vietnam or korean era to go back to vietnam or korea? >> i will say as a a caveat you are seeing more and more korean and vietnam vets go back. this is a trend we have seen accelerate in the last 10 years. that being said, there is no question that those who participated in the normandy invasion seem to be drawn there and have gone back in large numbers for decades now. this has been going on since the mid 1950's in various remembrances. and i think for so many of them this was the central event in their lives. it is an event that is remember remembered, i would argue, probably as much as any other in all of military history. it has become part of almost legend and lore by now. it is heavily celebrated and a

good example is that you have the heads of state there today to celebrate the 65th anniversary. it is generally seen by the world as a key moment in world history. and i think the veterans, as the people who made the history happen, will be drawn to it that much more. beyond that, i think they are drawn to normandy and the beaches for the same reason that many veterans of many wars go back to experience the places they fought. it is a sense of closure. it is a sense of reliving that key moment in their lives and it meant something to them. it meant something because of the friends they had, the friends they lost there, and i think that many of them feel like that is the way they can honor those whom they lost. host: john mcmanus talking about the 65th anniversary of d-day. those that would like to get involved the numbers are on the

screen. host: by all means give us a call there. and we would like to hear from you especially. john, you talked about the gathering of the leaders of what used to be known as the allies. there is also a story in the "philadelphia inquirer" that talks about americans and germans who were bitter enemies during the d-day invasion, and they have been gathering in somewhat smaller ceremonies. what is the significance of

these meetings between the former allied troops and their german enemies? guest: i would argue that they are as significant or perhaps even more significant than the meetings between old allies. the reason i believe that is because to some extent the normandy invasion and campaign that followed was about transforming germany. the allied leaders had decreed that they would never end the war until there was unconditional surrender by nazi germany and that really meant de natzify natzif natzifying germany. in the longer run, germany was transformed and it was transformed really more along the lines of what the united states and great britain would have hoped for. so, when you see these commemorations, i think it is very significant that the

germans and americans, or germans and british, or germans and french, get together and celebrate the normandy invasion because to some extent it meant the liberation of germany as well even though in the summer of 1944, as you said correctly, they were bitter enemies. but that is part of what was at stake was transforming germany into something different so there would never be another terrible war like world war ii. i think that is pretty significant. but it has not been without a certain level of tension and awkwardness over the years. how do you commemorate, for instance, the german war dead? how much do you celebrate them in how much do you recognize them? all of these things have had to be worked out over the years. that is where the diplomats come p. host: our first call is from st. louis, missouri. thaddeus, go ahead. caller: good morning, john. guest: good morning, thaddeus. caller: i have a question for you. what was it that made the omaha

beachhead so much more difficult to crack than the other three beach heads? guest: thanks. terrain is the key to the whole answer. omaha beach was about three miles of pretty rocky beach. you didn't have a whole lot of sand there. you didn't have a lot of shelf. and you had kind of a coastline that gave way to some prominent ridges. and even cliffsides. but it had to be taken because omaha beach was the key link between the british and canadian beaches to the east and utah beach to the west. so omaha was going to be tough because germans had the high ground and had so heavily fortified it. you also had four key draws that came in from omaha beach. they were gullies that nature

had created over many thousands of years and they were important because the allies needed them to get their vehicles and supplies to use them as convertib convertibvetera veritab veritable roads. that is where you see quite a bit of bloodshed. so everyone knew omaha would be probably the toughest of the beaches because there was so much high ground looking over the beaches below. so the way they figured they would combat that was to hit omaha beach with strategic bombing, with four-engine bomb he is, b-17's an b-24's. the problem is they were not accurate enough and fell inland so when troops went ashore at omaha beach they didn't have the fire support they needed for such a difficult mission. host: next call is george from logan, west virginia. george, you are a grandson of a world war ii d-day vet, correct?

caller: yes, sir, i am. host: what did your grandfather tell you about landing on the beach on d-day? caller: he said it was one of the most scare yes, sir, one of the most exhilarating, he said you had to keep it, you had to keep your emotions in check if you were going to stay alive. he said there were people getting left right and left next to him and we lost him last year around he lived with it up to the day he died. and i just wanted to say to all the d-day vets that i'm praying for you, thinking about you and respect you. i'm a veteran also. i went through bosnia and iraq. i respect all of you guys and today is your day for memorial. host: george, when he talked about it, the feeling you got from him that he was so terrified and that terror stayed with him throughout his life? caller: it did. i don't know if it really scared

him, but he would get that -- he had ptsd really bad and he never believed in medicines because they didn't have them back then and he just kind of dealt with it in his own way. what i went through in iraq, there's no way i could have done what he done. and i know it was 10 times worst back in the 1940's when they went in on d-day. so it stayed with him and he would really have nightmares and it was scare him. host: thank you. john, is that somewhat typical of the reactions to the troops that landed on omaha beach? guest: i think it is very typical because that is some of the heaviest combat in world war ii and that is saying a lot. for most of these guys, that is always going to be with them. in one bay, shape form or another. doesn't mean they can't function as human beings and have good lives ahead of them but it is stored up and it is there.

it may come out it dreams. i would like to thank george for his service and his grandfather. host: clinton township, michigan. door rearee doreen, go ahead. caller: good morning c-span and god bless america and i'm a niece of four uncles that fought in world war ii. my grandfather was in world war i. two of my uncles were prisoners of war and i remember them telling stories and how who are risk it was and how terrified they were in seeing comrades shot down and killed when they came home. when my two uncles from prisoner came home they were a bundle of nerves and not right the rest of their lives. my grandmother had a nervous breakdown while her sons were in prison camp. and i would like to say thank you to all of our vets in world

war i, two,the vietnam war and the guys that are fighting for us right now against terror. please, please, america, back our veterans. and ask congress to take care of them. they should be taken care of first and utmost. they need our help and our prayers. got bless them, -- god bless tm and god bless america and thank you for span because you are the voice of america. host: john mcmahnumcmanus, go a. guest: i couldn't have said it myself. as far as ptsd goes among world war ii veterans, that one of the myths that has taken hold that they didn't have those problems that veterans of other wars, particularly vietnam and thereafter. that is just as common as warfare itself. it is part of what is terrible about war is the emotional toll

that it takes because it is an emotional issue, not as much of a mental issue. i think there needs to be a good recognition that world war ii veterans have dealt with their demons like everyone else. war is what if is regardless of whether we are talking about omaha beach, tet or fallujah. host: you really saw the ptsd issue come to the fore with world war ii vets when the movie ""saving private ryan"" was released. what was it about that movie that brought up so many feelings among world war ii veterans? >> probably the immediacy of it. the camera angles. steven spielberg used janice economist can comisky and comisky felt very strongly the cameras had to be there in the scene. what they did with the color as

well, bleeding out some of the color. just the intensity of the action. if i remember correctly, i believe they set up a hotline in the wake of the movie's release to have calls from veterans, not just of the normandy invasion but other veterans of world war ii who just may need to blow off some steam in the wake of seeing that. so, movies -- i know they are just movies but they can be intense we you have the special effects and color and the way that violence is portrayed. certainly that can bring back some memories. i can think of one example off the top of my head. i was interviewing a vietnam veteran at the battle of dfrpoc and that was 1967 and he told me he remembered vividly the green traceers that came from machine guns, many coming toward them and many years later he went to

see the movie "we were soldiers" and there is a scene where they show you green tracers coming almost right at the screen and he had not seen that in 35 or 40 years, whatever it was, and it was extremely intense for him. it was a very emotional experience. you never know what will jog the memory for some folks. host: john mcmachicmahonus is a professor of history and author of several books about world war ii and the d-day experience including the americans at d-day. the americans at normandy, and the deadly brotherhood. explain to us what that phrase means, the deadly brotherhood. guest: that came out of an interview with a company commander who served in the 80th infantry division of world war ii. when i asked him why he and his soldiers endured the combat they did, it was very heavy combat

throughout the fall of 1944 campaign in france and he said brotherhood. when he said that, it really kind of put everything together for me. of all the material i had gathered for the book, that this was the primary motivation. and it was a kind of brotherhood that existed among combat soldiers and it certainly was deadly. so, i thought that that really feels the phrase that i felt summed up the topic best. so, that is where it came from and i don't regret it a bit because still over 10 years later i think that was it to a tee. host: the next call is from chicago, illinois. cora, welcome to the program. caller: thank you for having me. what i wanted the young man to talk about was the fact that when away defeated hitler, no

one ever gives russia recognition for coming in to siber siberia, because the russians could embrace the cold such as the germans and we came in in france and italy and america came in on the other side. so we more or less had hitler boxed in because he couldn't go back to the cold because this wasn't a way. i wonder why that is never discussed by anyone that how the real story goes. we were taught that it was not only the united states, france and italy but the russians but they never give them credit for the job that they did because without them we could not are done anything because they were the ones that actually did the real fighting because they were

the only ones that really could. guest: the soviet union probably did about 80% of the ground fighting in the european theatre in world war ii. they certainly did most of the fighting and dying. but the latest estimate had he lost about 25 million citizens in that war, not all in combat. some victims of the holocaust, some civilians killed by one side or the other. but no question the red army pinned down much of the german army on the eastern front, wore it down and helped guide the way for the western allies to invade in normandy. after the normandy invasion on june 6, later in june, the soviets by prior arrangement with the british and americans launched a major offensive on the eastern front putting more pressure on hilt her's army. -- hitler's army so no question the russians were a major contributor? why wasn't it been recognized? i would argue the last 10 or 15

years it has. there is more scholarship on it nowadays. but at the same time before that you did see a kind of tendency to minimize the soviet contribution during the cold war. so i think part of that was the casualty of the cold war. you saw that on the russian side a tendency to minimize the allies. so now that the cold war over and the russian archives are more open you see many scholars doing a lot of good work on the eastern front and the soviet contribution and a better understanding of that part of the european theatre. so, i don't think there's any question that the crux of her point is exactly right. the soviet unit did the bulk of the fighting and dying and suffering. host: david in wellsboro, pennsylvania, what is your connection to d-day and the invasion of normandy in caller: good morning. my connection and my family's connection was with my father. he went in on d-da