mr. truman did. thank you. >> thank you, trevor. >> i tried to present the issue as truman choosing among a series of deeply awful options and choosing the one that was the least -- looking at it in retrospect. retrospect. i'm not suggesting he engaged in some deep moral evaluation. he was guided by2 grobes. the momentum was all there. they considered it a military weapon. they thought it would shorten the war, save american lives. so that was his thinking at the time. in retrospect, i think his case that they pursued an option that can certainly be seen as the least awful of the awful options that they had. there was no easy option. that's what i asked folks who so quickly rush to judgment on truman to consider what was the alternate course? what would have been the civilian casualties in that course of action, et cetera? so i never wanted to see nuclear weapons utilized. i don't think that they can in any way be justified because of the incriminate nature of them. particularly, the nuclear weapons

mr. chairman, the late president truman was mentioned along with the late drew pearson. of course, mr. truman doesn't need any defense from me. he's been known to handle people who have made attacks on him by saying some of them were pr prismatic pervarkarcaters, liar however you looked at them, but it's not appropriate, i think, to be critical of those who are deceas deceased, and we do know that mr. truman opposed passing the buck almost -- he was almost as opposed to passing the buck as dick nixon is good at it. on mr. truman's desk there was a sign, in the oval office, that said the buck stops here. now we've had other criticisms. of other presidents who were deceased. president johnson. we've had discussion of the fiveict amendment. i'm not going to tell you i can tell you all about the fifth amendment, and due process, but i think it's awfully hard to give due process to a dead man. so i would hope that when the final record is written, we would strike any attempt to make attacks of that kind. and i would certainly say that i would resist any that might be made with regard to pres

campbell had said earlier that there was no moral ,ption that truman did not take and it seems to me that a moral option would've been -- mr noris, you pointed out it would have been incredibly hard for him to stop the program entirely -- but what if truman had said, let's wait one week? would not have been a moral option? >> let me address that specifically. there is a fundamental fallacy in the arguments about soviet intervention as an alternative. the way this is normally presented, we know atomic bombs are used, and we know the orbotech effects of those bombs. the soviet intervention, the -- the only consequence is deaths in manchuria and asia. the reality is, hundreds of thousands of japanese were captured by the soviets, combatants and noncombatants. 1.7 million total. there has been, for years, scholarly debate about the total number of japanese and soviet captivity who died. there was a book published couple of decades ago by a japanese scholar who said that the number of japanese who perished in soviet captivity was between 300,000-500,000. book, thed another number was estimated at 400,000. in recent book by a pr

mr. truman did.ou. >> thank you, trevor. >> i tried to present the issue as truman choosing among a series of deeply awful options and choosing the one that was the least -- looking at it in retrospect. retrospect. i'm not suggesting he engaged in some deep moral evaluation. he was guided by2 grobes. the momentum was all there. they considered it a military weapon. they thought it would shorten the war, save american lives. so that was his thinking at the time. in retrospect, i think his case that they pursued an option that can certainly be seen as the least awful of the awful options that they had. there was no easy option. that's what i asked folks who so quickly rush to judgment on truman to consider what was the alternate course? what would have been the civilian casualties in that course of action, et cetera? so i never wanted to see nuclear weapons utilized. i don't think that they can in any way be justified because of the incriminate nature of them. particularly, the nuclear weapons as rich

mr. truman was very concerned about the issue of casualties and the invasion of japan, called a white houseeeting, reviewed the plans, and interestingly, only authorized olympic -- the november '45 operation. he did not authorize coronet. he held an advance approval of that. in japan, there was an equally important meeting. an imperial conference, which is to say one held before the emperor. at this conference, which was essentially sort of a kabuki affair, because the emperor does not actually participate in such matters, they affirmed their policy of fighting to the end without thought of surrender. now, in the course of preparing for that, staff officers prepared papers to review what the situation was. one of the aspects about those papers that i want to highlight to you is this. when i wrote "downfall" -- when i was reading those papers, i realized what they were really saying, even if ketsugo worked exactly as planned, as this horrendous battle in kiyushu. meanwhile, there is an air and sea blockade going on. and there's enormous casualties from all of these factors. even if they secu

mr. truman was faced with fa anyone in 1946 even greater than the world has seen before mp he asked me toake part in the management of the famine and i did so by organizing the necessary set up in washington and again i visited 38 different nations by plane. organized their food administrations, got their cooperation and in the end we pulled through. when we started we were convinced that at least 800 million people would die in that famine. we found a food all over the world that we hadn't expected and in the end we pulled them all through. there was no mass starvation anywhere that i know of. >> it's very clear, mr. hoover, that your operations in the field of relief have been literally tremendous. may i ask you this, during all these years did you accept any compensation? >> i never accepted compensation for relief or federal service except in this sense that i have taken federal salaries and expended them on matters outside of my own needs and use. i was led to that by an overall question of conviction of my own. i don't say this in disparagement of men accepting salaries from the gov

mr. truman's decision as more akin to the philosophy of dietrich bonhoffer where you must do what your consciencends in faith even if the act seems or is evil. or does this signal a profound disconnect in our thinking that procludes us from finding the peace we seek? or do we have more of a decision in whether or not we're a nuclear world than mr. trueman did? thank you. >> i tried to present the issue as trueman choosing among a series of deeply awful options and choosing the one that was the least -- this is looking at it in retrospect. retrospect. not suggesting he engaged in some deep moral evaluation. he was guided by groves, the momentum was all there. they considered it a military weapon. they thought it would shorten the war, save american lives. that was his thinking at the time. but in retrospect, i think there's a case that they pursued an option that can certainly be seen as the least awful of the awful options they had. there was no easy option. that's what i ask folks who so quickly rush to judgment on truman to consider. what was the alternate course? and what would have been the c

mr. truman was very concerned about the issue of casualties and the invasion of japan, called a white house meeting, reviewed the plans, and interestingly, only authorized olympic -- the november '45 operation. he did not authorize cornette. he held an advance approval of that. in japan, there was an equally important meeting. an imperial conference, which is to say one held before the emperor. at this conference, which was essentially sort of a kabuki affair, because the emperor does not actually participate in such matters, they affirmed their policy of fighting to the end without thought of surrender. now, in the course of preparing for that, staff officers prepared papers to review what the situation was. one of the aspects about those papers that i want to highlight to you was this. when i wrote down fall -- when i was reading those papers, i realized what they were really saying, even if kets go worked exactly as planned, as this horrendous battle in key usually. meanwhile, there is an air and sea blockade going on. and there's enormous casualties from all of these factors. even if th

mr. truman was mad because they had not done a health care bill. fortunately, we got that down four years ago. but this recalcitrant congress is why president obah ba ma had to act on his own. nothing is working here but he was responsible for keeping the country moving. i think we need to describe for the record and for the public exactly what's been done today. this morning, the majority adopted martial law rule under this -- until thesivity of september -- until the 5th of september, which is unusual. martial law rule usually lasts one, two, three days at the outside but we have it for five weeks. which means the speaker could call us back at any time. we hope he would not do that without telling us what we're going to do but today we don't know what's in this bill. we don't understand the legislation because the 40 pages of it, we have not had time to look at system of here we are. we do think it's pretty toxic. but not only was the bill drafted by republicans only in a basement room, there are absolutely no democrat fingerprints or ideas or am

mr. campbell said earlier no moral option truman did not take.it seems to me moral option would have been, as you pointed out, incredibly hard for him to stop the program entirely. but what if truman had said let's wait one week. would that be a moral option? >> let me address that specifically. there's in my view fundamental fallacy about soviet intervention as an alternative. the way this is normally presented, we know the atomic bombs are used. we know horrific effects of bombs. soviet intervention presented only thing is combatants of asian continent battle with soviet forces man suria, the island and cor yachlt the reality is hundreds of thousands of japanese were captured by soviets, both combatants and noncombatants. you can get various numbers. the number i use is 1.7 million total. there has been for years a debate about what the total number of japanese in soviet captivity died. there was a book published couple decades ago inside "gq," a japanese father who said the number was between 300 and 500,000. john dower in his book estimating

mrs. roosevelt's philosophy, but as early as 1948 she was recommending that truman ask her to be his running mate. and for her part, eleanor roosevelt publicly praised her appointment as ambassador to italy writing that mrs. luce would be an able ambassador who will represent us well. price of fame goes into fascinating detail about luce's relationships not only with the roosevelts, but with so many of the great figures of the 20th century from eisenhower to several churchills to jfk and, of course, her stormy marriage to henry luce. and so does morris herself in a wonderful account of how she became to be clare boothe luce's biographer, the only one to have access to her public and private papers. and so it is really a great privilege to have sylvia morris with us here tonight. born in england, she taught english literature before moving to the united states in 1968 with her husband, the writer edmund morris, who i'm also proud to have with us here in the evening, and she is also the author of a biography of former first lady edith kermit roosevelt. it also gives me great pleasure to introd

mr. mccullough. winner of the pull alexander prize on his book on truman. you are working on what now, sir? >> a book about john and abigail adams. >> when are we going to see that? so.aybe in another year or >> coming up next, we're going panamanian who was a negotiator in 1977 and went on president of panama. >> do you remember the first time that someone approached you asked you or started talking to you about being involved in a that would be the panama canal treaty? >> yes, i remember. was told me that the of the united states there would be a new time for negotiations and two negotiators have been appointed by president carter. told me their names and we prepared the first meeting with march of 1977 in the washington.anama in >> what were your emotions at that time? andell, the house was empty very cold. that a man of some age, he never took his coat. he remained the whole time with his coat on because it was a cold morning. it was a little tough because we after 30 yearsa of negations. as you can see in the verygraphs here, we have difficult incidents with the 1964 and the in days af

mr. obama to fix the border crisis himself. >> this is a difficult argument for republicans to square. >> reporter: this congress's overall record is dismal, so far only passing 142 bills, harkenning back to another -- when harry truman coined the infamous term. >> this country can't afford another republican congress. >> reporter: but even they pushed through seven times more bills than these lawmakers. >> absolutely. this congress has gotten much less done than even the do-nothing congress of the 1940s. >>> overseas, israel's prime minister said today the ground operation against hamas militants in gaza will continue as long as necessary and with as much force needed to stop hamas from attacking israel. more palestinians reported killed today, bringing the total to more than 1700, while 63 israeli soldiers have died. more tonight from nbc's ayman mohyeldin in gaza. >> reporter: after 27 days of war, israel's shelling of gaza is showing no signs of slowing down. tonight, prime minister benjamin netanyahu telling the world, the operation will go on until security is returned to the people of israel. and as the war drags on, hamas officials are calling israel's attacks a massacre and a war crime saying israel prevente

mr. lickman, dr. lichtman, how do you see it? >> i think she is misguided in many ways. number one, legacies drastically change over time. you can't judge them at the moment. harry truman 22% approval rating in his last year, half of that as obama's. today he is regarded as a near great president. i think obama will go down as the most consequential democratic president in the last 50 years for the following reasons. number one, his policies on bailing out the auto industry, the financial industry, and the stimulus stopped us from sliding into another detropical depression pression. that's what numerous economicometric studies show. the affordable care act. he achieved something that presidents for 50 years have not been able to achieve without a single opposition vote. the only time that has happened in history. and i think over time it will be shown that the affordable health care act will in fact -- >> become a sterling success. certainly the president's rank will rise, unless there is a case of terrorism. but you're wrong on the economy. the american people are losing earning power, which is the only barometer for the economy. what you said about the bailout is spe

mr. president, you have to go to berlin, you have to go for kennedy, you have to go for truman, you havewere associated with monumental events in berlin's history. and he very quietly just said, what would i do if i went to berlin, dance on the wall? this is a german moment, not an american moment. and we need to make it so." >> marvin fitzwater called and told the president we can't hold off any longer. you've got to make some kind of a comment to the press. so the president asked the press delegation to come into his office. >> they were shouting and screaming, you would think it was a birthday celebration, and leslie stahl goes right up to the edge of the president's desk and leslie has this long arm, and pointed finger, she was pointing at the president, mr. president, what do you think about this? >> you don't seem elated. i'm wondering if you're thinking of the problems -- >> [ inaudible ] i'm very pleased. i have been very pleased with a lot of other developments. >> the press were jumping all over him about not showing any emotion when the berlin wall came down because we had won

mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. great to have you all here again. travis, i know my colleague gave a kind introduction and associate you and i together as friends. i think harry truman was right. i know you have a companion at your site. if you need a friend in washington, get a dog. you've got that one. i'm honored. there's no one i would rather stand with. i say that because, it's not often you get the opportunity we're going to discuss the intent of congress, the spirit and letter of law. today you got the folks in the room who broke -- who wrote the law. advocated for funding and we worked together. i'm reminded and i folded up, you would probably appreciate this, travis, he was a u.s.a. to destroy th the city military section devoted to finding a treatment for combat i increase has been delayed for your by an ongoing squabble between congress and the pentagon over who will pay the 5 million needed to get it started according to interviews. that was january 28, 2009. mr. takano asked how long this issue of electronic records has been going on, and seamless transition or i can just say from my perspective my entire adult life have we advocated for this both withi