Two jewels just fell from Alan Grayson's lips in an appearance on the ED SHOW

[Mira]

Question from Ed:
Do you think President Bush thinks he deserves more "credit" from the administration about the killing of Osama Bin Laden?

Answer: I think President Bush has been passed out drunk for the last 3 days, and is not thinking about much of anything at all.

=========
And a casual side comment:

Republicans start the wars, and it takes Democrats to bring them to an end.

========
I'm glad he's still asked to come on and comment, and I can't wait for him to be back in Congress if at all possible.

[steve2470]

1. Grayson in 2016, he rocks ! I loved his comments ! nt

[NYC_SKP]

2. kick (nt)

[intheflow]

3. Hmm.

Love me some Grayson, but killing OBL doesn't equal ending any of our wars. I'll believe Democrats bring wars to end when they actually do it. Which they won't since most voted to start them in the first place. x(

[pacalo]

4. Thank you, Alan! Looking forward to watching it later.

[Obamanaut]

5. This line doesn't look to be 100% correct. IIRC, Truman sent the

first advisors to Viet Nam, and subsequently some people called that one "Johnson's war" because of the escalation and I think it ended during the Nixon administration.

"Republicans start the wars, and it takes Democrats to bring them to an end."

[WinkyDink]

8. Nixon campaigned in 1968 to end the Conflict. If you think waiting 5 years was an accomplishment....

http://www.lars-klein.com/start/usa/nixon/nixonvietnam.html

In 1954, when the French pulled out of Vietnam, Nixon was Eisenhower’s Vice President and the first senior elected politician to speak in favor of sending American troops the Indochina. Nixon praised himself as the politician having visited Southeast Asia more often than any other. His approach, however, was determined by the Domino Theory, which he strongly believed in. After the Fall of China the U.S. could not afford another setback in Asia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/kimnix.html
Nixon's Vietnam War
Jeffrey Kimball
528 pages, 6 x 9
Modern War Studies
Paper ISBN 978-0-7006-1190-4, $24.95

WINNER OF THE ROBERT H. FERRELL BOOK PRIZE
WINNER OF THE OHIO ACADEMY OF HISTORY BOOK AWARD
The signing of the Paris Agreement in 1973 ended not only America's Vietnam War but also Richard Nixon's best laid plans. After years of secret negotiations, threats of massive bombing, and secret diplomacy designed to shatter strained Communist alliances, the president had to settle for a peace that fell far short of his original aims.

This is the first book to focus exclusively on Nixon's direction of the Vietnam War. Based on extensive interviews with principal players and original research in Vietnam, it goes behind the scenes in Washington and into the minds of America's leaders to provide the most complete and balanced analysis of Nixon's and Kissinger's complex and tortuous strategy and diplomacy.

Jeffrey Kimball has conducted exhaustive research into recently declassified files and has reexamined Nixon's and Kissinger's postwar writings to depict a hidden reality quite different from that previously presented. His absorbing tale traces Nixon's involvement with Vietnam back to 1953 with his advocacy of interventionist policies and demonstrates how the foreign policy lessons he learned before his election served as the basis for the goals he pursued in office. He describes Nixon's struggle to appease his hawkish supporters while making good on his campaign promise to end the war and how in the face of other foreign and domestic problems, Vietnam became the major preoccupation of his presidency.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, tell us again about Harry Truman?

[Obamanaut]

9. Not liking the facts does not change the facts. Not only did the Truman

administration send the first advisors to Viet Nam, but also took over 80% of the French expenses in their continuing involvement.

As for the accomplishment of ending the war, my statement was in rebuttal to "Republicans start, Democrats end." Truman WAS president when the US involvement started, and Nixon WAS president when the US involvement ended.

And look at the dates below. It appears that Truman was involved in sending troops into Korea as well. Less than a month before he sent people/dollars to Viet Nam.

And those are the facts, and cannot be dusputed.


http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

June 30, 1950 - President Harry S. Truman orders U.S. ground troops into Korea following Communist North Korea's invasion of the South. In his message to the American people, Truman describes the invasion as a Moscow-backed attack by "monolithic world Communism."

July 26, 1950 - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.
American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French

And oh look. Here's another tidbit regarding who starts/stops wars

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_US_President_during_the_Korean_War

“During the Korean war the United States had two presidents. Harry Truman was President when it began in 1950, and Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was President when the armistice was signed in 1953.
(The president of South Korea was Syngman Rhee.)”

It is beginning to look like the two jewels that dropped from Grayson's mouth (according to the OP) may not have been such jewels after all.

Damned pesky facts!

[tomp]

6. democrats always assist entry into war. nt

[madokie]

7. Diamonds no doubt

[Obamanaut]

11. More like cheap imitations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1048237&mesg_id=1050044

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mira]

13. You have chosen an interesting name. Welcome to DU n/t

[VeryConfused]

14. Why did you ignore my comments?

[Hissyspit]

15. Nonsense garbage.

Try again.

[KittyWampus]

17. He'd also release any info gotten at bin Laden's compound. But hey, he's a hero.

[Hissyspit]

32. Yes. That's EXACTLY what happened.

Well, if we're going to make stuff up and be hypothetical (which is the only way to attack WikiLeaks, apparently) how would releasing the info gotten at bin Laden's compound be a bad idea? Exposing al Qaeda's secrets to the whole world. Sounds good to me.

What would be in this info that would need to be redacted? Are you continuing the myth that WikiLeaks releases have not been redacted?

I don't know if Assange is a "hero" or not, but if you're going to attack him as not being one, prove he's not with facts not imagined scenarios.

ALL world governments and institutions, including the U.S., need to forced to be more open and accountable.

[VeryConfused]

18. Do you realize just saying something doesn't make it true?

[Hissyspit]

33. You mean like what you just did in your initial post?

[Erose999]

16. If Bin Laden's location within Pakistan were to be exposed the pressure would be on Pakistan to

detain him. So he could quite possibly have been taken alive and tried for his crimes in front of a court, rather than simply executed by "extrajudicial assination".

If you're comfortable living in a nation where the government is entitled to perfect secrecy with their information, might I suggest Pakistan.

[VeryConfused]

19. In your scenario there would have been no treasure trove of intel

from all that computers and data storage devices that were captured. As for the America love it or leave it comment, that seemed a bit uncalled for.

[Hissyspit]

35. We don't know there IS a "treasure trove" of intel.

[Autumn]

21. You seem very confused about

Julian Assange, welcome to DU. He would have vetted the information.

[VeryConfused]

22. Julian Assange believes that nation's shouldn't have secrets

if he got his way OBL would still be alive and well and plotting the deaths of more innocent Americans.

[Autumn]

23. I'm sorry he upsets you. You can hide threads about Assange

if he bothers you that much. Oh wait, you brought him into this thread about Grayson, got an opinion on him? Or just Julian Assange? If you want to discuss him you can start a thread about him. Did you ever think of that? Probably not, you seem to have things on your mind.

[VeryConfused]

26. The GOP's efforts to take away a woman's right to decide is upsetting

should I hide that?

As for Grayson, he is a mixed bag. Sometimes he makes sense, other times it's not hard to see why he was a one term Congressman.

[TroglodyteScholar]

31. Welcome to DU...

...and might I add that your username is perfect.

[Hissyspit]

34. Do you realize just saying something doesn't make it true?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VeryConfused]

28. Do you have some links?

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. I would root for Grayson if he focused on the corruption in his own backyard.

Come on Grayson! Be brave! Take on the trial lawyers who are batting for both sides. Help put an end to the good ole boy network.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

27. Did he promise to close GITMO in a year?

Did he promise a public option?

Did he promise to put on his comfortable shoes and support unions?

[Autumn]

30. How dare that hateful scumbag make horrible comments

about Bush. Glad you found out that he is a liar. Cause God knows Bush was never a drinker and he fought terrorism no matter where he found it. Smoke em out, dead or alive and all that rot.

[lpbk2713]

24. I was thinking along the same lines.

He was a no-show in NYC because he had the shakes too bad.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Grayson has my vote..