Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Murtha death blow

  1. Nov 18, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When they turned on Murtha they killed themselves.

    I think that's it. Bush is dead and the Republicans are running for cover. It's time to clean house!!!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2005 #2
    what on earth are you talking about?
     
  4. Nov 18, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3469480

    They really screwed up when they attacked Murtha. He is extremely tight with the top brass in the Pentagon.
     
  5. Nov 18, 2005 #4
    John Murtha

     
  6. Nov 18, 2005 #5

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.
     
  7. Nov 18, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Except that due to his impeccable history and tight bonds with the military, they only discredited themselves; and not just in principle but in fact.
     
  8. Nov 18, 2005 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Their gutter tactics and smear campaigns won't work this time.
     
  9. Nov 18, 2005 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.

    This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".
     
  10. Nov 18, 2005 #9
    This depends on your definition of "surrendering." If by surrender you mean something along the lines of "I surrendered the book to Martha, and she thanked me profusely," then I would probably point to the vast increase in terrorist activity in Iraq since the invasion and say that Bush has already surrendered Iraq to the terrorists. Of course, Bush hasn't formally surrendered to the terrorists in the sense that Germany surrendered at the end of World War II. But nobody is calling for him to do that. In other words, I want you to define surrender. Then I want you to surrender to reality and stop trying to spin every bit of anti-Bush information that comes your way.

    And murderers? Can you give me some numbers comparing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by American troops to the number of Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists since the beginning of the conflict? I would appreciate it. While you're at it, I would love to see that list of the other 57 times the democrats have said that. Good luck.
     
  11. Nov 18, 2005 #10
    I thought Evo was trying to clean up this kind of tabloid posting.

    Surrender to terrorists?

    Hand over Iraq to murderers?

    That is hyperbole that is off the scale.
     
  12. Nov 18, 2005 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Lets see

    Current objective: establish a democracy and supress terrorists.

    Democrat plan: leave, give Iraq to murderers (unless your definition of someone who sets off a bomb infront of a police station to kill policemen and civilians is something other then a murderer or terrorist)

    That is like saying France didn't surrender when Germany took over its government. Oh and Archon, you might want to check the numbers yourself as you'll be unpleasently surprised at how many people have died at the hands of terrorist. Of course... the media rarely hypes such numbers up because it may just sound like terrorists are bad people if such numbers are talked about too much. 50 police dead here, 10 government officials dead there... oh who cares, we can get more subscriptions if we advertise the 2 dead US soldiers.
     
  13. Nov 18, 2005 #12
    As I stated in Are the tides changing

    Using divisive tactics when the majority disagrees with you is political suicide.
     
  14. Nov 18, 2005 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thats why we could soon be seeing the end of hte Democratic party. They attempted to undermine the majorities vote by stopping Bush's judges which infuriated the public.
     
  15. Nov 18, 2005 #14

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm not sure what you mean -- a majority of Americans support Bush? Or are you talking about some time in past history? And if talking about past history, how will that infuriate Americans today?

    Edit: By the way, that's not exactly a slam. It's a political reality. If you read the Constitution, the President doesn't actually have much power to impose his personal policies. His main power is his image as leader of the nation. Without the poll numbers, defying him has no consequences.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  16. Nov 18, 2005 #15

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think saying an attack on Murtha kills Bush might be overstating the case a little.

    All in all, Murtha's comments, the Republicans 'symbolic, non-binding' bill proposed solely to put Democrats on the spot, and the debate in the House today have been a good thing. Congress is actually talking about things important to the nation. The debate was pretty exciting - they stopped short of actual violence, but it was very rowdy with a few lows like Schmidt's comment that cowards cut and run - marines don't cut and run (Murtha is a retired Marine Colonel. Schmidt later apologized and asked that her comment be withdrawn), but a lot of highs from both sides, as well.
     
  17. Nov 18, 2005 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Btw, what would be wrong with, "we respectfully disagree", or, "we believe he is terribly wrong..."? Or, how about, "we are not worthy to lick the dirt on your shoes"...okay, they probably wouldn't say that... :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  18. Nov 18, 2005 #17
    The second bolded quote is a classic.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5018733
     
  19. Nov 18, 2005 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    403 noes
    3 ayes
    on the resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
     
  20. Nov 18, 2005 #19

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    And let me guess. Hunter, the Republican that initiated the bill, also voted against it.

    The vote was irrelevant, since the bill was a symbolic statement rather than a serious proposal. It's purpose was to pre-empt Murtha's proposal and to put Democrats on the spot. It was worded so that approval would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do, but it's insertion in place of Murtha's proposal would look like a resounding defeat of Murtha's proposal to the general public.

    It's kind of a lowball tactic, but that's okay. The heated passions on both sides about the Iraq war are a big improvement over last Spring's priorities.
     
  21. Nov 18, 2005 #20
    You mean like emergency, middle of the night, this time only special legislation to distract us from Tom Delay's problems?

    Oh wait, that wasn't the reason. It was so that Bill Frist could demonstrate his ability to diagnose a brain dead patient from a video tape.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Murtha death blow
  1. Death Penalty (Replies: 31)

  2. Death Toll Reaches 2000 (Replies: 14)

  3. Death and tax planning (Replies: 0)

Loading...