PDA

View Full Version : Ark. GOP Chair: "I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like (9/11).."


jAZ
06-04-2007, 01:11 AM
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html

Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush
06/03/2007 @ 5:46 pm
Filed by Josh Catone

In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

Advertisement
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Milligan, who was elected as the new chair of the Arkansas Republican Party just two weeks ago, also told the newspaper that he is "150 percent" behind Bush in the war in Iraq.

In his acceptance speech on May 19th, Milligan told his fellow Republicans that it was "time for a rediscovery of our values and our common sense."

The owner of a water treatment company, Milligan was a relative unknown in Arkansas politics until being elected the party chairman. He had previously served as the party's treasurer and the Saline County Republican chair.

THE FULL DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE INTERVIEW CAN BE READ HERE
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942

Phobia
06-04-2007, 01:15 AM
Stupid.

Pitt Gorilla
06-04-2007, 01:19 AM
That'd learn 'em real good.

HolmeZz
06-04-2007, 01:31 AM
I'm a big proponent of having unprotected sex with as many hookers as humanly possible. It'll make you appreciate all the times it didn't hurt when you peed.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 02:54 AM
What's amazing to me is that people find this way of thinking shocking and unbelievable.

It's the exact thinking that might have occured in the spring/summer of 2001 as the terrorist threat level was rising and our leaders were on vacation.

The implication here is that our nation would be better off with an attack than to have the public lose support for the NeoCon agenda.

That's exactly the same philosphy involved if (as has been repeatedly suggested) the Bush Administartion "let 9/11 happen" because they thought an attack on American soil would be better than failure to enact the NeoCon agenda.

The difference between this guy's statements and the government standing down to allow the "new pearl harbor" required to gain public support for invading Iraq... well it's about || that much.

DaneMcCloud
06-04-2007, 03:02 AM
A good ol' ass kickin' always does some one good. Especially if it's a bully!

Oops. Did I say that? Retraction, please? Will this be printed? On the internets?

Bob Dole
06-04-2007, 07:11 AM
Or perhaps he meant that after Bush is replaced by someone who believes that all terrorists need is a big ol' hug, and we're subsequently attacked, people will finally appreciate what the Bush administration did.

But by all means, go ahead and take something from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette at face value and run with it.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2007, 10:21 AM
The implication here is that our nation would be better off with an attack than to have the public lose support for the NeoCon agenda.


You know what's ironic about the whole "Dems are weak on nat'l security" tag...is that it was Dems that took us through 2 WW's, involved us in the UN Korean intervention, the UN Vietnam intervention with the escalation with a Rep Pres taking us out of Vietnam, under a divided govt. There's a difference between the pacificist far left and the Democratic party. Heck the Dems aren't even getting us out of Iraq now.

In the meantime, we are have had more attempts, although foiled, since the NeoCons and under the things they've done in the past.

CHIEF4EVER
06-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Or perhaps he meant that after Bush is replaced by someone who believes that all terrorists need is a big ol' hug, and we're subsequently attacked, people will finally appreciate what the Bush administration did.

But by all means, go ahead and take something from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette at face value and run with it.

Coolest post EVAR!!!!!one11111!!!!!!1111

NewChief
06-04-2007, 10:56 AM
But by all means, go ahead and take something from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette at face value and run with it.

The Demozette is more or less a conservative paper these days. Almost all of their staff editorials come down on the side of the conservatives.

HolmeZz
06-04-2007, 11:42 AM
I don't even see how it matters where it came from. Dude was quoted.

StcChief
06-04-2007, 12:40 PM
The Demozette is more or less a conservative paper these days. Almost all of their staff editorials come down on the side of the conservatives. they would be one of the few papers leaning that way.

I don't want it to happen, but somewhere it will likely succeed..... All that's left is the scope.

HolmeZz
06-04-2007, 12:55 PM
It sounds more like a hedging of bets.

If it happens under the Republicans, it was bound to happen and it'll make us appreciate Bush.

If it happens under a Democrat, it's just proves the Republican talking point that Dems can't keep us safe.

Dallas Chief
06-04-2007, 01:02 PM
You know what's ironic about the whole "Dems are weak on nat'l security" tag...is that it was Dems that took us through 2 WW's, involved us in the UN Korean intervention, the UN Vietnam intervention with the escalation with a Rep Pres taking us out of Vietnam, under a divided govt. There's a difference between the pacificist far left and the Democratic party. Heck the Dems aren't even getting us out of Iraq now.

In the meantime, we are have had more attempts, although foiled, since the NeoCons and under the things they've done in the past.
Wow. Very enlightening post. In all my studies and all of the hours upon hours watching the History Channel, I've never heard either of these conflicts referred to as interventions. The Vietnam United Nations Intervention. Hmmm, kinda rolls off the tounge in a much kinder and gentler way.

The lunacy of the left.. it takes a village of them indeed.

Mr. Laz
06-04-2007, 01:05 PM
It sounds more like a hedging of bets.

If it happens under the Republicans, it was bound to happen and it'll make us appreciate Bush.

If it happens under a Democrat, it's just proves the Republican talking point that Dems can't keep us safe.
now you're beginning to understand


if a non-republican even hints at not liking the war he is a traitor,wants america to lose and all the american soldiers to die. A GOP'er all but says we need more americans to die to raise support for the president and the right just blows it off.


it's so absurd that it would be funny if is wasn't so scary. :shake:





.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-04-2007, 01:17 PM
Or perhaps he meant that after Bush is replaced by someone who believes that all terrorists need is a big ol' hug, and we're subsequently attacked, people will finally appreciate what the Bush administration did.

But by all means, go ahead and take something from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette at face value and run with it.

Because the Democrats love the terrorists and hate America.

Honestly, I can't wait until the next terrorist attack in 2010. It will really make me appreciate that war in Iraq which helped spawn more terrorists than we can kill.

JFC

:shake:

Nightwish
06-04-2007, 01:53 PM
But by all means, go ahead and take something from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette at face value and run with it.
Uh, you do realize, n'est-ce pas, that "Democrat" is a very common name in town newspapers, and that it does not refer to the political party of that name, but generally to the American ideal of embracing democracy? By the same token, "Republican," also a common name in town newspapers, refers to America's identity as a Republic, not to the political party of that name.

Bob Dole
06-04-2007, 02:14 PM
Uh, you do realize, n'est-ce pas, that "Democrat" is a very common name in town newspapers, and that it does not refer to the political party of that name, but generally to the American ideal of embracing democracy?

Uh, you do realize that the Arkansas Democrat, started life post-Civil War as The Liberal?

Probably not...but please, carry on.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-04-2007, 02:15 PM
Uh, you do realize that the Arkansas Democrat, started life post-Civil War as The Liberal?

Probably not...but please, carry on.

Do you realize that Ronald Reagan was a liberal in the 1940's?

Probably not...but please, carry on.

noa
06-04-2007, 02:19 PM
Uh, you do realize that the Arkansas Democrat, started life post-Civil War as The Liberal?

Probably not...but please, carry on.

I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source ever, but this article claims that when the Arkansas Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat merged, the more liberal reporters were forced out. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Democrat

Nightwish
06-04-2007, 03:12 PM
Uh, you do realize that the Arkansas Democrat, started life post-Civil War as The Liberal?

Probably not...but please, carry on.
Doesn't matter, it still isn't a reference to the political party. And "liberal" had a much different meaning in the 19th century than it does now. It was about the mid-20th century that the major parties essentially switched sides, and it was the GOP that was thought of as the liberal, progressive party until then.

Bob Dole
06-04-2007, 03:23 PM
I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source ever, but this article claims that when the Arkansas Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat merged, the more liberal reporters were forced out. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Democrat

Is that kind of like Hitler assuming control of Germany and forcing out the lesser fascists?

Bob Dole
06-04-2007, 03:31 PM
Doesn't matter, it still isn't a reference to the political party. And "liberal" had a much different meaning in the 19th century than it does now. It was about the mid-20th century that the major parties essentially switched sides, and it was the GOP that was thought of as the liberal, progressive party until then.

You're obviously much smarter than Bob Dole.

Which completely ignores that the majority of newspapers with "Democrat" in their names appear in the South and were originally named thusly to reflect an antebellum partisanship against the pro-Republican north.

But yes, some are named for "democrat" in principle. We'll just assume they all are and go ahead and run with that. None of them with "Democrat" in the name are in any way supportive of the Democratic Party.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2007, 03:40 PM
Which completely ignores that the majority of newspapers with "Democrat" in their names appear in the South and were originally named thusly to reflect an antebellum partisanship against the pro-Republican north.
You mean those radical Republicans...that seem to have made a comeback? :p

HolmeZz
06-04-2007, 04:12 PM
Is that kind of like Hitler assuming control of Germany and forcing out the lesser fascists?

You're really fightin' the good fight there, Bobby.

"Many of the reporters and staff of the more liberal Gazette were thrown out of work and not picked up by the more conservative Democrat-Gazette."

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-04-2007, 04:14 PM
You're obviously much smarter than Bob Dole.

Which completely ignores that the majority of newspapers with "Democrat" in their names appear in the South and were originally named thusly to reflect an antebellum partisanship against the pro-Republican north.

But yes, some are named for "democrat" in principle. We'll just assume they all are and go ahead and run with that. None of them with "Democrat" in the name are in any way supportive of the Democratic Party.

That's a pretty pathetic argument you've constructed. It's almost like watching a Parkinson's patient try to restore the Sistine Chapel.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 04:17 PM
ROFL

Bob Dole is a pure party gunslinger?

Who'd have thunk it!

ROFL

jiveturkey
06-04-2007, 04:44 PM
What does possible political leaning of the paper have do to with the actual quote?

Do we have to wait for a staunch conservative newspaper to quote it before we can call the guy an idiot?

BucEyedPea
06-04-2007, 04:56 PM
Wow. Very enlightening post. In all my studies and all of the hours upon hours watching the History Channel, I've never heard either of these conflicts referred to as interventions. The Vietnam United Nations Intervention. Hmmm, kinda rolls off the tounge in a much kinder and gentler way.

The lunacy of the left.. it takes a village of them indeed.
Lunacy of the left....do you mean the village of NeoCons who advised Bush?
If so, I'd have to agree.

If you mean me as a leftist...then you couldn't be more wrong.
I am a conservative Republican.

Maybe you weren't referring to me as your post was not completely clear, but if you were....only NeoCons think everyone who doesn't agree with them are on the left. Fact is 70% are not...it's just the die hard 26-30% left that do. Fact is there was a faction of anti-war conservatives who have an active presence on the net. Not to mention anti-war right libertarians. You know publications like the American Conservative, Cato Institute, anti-war.com, Lew Rockwell, The Rockford Institute and the Independent Institute....and now Taki.

Those indeed were interventions, if you checked your facts. They were indeed done under the UN as a police action under SEATO which was under the UN. Imo this is why they are never won but stalemated. All this hoopla about Iraq not getting rid of WMD or having them was also done under the UN azs wellas PGWI. The resolution passed by our Congress repeatedly cited those same UN Resolutions.

Enough facts for ya?
Or do you prefer Fox?

Sully
06-04-2007, 05:09 PM
The sad thing about this story is the fact that if the paper doesn't report the same amount of al Queda operatives that also want another 9-11, they are being "criminal."

penchief
06-04-2007, 07:59 PM
Lunacy of the left....do you mean the village of NeoCons who advised Bush?
If so, I'd have to agree.

Please, stop it. For the love of God, please stop it!

Logical
06-04-2007, 09:46 PM
...
The difference between this guy's statements and the government standing down to allow the "new pearl harbor" required to gain public support for invading Iraq... well it's about || that much.jAZ I have lost all respect for the Bush administration but I don't honestly believe they purposely let 9-11 happen to further their agenda. Do you?

BucEyedPea
06-04-2007, 09:46 PM
Please, stop it. For the love of God, please stop it!
No!

Logical
06-04-2007, 09:58 PM
ROFL

Bob Dole is a pure party gunslinger?

Who'd have thunk it!

ROFLWhat is amazing is seeing Bob Dole posting in DC. First it was Phobia becoming active now Dole, the next thing you know Skip will have moved in and the neighborhood will have went to shit.:D

Actually welcome Dole, glad to see you posting.

Logical
06-04-2007, 10:09 PM
Lunacy of the left....do you mean the village of NeoCons who advised Bush?
If so, I'd have to agree.

If you mean me as a leftist...then you couldn't be more wrong.
I am a conservative Republican.

Maybe you weren't referring to me as your post was not completely clear, but if you were....only NeoCons think everyone who doesn't agree with them are on the left. Fact is 70% are not...it's just the die hard 26-30% left that do. Fact is there was a faction of anti-war conservatives who have an active presence on the net. Not to mention anti-war right libertarians. You know publications like the American Conservative, Cato Institute, anti-war.com, Lew Rockwell, The Rockford Institute and the Independent Institute....and now Taki.

Those indeed were interventions, if you checked your facts. They were indeed done under the UN as a police action under SEATO which was under the UN. Imo this is why they are never won but stalemated. All this hoopla about Iraq not getting rid of WMD or having them was also done under the UN azs wellas PGWI. The resolution passed by our Congress repeatedly cited those same UN Resolutions.

Enough facts for ya?
Or do you prefer Fox?

Between you and DallasChief I am so confused. You talked about Vietnam being started by Democrats. Then he criticizes your name for conflict. Then he blames the apparently current left for those names and then you get defensive. Frankly my head is spinning.

Bob Dole
06-04-2007, 10:13 PM
ROFL

Bob Dole is a pure party gunslinger?

Who'd have thunk it!

ROFL

Actually, Bob Dole was just trying to have a little fun.

Partisan politics doesn't accomplish much of anything. Unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with until the revolution.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 10:18 PM
jAZ I have lost all respect for the Bush administration but I don't honestly believe they purposely let 9-11 happen to further their agenda. Do you?
I don't have any way to know it at this point, so I don't *believe* it.

But that said, I can't dismiss what I think is a very real possibility. And there were 3 things that moved the prospect from "no way" to "maybe".

1) The realization that just because 9/11 was as massive attack, doesn't mean that they had any idea of the eventual scale of the attack.
2) Operation Northwoods
3) Letting it happen isn't the same thing as making it happen

Those three things prevent alone made me realize that it's merely an act of faith to believe that such a thing could never happen in America.

That along with the evidence (albeit circumstantial at this point) that's available from very limited investigation into the idea... has forced me to be open to the option that indeed, the Bush Administration deliberately deprioritized terrorism when they came into office, and even as the warnings got more urgent in the summer of 2001 a few people made prioritizing decisions with the philosphy that terrorism isn't the issue, it's Iraq... And if something happened, it would be linked to Iraq.

go bowe
06-04-2007, 10:21 PM
eh, for some reason she reminds me of rudy's cross-dressing...

it all sounds like a joke but how can we be sure?

she might actually believe all the things she says...

but i think it's probably anton doing all this...

nah, even anton wasn't this far out in looneyville...

Ultra Peanut
06-05-2007, 12:17 AM
The Washington Times is biased against the elderly! The Wall Street Journal is nothing more than the ramblings of a deranged, anthropomorphic street. And the Minneapolis Star-Tribune? That newspaper is too hot to even touch!

Nightwish
06-05-2007, 12:25 AM
The Wall Street Journal is nothing more than the ramblings of a deranged, anthropomorphic street.
ROFL

I almost never use smilies (I consider them the mark of the extremely lazy), but this is one of those rare moments when one is actually deserved! Bravo!

ClevelandBronco
06-05-2007, 01:39 AM
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html

Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush
06/03/2007 @ 5:46 pm
Filed by Josh Catone

In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

Advertisement
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Milligan, who was elected as the new chair of the Arkansas Republican Party just two weeks ago, also told the newspaper that he is "150 percent" behind Bush in the war in Iraq.

In his acceptance speech on May 19th, Milligan told his fellow Republicans that it was "time for a rediscovery of our values and our common sense."

The owner of a water treatment company, Milligan was a relative unknown in Arkansas politics until being elected the party chairman. He had previously served as the party's treasurer and the Saline County Republican chair.

THE FULL DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE INTERVIEW CAN BE READ HERE
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942


There was a journalistic device that was used to break up Mr. Milligan's statement. It's a pretty common device. Here's how it works:

Insert something into a statement to divert attention and change its meaning.

First, let's read his statement the way it was reported:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Now, let's read it another way, with the same words ordered differently:

Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001] and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

I read those two presentations very differently. The reporter in the case of the Arkansas paper interrupted Mr. Milligan's statement in order to interrupt his thought. Check the reporter's punctuation for proof. (Reporters actually study such stuff). The creative editing that interrupted the speaker gave the impression that Mr Milligan indeed wished that such attacks would happen. When his statement is read as one train of thought, I think it's clear that he's simply saying that imany Americans are still asleep to the danger.

This is just one instance in which subtle reportorial bias is important.

Look, guys, I did a decade in the newsrooms of three major metropolitan newspapers back in the day. I'll call bullshit every time you try to tell me how the journalism game works. If you haven't been there, you're just guessing.

Milligan's still full of crap on second reading, but he's not wishing it upon us.

RedDread
06-05-2007, 01:57 AM
It'd be nice if we could receive wake-up calls without mass death, destruction, and chaos. Unfortunately terrorists aren't in the habit of firing warning shots.

But at the same time (and no matter how many times I read this) it still sounds like Milligan is placing the welfare of the Republican party above the welfare of American citizens...to put it mildly.

Dallas Chief
06-05-2007, 08:27 AM
Lunacy of the left....do you mean the village of NeoCons who advised Bush?
If so, I'd have to agree.

If you mean me as a leftist...then you couldn't be more wrong.
I am a conservative Republican.

Maybe you weren't referring to me as your post was not completely clear, but if you were....only NeoCons think everyone who doesn't agree with them are on the left. Fact is 70% are not...it's just the die hard 26-30% left that do. Fact is there was a faction of anti-war conservatives who have an active presence on the net. Not to mention anti-war right libertarians. You know publications like the American Conservative, Cato Institute, anti-war.com, Lew Rockwell, The Rockford Institute and the Independent Institute....and now Taki.

Those indeed were interventions, if you checked your facts. They were indeed done under the UN as a police action under SEATO which was under the UN. Imo this is why they are never won but stalemated. All this hoopla about Iraq not getting rid of WMD or having them was also done under the UN azs wellas PGWI. The resolution passed by our Congress repeatedly cited those same UN Resolutions.

Enough facts for ya?
Or do you prefer Fox?

Hmmm? Maybe I did misunderstand your take on things. BUT let's not be so eager to label someone a neocon just because they disagree with you. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say? I am a little out of it as my wife just delivered a near 11lb. boy yesterday, so I'll say I am sorry and move along. THIS TIME. I have bigger fish to fry...

Bob Dole
06-05-2007, 09:20 AM
Hmmm? Maybe I did misunderstand your take on things. BUT let's not be so eager to label someone a neocon just because they disagree with you. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say? I am a little out of it as my wife just delivered a near 11lb. boy yesterday, so I'll say I am sorry and move along. THIS TIME. I have bigger fish to fry...

You're going to fry the baby?

Radar Chief
06-05-2007, 09:40 AM
You're going to fry the baby?

Baby. The other other white meat.

Ultra Peanut
06-05-2007, 09:53 AM
http://i8.tinypic.com/5xylend.gif

CHIEF4EVER
06-05-2007, 10:45 AM
Baby. The other other white meat.

Keep the money, keep the mojo..........gimme the baby. ROFL

Baby Lee
06-05-2007, 10:55 AM
Keep the money, keep the mojo..........gimme the baby. ROFL
I want my babybackbabybackbabyback. . . ribs. . .

Baby Lee
06-05-2007, 11:02 AM
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.rawstory.com&q=catone&sitesearch=www.rawstory.com&client=pub-5155643920455169&forid=1&channel=4501315864&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&flav=0000&sig=RfOpUGMwq6OC8dGS&cof=GALT%3A%23990000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3A990000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3 A000000%3BALC%3A000000%3BLC%3A000000%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A4C4C4C%3BGIMP%3A4C4C4C%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A3 03%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Frawstory2.com%2Fimages%2Fother%2Frawsmaller2.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Frawstory.c om%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en

alanm
06-05-2007, 01:31 PM
Actually, Bob Dole was just trying to have a little fun.

Partisan politics doesn't accomplish much of anything. Unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with until the revolution.
Let's not forget that the Republicans have all the guns and the backing of the Armed Forces. :)

Ugly Duck
06-05-2007, 01:59 PM
What's amazing to me is that people find this way of thinking shocking and unbelievable.

Heck... that was the GOP's entire election strategy:

9/11.... apply directly to the forehead!!
9/11.... apply directly to the forehead!!
9/11.... apply directly to the forehead!!