Ironside

"New Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party Calls for More Terrorist Attacks on America. BuzzFlash is Not Making This Up: '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.'" GOP chief: New strategy key The Republican Party of Arkansas, which was beaten decisively in last year’s election, needs to dedicate itself to running next time on an anti-tax, pro-highway and pro-education agenda, its new chairman said. Bryant businessman Dennis Milligan also said the party faithful need to run for more local offices. Milligan said former Gov. Mike Huckabee appointed many Republicans to the state’s boards and commission during the past decade, and they would be excellent candidates for local government offices, such as prosecuting attorney, sheriff and quorum court or city council members. “If you take care of the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves,” said Milligan, who also is chairman of the Saline County Republican Party. “If you develop a good solid county Republican foundation, then the top is going to take care of itself.” Milligan promises that under his leadership the party will be active statewide. “We are not just going to be sitting here in the city of Little Rock and hoping the best for Boone County, Columbia County, Benton County or Desha County,” he said. The GOP’s State Committee promoted Milligan from treasurer to chairman on May 19 to succeed Sen. Gilbert Baker of Conway. He said the party hasn’t focused enough “on getting the candidates to step forward to run.” “I am very proud of what we have accomplished, but anything can be improved,” said the 49-year-old owner of Water Treatment Services Inc. who attends The Church at Rock Creek in Little Rock. Huckabee attends the same church. Last November, the Republicans lost control of the governor and lieutenant governor offices and three legislative seats to the Democrats. The Democrats now control the state’s two U. S. Senate seats, three of four congressional seats, all seven state constitutional offices and 102 of 135 legislative seats. But Milligan is a bit of an unknown in some political circles. Senate Republican leader Denny Altes of Fort Smith, Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe and state Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney of Little Rock said they don’t know Milligan. Ten days before Milligan was elected as the party chairman, a staunch supporter of former state Sen. Jim Holt of Springdale warned fellow conservatives that Milligan wants the party to run away from its core social issues. “That philosophy is just as absurd and dangerous as [u. S. Senate Majority Leader ] Harry Reid’s public statement that we’ve already lost the war in Iraq,” retired Jonesboro teacher Debbie Pelley wrote in an email that she said was distributed to thousands of conservatives in Arkansas. “Taking that stand will do nothing but guarantee defeat,” she declared. Milligan said Pelley misinterpreted his remarks that he wants the party to focus more on fiscal issues. He said he doesn’t intend for the party to abandon social issues at all. House Republican leader Johnny Key, R-Mountain Home, called Pelley’s e-mail “bogus.” “To say that Dennis is not a social conservative is misreading his record, his campaigns that he has run, and it is taking a couple of statements where he said, ‘We need to focus on other issues,’ and totally twisting those statements and [making ] him look like something he is not,” he said. In 2002 and 2004, Milligan narrowly lost the District 29 state House race to Rep. Janet Johnson, D-Bryant. Pelley said the problem is the state GOP is run by businessmen who balk at financing the campaigns of candidates, such as Holt, who represent the values of the Republican base. “I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but we got more votes than any other Republican who ran for statewide office last time,” Holt said. Still, he said he wants to help Milligan be successful. Last November, Holt lost the lieutenant governor’s race to former Clinton administration official Bill Halter by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent, after falling short of knocking off U. S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln in 2004. Milligan described himself as both a fiscal conservative and social conservative. “I am a pro-life individual. I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am opposed to homosexuals adopting children. We are talking Dennis Milligan the man, and that isn’t necessarily the view expressed by every Republican, but those are my views.” As a businessman, Milligan said he probably “brings to the table a little more concern about our taxes, our growth, our jobs. I am just really caught up in trying to do and be part of anything that we can do to encourage job growth here, because obviously the more people we have working... the tax burden decreases for all of us.” Milligan said he hopes to persuade Republican candidates to run for office under the broad goals of cutting taxes and stopping tax increases, improving highways to promote economic development, and finding ways to more efficiently spend tax dollars on education. “That is just something near and dear to my heart, and I hope to be able to get the current legislators and candidates to maybe buy in on that. Again, it’s very basic,” he said. This year, the Democraticdominated Legislature approved about $ 200 million a year in tax cuts and bolstered state funding for the public schools. Last week, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state is providing an adequate and equitable education to public school students, ending a 15-year-old lawsuit. Milligan said it’s a legitimate goal for the GOP to strive to increase its number of House seats from 25 to 30 in next year’s elections. Republicans lost several close races to Democrats last November, he noted. He said he hasn’t ruled out running next year for the District 29 seat, which is held by Johnson, who is barred from seeking re-election under term limits. Gwatney, a former state senator, said Republicans will have a hard time winning 30 House seats in next year’s election. “At the end of the day, [Milligan ] is going to have to deal with a popular Democratic governor, whose agenda Arkansans identify with, and people are going to want to be part of Gov. Beebe’s team,” said Gwatney. Milligan said that Beebe is a talented and experienced politician. “If you give me a $ 900 million surplus, I probably could make things look pretty good,” he said, referring to the state’s projected surplus of $ 919 million by the end of this month. Milligan said Beebe enjoyed “a great honeymoon” in this year’s legislative session. “Next time around will be a little different story. We’ll find the real capabilities of Gov. Beebe probably the second time around,” he said. Beebe replied that it’s a challenge to be governor and vowed to “meet the needs of the people. We will underpromise and overdeliver just like we have and restore the faith of the people [in state government ].” Gwatney said the state Democratic Party’s No. 1 priority next year is re-electing U. S. Sen. Mark Pryor and U. S. Reps. Marion Berry, Mike Ross and Vic Snyder. Milligan said he’s talked to several possible candidates for Pryor’s seat so far. He declined to take a stance on President Bush’s latest immigration bill. “That is between the president and Congress, and I am just going to let them hash it out and work it out,” Milligan said. “I just think that is something for probably smarter people than me to figure out. It is a tough situation either way, but something definitely needs to be done.” He said he’s “150 percent” behind Bush on the war in Iraq. “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,” Milligan said. He said he’s not supporting any particular Republican presidential candidate in next year’s primary now that he’s the party chairman, though he contributed to Huckabee’s presidential campaign before he was elevated to the chairmanship. “I am happy for any of them that are putting their name on the line and running,” he said, “and I certainly wish Gov. Huckabee the very, very best.” Source =============================================== This guy should step down IMMEDIATELY, if not get fired ON THE SPOT! Where's the OUTRAGE?

Our Troops deserve better don't they? WARNING: GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING VIDEOS Not Recommended for ALL viewers! President Bush and his Administration built Saddam Hussein to appear more of a threat than he actually was, by saying things like... "before he becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc. To date, we’ve had more than 2,300 American troops killed in Iraq. More than 17,000 others injured, many losing arms, legs, or their sight! These numbers climb daily. Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with at some point, no doubt. The problem is the way the Bush Administration sold it, executed it and timed it. That was all done poorly, at best. The Bush Administration has EXPLOITED 9/11, using selective intelligence, stacked allegations and fear tactics on a nation that had been viciously attacked the year prior! Where's the OUTRAGE?

Haven't we given Iraq enough? Liberation from Saddam Hussein. The lives of 2000 of our Brave and counting. The almost 15,000 injured and counting. $200,000,000,000.00 and counting. But hey, if you support this QUAGMIRE, The Bush Administration has a plan for you. You can now put your money where your mouth is. I have always said that those who support this war should enlist to fight it. I know that's not always possible, though. Well now, leave it to GW and Co. to find a way for YOU to contribute now, as well! As for me? I won't be giving one red cent, simply because I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I only support the Troops, and to help them I have sent out packages and plan to send out more soon. Well guys and gals... Let's have a show of hands and the amount you're planning on pledging to good 'ol Uncle Sam, for the "Iraqi People." Ironside pledges $0.00, but offers a boot up the ass of our fearless leader GW Bush! NEXT....

-Want a REAL Threat? North Korea! I see, so your suggesting that we all wait until Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, and then what? They were no where close to nukes. Bush put that fear in you. N. Korea on the other hand, HAS THEM! Are we waiting for Cuba to get them before we act? -Want to fight terror? Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordon I see, so your suggesting that we all ignore Iraq's ties to terrorism, including the funding of suicide bombers? Saddam Husseim "offered" to fund them. Hamas read through him like the UN read through Bush! They didn't buy. -Want a strategic location? Afghanistan's good... oops, no oil! Iraq isn't a strategic location? The prize isn't worth the price. Are you suggesting we're in Iraq to stay? If not what good is it's location to us? -Want to liberate somebody? Cuba! You mean like JFK tried? No, with our troops instead of a half-ass trained militia.

Why did we invade Iraq? Want a REAL Threat? North Korea! Want to fight terror? Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordon (among others)! Want a strategic location? Afghanistan's good... oops, no oil! Want to liberate somebody? Cuba! No, I am NOT suggesting war with these nations. I'm suggesting that Iraq was the least of our worries, until Bush became President! Saddam Hussein had Iraq in their own little world. He was a wicked evil dictator, no doubt. But a threat to NOBODY but Iraqis. His Air Force was buried in the desert. His Armor units depleted during Desert Storm, his chemical weapons (evidently) destroyed during the 90's. His "Elite" Republican Guard... well, we know about their will, no backbone. Who we're fighting now are the Iraqi people and people (insurgents) from other countries that came there AFTER we invaded. Those are the SAME people that would have just as well gone into Afghanistan to fight us. In fact, after getting his camp destroyed in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's militant group packed up and went to Iraq, where they commenced to beheading American citizens and Iraqis alike! This is also the time that al-Zarqawi pledged alliance with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. al-Zarqawi and bin Laden hadn't been friends before this time. I guess maybe GW is more of a "uniter" (Bushism... the proper word being 'unifier') than I give him credit for being, huh? He's damn sure united the Islam extremist's, hasn't he?

Had we stayed out of Iraq or invaded with a REAL coalition, there would be NO STRAINS on our Military. Bush KNEW that! Here's what he said when applying to the American People for the job of Commander in Chief... Where's the OUTRAGE?

I understood when some of the American People called for Bush’s impeachment after invading Iraq. I don't know why... perhaps, I let the rightwing flag-waving peer pressure get to me, but I didn't jump on that bandwagon. SHAME ON ME! Had we impeached Bush instead of re-electing him (if he REALLY was re-elected… Ohio), perhaps we'd have been more prepared for Hurricane Katrina and who knows, maybe even saved some more lives. Maybe some of our troops would be on their way home from Iraq, by now… saving yet more American lives! Maybe our Government should be doing more to build a better America, instead of a better Iraq (Good Luck!) with American blood and the American taxpayers money. You see, I and many Americans like me have been SCREAMING that we MUST fight terror here at home TOO. While it's GREAT we went into Afghanistan, it was a TERRIBLE move to invade Iraq almost alone and tie-up such HUGE number of forces there. The Iraq War has become a HUGE distraction to the REAL War on Terror (if there really is such a thing), as well as a distraction to homeland security. We, the labeled "haters", have been SCREAMING for better port security, Federal Agents on domestic transportation, better nuclear plant security. Our National Guard isn't meant to be fighting our overseas battles. They are meant for riots and disasters... natural and man-made. They are meant to protect our homeland. NEVER has our National Guard deployed in the numbers we're seeing today in Iraq. Not even close! We have an Army, Navy, Air force and Marines for that. And, if needed we turn to the Reserves. I suppose the Coast Guard should be deployed to Iraq next, huh? Though I still support the efforts in Afghanistan because they were harboring those that attacked us. The reason I said "if there really is such a thing", about the war on terror, is because it's now appearing (to me) to have been all a big scam to invade Iraq. That was Bush's goal all along. And, EXPLOITING 9/11 to make a case for invading Iraq was MORALLY WRONG! I believe Bush invaded Afghanistan for all the WRONG REASONS! There were no “confirmed” stories of a meeting in Prague with Iraq officials and al Qaeda operatives, as Vice President Dick Cheney said there was. We didn’t “know where they are”, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had told the American People, of the chemical weapons of mass destruction. There were no chemical drones. No mushroom clouds. No shopping for uranium in Africa. No tons of chemical weapons. This was ALL HYPE. All scare tactics used on a society that had been viscously attacked, the year before. Stacked allegations, exaggerations and EXPLOITATIONS! I honestly believe George Walker Bush ran for President in 2000 to invade Iraq! He's had his sights on Saddam Hussein from the start! Hey... got duct tape?

Good point! You're correct. The (partisan) rightwing Senate and rightwing America have proved there's NOTHING that Bush can do to get himself impeached! Hell, with what's right and what's wrong. It's about partisan politics. Thanks for clearing that up!

IMPEACH BUSH MOVEMENT! Bush has failed us in oh so many ways. Our "National Guard" is stuck fighting in a nation (QUAGMIRE) called Iraq instead of tending to domestic affairs, as needed. Hurricane Katrina has OVERWHELMED this Government, as did the WTC attacks on 9/11/01! FEMA Director Brown, who Bush told "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" 5 days after Hurricane Katrina hit, has resigned and who does Bush appoint as interim Director? David Paulison, the frickin' "duct tape and plastic sheathing, in the case of chemical attack", guy! Oh boy, don't we feel safe now! NOT! My goodness, George Bush hadn't even seen any footage and didn't have any idea how serious Hurricane Katrina was until the NEXT DAY! Mississippi still hasn't been tended to by FEMA in many areas. Hurricane Katrina has shown America and the world the readiness of the United States in case of an emergency. You'd think 4 years after 9/11 we'd have done MUCH BETTER than we did. The Bush Administration has FAILED US AGAIN! How much more should we have to endure of this President? How long can Rightwing America condone his EVERY MOVE? Where's the OUTRAGE?

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA. Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside. Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the New Orleans newspaper The Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at the web site of The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - 1991 Was Dick Cheney right? The Source - The Washington Post

If Terrorists had blown up the levee, the Federal Government would have been right there.... Rest assured!<---click there. Viva la Bush!

Well said! I think you're EXACTLY correct! Bush is actually playing right into the hands of al Qaeda, with his war in Iraq.

Geez, who EVER claimed WWI and WWII were "based on lies"?

Hi, I'm a new member here and this is my first post. I'm a Veteran and a Patriot. I support the war in Afghanistan, but I am very much against the war in Iraq. Or at least the reasons we were given, the way it was executed and the timing. My thoughts on the war in Iraq... Americans and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more confusing. Iraq, ties to 9/11. Iraq, no ties to 9/11. Iraq, ties to al Qaeda. Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda. Iraq, threat to USA. Iraq, no threat to USA. Iraq, chemical bunkers. Iraq, no chemical bunkers. Iraq, CWMD. Iraq, no CWMD. Iraq, mushrooms clouds. Iraq, no mushroom clouds. Iraq, becoming an imminent threat, Iraq, not becoming an imminent threat. Now, it’s a “liberation.” Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these CWMD. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. Hell, we helped him obtain them, to use on the Iranians. How dare he use them on the Kurds! But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that made him appear to be more of a threat than he was... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc. We’ve had more than 1,700 American troops killed in Iraq. More than 13,500 injured. Many losing arms, legs, and their sight! These numbers climb daily. If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American people for the job of Commander in Chief: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker." George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate October 3, 2000 Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that? Rightwing America wants to say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, wouldn't it have been better for Americans and Europeans, if Osama bin Laden and his entourage had been captured instead? When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had NEVER even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 80s, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz (the list goes on). These are daddy's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he ALSO had the infamous "memo." It took 9/11 for him to wake up and understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about. And, oh how Bush had hoped it was Iraq that had attacked us. Do you remember: Vice President Dick Cheney and the "pretty well confirmed" story about a meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked about Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction said, “we know where they are.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United States—so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country." President Bush said, after 9/11, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" VP Cheney said, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.” Instead: We're in Iraq liberating Iraqis with American lives and blood, and with the American taxpayer's money. That money belongs here at home bettering our Nation, NOT Iraq's. This is money that could be better spent fighting the REAL war on terror! Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They should pay for their own building and rebuilding. Why are we financing this “liberation”? I think it's a travesty! I have no problem with ousting Saddam Hussein. It’s the way the Bush Admin has done it (and the timing) that bothers. It was timed and executed poorly, at best. The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to do. The United Nations isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce. Perhaps had we sent the UN in searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different. After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations? However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, there still has to be an exit plan and our troops will have to be FULLY equipped. And now I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before attacking? The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared and with no plan to win the peace. Then he has the gall to blame Senator Kerry for the lack of body armor, because he voted against the $87 billion, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor, in the first place. Then to invade during a sandstorm that our troops weren’t equipped for. Their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units became lost, some were killed and others captured. It was a quagmire from the get go! And it’s this President’s fault! Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? Again, I ask… What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or so? Yes, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. We were already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror. Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all domestic transportation. We need better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We must invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home. Forget about wrapping your home in plastic sheathing and duct tape. Can you believe our Government REALLY suggested that, in the case of a chemical attack? President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001. al Qaeda now continues to grow from within the lands of their enemies. They are sprouting up around the world in new cells ready, willing, and able to do any dirty needs for Osama bin Laden. And us? We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq! God Bless Our Troops!