Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party Calls for More Terrorist Attacks

[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?

[M.Dancer]

Where's the valium?

[guyser]

Where's the valium?

Medicine cabinet, top shelf beside the Propecia. Leave the condoms alone, I have a busy weekend coming up.(pardon the pun)

[Figleaf]

The reason there is no outrage is that to rightwingers it is perfectly acceptable to use false-flag operations, wag the dog, and generate blow-back. Rightwingers believe it's aok set up the conditions that will kill their own children, as long as it's all wrapped in a flag.

[B. Max]

Where's the OUTRAGE?

Wow, that spin must have been manufactured at the very outer edge of the left wing lunatic fringe.

Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party Calls for More Terrorist Attacks

Sounds like something John Edwards would come up with or Cindy Sheehan.

[Drea]

Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party Calls for More Terrorist Attacks

Sounds like something John Edwards would come up with or Cindy Sheehan.

Sure "sounds" like...

But it wasn't -- it was said by the Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party.

[bush_cheney2004]

No big deal...he's absolutely right. Reminds me of General Hillier waking up Canucks to the idea that Canadian Forces actually KILL PEOPLE!

[B. Max]

Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party Calls for More Terrorist Attacks

Sounds like something John Edwards would come up with or Cindy Sheehan.

Sure "sounds" like...

But it wasn't -- it was said by the Chairman of Arkansas Republican Party.

Looks like you missed it. He never called for a terrorist attack.

[ScottSA]

This is like quoting Churchill saying something like "Hitler is a monster because he wants to kill Jews..." and doing a bit of fancy editing to produce Churchill says he wants to "kill Jews!"

[Drea]

'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.'"

Yes, he says he wants to bring those naysayers around with another staged terror attack. Of course he doesn't say "staged", but we all know (those who think anyway) what he means.

Next time it will probably be a dirty nuke -- to ramp up the "war on terrah".

Denial is a river in Egypt

[kimmy]

'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.'"

Yes, he says he wants to bring those naysayers around with another staged terror attack. Of course he doesn't say "staged", but we all know (those who think anyway) what he means.

Next time it will probably be a dirty nuke -- to ramp up the "war on terrah".

Denial is a river in Egypt

The grammar of his statement allows the interpretation that he's hoping for terror attacks on US soil.

However, the idea that he's advocating a staged operation (or "false flag!" operation, as the new buzzword goes), is not expressed in the comment, and is something you've added.

-k

[kuzadd]

The grammar of his statement allows the interpretation that he's hoping for terror attacks on US soil.

However, the idea that he's advocating a staged operation (or "false flag!" operation, as the new buzzword goes), is not expressed in the comment, and is something you've added.

-k

FYI: false flag can in no way be construed as the new "buzzword"

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

it is an old term:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension." ( italy's "strategy of tension" began, just after WW2)

In which right wing terrorist groups, backed by certain elements within the Italian gov, along with the CIA and Nato conspired to terrorize the Italian people, through terrorist bombings, committed by rightist elements, but framing the left. I am reading the Most interesting book about this historical period in italy right now, called- Puppetmasters.

"

The most widespread assumption is that this practice was first established under international humanitarian law at the trial in 1947 of the planner and commander of Operation Greif, Otto Skorzeny, by the military court at the Dachau Trials. In this trial, the court did not find Skorzeny guilty of a crime by ordering his men into action in American uniforms. He had passed on to his men the warning of German legal experts, that if they fought in American uniforms, they would be breaking the laws of war, but they probably were not doing so just by wearing the uniform. During the trial, a number of arguments were advanced to substantiate this position and the German and US military seem to be in agreement on it. In the transcript of the trial[1] it is mentioned that Paragraph 43 of the Field Manual published by the War Department, United States Army, on 1st October, 1940, under the title "Rules of Land Warfare", says:

"National flags, insignias and uniforms as a ruse - in practice it has been authorised to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing rule (Article 23 of the Annex of the IVth Hague Convention), does not prohibit such use, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to make use of them during a combat. Before opening fire upon the enemy, they must be discarded".

Buzzword: A word or phrase that takes on added significance through repetition or special usage.

Like the "war on terror"."War on terror" means nothing by itself, but takes on added signifigance through repetition, particularily valid, for fear mongering/propaganda.

Unlike false flag , which is solidly based in history and fact.

[kimmy]

What the crap has that got to do with anything?

"False flag" might have been around for a long time, but it was seldom used until recently. I went my whole life without having heard of "false flag" once up until around a year ago, and since then I've heard it used hundreds of times.

Some conspiracy fruits started using it in reference to the 9/11 attacks. And since then, like-minded fruits have been applying it to everything they're suspicious of.

That's why it's a buzz-word. Because it's got lots of buzzz right now amongst certain types of folks. bzzzz

One might even say that "false flag" is "a word or phrase that takes on added significance through repetition or special usage."

-kimmy

{bzzzz bzzzzz. bzzzzzz}

[kuzadd]

What the crap has that got to do with anything?

"False flag" might have been around for a long time, but it was seldom used until recently. I went my whole life without having heard of "false flag" once up until around a year ago, and since then I've heard it used hundreds of times.

Some conspiracy fruits started using it in reference to the 9/11 attacks. And since then, like-minded fruits have been applying it to everything they're suspicious of.

That's why it's a buzz-word. Because it's got lots of buzzz right now amongst certain types of folks. bzzzz

One might even say that "false flag" is "a word or phrase that takes on added significance through repetition or special usage."

-kimmy

{bzzzz bzzzzz. bzzzzzz}

"What the crap has that got to do with anything?"

I had a different opinion then you, isn't that what the forum discussions are about?

Because it has recently entered your consciousness, is irrelevant.

It's a term that has been around for a long time.

as for the republican fellah, he's an idiot, to even talk in that manner.

[margrace]

Boy there are a lot of people on here who deny, deny, deny. Something is said and instead of discussion there is nothing but attack attack attack. I thought this was an educational forum put up by Lethbridge Univercity. Not a site for propaganda.

[scribblet]

....

that's why it's a buzz-word. Because it's got lots of buzzz right now amongst certain types of folks. bzzzz

One might even say that "false flag" is "a word or phrase that takes on added significance through repetition or special usage."

-kimmy

{bzzzz bzzzzz. bzzzzzz}

I agree, its a term that has come into usage more recently by the 'the left' as a means to demonize a gov't, and cast doubt on certain operations. Its a method used to promote the more 'left wing' propaganda and whacko theories. e.g. Did you know that really it was a dead whale that hit the pentagon

[kuzadd]

of course, given the recent testimony of one Zbigniew Brzezinski

at the Senate Foreign relations committee.

SFRC Testimony --

February 1, 2007

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

He is clearly speaking of a false flag op, in that he uses the words BLAMED on iran, he did not say, originating with, funded by, he said it would be blamed on Iran.

His testimony continued on.....

I am including it, because, it's interesting:

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

[kuzadd]

I agree, its a term that has come into usage more recently by the 'the left' as a means to demonize a gov't, and cast doubt on certain operations. Its a method used to promote the more 'left wing' propaganda and whacko theories. e.g. Did you know that really it was a dead whale that hit the pentagon

That is because persons such as yourself, are obviously and totally unaware of any history, at all.

The 'sinking of the Maine" was a false flag, as was the Gulf of Tonkin, in fact Hitler's Reichstag fire , is yet another one.

You would do well to read some history. Rather then continue to promote stereotypes and generalizations, and smear. it would certainly make you come across as better informed, rather then ignorant (lacking information)

good books:

PuppetMasters -The political use of terrorism in Italy

http://www.amazon.com/Puppetmasters-Politi...y/dp/0595246974

NATO's Secret Army: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (Contemporary Security Studies)

http://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Army-Op...1659147-3419650

http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cutt...s_7jun1992.html

small article Observer, 7 June 1992, pages 53-54

They were the agents who were to 'stay behind' if the Red Army overran Western Europe. But the network that was set up with the best intentions degenerated in some countries into a front for terrorism and far-right political agitation.

if one finds books to cumbersome or time consuming to read.

[White Doors]

buzzzzzz.. buzzzzz....

[betsy]

"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.'"

I've read the statement repeatedly....and yet I don't see how this would mean that he is calling for more terrorist attacks?

Actually, this statement is doing exactly the opposite! It is actually an effective deterrent for more terrorist attacks!

I bet Osama Bin Laden and all other intelligent terrorist leaders have no wish to help Bush of proving to the American people that he - Bush - is doing the right thing!