POL: Dennis Milligan is a boob

[dawgfan]

The newly installed chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party recently gave an interview to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and had some interesting things to say. Easily the most notable statement in the interview was this whopper about President Bush and 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.

(emphasis mine)

Let me get this straight - he thinks the U.S. should suffer another devastating terrorist attack on our soil to try and prove that Bush's policies are sound?

I realize this was probably said off the cuff, but it doesn't speak well to his thought processes that this idea was ever expressed verbally.

Source: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942

[Crapshoot]

Why do you hate America? :D

[dawgfan]

George Soros bought me...;)

[JediKooter]

A Republican speaking with a Democrat paper? Must have been a uncomfortable interview. ;)

[ThunderingHERD]

Well, it is probably a true statement. I don't know about boosting Bush's support (people might think he wasn't doing enough to protect them), but I dare say another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil would probably lead, once again, to popular support for hawkish foreign policy. Not the far left, of course--but maybe 30% of those Bush has lost in the last few years.

edit: also, I think you're misreading "all we need" as "we need another attack to..." rather than "all it would take to..." as it was surely intended. All he seems to be saying is that people have forgotten the reasons for Bush's policy (of course, several points of that sentiment are debatable).

[MJ4H]

I think you misinterpreted him. Probably because it is poorly worded, but I'm sure you don't think he meant he wants attacks to happen. What he clearly means is more akin to "if we wanted to have people see why the war is really a good thing, then there would need to be attacks on american soil." That doesn't mean he wants attacks, that means as long as there aren't any, people won't see the benefit.

Note: I am making absolutely no statement of agreement or disagreement with what he said. I just thought it was obvious what he meant and a bit bewildering to completely annihilate someone because he worded something poorly. We all do it from time to time.

[Ksyrup]

That's a pretty common figure of speech, as far as I'm concerned. I think you're reading it too literally. I don't know the guy at all, but I have a hard time believing he'd say something that stupid, and so openly.

[Ksyrup]

edit: also, I think you're misreading "all we need" as "we need another attack to..." rather than "all it would take to..." as it was surely intended. All he seems to be saying is that people have forgotten the reasons for Bush's policy (of course, several points of that sentiment are debatable).

Exactly. That's the figure of speech I was referring to.

[dawgfan]

I agree that if you asked him, he'd of course say he doesn't advocate further terrorist attacks on the U.S. That doesn't shield him from calling him out for saying what he did though. First, his wording leaves it very open to interpretation exactly what he means. Second, another terrorist attack on the U.S. could in many ways be interpreted as a signal that Bush's policies are failing, that the U.S. is as vulnerable (if not moreso) to terrorist attacks than we were before.

Not only do I question the wisdom of him saying what he did, I question his logic.

[Ksyrup]

Again, I don't know who the guy is so I'm not vouching for him, but the wording doesn't leave it open to interpretation IMO. It's a common figure of speech, and it appears this is a direct quote from him. I have no doubt what he meant, although I agree with you that the logic is debatable - or certainly would be hotly debated if/when that unfortunate "next attack" occurs.

[ThunderingHERD]

I agree that if you asked him, he'd of course say he doesn't advocate further terrorist attacks on the U.S. That doesn't shield him from calling him out for saying what he did though. First, his wording leaves it very open to interpretation exactly what he means. Second, another terrorist attack on the U.S. could in many ways be interpreted as a signal that Bush's policies are failing, that the U.S. is as vulnerable (if not moreso) to terrorist attacks than we were before.

Not only do I question the wisdom of him saying what he did, I question his logic.

The logic behind it is debatable, but I still don't see what the fuss is regarding his phrasing. As K said, it's a pretty common idiom. If I were to say "All we need is another mistake and our whole plan is ruined," you certainly wouldn't take it to mean that I was advocating another mistake, would you?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well, it is probably a true statement. I don't know about boosting Bush's support (people might think he wasn't doing enough to protect them), but I dare say another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil would probably lead, once again, to popular support for hawkish foreign policy. Not the far left, of course--but maybe 30% of those Bush has lost in the last few years.

edit: also, I think you're misreading "all we need" as "we need another attack to..." rather than "all it would take to..." as it was surely intended. All he seems to be saying is that people have forgotten the reasons for Bush's policy (of course, several points of that sentiment are debatable).

I think you misinterpreted him. Probably because it is poorly worded, but I'm sure you don't think he meant he wants attacks to happen. What he clearly means is more akin to "if we wanted to have people see why the war is really a good thing, then there would need to be attacks on american soil." That doesn't mean he wants attacks, that means as long as there aren't any, people won't see the benefit.

Note: I am making absolutely no statement of agreement or disagreement with what he said. I just thought it was obvious what he meant and a bit bewildering to completely annihilate someone because he worded something poorly. We all do it from time to time.

That's a pretty common figure of speech, as far as I'm concerned. I think you're reading it too literally. I don't know the guy at all, but I have a hard time believing he'd say something that stupid, and so openly.

Exactly. That's the figure of speech I was referring to.

Even under the most generous (and, I think, accurate as all the above point out) reading of his comments, the guy is still a complete boob.

How would another 9/11 attack on American soil convince anyone that the war in Iraq was a good thing and that the President was right doing it?

To me, the logical response would be, yep, the war on Iraq did exactly what I thought it would to. It glavanized our enemies, made them more determined, created even more terrorists, and we're now at risk more than ever before thanks to that war. Isn't one of the main talking points about this war the whole "We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" thing? Well, that'd be one talking point that couldn't be used again.

Or, more likely, if Al Qaeda were responsible for this next attack, it would be an even more damning condemnation of the Iraq war. I imagine the arguments would go something like this:

The Bush Administration took its eyes off the real threat, Al Qaeda, and completely lost focus in Afganhistan and, therefore, while we were wasting our time, effort, resources, fighting a war that should have never happened in the first place and against an enemy that was never a credible threat, while the real enemy, Al Qaeda, was able to use the war in Iraq to recruit more "enemy combatants" and re-build itself. If we had never attacked Iraq, been more focused in Afganhistan, and focused more on Al Qaeda, this would never would have happened.

Additionally, all of the stupid Homeland Security decisions that got some, but not much play (like the distribution of Homeland Secuirty funds) and all those that didn't would all of a sudden come to light and the whole plan and organization would fall under intense scrutiny, much like it did post-Katrina (we all know how well that turned out for the folks in charge).

No. Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, similar to 9/11, would be the final nail in the coffin for Bush and this war.

How Milligan can think differently makes him a boob of the highest order. He's like a 38FFF or something.

[Passacaglia]

38FFF sounds like a hex color code, like the kind used in TCY. Like a dull yellow, maybe?

[Ksyrup]

That's not really the issue here, though. The issue is whether he is essentially hoping for another attack. I don't think he's saying that at all. As far as what another attack would mean, I agree that the logic is debatable. Personally, I think he's falling back on an argument that was made way back in 2002/2003, but at this point, the dynamic has changed and I tend to agree that another attack would hurt Bush more than help him.

[dawgfan]

Once again, I agree that he doesn't really want another terrorist attack to happen just to prove a point. But that doesn't excuse his choice of words IMO - he should've said "...all it would take..." instead of "...all we need is..." and there is no room for misinterpretation.

[ThunderingHERD]

Even under the most generous (and, I think, accurate as all the above point out) reading of his comments, the guy is still a complete boob.

How would another 9/11 attack on American soil convince anyone that the war in Iraq was a good thing and that the President was right doing it?

To me, the logical response would be, yep, the war on Iraq did exactly what I thought it would to. It glavanized our enemies, made them more determined, created even more terrorists, and we're now at risk more than ever before thanks to that war. Isn't one of the main talking points about this war the whole "We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" thing? Well, that'd be one talking point that couldn't be used again.

Or, more likely, if Al Qaeda were responsible for this next attack, it would be an even more damning condemnation of the Iraq war. I imagine the arguments would go something like this:

The Bush Administration took its eyes off the real threat, Al Qaeda, and completely lost focus in Afganhistan and, therefore, while we were wasting our time, effort, resources, fighting a war that should have never happened in the first place and against an enemy that was never a credible threat, while the real enemy, Al Qaeda, was able to use the war in Iraq to recruit more "enemy combatants" and re-build itself. If we had never attacked Iraq, been more focused in Afganhistan, and focused more on Al Qaeda, this would never would have happened.

Additionally, all of the stupid Homeland Security decisions that got some, but not much play (like the distribution of Homeland Secuirty funds) and all those that didn't would all of a sudden come to light and the whole plan and organization would fall under intense scrutiny, much like it did post-Katrina (we all know how well that turned out for the folks in charge).

No. Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, similar to 9/11, would be the final nail in the coffin for Bush and this war.

How Milligan can think differently makes him a boob of the highest order. He's like a 38FFF or something.

My statements were in no way meant to absolve this guy of suspicion of boobery. As far as I am concerned, his party affiliation alone is enough to warrant suspicion.

I'm not convinced, however, that a major terrorist attack would affect the political climate in the manner you describe. I'd agree that Bush would likely suffer, but I don't think it would suddenly "enlighten" middle america on the "perils" of interventionist policies.

[Ksyrup]

That's why it's called a "figure of speech." If he had written out a statement, he wouldn't have used that phrase. It's one thing for you or I to say it, but he got lazy. I suspect it's a fairly easy thing to do.

[Honolulu_Blue]

My statements were in no way meant to absolve this guy of suspicion of boobery. As far as I am concerned, his party affiliation alone is enough for suspicion.

I'm not convinced, however, that a major terrorist attack would have the affect the political climate in the manner you describe. I'd agree that Bush would likely suffer, but I don't think it would suddenly "enlighten" middle america on the "perils" of interventionist policies.

I don't think it'd take much "elightening". It's not all that complicated. Al Qaeda attacked us. We started to go after them, but then turned our focus on Iraq. With our attention on Iraq, Al Qaeda was able to re-form and attack us again.

That's a very simple and compelling story.

If the attack happened when Homeland Security was on "orange" instead of "red" or some other more dangerous color, and there was no warning at all, then Homeland Security would be considered a joke. Again, a simple, compelling story.

Really, the only thing Bush has going for him is that there has not been another 9/11 since he's been in office. That's it. Once he doesn't have that, he's screwed.

Sure, not everyone is going to see it that way and the diehards will remain diehards, but I think the effects would be strongly anti-Bush/anti-Iraq war/anti-another war that does not involve focusing directly on those responsible.

[ThunderingHERD]

I don't think it'd take much "elightening". It's not all that complicated. Al Qaeda attacked us. We started to go after them, but then turned our focus on Iraq. With our attention on Iraq, Al Qaeda was able to re-form and attack us again.

That's a very simple and compelling story.

If the attack happened when Homeland Security was on "orange" instead of "red" or some other more dangerous color, and there was no warning at all, then Homeland Security would be considered a joke. Again, a simple, compelling story.

Really, the only thing Bush has going for him is that there has not been another 9/11 since he's been in office. That's it. Once he doesn't have that, he's screwed.

Sure, not everyone is going to see it that way and the diehards will remain diehards, but I think the effects would be strongly anti-Bush/anti-Iraq war/anti-another war that does not involve focusing directly on those responsible.

Of course, another way to look at it would be: "If only we had committed further to the war in Iraq, this might not have happened. Had the democrats not made success impossible, this tragedy might not have ocurred."

As has been stated ad nauseum, you can't go to war with terrorism (or even a particular terrorist organization) in the same manner you can with a nation. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the Americain public will be satisfied with a hands-off approach to muslim nations suspected of harboring terrorists were there another major attack on the U.S. People would want retalliation that they could watch on their TV, not further intelligence/security restructuring, spending, etc. I could be wrong, but I'd expect it would bring back all the interventionist urges that popped up post-9/11, and then some (e.g.: "This isn't going to stop until we christianize/secularize/democratize/whatever the world!").

[BrianD]

I'm having trouble keeping up with all this political stuff. Is it still more important to argue about the words used rather than the ideas?

[MJ4H]

pretty much

[JasonC23]

suspicion of boobery

Mulling over various ways to use this phrase to my advantage...

[JediKooter]

Mulling over various ways to use this phrase to my advantage...

I think that's a metaphor for A/B cups.

[dawgfan]

I'm having trouble keeping up with all this political stuff. Is it still more important to argue about the words used rather than the ideas?
When you're a notable public political figure, and you're being interviewed for publication in print media, is it too much to ask to provide answers that translate well in the printed medium?

[BrianD]

When you're a notable public political figure, and you're being interviewed for publication in print media, is it too much to ask to provide answers that translate well in the printed medium?

It would be nice if that happened, but the way news folks like their sound bites and the way the public likes their sound bites, I'm pretty sure that anything anybody says that translates well in the printed medium will not be printed. This is even more the case if the words can be taken out of context to punish a guy for saying them...even if you have to work to squeeze the context out of them.

His ideas are certainly open for debate, but people would rather go for the easy win and just challenge the words.

[dawgfan]

His ideas are certainly open for debate, but people would rather go for the easy win and just challenge the words.
Maybe that's happening in the general news media, but it seems to me that both his words and his ideas are being challenged in this thread.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It would be nice if that happened, but the way news folks like their sound bites and the way the public likes their sound bites, I'm pretty sure that anything anybody says that translates well in the printed medium will not be printed. This is even more the case if the words can be taken out of context to punish a guy for saying them...even if you have to work to squeeze the context out of them.

His ideas are certainly open for debate, but people would rather go for the easy win and just challenge the words.

I find his ideas and "logic" much, much worse/more troubling than his poor choice of words.

[NoMyths]

Figure of speech.

That said, the number of people who wish it were literal is much greater now than it was in 2001. And some of them are Americans.

[BrianD]

Maybe that's happening in the general news media, but it seems to me that both his words and his ideas are being challenged in this thread.

I know, I was mostly responding to you and others who chose to focus on the words...even while agreeing that he probably didn't mean it the way it sounded.

[Buccaneer]

You guys are missing the definitive word in all of this: "Arkansas".

[MJ4H]

pardon?

[Crim]

Welcome to Hollywood.

[Ksyrup]

The only reason any of us were discussing the words he used is because that's the main point the original poster made about the quote. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in debating the underlying logic, and since that wasn't the point of the thread, I didn't think we needed to go there. The question was whether he intended to say what it appeared he said, and my answer was quite definitively, "No."

[Honolulu_Blue]

The only reason any of us were discussing the words he used is because that's the main point the original poster made about the quote. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in debating the underlying logic, and since that wasn't the point of the thread, I didn't think we needed to go there. The question was whether he intended to say what it appeared he said, and my answer was quite definitively, "No."

I agree that if you asked him, he'd of course say he doesn't advocate further terrorist attacks on the U.S. That doesn't shield him from calling him out for saying what he did though. First, his wording leaves it very open to interpretation exactly what he means. Second, another terrorist attack on the U.S. could in many ways be interpreted as a signal that Bush's policies are failing, that the U.S. is as vulnerable (if not moreso) to terrorist attacks than we were before.

Not only do I question the wisdom of him saying what he did, I question his logic.

dawgfan (who started the thread) doesn't really seem to agree with you, and I think the debating the underlying logic is well within the spirit of the thread.

[dawgfan]

dawgfan (who started the thread) doesn't really seem to agree with you, and I think the debating the underlying logic is well within the spirit of the thread.
You nailed it - I was questioning not only his choice of words, but the logic behind them (as your quote demonstrates).

[Ksyrup]

The first post says nothing about his logic. In fact, the sole issue being raised is bolded from his quote. The underlying logic was a secondary issue brought up later in the thread. I mean, I made several passing references to it, but the crux of the initial post had nothing to do with the logic of the statement, only the wording.

I don't have a problem if people want to discuss it, but in response to why some of us are focusing on the wording, it seems pretty clear from post #1 that's the issue being raised.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The first post says nothing about his logic. In fact, the sole issue being raised is bolded from his quote. The underlying logic was a secondary issue brought up later in the thread. I mean, I made several passing references to it, but the crux of the initial post had nothing to do with the logic of the statement, only the wording.

I don't have a problem if people want to discuss it, but in response to why some of us are focusing on the wording, it seems pretty clear from post #1 that's the issue being raised.

That's only because you are focusing on the wording from post #1, as opposed to the underlying logic behind post #1. :D