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. ~Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Now it is easy to take the obvious shot at Mr. Milligan (where he’s supposed to be saying, “More 9/11-style attacks, please!”).  Far more ridiculous than anything so ugly and crass, Mr. Milligan seems to be saying that “the naysayers” (a.k.a., two-thirds of America) would realise their profound error of doubting Mr.  Bush and his Iraq policy if we suffered multiple catastrophic terrorist attacks, despite the small problem that the few remaining winning (albeit totally false) rhetorical points Mr. Bush has are that “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” and the claim that fighting in Iraq is vital to American security against terrorist threats.  In other words, Mr. Milligan thinks that the public would rally around Mr. Bush after multiple terrorist attacks showed his signature foreign policy initiative to have been a complete failure on his terms and would have also shown him to be incapable of effectively thwarting the very terrorist threat that he claims to understand how to fight better than anyone else.  It seems to me that a combination of multiple domestic security breakdowns, a mismanaged, aimless war and an incompetent foreign policy would pretty much destroy Mr. Bush’s remaining support.  It might also convince the “naysayers” that the sacrifice made by American soldiers in Iraq had been somewhat in vain.