What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
6 Comments
- XQUZYPHYR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, clearly it's a travesty that the New York Times dared to point out that the White House, for eight months, has hosted instructions to build atomic weapons. Obviously it would have been better if we just kept that up a little longer.
How exactly is waiting eight months any rational time frame for Card to say this was taken care of "quickly?" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2noone NOONE NFO has ever EVER even nancy super liberal, has claimed that saddam never had wmds..
You do know that the whole point of the weapons inspectors was to make sure he destroyed his wmds, not to find out if he had any.
But yeah thanks for proving you are an idiot. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2let me get this right, youa re not concerned that Bush single handily is responcible for the most falgrant violation of the NPT in history. That Bush may have actually given the terorist the Bomb, that bush probably helped speed irans nuclear program, that bush is the reason 6 arab nations are now talking about going nuclear.
Yeah DAMN Them new york times.. it would have been better if they kept their mouths shut so that even more terrorists can get tthe palns. - XQUZYPHYR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How does reprinting the detailed information of Saddam's known pre-1991 weapons programs prove the claims he had WMDs in 2002? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Thanks for playing.
- aloysiusmiller, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It has taken the NYT some time to admit that Iraq had the potential and capacity for WMD. The database has lot's of other stuff on WMD that the NYT has dismissed. Why is this suddenly so relevant? Time for the NYT to apologize to Judith Miller.
- davenp35, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Wait, let me get this right. The NYT is blaming others for releasing classified material. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is