What is Digg?236 Comments
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -10/+67Vote for Fred Thompson if you want four more years of Bush's Quagmire.
- morningmatters, on 10/10/2007, -6/+49Unless Israel is not part of the MidEast, the region is already "Nuclearized".
- hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -11/+44*****. Pathetic.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+37Fred is proving why he has the authority to be considered a GOP front runner, without even running. "Double Guantanimo?" Fred sees your fearmongering, and raises you one nuclear holocaust!
- sleepwalkers, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Yeah, 'cause those terrorists that caused 9/11 and spurred this "War on Terror" (and thusly the war in Iraq) were all from Iraq, right? Or correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't 15 of them from Saudi Arabia, a country the US calls it's "ally"?
Wanting to leave Iraq =/= Going "easy" on terrorism. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29Israel has nukes. Iran will soon have nukes. Pakistan has nukes. Sorry, Fred, the Middle East is already nuclearized.
- JebBlack, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27Wasn't this guy a lobbyist? A draft dodger? Iran-Contra? Ohhh Fred. Please retire and leave america alone.
- Lister169, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15And embiggen our enemies...
- mickeyknoxxx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20In his 1975 memoir At That Point in Time, Thompson wrote that he divulged to the White House the committee's knowledge of the Watergate tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation.[1] Thompson said, "Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call Fred Buzhardt at home [to inform him about the tapes]. I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action."[1]
Scott Armstrong, a Democratic investigator for the Senate Watergate committee, is critical of Thompson for having disclosed the committee's knowledge of the White House tapes to Fred Buzhardt of the Nixon White House while they were under investigation, and says Thompson was "a mole for the White House."[1] Armstrong says, "When the prosecutor discovers the smoking the gun, he's going to be shocked to find that the deputy prosecutor called the defendant and said, 'You'd better get rid of that gun."[2]
In his 1975 memoir, Thompson had been very critical of Armstrong, writing, "Armstrong, in my view, should never have been on the staff. Although very capable, he was a close friend...of Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, which was running exclusive Watergate stories almost daily based on 'informed sources' within the committee... More than once I accused Armstrong of being Woodward's source."[3]
According to historian Stanley Kutler, Fred Thompson and Howard Baker "carried water for the White House, but I have to give them credit - they were watching out for their interests, too....They weren't going to mindlessly go down the tubes" for Nixon.[4] That was part of the message that Thompson delivered to Buzhardt, according to Thompson:
Legalisms aside, it was inconceivable to me that the White House could withhold the tapes once their existence was made known. I believed it would be in everyone's interest if the White House realized, before making any public statements, the probable position of both the majority and the minority of the Watergate committee.[4]
The White House initially refused to hand over the Watergate tapes, but ultimately complied. The White House could have destroyed or tampered with the tapes after their existence was publicly disclosed by Alexander Butterfield, regardless of whether Thompson had alerted the White House about the committee's knowledge of those tapes. - ruyn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14When we do leave Iraq, I do think the situation will worsen before it gets better, it is inevitable you can't expect American to leave and then things to magically get better. I fully agree we need to leave as soon as possible, but if you think it going to immediately improve that is totally ridiculous, but also to think that they are going to nuclear right when we leave is totally asinine.
- burnerjack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Shhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! iT'S A SECRET!
- whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Nah, he's bad at both... same damn character in every single movie.
- scorchedearth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Israel stole the nuclear technology from the US and then sold some to China, Pakistan, etc.
Good friends they are! - Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Not officially, of course.
- SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Bush has our military on 4 sides of Iran now - Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and warships in the gulf. If I was Iran, I would want nukes too, in order to protect myself from Bush and all of the Republicans who issue constant threats of attacking them. We don't need ANOTHER damn war and we don't need to vote for any Republicans who will surely start one.
Armegeddon is not going to bring Jesus back, so all of the war-mongering evangelicals need to just shut the hell up.
On second thought, if the Rapture DID happen, we would finally be rid of these religious nuts once and for all.
Hmmm... - Foamator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I know, it's not even a word!
May as well have said that withdrawing would "enturbulate" the Middle East. - geometry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I wonder how they got their nuclear weapons? From some evil terrorist state? Did they buy them on the black market? Oh wait, I think I remember, we gave them to them.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13If you are Muslim, vote Democrat, because, in therightside's world, the Republicans think you're all terrorists.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You're missing a critical point.
The only reason Al Queda is tolerated by local Iraqi sunnis is because we provide them a common enemy.
Remove our presence and their fragile alliance dies and they get run out of the country by nationalist interests. - hmac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Yaaay fearmongering!
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I believe we gave them some nuclear material which they processed and whatever else you need to do to make a nuke at the plant in Dimona in the south of Israel.
- anachronaut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east#Territories_and_regions
What's the third country on the list there...? (Pssst: it's Pakistan) GG *****. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+17i hate new world order puppets
- bonesaw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9why is it that anytime that someone proposes an idea that is against the ideals of the groupthink on Digg, it's fearmongering or evil? I don't agree with Fred Thompson, but his idea has merit. You ***** don't know what the ***** will happen whatever we do regarding Iraq.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10So what you are saying is, if we stay in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia won't get the bomb? Do you think you are making sense here?
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Plus Pakistan, which is close to the middle east.
- walkingdogs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Or we could spent those billions of dollars on alternative fuel research and implementation, get off of oil and make the middle east an irrelevant part of the world.
- GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9As the United States took a backseat to the developments between India and Pakistan, they both went nuclear and caught us by surprise. Now our position in that region is incredibly delicate, so much so that twice we've had to go over there to avert a war in the last 8 years.
Think Progress is the trash heap of constructive debate. It's attack, attack, and more attack. They cannot defend a position when they never take or propose one. - ngmcs8203, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It's pronounced NOOK-YOU-LER honey, Nook-you-ler
- blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yep, we invaded the country that didn't have any weapons. Nice try, Fred.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6therightside's comment is incorrect primarily because he implies Muslims will vote for whoever makes it easiest for terrorists.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We supplied them with the funds and technology.
- Barbarino, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Love how digg calls these people names yet can't put a decent debate as to why he is wrong. Once Iran has the bomb, that means the Saudis will get the bomb to counter them. The Saudis Royal family is not exactly on stable ground. This is no different when Japan threatened to go Nuclear after NK claimed to do so, which means China would then have to re up it's Nukes etc. No fea rmongering, just the facts.
- figec, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Wow, the attacks are already starting and he hasn't even made it "official" yet. I suppose Fred Thompson must be considered a serious contender for the Republican nomination to receive this much vitriol from the liberal blogs. I would have to guess that it is his screen presence that causes them concern. His compelling delivery style could translate to a lot of votes.
- pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5as such ...
- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I am willing to "nuclearize" the Middle East in order to secure at least ten more years of lame Michael Bay movies that don't involve robots or clones.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The group, that called itself alqueda, that hatched the plot on 9/11 is *NOT* in Iraq.
That is one of the triumphs of GOP propaganda. Fight against the US? You're Al Queda, in reality? Your just defending your own home from American occupation, you dont join the local Al Queda Chapter #12312312.
Dont be such a goddamn tool. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I love how Republicans bitch about "the Hollywood elites", then run them for national office when they get in a jam -- Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Thompson...they even ran Sonny Bono and Gopher from THE LOVE BOAT, for Christ's sake.
- schuder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Can't decide who is more off, Thompson or the Digg submitter/people who dugg this. Last year 6 (I believe it was 6, maybe 5) Middle Eastern countries declared their desire to go nuclear including Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and others (not including Iran). They're going to develop the weapons sooner or later with their vast wealth in oil revenues while North Korea was able to proliferate with most of its revenue in drugs, arms and counterfeiting. Thompson isn't fearmongering, but at the same time he's wrong because it will have nothing to do with Iraq, it has to do with Iran. Iran's Shi'a, most other countries are Sunni. Sunni don't like Shi'a and they aren't gonna put up with Iran holding that above their heads.
- Economist35, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3actually, the best way to take on Iran is to win in Iraq. The war games scenario that the pentagon ran showed a huge spike in oil prices and a greater terrorist threat if the US attacked Iran. Needless to say, Iran is a threat but its not a good idea to attack them. So what do you do? You prevent them from spreading influence in the region. Is the "nuclear power" reference a stretch? I wouldn't personally claim it, but I wouldn't discount it either
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5If you concede that this is fearmongering, then how can you rag on anyone for "denial" of it?
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3um, oooooooooooooooookay.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Why are all republicans seriously ***** insane?
And what's even more baffling is that there are really people who support them.
Not surprising, I guess. Even the Nazi party had supporters.
Such a shame that people can be so stupid. - GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If Iran could pay their bills, Russia and China would happily sell them more weapons.
- PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not exactly out of range of the region though
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think it counts.
- vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We uh, don't have maps.
- GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They've already contemplated going nuclear with a US presence IN IRAQ. Dubai is going to need energy. Guess what source of energy they are likely going to want?
Arab nations have already had numerous discussions on addressing the rising threat from Tehran. - Veretax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You assume that the mind that leads Iran is a sane one that actually cares to preserve himself. That all goes out the window with the prospect of an Iranian dictator who is as militant as Hamas, Hezballoah, or Al Qaeda
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The Middle East wants the bomb for the same reason North Korea pursued it -- as a bargaining chip against a U.S. government that the world perceives has gone mad. Time would be much better spent assuring that any "loose nukes", from the former Soviet Union, for example, are secured.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is