no,why would they
2007-06-29 14:08:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
My take on it is if there are still terror plots that need to be thwarted, it stands to reason the war in Iraq is completely useless in the "war against terror".
I'm happy the different agencies are more keenly aware of terrorist activities, but make no mistake, the war has done *nothing* to make our country or the world safer.
Not one iota.
2007-06-29 21:13:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Josh 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
The NY Times is a pretty shrewd newspaper - this story is too big for them to blatantly ignore, but I'm sure they'll soften up the headlines on their editorial spin page.
2007-06-29 21:16:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Page 23 next to an add for Burger King.
2007-06-29 21:08:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Yea, because the rest of the media didn't have nonstop coverage right? (Sarcasm) I watched CNN, MSNBC, and Fox Noise and they all covered it pretty well.
2007-06-29 21:07:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Liberals love America! 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
not if rupert murdoch succeeds in buying it, he just offered 5 billion. he owns fox
2007-06-29 21:12:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the Times' puppet, Keith Olbermann, is any indication; they will say it was not really a threat at all. It was merely incompetent idiots who wanted to ruin their stolen Mercedes.
2007-06-29 21:08:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
The Times stopped being a creditable news source during the 70-80's. We used it for **** paper in iraq.
2007-06-29 21:07:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
Yeh whatever you like brainbox. You're a clever little man aren't you? You bellend.
2007-06-29 21:17:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Open your eyes 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Just some kids playing around ! whats' the word that France used ho yes 'youths'
2007-06-29 21:08:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I'd be surprised if it shows up before page 20.
2007-06-29 21:10:18
·
answer #11
·
answered by RP McMurphy 4
·
3⤊
2⤋