reflect what he said and that of course, perry knew what the job was. the "washington examiner" point out that if perry's statement except in the nomination, he used the phrase nuclear arsenal. at the times has offered an apology, saying we stand by our story which act to make accurately refunded what high-level sources told our reporters. that is not the best apology i've ever heard. sonny, what do you think? is this fake news question work >> were talking about setting the tone for 2017, this "new york times" story totally sets the tone for 2,070, right? the piece is ridiculous from top to bottom. perry is talking about safeguarding our nuclear weapon weapons, and his acceptance letter, there are no sources to the story. my writers turn this into me at the washington free beacon, which is far more repeatable than the garbage