Why doesn't steve kroft go catch OBL then, he seems to know all about it.
I am really surprised that 60 minutes aired this guy taking it to Clarke and Tenent.
I watched this and I thought it was funny how SM somewhat distorted the timeline to almost make it appear that the CIA dropped the ball during the Bush administration.
So it wasn't the Russians that started the end of the world?
His criticism of both Clark and Tenent lends credibility to his comments.
Am I the only one who thinks that all of this chaos and finger-pointing at the CIA + these nuke warnings that seem to be coming every day now == bad news....
I don't want to panic, but the government has not been very reassuring of late.
Regarding the headline, what's the big deal? I said that ten years ago.
I see a big gap between 'surely coming' and 'if he gets a weapon, he will use it.'
Sad,.....but,........it (WMD-attacks) may be 'bigger' than we can even imagine!
AQ is seeking a world-wide......'stage'.
(to them,...it is a self-saving....of.....'face'...?)
(Their,....'Heavens' must be destroyed?)
/sarcasm
OBL really needs to rethink his wishes.
I don't know why folks keep saying that Bin Laden is smart, when it's so apparent that he's either as stupid as a june bug, insane, or both.
He took on the US on 9/11 and lost his entire empire in the Middle East, and he thinks that setting off a nuke will win this war for him? If America's loss of 3,000 people cost him so dearly, what will nuking the states cost him and his beloved Islam?
I didn't catch 60 Minutes this evening, but Scheuer makes another important assertion in his book Imperial Hubris: we are not winning the war in Afghanistan nor in Iraq, and we will not win these wars. He says we have lost control of many towns and large regions of both countries, and this will get worse. I hope Scheuer is wrong, but clearly a great deal of persistence will be needed to prove him wrong.
Because smoke over substance went part and parcel with Clintonian policy. Lazy bureaucrats despise an administration that demands results and accountability. Lordy, they might have to actually earn their money! (our tax dollars)
Big mouth, no brains.
My guess would be if Bin Laden has a nuke it is a dirty nuke. I very much doubt he has something the size of the one that destroyed Hiroshima. If he does what will be his method of delivery?
But I think they'll pick an easier target. Air shipment to US is pert much sealed-off; incoming ocean traffic is tight as a [insert Ratherism here] Beeper-like devices are everywhere.
I think that it is pretty obvious, that the population will not tolerate something like that. I can see every treaty and international law getting chucked out the window. Probably quite a few hate crimes directed at Arabs and Muslims here in the states, not to mention anywhere else in the world where they are worried about terrorism. I really can't believe that any terrorist would be so stupid as to think that their cause would have a future after something like that.
Well you asked me if I thought we'd ever use nukes again.... This was the scenario I was considering when I answered affirmatively.
This kind of grammatical error should be avoidable after about 7th grade, and certainly at a website that purports to write serious news.
"They're intention is to end the war"
They're or their?