[Hugin]

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

This old story was bullsh*t then, and it's bullsh*t now. Does anyone seriously think Al Qaeda has had nukes in the USA for five years and not used them while we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hunted them down and killed 2/3 of their leadership? What are they waiting for? Us to do something to make them really, really mad?

[SubMareener]

Exactly! The terroists watch "24"! They know they had better use them immediately if they want to have them at all.

[Man50D]

Does anyone seriously think Al Qaeda has had nukes in the USA for five years and not used them while we invaded

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and waited patiently eight years before their next attack.They have demonstrated they are willing to wait more than five years to attack.

If someone had publicly stated on 9/10/01 that some time in the near future a group of terrorists would hijack several planes and use them as WMD's by targeting the World Trade Center Towers, The Pentagon and the U.S. Capital(Plane crashed in PA) the reaction would be the same amount of skepticism being posted in this thread. Obviously myself nor anyone else can prove if this story is accurate but given our porous borders it amazes me so many people can outright dismiss at least the possibility regardless of who sends the message. That kind of denial would be exactly what I would want if I was a terrorist.

[GermanBusiness]

[invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hunted them down and killed 2/3 of their leadership? What are they waiting for? Us to do something to make them really, really mad?]

Actually, yes. I moved away from New York City one month after the 9-11 attacks when an AP wire report mentioned a nuke in Manhattan and, within 10 minutes, made the wire report disappear. It spooked me. Since then I've seen Bush playing "chicken" with the enemy...basically fighting them according to rules laid out in advance so there would be no misunderstanding.

First: Bush announced a war that would last many years. Why did he do that? On September 12th, a lot of us were thinking that the slaughtering of 40 Saudi clerics and Prince Najef wouldn't take more than a week. I was thinking "What gives?" Then I realized: we were really in a cold war with a nuclear power. We would have to fight this war as a string of conventional battles where the direct leadership of the other side was never actually threatened. Just as we fought in Vietnam against the Kremlin, we ended up fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq against Rijad and Mecca.

Bush asked Al Qaeda to prove their manhood by fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan. I remember thinking "this means that they can have a nuke in Manhattan but not risk a nuclear exchange that would take Mecca out when they might actually win in Afghanistan against us...especially if the American left had lots of anti-war protests.

Then Bush telegraphed the Iraq War a year in advance. He played chicken with the enemy in Saudi Arabia. He gave them a chance to organize a left wing cold war against America that would "hold us back". Bush got our allies to hold us back on purpose and then give "insurgents" the idea that they could turn Iraq into another Vietnam. It may have been more than just the Flypaper Effect Bush was after.

The way to stop a nuke from exploding is to always give the enemy reason to believe that they can win another way and that they are winning the other way. America's left wing seems to be helping Al Qaeda decide that America can be defeated from within, without a nuclear exchange.

I don't see Bush doing what needs to be done in Syria and Iran now that they have crossed the line with the London bombings. This says to me: they have nukes in US cities. Otherwise, we would liberate those two countries. The London bombings show me that the other side feels comfortable with bringing small bombings to England because they have drawn a line in the sand that we cannot cross in retaliation. The London bombings show me that a new Cold War has begun. We are only allowed to retaliate with subway bombings of our own (which we will not do) but I understand that they will no longer tolerate anymore regime changes. We can do nothing about the London bombings but treat it as a criminial investigation. If the investigation shows Syrian connections, our own government will downplay these findings or bury them.

I don't get any idea at all that nukes are NOT in American cities. I am NOT living in an American city until the government tells me the truth about what THEY know.

One reason why I would like to see war in Iran is precisely so that I know they don't have nukes in the USA.

Where, for instance, are Jenna and Barbara Bush living? If one of them is in Manhattan, then I would admit to being wrong about this. I want to be wrong here.

[varon]

Does anyone seriously think Al Qaeda has had nukes in the USA for five years and not used them while we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hunted them down and killed 2/3 of their leadership?

Yes, al Qaeda is not know for premature detonation ;-)

[The_Media_never_lie]

Absolutely. We will know for sure a day or two after they arrive.