Chertoff warns of nuclear terror

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 8/1/05 | WorldNetDaily.com

[Man50D]

Issuing yet the latest warning of the threat of nuclear terrorism in the U.S., Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said there are far worse security problems facing the country than bombings of mass-transit systems.

In comments during a visit to Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California this week, Chertoff said the foremost concern for the nation's security now is the threat of a larger chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Chertoff joins the growing list of public officials – including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chertoff's predecessor at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge – who have strongly hinted that nuclear terrorism has moved center stage as the No. 1 security threat facing the U.S.

Last month WND and its sister publication, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, reported increasing evidence suggests al-Qaida not only has nuclear weapons in its arsenal, but has smuggled them into the U.S. along with thousands of sleeper operatives.

Referring to the London bombings, Chertoff said: "We can't let what happened two or three weeks ago beguile our concerns about what could happen in the future."

Technology that the Livermore lab and other public and private groups are developing could help make the country safer, Chertoff said. The secretary was shown what the lab has done to provide more portable ways to detect nuclear, biological and chemical devices that terrorists could use.

"We want to show the secretary how we are working very aggressively to help win the war against terrorism," said laboratory director Michael Anastasio.

The work by the Livermore lab shows the enormous capabilities the country is bringing to bear against terrorism, Chertoff said.

[Man50D]

Back on July 18th I started a thread titled Al-Qaida's U.S. Nuclear Targets

Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

[Plymouth Sentinel]

Thoroughly scary.

[Just mythoughts]

I have not heard one liberal senator or congressperson even acknowledge this threat.

What are they doing to stop these terrorists?

[coconutt2000]

It makes a warped kind of sense that the terrorists would single out the U.S. for large, spectacular attacks. Mundane attacks like car bombings, mass transit bombings won't do for them.

We are perhaps their greatest enemy. Attacks directed against our people, on our shores would have to be bigger and grander than anything done anywhere else. To inflict a wound greater than any ever before.

Nobody claims the terrorists are rational. If they understood us, they would never have done what they did on 9/11.

[raybbr]

Chertoff joins the growing list of public officials – including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chertoff's predecessor at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge – who have strongly hinted that nuclear terrorism has moved center stage as the No. 1 security threat facing the U.S.

That must be why they are really beefing up security on our borders, right?... Do I really need to put a sarcasm tag on this?

[montag813]

Issuing yet the latest warning of the threat of nuclear terrorism in the U.S., Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said there are far worse security problems facing the country than bombings of mass-transit systems.

There are few worse problems than a President who refuses to defend our border.

[Man50D]

Nobody claims the terrorists are rational. If they understood us, they would never have done what they did on 9/11.

Muslims have a different rationale. They have no intention of trying to understand Americans. The precept of Islam is to make non-muslims understand Islam or be destroyed as explained in the article below.

Islamic Scholar Warns U.S. of 'Two-Faced' Muslims

[stopem]

What is anyone doing to stop the terroists here in our country starting with our borders?

[jammer]

Look, it may or may not be overstatement. But what do you expect Chertoff to say? "No, there's no nuclear threat. In fact, we've miscalculated, so let's cut our personnel and funding." Of course not.

It's part of his job to say things like this, especially at that laboratory where he blows smoke up the rear ends of his audience. He does this for several reasons (1) PR to them; (2) keep America vigilant or aware, depending upon your viewpoint; (3) provide cover in case something DOES happen, so they can say "I told you so."; (4) keep those cards and letters (funding) coming in.

It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border. That one fact alone is more telling than all the speeches put together.

[hershey]

If they can coordinate a half dozen or more nuclear explosions around the US, killing millions and devastating the country, it will facilitate Islam's takeover of the entire world. We're the Great Satan. Once we're shown to be impotent and weak, the rest of the western world will cave so fast your head will spin.

[Lazamataz]

Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

Yeah, but Joseph Farah once said it, making it not credible.

[Mad Mammoth]

Back on July 18th I started a thread titled Al-Qaida's U.S. Nuclear Targets. Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

It may mean nothing more than Michael Chertoff subscribing to Joe Farh's "G2 Intel Bulletin".

[coconutt2000]

it will facilitate Islam's takeover of the entire world.

Like I said, they aren't rational if they think killing millions of Americans is going to help their cause. Even I'm afraid what such an attack will precipitate as our response. May cooler heads prevail for an approach that doesn't turn us into the same monsters who will have attacked us, but let those heads be determined and unwavering in seeking out justice for the dead.

[HiTech RedNeck]

But if Bush closes the border, the price of California lettuce will skyrocket and there will be a massive revolt.

[PGalt]

Yes. Yes.

[umgud]

But if Bush closes the border, the price of California lettuce will skyrocket and there will be a massive revolt.

The benefits of illegal immigration far outhweigh any harm brought by terrorism. (/sarcasm)

[Man50D]

Look, it may or may not be overstatement. But what do you expect Chertoff to say? "No, there's no nuclear threat. In fact, we've miscalculated, so let's cut our personnel and funding." Of course not. It's part of his job to say things like this, especially at that laboratory where he blows smoke up the rear ends of his audience. He does this for several reasons (1) PR to them; (2) keep America vigilant or aware, depending upon your viewpoint; (3) provide cover in case something DOES happen, so they can say "I told you so."; (4) keep those cards and letters (funding) coming in. It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border. That one fact alone is more telling than all the speeches put together.

I couldn't agree with you and everyone posting statements that we President Bush needs to improve security on our borders. He defeats his own purpose of protecting the American people by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq but not doing anything to secure U.S. borders.

However your statement that the purpose of Chertoff's warning ignores the fact that we have been attacked on our own soil more than once. the last time resulting in the deaths of 3,000 Americans. If it can happen once and it can happen again. Please explain to everyone what intimate knowledge you posses from inside sources within Homeland Security proving that this is all a PR ploy and is arbitrarily using Nuclear weapons as an excuse keep the funding. Your statements are only assumptions without facts.

There are two options to consider:

1. If we assume there will be no nuclear attack or any other type of attack, don't plan accordingly and are wrong then the worst case scenario is many people will die.

If we assume there maybe an attack of any kind, including nuclear, plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is noone dies. I choose the latter.

[AndyJackson]

The problem with this whole point of view is that the posture this leads to is defensive and the history of warfare is frought with the disasters of those whose point of view is entirely defensive.

What hand wringing such as this scenario overlook is that if someone is determined, something can slip through. They also overlook the fact that if it happens, it is not just an act of war, but it is war of the most terrible kind, and if our administration, DoD, CIA, State are doing their jobs not only the perps, but the countries that support them know that the response will be a massive nuclear strike on everything that the islamic world holds dear - its major relgious sites, its major capitals, and the palaces and cathouses of their political leadership. Oh and the principal villages and goat heards of the towns that breed islamic terrorists.

[Man50D]

Yeah, but Joseph Farah once said it, making it not credible.

By that line of reasoning we should discount similar statements made by other people who are credible because one person made the same statement who is not credible. That's assuming confirmation Farah is not credible.

You may consider Farah as the boy who cried wolf but even the boy who cried wolf eventually told the truth. You take it one step farther and assume everyone is crying wolf. Please explain to everyone what specific knowledge you posses about Joesph Farah that proves he lies to sell his website.

If we assume there will not be a nuclear attack, don't plan accordingly and are wrong, then the worst case scenario is many people die. If we assume at least the possibility of a nuclear attack, plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is no nuclear attack occurs. I choose the latter.

[jammer]

Of course we have been and, in all likelihood will be again, attacked. But you mischaracterize what I said: I did not say that it was ALL a PR ploy. My first sentence clearly stated that it may or may not be overstatement.

My point is that he would make the same statements whether he was worried about an attack next week or whether he didn't think there was any possibility of attack (or any point in that contiuum). Therefore, it is not logical to infer what you did, that Farah was correct and we are in grave danger. We may or may not be. You cannot tell it from what he says. And what he and the administration DOES augers against them really feeling great danger.