Senior al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike last week in Pakistan, appeared in a video published Tuesday by the terrorist group’s propaganda wing.

NBC News terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann, whose company Flashpoint Global Partners spotted the video titled "The Tragedy of Syria: Between the Crimes of the Nusayris and the Scheming of the West," said the video made no reference to the reported drone strike early on June 4, and was very likely recorded prior to the attack.

(Yeah, I'm sick of it all.)

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Intelligence experts say that al Qaeda has five men with the potential to succeed current leader Ayman al-Zawahiri—and one is a U.S. citizen. Following the death of al Qaeda number two, Abu Yahaya al-Libi, counterterrorism experts say it would “be a mistake to think there is nobody on the bench” to take over the terror network. Since Osama bin Laden’s death last year, the U.S. has killed four of the five possible successors to bin Laden, with Zawahiri being the only one that is still alive. Of the five next-generation leaders, three have spent time in the U.S. and bin Laden’s former deputy Adam Gadahn, 33, is an American citizen.

This is not a gotcha.

You have the opportunity to assassinate him.

do you?

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I find those prodigies who enroll at 14.

Oh

brains AND good looks

I think they'd be too old for your NAMBLA taste

Bunker said:

when is the wedding? you 2 make a cute couple spreading ignorance.

Coming from you that's hilarious

@the-cysko-kid said:

That about sums it up

Lol, ok

@mld-woody said:

So if I share the same opinion on something as Heck, and it happens to be an opinion you disagree with, I must have only gotten to that point by just blindly following w/e Heck said. In fact, this random guy on the internet has completely morphed my world and political views in the short time I have been here and I don't disagree with him on a single issue, ever.

That about sums it up

@mld-woody said:

I think a lot of people have trouble agreeing with Bunker.

Let's be fair and realize he and Cal are not representative of the average republican voter (i hope)

I believe you only follow Hecks opinions and are incapable of using the brain that God blessed you with.

Bunker does make a valid point. Why did they wait so long to disclose this news?

I want to know why didn't Obama send in Seal team six? Look at all of the information lost because we just blew the shit out of the guys place.

Let's be fair and realize he and Cal are not representative of the average republican voter (i hope)

Be fair, Heck.

In instances like this you like to take out your very broad brush and paint all alike (I happen to be a registered Democrat, BTW).

However, whenever somebody from your team says somethig off the wall, you claim it as the work of a loose cannon - not anybody significant - and not at all representative of the team.

Disclaimer: This post does not necessarily mean I agree with Bunker's opinion.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

But it's pretty typical. Everything works backwards from "Obama failed."

I guess. Maybe this site is getting to me cuz I kinda agree. I'd like to think there are decent sized chunks of reasonable people on both sides though.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.

That's not fair. Bunker is just Retarded.

Bunker said:

it is bullshit, the dude has been dead for days and they waited until the day Scott Walker smoked Obama's ass in a recall vote staged by Obama's union stooges.

Obama FAILED! and heck posted this as a distraction,

Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

US President Barack Obama confronted the ultimate security nightmare early in his administration -- the possibility that the Taliban had acquired a nuclear bomb, according to a new book published Tuesday.

The book, "Confront and Conceal" by New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger, says Obama was told in a dramatic Oval Office meeting in early summer 2009 of "ambiguous" evidence supporting such a fear.

Intercepted conversations between members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) led intelligence agencies to warn the group could have a bomb, and the CIA picked up "chatter" of possible attacks on US cities, the book said.

But Sanger reports that no one in the intelligence community could be sure about the authenticity of the threat.

Some seasoned analysts believed that any danger was more likely to be posed by nuclear material combined into a radiological or "dirty" bomb.

Other officials in US spy agencies believed that there were serious doubts about the intelligence, but no one was willing to ignore the fears, amid concern about the security of Pakistan's fast growing nuclear arsenal.

Senior Obama administration officials have previously confided that the fear of a terrorist or insurgent group acquiring nuclear materials is the national security threat most likely to keep them awake at night.

Obama has made halting proliferation a signature of his presidency and was instrumental in the debut of a new global nuclear security summit, which took place for the second time in Seoul in March.

"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," he said in Seoul, warning that it would take just a small amount "to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

According to Sanger's book, Obama decided that with the 2009 case, he could not take any chances and dispatched a nuclear detect and disablement team to the region, though not directly to Pakistan, in case it was needed.

After several days of tension, Sanger wrote, the threat dissipated. Pakistan surveyed its arsenal and reported that no nuclear components were missing.

One school of thought about the incident suggested that Taliban members had been hoaxed and bought material from a third party that was useless in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Other officials believed that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had misunderstood the dialect of Taliban members on the intercepts, and been mislead into believing their worst fears, the book said.

However, Sanger quoted one official as saying that facing a possible nuclear crisis so early in Obama's presidency "created a lasting impression on all of us."

This article begs the question: okay, so what?

WSS

The book, "Confront and Conceal" by New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger, says Obama was told in a dramatic Oval Office meeting in early summer 2009 of "ambiguous" evidence supporting such a fear.

Intercepted conversations between members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) led intelligence agencies to warn the group could have a bomb, and the CIA picked up "chatter" of possible attacks on US cities, the book said.

But Sanger reports that no one in the intelligence community could be sure about the authenticity of the threat.

Some seasoned analysts believed that any danger was more likely to be posed by nuclear material combined into a radiological or "dirty" bomb.

Other officials in US spy agencies believed that there were serious doubts about the intelligence, but no one was willing to ignore the fears, amid concern about the security of Pakistan's fast growing nuclear arsenal.

Senior Obama administration officials have previously confided that the fear of a terrorist or insurgent group acquiring nuclear materials is the national security threat most likely to keep them awake at night.

Obama has made halting proliferation a signature of his presidency and was instrumental in the debut of a new global nuclear security summit, which took place for the second time in Seoul in March.

"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," he said in Seoul, warning that it would take just a small amount "to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

According to Sanger's book, Obama decided that with the 2009 case, he could not take any chances and dispatched a nuclear detect and disablement team to the region, though not directly to Pakistan, in case it was needed.

After several days of tension, Sanger wrote, the threat dissipated. Pakistan surveyed its arsenal and reported that no nuclear components were missing.

One school of thought about the incident suggested that Taliban members had been hoaxed and bought material from a third party that was useless in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Other officials believed that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had misunderstood the dialect of Taliban members on the intercepts, and been mislead into believing their worst fears, the book said.

However, Sanger quoted one official as saying that facing a possible nuclear crisis so early in Obama's presidency "created a lasting impression on all of us."