I think nukes really are off the table, but they won't say that, because it's not wise to let your enemies know what you will or won't do. Rumsfeld is smart to not say nukes are off the table. He shouldn't tip our hand as to what we are willing to do or not do. The less info the terrorists know about what we will do to stop them, the more off guard they will be.
I agree with you. Where I disagree is the length we will go to should it happen again. If there is another major attack there will be swift and severe consequences. I believe that we have spent the last 10 months gathering all the information we can regarding the countries that harbor and sponsor terrorism. Recall that the President with the support of the full Congress said that any nation harboring or sponsoring terrorists will be dealt with in the same manner as the terrorists themselves. He's setting the stage for a real war.
There have been two tapes of Bin Laden released since the war , and they both look like fakes. What nobody has seen is a tape of Bin Laden that proves he is alive. Those tapes were to convince his <I>supporters</I> that he was still fighting the fight. Whether we believed he was alive is irrelevent -- Al Queda just needed their people to believe it to "inspire" them or whatever. And for that, it does the job because his supporters are fairly gullible. That tape also doesn't prove or disprove that he's alive. Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons he benefits by us not knowing if he's alive right now. If another attack does succeed, then maybe he has motivation to show his face again, but until then, there's no need.
