The point this guy was making at the LA Times was that the bombs were unguarded, the Turks could have taken them at any time (or ISIS) and we should just remove them. Standard Knee-Jerk reaction one would expect from a guy who describes himself as a life-time public servant. You see, the Times didn't state he recently tried to run for Congress in Minnesota and actually lost. To be a Democrat and loose in Minnesota to a Republican, that does take talent.
1) There are as many, if not more American troops at Incirlik then Turkish so the bombs are well guarded against immediate Turkish seizure (particularly by a small sub group of the military).
(2) ISIS is even less capable of seizing the bomb since the Turkish troops would fight with us to prevent the bombs being seized by this group.
(3) The bombs don't just sit there ready to detonate. The PAL safety locks and other control items would prevent the devices from ever being used if seized by non-US entities. The movement of the bombs by techs has to be approved and programed into the systems before hand otherwise the bomb's safety systems would deactivate the devices.
(4) Moving the bombs to Israel is actually crazy since Israel doesn't admit to their own bombs and officially holds that they are nuclear free. And this guy worked for the White House.
(5) And finally, concentrating our bombs in fewer and fewer places only makes them even more prone to first strike destruction by Russia. And that is what these bombs are there for, to counter Russia nuclear weapons aimed at NATO nations.