Now, how about reading the whole article:
The Washington Post and The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions that officials were still analyzing documents seized late last month after a raid in Pakistan that showed al Qaeda surveillance of specific U.S. targets.
Documents, computers, surveillance reports and sketches were recovered related to the capture of suspected al Qaeda computer expert Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, also known as Abu Talha, in July, officials said.
Much of the information that resulted from the arrest was compiled before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, The New York Times reported, citing intelligence and law enforcement officials.
Federal authorities said they are unsure whether al Qaeda's surveillance continues, the newspapers reported.
1. It ain't intel until it's collected, people.
2. How long did the planning process for 9/11 take? The 9/11 commission tells us that it took at least 3 years for the basic data to be collected and developed into a plan of attack, and at least another 18 months to put the players in place - that's at least 4 1/2 years! One thing we do know about these people: they're nothing if not patient.
3. Would you rather have the authorities have discounted this data on the basis of its age? Then, after the attack, would you have simply accepted the argument that the terrorists' intel was old, and therefore not likely to reflect their present intentions? Somehow, I dount it. You would have demanded the head of every member of the administration from the President on down on the grounds of gross negligence - and you would have been right in doing so.
Perhaps you ought to stop looking at these stories through the ABB-inspired lens of derision and finger pointing? And while I'm at it, please tell us exactly what it is that Sen. Kerry would have done differently after receiving this intel?