One might well wish that, prior to 9/11, the CIA and FBI had paid better attention to information that was available throughout the 90s and well into 2001.

The slant of the stories today is basically that any information gathered before 9/11 can't be useful today, because we all know the terrorists can only plot one major attack at a time. So there's no way any new information seized in a computer in Pakistan could have any relevence to anything more than, say, six months to a year old.

If you read the stories, you'll see the explanation of why that's not true does make it into print, but about 12 to 20 paragraphs below the lead, and at least 10 or so below where it belongs, putting into context why the pre-9/11 information added to this new data caused so much concern. Dropping that information so far dowm in the story -- where a lot of people may not read it -- is either bad writing and or editing, or a deliberate attempt to make the fact that some of the info is not new look as sensational as possible.

That the information is old could only matter if, in the intervening time, the Muslims had decided to live in peace with the infidels.

The spin on this is yet another example that most people do not understand who the enemy is.

Many of these people don't seem to think that the "enemy" really exists at all, other than as a political football in our presidential election.