Friday News Dump? U.S. Had Intel on Chemical Strike Before It Was Launched

[kpete]

Geez, this is more than a little disturbing ...

American intelligence agencies had indications three days beforehand that the Syrian regime was poised to launch a lethal chemical attack that killed more than a thousand people and has set the stage for a possible U.S. military strike on Syria.


.................

The disclosure -- part of a larger U.S. intelligence briefing on Syria's chemical attacks -- raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions for the American government.

Yes. Yes it does.

In a call with reporters Friday afternoon, senior administration officials did not address whether this information was shared with rebel groups in advance of the attack. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the information had been shared

MORE:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/us_had_intel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched
via:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/30/1235137/-Foreign-Policy-U-S-Had-Intel-on-Chemical-Strike-Before-It-Was-Launched

[cali]

1. yikes. very disturbing. alas, not terribly shocking.

[ProSense]

53. More "disturbing" than the actual chemical attacks? n/t

[Aerows]

73. The whole thing is shocking

Military operations, including our own, are not privy to the public. You never know what happened. I'll wait for outside assurance that chemical attacks occurred, because while I can believe that rebels would be that stupid, I can't believe an organized government would be.

Take it as you will.

[DJ13]

2. So lets strike afterwards?

Wouldnt a strike at the weapon sites beforehand have been a life saving option?

[bunnies]

4. it also would have been illegal. nt

[DJ13]

8. any experts (incl President Carter) thinks Obama will break the law with the strikes afterwards too

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

At least 1,400 people might still be alive today if he had broken the law before the attack.

[DJ13]

10. I dont know what happened there^

[NealK]

98. Whoa, that's weird.

[Aerows]

109. Indeed. Weird

grayed out meta-tables

[NYC_SKP]

114.

I do.

[DJ13]

116. So, what did I do?

I still dont know how that happened.

[NYC_SKP]

120. Looking at the source code...

I believe you meant to type "any experts (incl President Carter) thinks Obama will break the law..."

But your fingers slipped and hit a symbol key like < or [ or something.

[DJ13]

122. Thanks, but I doubt I will duplicate it

[bunnies]

11. And Republicans would be drooling over impeachment.

Maybe 100,000 would be alive today if we shelled the shit out of Syria when this whole thing got started, eh?

[KamaAina]

16. That figure is an outlier

it's about three times what Doctors Without Borders reported.

[JDPriestly]

94. How could that have happened?

Do you think an airstrike before the event was possible or would have prevented deaths?

I don't think so. That is something you cannot know.

In fact having an airstrike before the event would have been the worst thing possible to do because the entire world would have condemned the strike, and it would have put Assad on the top of the heap. He would have earned the sympathy of most of the world.

There are some evils that you cannot prevent.

Those strikes were one of them.

[DJ13]

113. There are some evils that you cannot prevent.

You're probably right.

I just wish something could have been done ahead of time, like taking out the missile launchers or destroying their roads to move the launchers in place.

[TheMadMonk]

102. And how many people would be alive and in their own homes today if America HAD NOT...

...broken the same laws WRT Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.

Given the way America treats its own, IT HAS NO MORAL GROUND UPON WHICH TO STAND, when it comes to the internal policies and acts of foreign powers.

I'd even go so far as to say that in a good many ways (through Colonialism and Capitalism) the West is ultimately RESPONSIBLE for those deaths REGARDLESS of who used the weapons.

[woo me with science]

14. It appears to be illegal afterward, too,

if Obama ends up doing what he appears to want to do.

Jimmy Carter: Would be illegal under international law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023565484

[bunnies]

15. It certainly seems that way.

Realistically though, what could we have done to prevent it? I see lots of disgust about the Administration knowing about the attack 3 days before it happened, but not one suggestion on what we could have done.

[Hydra]

18. Simple- they could have revealed that they knew about it

To Syria and the UN, and told Assad to back the hell up.

Very unlikely it would have happened at that point, and if it had, the President would have had the justification he wanted.

[bunnies]

21. hmmm. Yes. Good point. I wonder why they didnt.

Makes me think it might not have been so clear who was behind it. Either that or they weren't monitoring the situation real-time. I dont know much about how these intercepts work.

[Hydra]

29. I don't know their cpabilities either

But having information like that gives you lots of options. Even if you just suspect something is going to happen, you can do a lot with that.

I'm not sure why they allowed all of these people to be gassed and still look like they have no idea what's going on. If they didn't know who(and that panicked phone call by the gov't official sounds like that), then they're being a not exactly helpful bystander.

[notadmblnd]

34. I just read a post here that sounded like the rebels bobbytrapped the neighborhoods

and when the Assad regime began shelling, the chemical weapons got dispersed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023565390

[bunnies]

41. Geezus.

How the hell can we be sure about anything at this point? I guess that would line up with people thinking the chemicals came from the planes.

[Aerows]

52. Sorry,

I take that with a grain of salt for a number of reason. It doesn't seem plausible to kill the children of the people you are trying to get back on your side.

[notadmblnd]

66. I don't think it is beyond what the rebels are capable of doing

I mean really, if you can cut the heart out of a man and eat it, what else are you capable of?

But yes, at this point we all need to stand down and wait to find out what really happened.

[Aerows]

69. It is nuts all the way around

and some time taken to survey the situation would probably benefit everyone except the people that profit from killing everyone, their seniors, and their children. They need to stand down more than anyone.

[notadmblnd]

71. We're in agreement there.

[Aerows]

31. They could do what they've already done

and not kill even more Syrian people for dubious reasons and not risk getting embroiled in a war that will cost us American lives.

They could do that, since this shit is going to go on no matter what we do, and hiding it from us, and pretending we can make a difference so that some defense contractor gets to sell more weapons is far more moral.

How about we aid Doctors without Borders? How about we set up refugee shelters?

All of those things involve HELPING and not more KILLING. Plenty of that has apparently gone on.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. This black president can't do anything right.

Can you imaging the shit that he'd be served for doing such a thing, from both the Left and from the Right?

[Aerows]

107. NYC_escapee

Please. This isn't about white and black it's about less dead and more dead. I think less dead if we stay the hell away, my friend. You are welcome to your opinion.

[NYC_SKP]

110. DU members excepted, I think it's true that he takes more heat than a white guy would.

Just generally, not from anyone in this thread.

I think about the Joe Walsh's "Liar" call out during his SOTU address one year.

I can't think of a an example from the left, but we aren't innocent in matters of unequal treatment based on skin color.

On Syria, I'm with you, Aerows! Let's try diplomacy instead of weaponry.

[Aerows]

112. Amen, my friend, amen

Let's do anything but kill some more kids, wives, husbands and family members to prolong a bullshit parade.

[notadmblnd]

9. What do you think would be the outcome of bombing a chemical weapon sites?

[Aerows]

106. I know you didn't ask me

but I opine more dead people and few additions of popular favor. That's just what I think. And we'd have to ensure that it is actually a chemical weapons site, since the rebels have them too. This is an ugly, ugly thing.

[notadmblnd]

125. Yes, the chemicals would be dispersed resulting in more deaths from chemical warfare

Which is what we are supposedly taking action against.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. And if the US attacked weapons sites beforehand?

How would you have reacted?

[Aerows]

27. Not by wanting to kill more people after the fact

which seems rather superfluous, but great for military contractors.

[TomClash]

3. I caught this too when I read the "assessment"

Nice catch.

[bunnies]

5. What should we have done?

[Aerows]

26. Saved the live children?

Not go to war over already dead children so we can increase stock prices of defense contractors and have more dead people in Syria

I mean it's just a thought. Less dead people. Sorry about the stock prices falling.

[bunnies]

32. well yeah, but my question was how.

Im not for military intervention in Syria on any level. And I certainly dont have any stocks. Shit. Im lucky if I have a few hundred bucks in the bank.

[Aerows]

38. That's my point

All we do is advocate more killing of people to save people which is pretty much stupid all of the way around.

Doctors without borders is a great organization. Help them. Help refugees get out of the areas where strikes happen. Pointing fingers at children is vile, and always will be, but it has become something our own country likes to do. I don't believe a 10 year old is anymore indoctrinated to kill than I believe a 10 year old is indoctrinated by Sesame Street.

There are many things that we can do besides "free the shit out of them" with cruise missiles and unleashing an arsenal.

[bunnies]

46. Right. "Humanitarian bombing"

WTF is THAT? How many innocent kids did we kill in Iraq? Tens of thousands. Its absurd. No more fucking killing people. I dont know why its so difficult. I really, really dont.

1.5 million per missile. We could do a hell of a lot more "good" with that money as you suggest.

[Aerows]

48. I agree

WTF is THAT. Killing children.

[tblue]

93. Birth defects from depleted uranium

in Iraq. Horrific deformities like you never want to see. We own that too. We are a sinning nation.

[bunnies]

103. Yeah. I ran into a ton of those pics earlier...

when I was looking to post a response to a thread about American Morality. I was looking for DU pics and so many of them came up. Its a horror. Im so ashamed.

[tblue]

123. I know. Just awful. We owe such a debt

to the Iraqi people.

[JI7]

58. we have and continue to provide millions in non military aid

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-syria-usa-aid-idUSBRE97614U20130807

[Aerows]

59. I hope we continue to do so

it is the right thing to do. I am not a fan of killing, I am a fan of healing.

[Orrex]

60. Are you serious?

We can't coordinate a response in spite of the evidence even after the attack. What sort of response do you think would have been feasible before it occurred, in the time available?

[Aerows]

65. Unfortunately, it wasn't a serious question

about how to save children from a chemical attack, any more than it is a serious question on how to prevent a cruise missile attack from killing children.

We both know you can't, if you realize the enormity of what you are doing.

[Orrex]

90. Well...

My point is that I don't see how it helps to wring our hands over the fact that the administration knew about the planned chemical attack when it's extremely unlikely that this fore-knowledge would have resulted in international action to prevent it, especially since it's clear that the act itself hasn't really inspired an international response.

In short, if the administration knew about it beforehand, what should they have done differently?

[Aerows]

91. Prevented it by reveling that it was going to happen

Oh, ha ha ha, that sounds childish, but it actually would have worked.

[Orrex]

115. How so?

Does Assad seem like the type to be shamed into inaction by the revelation of his cruelty? What is the basis for this optimistic belief?

[Aerows]

111. Asked the rebels to stop it

that is my best answer.

[Orrex]

117. Which rebels? Stop it how?

I'm not being snarky, and I sure as hell don't have the answer. But if there are dozens or humdreds of semi-independent rebel groups, how do we inform the right ones and get them to deliver the correct response?

All I know is that it's a nightmarish mess.

[Aerows]

119. Nightmarish mess sums it up

Orrex, you aren't being snarky, you are laying on the line.

[moondust]

6. It's possible

that they collected stuff but didn't analyze it in real time, or know exactly what it was in real time, but only later after the attack pulled up everything from those dates and figured out what it was.

[woo me with science]

12. Good god. Is this true?

It's in their own assessment?

If this is true, it's extremely disturbing.

[AzDar]

13. K & R

[leftstreet]

17. Where was the screeching of the humanitarian hawks?

[Aerows]

23. It's okay if we do it

after the fact to save the dead children and profits.

Children beforehand, not so much.

God let me put in a /s tag lest everyone want me to diaf.

[dkf]

20. CNN just had a convo about this...

[Aerows]

22. Well there's a surprise

Not

[pnwmom]

24. Is there some evidence that the US knew this wouldn't be one of the "usual" smaller-scale

chemical attacks that had been going on for some time?

From the article linked at the OP:

"Razan Zaitouneh, an opposition activist in the town of Douma, one of the towns hit in the Aug. 21 attack, said she had no early indication of a major chemical attack. 'Even the moment [the attack hit], we thought it was as usual, limited and not strong,' she told The Cable in an instant message. That only changed when 'we started to hear about the number of injuries.'"

Also, hindsight is always 20/20. The evidence they examined retroactively probably seems much more clear than when they were looking at it going forward -- assuming they even looked at it in real-time. They might have merely collected the info, and then looked at it afterwards. That is how this statement reads to me. Note that it says "we assess" not "we assessed."

From the same article:

"In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack," said a U.S. intelligence report the Obama administration released Friday.

"Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21," the report added. Satellites detected that the weapons were launched from territories held by the regime. They landed in rebel controlled or contested neighborhoods.

[Aerows]

77. Well, I'm sure they are as eager

to kill their children in a smaller attack as anyone would be.

I mean anything to demean people that have children, they would want to put them in front of a missile, right?

The children themselves will march ahead to be burned to death. That is the way of war, right?

Intelligence Streams again.

Sickening.

[pnwmom]

80. Other than that you're being sarcastic, I have no idea what you're saying.

You're clearly not trying to answer my question.

[stevenleser]

25. I don't think it raises disturbing questions at all. Particularly when you see how

people are against a strike even if we could be sure Syria did this.

I was against our policy of supporting the rebels before we knew of alleged chemical use the first time. I was against it after the alleged first use, I continue to be against it.

What difference does it make if some of our agents in the field believed that activity they saw made it highly likely that Syria would make an attack like they did? Even in normal circumstances, we could not have legally acted. With the US having the reputation from Iraq of exaggerating intel for militaristic purposes, there is no way we could have acted.

[questionseverything]

35. like another poster said

he could of gone to un with info,gone to the world with the info

told them not to.....much bigger chance the gas would not of been released if world had known ahead of time it was being planned

there are other things to do besides bomb countries

[stevenleser]

39. With what info? That some activity appeared like Syria might use Chemical weapons?

And of course, everyone would have automatically believed that, because US intelligence is so well thought of.

[questionseverything]

54. so if the world did not believe it

and it happened,current admin would look like a hero for trying to stop it

and if it didnt happen,he saved lives

this is one problem with this huge nsa collection crap....there is so much data no one seems to be looking at anything IMPORTANT in real time

[stevenleser]

75. See #40 below for another important point. The data may have come in but it was not analyzed

until later.

[pnwmom]

40. You're assuming that the US was "assessing" these streams of info in real-time,

as the preparations were being made; as opposed to looking back on previously collected streams after the attack occurred.

We know from previous experience that often such data is not examined till afterwards (for example, Sybil Edmonds talked about this in the Valerie Plame case).

[Aerows]

42. So it was politically expedient

to allow a gas attack to occur, even if we aren't sure it came from the Assad government?

Maybe we could let some rebels do it, or the Assad government do it to firm up support?

I feel so much better now.

[pnwmom]

51. Where in the article does it say that the CIA had done anything more than

collect streams of data before the attack -- without analyzing it?

Remember in the Sybil Edmonds case, how she was saying that after the 9/11 attack she was part of a CIA group of interpreters that retroactively went back through collected data looking for clues to the attack?

[Aerows]

57. Oh my

"Collect Streams". Fascinating to see a person use such terminology on a message board.

I kind of remember the Sibel Edmonds case, but it's kind of funny that you press such things front and center.

Collect Streams. *smirk*

[pnwmom]

64. Why should it be fascinating to you that I used the exact term that the posted article used?

Is it fascinating to you that someone would actually read the posted article? Instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion, as it is likely the OP did?

"In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack," said a U.S. intelligence report the Obama administration released Friday.

"Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21," the report added. Satellites detected that the weapons were launched from territories held by the regime."

[Aerows]

79. Some folks

are far more indifferent to what you say.

[pnwmom]

81. some folks

have stopped making sense.

[Aerows]

83. And never did

and never will.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

101. Are you a child?

Or do you actually have something to say?

Because saying "some people are indifferent to what you have to say" doesn't actually say anything.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Aerows]

104. Proud member of the Reality Based Community, are you?

I used to be a proud member of the reality based community until they became the proud community of whatever they were told to say and be proud of.

I really don't want anything to do with you folks anymore. You've decided on your own reality, and I want no part of what you see as reality. I never will, and I never have. My reality is still reality. I remain.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

124. Awwww....

Aren't you precious! Juvenile alienation and petulance is so endearing! Let me give you a nice pat on the head.

Why yes, out in the real world there is a dictator who is using poison gas against his own people, just like Hitler did. And just like in FDR's days, there is a substantial movement of people in the U.S. who are perfectly fine tisk-tisking, but otherwise trying to find some way to blame America while letting innocent children be gassed to death.

And these same exact people who are arguing that we shouldn't do anything now that the dictator did this, are trying to blame America for not doing anything before he actually did. Which is completely illogical, but when you hate America (even though you are American) for not being as exactly perfect as you think it should be (though you offer no perfect solutions of your own other than magical thinking), then you get to ignore such problems.

And get to make up your own "reality", where people are "told to say and be proud of", whoever "they" are, who you conveniently don't identify because they exist only in your own little mind.

Cute as a button! Let me tap your nose! Boop boop!!

Terrible reality! Don't pay attention to it! Just write little petulant dismissals of truths that are inconvenient.

All I can say is that maybe one day, you'll grow up. Though at this point, I don't hold out much hope.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[JI7]

78. it's what was used in the article

[Aerows]

82. We all

see open season when we have a mind to it.

[DevonRex]

28. So kpete, it's all OUR fault? I'm not surprised you'd push that propaganda.

The quote:
"In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack," said a U.S. intelligence report the Obama administration released Friday.

"Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21," the report added. Satellites detected that the weapons were launched from territories held by the regime. They landed in rebel controlled or contested neighborhoods." SNIP

After the the attack they put all those streams of information togather on that exact location and now they "assess" (note the present tense) they were prepartions for a chem attack.

But you go ahead and spread garbage insinuations that the U.S. is evil.

[KittyWampus]

36. please don't be harshing in kpete, she posts lots of stuff. This is interesting. And Foreign Policy

has had some very good articles in the last week.

[DevonRex]

50. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the paragraph says.

So I will protest loudly.

Lots of intelligence is collected through various means every day. Especially on war zones. When something horrible happens in an area, they request everything they have on that specific area around that time. ELINT, SATINT. COMINT, HUMINT, any SIGINT.

Then they pour over it. Satellite photographs. Voice intercepts are listened to over and over to identify codes and equipment movements and special unit movements.

In short, they're saying they know NOW from information gleaned 3 days prior but only put together now.

[Cha]

67. I hear ya, Devon. "Friday news dump?" Yeah,

they're just like bush, donchaknow. I read it on rage DU so it must be true.

[Aerows]

43. No one knows which side unleashed it

but there was evidence that it was coming, and it appears we let it happen as justification.

If you would like to dress that up in ribbons and bows, go right ahead.

[kpete]

47. hey,

i admit it
i am confused
but this is my home
Is the USA evil,
imho, we are VERY capable of doing evil things

“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

i am just searching for answers and truth,
and peace....
kp

[DevonRex]

55. No you're not, not when you deliberately phrase your post like you did.

The paragraphs from the report dealing with what you're talking about do not say what you're insinuating. An honest reading, without the assumption that the US is always wrong, would have revealed that very basic fact to you. It is not even college level writing. Quite easy to understand.

[kpete]

69. from the Government's report

Preparation:

We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

[pnwmom]

74. The word "collected" is in the past tense. The words "reveal" and "assess" are in the present tense.

We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

The statement does NOT prove that we were aware of the plans for the attack in advance.

We don't have a constant, real-time, interpretation and analysis of every communication in every hot spot in the world. Remember how Sybil Edmonds was brought in AFTER 9/11 to translate calls that had been saved but not translated or analyzed? How do you know that wasn't what happened in this case, too?

[Robb]

30. I'm sorry, I'm unclear on something.

Does this mean they had this intelligence before Obama went into his "red line" bit on camera?

[Aerows]

44. After - it was a few days ago

so intel says.

[Robb]

45. Thank you. nt

[daa]

33. Maybe they should worry more about BOSTON!!!

[David__77]

37. This just gets worse and worse for Obama.

I honestly think they're making shit up as they go along. This will not end well politically. The Republicans will eat their prey for lunch.

[pnwmom]

49. Nowhere in the article does it say that the US had analyzed this info days before the attack.

From other instances of how the CIA works (as in the Sybil Edmonds/Valerie Plame case) -- and from sheer common sense -- it is clear that they often collect the information "streams" as a source to be used retroactively. In other words, they are constantly collecting far more information from around the world than they could possibly analyze in real time. Then, when something like this happens, they go back to the information they had stored away -- and with 20/20 hindsight can figure out what it all meant.

[ProSense]

56. It won't be long now

before someone claims that Obama did it.

[DevonRex]

62. That's exactly how it works. Everything is brought together afterward.

The O.P. is misleading. Or the article is.

[questionseverything]

63. so the nsa can not stop anything terrible

from happening because they try to do too much...too busy targeting regular crime and "creating a second investigation"

[pnwmom]

68. The budget recently came out and it's smaller than most people were guessing.

Yes, there is a limit to the NSA and the CIA's super-powers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3566212

[questionseverything]

72. so stop spying on every American

use the resources to stop the bad guys.....geesh

[stevenleser]

76. They're not. Next? nt

[KoKo]

86. He's a LAWYER...he doesn't want his Presidency to Touch Dirt...

He (like Corporate High Power Harvard Lawyers do) stays ABOVE IT...and figures he's outta' there after 2016 and he and his wife and kids can Live the GOOD LIFE like Clinton and Gore have Done.

It's about their LEGACY and their KIDS getting GOOD JOBS. It's the AMERICAN DREAM...just like us Peasants hoped for OUR KIDS.

Hey...give them a Break. They are more ENTITLED that the Rest of Us....

[pnwmom]

61. You do understand that the US doesn't have the intelligence staff with the requisite

language skills to instantly translate every "stream" of information coming from every possible source in every hot spot around the world, right? That often, as Sybil Edmonds explained after 9/11, translators only translate these streams AFTER an incident occurs?

According to the article you posted, the "analysis" of the streams occurred after the fact, not beforehand. All the terms are in the present tense: "assess" "reveal," etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Gee, it seems odd that our language staff would still be at 9-11 levels after years to correct that.

Bush, he fired all the gay translators for being gay and all. But do you have any actual figures to compare our translation staff from that era to that of the actual present time?
Seems also that Syria has for sometime not been just another 'hotspot' in the world. Special attention seems fitting for months now.

[pnwmom]

87. Snowden just leaked NSA and CIA budget figures that were much lower than most

armchair analysts were expecting.

But I'm also going by the statement in the OP, in which all the terms for analysis are in the present tense. Only the data "stream" was "collected," in the past tense. But the analysis is described in the present tense.

[markpkessinger]

92. Are you seriously suggesting . . .

. . . that the NSA and CIA are unable to rapidly translate Arabic, when we have been fighting a "War on Terror" for eleven years against terrorists who communicate chiefly in Arabic?

Hell, EVEN I could point them to some folks, some of whom work right here in NYC at the U.N. Indeed, I knew someone -- the partner of one of my closest friends -- who worked as a mid-level diplomat at the U.N. His name was Rick Hooper. He held a doctorate in Arabic Studies from Georgetown. Sadly, Rick was killed on August 19, 2003, when the U.N. offices at the Canal Hotel in Baghdad were hit with a car bomb. Rick, who was born in Idaho and raised in California, was fluent in speaking, reading and writing Arabic. He spoke five separate dialects of Arabic, each one like a native speaker (he also spoke six other languages as well). In a memorial service held for him at St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church in New York, a Palestinian man, whose release from an Israeli prison Rick successfully negotiated with the Israeli government during the first Intifada spoke, and said of Rick: "He spoke my mother tongue as well or better than I do." But Rick wasn't the only one. In the wake of his death, I had the privilege of meeting and talking to many of his colleagues, who were likewise involved in MIddle East issues for the U.N. Most were not, themselves, of Middle Eastern descent: some were Brazilians or other South American nationalities, some were from African countries, some were from Europe. But they all could read and write fluently in the languages of the countries in which they worked.

What Sybil Edmonds explained after 9/11 may well have been true then, but U.S. intelligence agents have now had a dozen years to find those with the needed language skills, particularly in Arabic. Hell, they've had time to "grow their own" if necessary. So if it were true that 12 years on they STILL don't have employees with the requisite language skills, that's an argument for firing the entire staff of those agencies for gross incompetence.

[moondust]

97. You obviously have no idea

how much intelligence data has likely been produced over the course of the past 3 years of civil war in Syria, or how many qualified linguists with security clearances (to ensure they are not part-time jihadists) would be required to process it all.

[KittyWampus]

99. From reading this week it sure sounds like we do NOT HAVE enough Arabic translators & Israel does

a lot to fill in gaps.

[KoKo]

84. K&R...Same Old Scam...with a Dem Face from Kerry..Nothing to see here...

just give it up.

[pnwmom]

88. Yeah, same old thing. A bunch of DUers

who jump to the worst conclusion possible, without bothering to read the actual article posted in the OP.

There was nothing in it that indicated that the US had, before the attack, translated and analyzed any communications that would have allowed it to predict the attack in advance.

[KoKo]

95. Look! It's hard not to given everything going on against what we Voted for...

[pnwmom]

96. Please read the actual article instead of just kpete's interpretation.

It only describes having "collected" the streams of info in the past tense. All the descriptions of having done analysis are in the present tense.

[kpete]

105. U.S. Had Intel on Chemical Strike Before It Was Launched

jumping to conclusions?
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/us_had_intel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched
forgot link

peace to you pnwmom,
afterall-
isn't that what we both want?


kp

[pnwmom]

108. kpete,

we do both want peace in the region and everywhere else.

But I think you've reached the wrong conclusion here. Remember how Sybil Edmonds was called in to translate recorded communications AFTER 9/11?

I think the article you posted is saying basically the same thing. That the US "collected streams" of data before the attack doesn't mean it ALSO translated and analyzed them for content. The CIA no doubt has thousands of "streams" being collected around the world at any given moment, but they aren't sitting there and listening to and translating each one in real time.

Read the paragraphs again. They "collected" the streams -- that's in the past tense. But now they "assess" and "reveal" -- that's present tense. After the attack they looked at their data, had it translated and analyzed -- and now they can see what led up to the attack.

This is also what happened after the Boston marathon. They weren't following this guy every second, but they were "collecting" his communications. After the bombing they went back and looked at them and determined that the brothers were acting alone.

[pangaia]

89. oooppsie...

[NealK]

100. If this is true...

Then I say LIHOP. And I'm sick of this crap.

[Aerows]

118. I don't mean to interrupt

but three HUGE raccoon were on the porch. They were bigger than dogs, and scared the shit out of me, my cat, and probably everyone that heard me shriek. I took her inside and fed her a huge kitty meal.

This just happened, but if someone takes it as a metaphor, go for it.

[NYC_SKP]

121. Raccoons are gnarly. They hiss. Even the babies!

I get them here, too, and always worry about my little dog.

[Arctic Dave]

126. Let me get this straight, they let it happen on purpose?

Maybe we should create an acronym for this. I know!

LIHOP!

Sounds kind of tinfoily that our government would do this to further their unknown (read, secret) agenda. Considering they we never keep the public in the dark about such crazy things they do.