Your position, so far as I can tell, is that signal intel is inherantly superior to human intel. I have pointed out that those relying on human intel in this instance had better and faster results. My initial point was that this was a distinction being left out by Romney's criticism, and in fact I was very openly attacking Romney's position when you offered your opinion. You have offered nothing to support your position other than to say it is not what I am primarilly arguing about, which is true, in that it was a side note at best if it did not relate specifically to the intelligence in question. You however decided tha you had to get personal about it by asking if I had any signal intel. I did not have either signal intel nor human intel, but I did watch the news and the results of the two in this instance are pretty clear. Personally I think signal intel is nice but human intel is vital, in that anyone can avoid signal detection by simply communicating without the use of technology. Semaphores and smoke signals can beat signal intel.
Now if you do want to debate your position, kindly present an actual defense of it. Otherwise let it go and your opinion is duly noted but not relevant to the point I was making because apparently despite whatever inherant superiority you may believe signal intel has over human intel it did not prevail *in this instance*.