Posted on 06/11/2006 9:03:52 AM PDT by edpc
We'll see if Harman is right about Zarqawi's death not making much difference. She's certainly right to classify the sleuthing that led to his death as "police work" (Not that there's anything wrong with that, whatever it takes, right? But it's obviously not enough.) She's also right that we've focused very heavily on the leadership. That strategy has paid off.
Harman is a stone nut. Lots of lip service as all RATS are, but the proof is they offer no solution. They are so blind with hate and loss of power to protect their corruption that they are drowning in a pool of dung.
Jane, you hypocritical slut.
On the one hand, you poo-poo taking out Zarqawi as unimportant, "It won't reduce the insurgency".
On the other, apparently you think taking out Osama Bin Ladin is important, given your statement that "Well, the tape reminds us that four years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large, the subject of the largest manhunt in history, and we haven't been able to find him. Part of the reason is because we've been bogged down in Iraq."
I agree with you. Furthermore, increasing the consequences decreases the recruits.
It might... but it WILL reduce the Al Qaeda effectiveness in Iraq... without a doubt.
Harman and her socialist buddies better wake up... even if we totally erradicate the insurgents in Iraq... the war with Al Qaeda, Islamo-fascism goes on. Whether this year... or five to ten years from now... these fu_kers are gonna' hit us again. The hate they have for the west, the USA and especially the Israeli's will not die for generations... their home nations BREED it.
We have them engaged now... lets keep them engaged... and KEEP THEM DYING. This will be a long war... and someday down the road... they're gonna get lucky again.
You don't need to catch ALL of them, the group who lay them aren't that big. You also don't need to STOP them, detect and track them, more of that police work Harman speaks of.
With a concentrated effort I bet we do have the technical means to track, or at least records the motions of, nearly every vehicle in a major city.
Calling for the head of a huge agency is a surefire indication that you offer no policy alternatives. I'll bet the LA gangs do as much mayhem everyday as we hear about in Iraq. So down with the mayor and the congresscritters!
The "I" in "IED" stands for "Improvised". There are, I believe, 50 million people in Iraq. I'm grateful that it is not yet possible to monitor all the movements and activities of such a population.
You are probably right about this.
The problem would be that the video of vehicle motions is meaningless until something happens. Then the path of a vehicle is tracked backward in time to determine its origin. We get to see the source of an IED after the IED has been planted and detonated.
Prior to the implanting of the IED, the vehicle is indistinguishable from any other.
There was at least one incident of an IED team being taken out at the site of the IED, but I don't recall reading details of how they were discoverd. I think they were just observed from the air burying something along the side of a roadway.
If there is a legitimate reason to be digging around the edges of roadways in Iraq, that would be extremely hazardous work.
I bet we could with some effort. Litter Baghdad with cameras, most placed surreptitiously. Fly a hundreds or even thousands of recon UAVs. Computer software could largely automate the tracking. Recorded information could allow you to backtrack vehicle movements weeks or even months into the past.
I guess Harmon thinks war is supposed to be easy?
Democrats just can't be trusted with our national security. Rumsfeld is 100 times better then any democrat.
That is somewhat misleading nomenclature. Many of them are imported, probably most nowadays. They require quite a bit of technical ability to produce. I'd think by now we'd have been able to detect and stop or at least greatly curtail this activity.
And forward to its destinations. And correlated with the paths of other vehicles.
Let the horses think Jane, they got bigger heads
I heard a distinctly different Jane Harmon this morning ; figured she was running again.
Who is Jane Harman, and why should I give a frog's fat a$$ what she thinks?
She's a ranking member of the intelligence committee. Scary thought. As to why you should care....that's up to you.
Her mantra is get ride of Rumsfield, as if she knew the full story of how decisions have been made in this war. Even more ignorant that she, I guess that infighting between Defense on the one hand and CIA and state on the other led to Bush trying to split the difference in too many cases. Now Rice seems to be doing the same thing again with regard to Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.