PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?


Donger
05-18-2009, 10:49 AM
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1758080/joe_bidens_bunker_blunder.html?cat=9

Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media

Joe Biden, the gaffe prone Vice President, has revealed the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker. The Vice Presidential bunker has been revealed to be located under the Naval Observatory where Vice Presidents reside.

The gaffe was reported by Newsweek's liberal correspondent Eleanor Cliff. Vice President Joe Biden apparently gave a detailed account of being taken on a tour of the Vice Presidential bunker by a Naval officer to his dinner companions at the Gridiron Dinner, a Washington soiree attended by print journalists.

Thus far Vice President Joe Biden's various gaffes have been amusing at best, embarrassing at worse. But the location of the Vice Presidential bunker, designed to help the Vice President and his staff ride out an attack, is classified information. The idea that Vice President Joe Biden is so unable to govern his tongue that he would blurt out classified information to a table full of reporters should be a cause for concern.

Some may argue that the revelation of the location of the Vice Presidential bunker is not a significant intelligence blunder. There had been some rumors of underground construction at the Naval Observatory in 2002 that has been now surmised as deepening and fortifying that Vice Presidential bunker.

However, how damaging Vice President Joe Biden's latest gaffe is hardly the point. Joe Biden has proven that he is liable to say anything at any time, regardless of the consequences to himself, his administration, or the country. Next time it might be some intelligence secret that will prove far more damaging.

Even worse, Joe Biden is a heartbeat away from being President himself, in which post he could do the country real damage. (A heartbeat behind Joe Biden is, of course, Nancy Pelosi, who is in a scandal of her own making.)

The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden is like one of those marriages in which one asks the question, ""What does he see in her?" Or her in him. Joe Biden did not bring a lot of executive experience, like Dick Cheney, and whatever Washington experience he might have, as Al Gore and Walter Mondale provided, doesn't seem in evidence.

It may be time for Joe Biden to consider stepping aside, perhaps for "health reasons." Then Barack Obama could correct his mistake by choosing a Vice President with a modicum of competence and who can keep his mouth shut. Considering President Obama's lurch to the right on the War on Terror, Joe Lieberman is beginning to look a better fit for the job than most. The country would benefit from Joe Lieberman as Vice President and the Senate Democrats would love to see him leave the Senate.

Hot Air's Allahpundit suggests, by the way, that the Vice Presidential bunker is not the "undisclosed location" where Vice President Cheney rode out the 9/11 attacks.

blaise
05-18-2009, 10:50 AM
I would put him in charge of a DC area used car lot.

blaise
05-18-2009, 10:56 AM
Exactly, penchief.

penchief
05-18-2009, 10:57 AM
I would put him in charge of a DC area used car lot.

Afraid he'll leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
Posted via Mobile Device

penchief
05-18-2009, 11:00 AM
Exactly, penchief.

Damn Blackberry.
Posted via Mobile Device

blaise
05-18-2009, 11:00 AM
Afraid he'll leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm afraid he has the same chance of ever being President that Dick Cheney does.

vailpass
05-18-2009, 11:02 AM
Afraid he'll leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
Posted via Mobile Device

Is it hard to drive using only your rearview mirror?

Donger
05-18-2009, 11:04 AM
I'm afraid he has the same chance of ever being President that Dick Cheney does.

It's disturbing to think that this man is a heartbeat away (or lack of one) from being POTUS. And then to think of Pelosi being #3. Stunning.

mikey23545
05-18-2009, 11:05 AM
Afraid he'll leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah, come to think of it, that was a Democrat who leaked that as well....

Iowanian
05-18-2009, 11:10 AM
I'd like to drink some beer with Joe Biden and say "Joe, You have no idea what really happend with JFK's assasination and you sure as hell don't know anything about UFOs"

"Oh yeah......fap fap fap fap fapfapfapfap"

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2009, 11:12 AM
It's disturbing to think that this man is a heartbeat away (or lack of one) from being POTUS. And then to think of Pelosi being #3. Stunning.

Flat out scary!

Ultra Peanut
05-18-2009, 11:14 AM
Biden. Joe Biden.

http://j.photos.cx/biden007-972.jpg

King_Chief_Fan
05-18-2009, 11:20 AM
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1758080/joe_bidens_bunker_blunder.html?cat=9







The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden is like one of those marriages in which one asks the question, ""What does he see in her?" Or her in him. Joe Biden did not bring a lot of executive experience, like Dick Cheney, and whatever Washington experience he might have, as Al Gore and Walter Mondale provided, doesn't seem in evidence.


I never understood how the idiot could get the job when Biden pretty much declared that Obama should not be president.
One idiot picking another idiot as running mate:)

petegz28
05-18-2009, 11:33 AM
Afraid he'll leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
Posted via Mobile Device

Plame's Husband did more to leak her identity than anyone.

KC native
05-18-2009, 11:35 AM
Plame's Husband did more to leak her identity than anyone.

Um, so Robert Novak's column had nothing to do with it huh?

petegz28
05-18-2009, 11:42 AM
Um, so Robert Novak's column had nothing to do with it huh?

Very little in comparison. I am thinking the magazine spreads, etc, etc, etc drew more attention than Mr. Novak's column. Secondly she was not the type of covert spy everyone was making her out to be in the media.

And finally I saw no outrage from anyone on the Left when other Top Secret programs and such were "leaked".


So save it. Joe Wilson parading around was the primary reason for the most of it.

KC Dan
05-18-2009, 11:43 AM
And.... They're off!

alpha_omega
05-18-2009, 11:47 AM
Something he probably shouldn't have been telling reporters. However, knowing that this was sensitive information....did the reporters really have to report the information.

They may be just as dumb as him.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 11:49 AM
Something he probably shouldn't have been telling reporters. However, knowing that this was sensitive information....did the reporters really have to report the information.

They may be just as dumb as him.

Well, it is never the reporters' fault. At least that is what we heard throughout the Bush Admin. If I know someone who committed a murder and don't say anything I can go to jail. But if a reporter is made aware of leaded Top Secret info and spreads it aroud then it is ok.

LOCOChief
05-18-2009, 11:51 AM
Plame's Husband did more to leak her identity than anyone.

It would have only been a leak if she where actually undercover.

jAZ
05-18-2009, 11:54 AM
Fair question, sadly.

At least the location wasn't some unlikely to ever be guessed location.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 11:55 AM
It would have only been a leak if she where actually undercover.

Exactly. And abroad as well.

2bikemike
05-18-2009, 11:55 AM
Something he probably shouldn't have been telling reporters. However, knowing that this was sensitive information....did the reporters really have to report the information.

They may be just as dumb as him.

Their Reporters. They can't help themselves. They trip all over themselves to report and don't give two shits if its accurate or in someway problematic.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 11:57 AM
Their Reporters. They can't help themselves. They trip all over themselves to report and don't give two shits if its accurate or in someway problematic.

Damn the consequences to hell I say. To hell!!

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:01 PM
Very little in comparison. I am thinking the magazine spreads, etc, etc, etc drew more attention than Mr. Novak's column. Secondly she was not the type of covert spy everyone was making her out to be in the media.

And finally I saw no outrage from anyone on the Left when other Top Secret programs and such were "leaked".


So save it. Joe Wilson parading around was the primary reason for the most of it.

I'm really trying to understand your position on this. So Dick Cheney's attempt to discredit Joe Wilson by leaking his wife's job status to several reporters is somehow Joe Wilson's fault?

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 12:06 PM
It would have only been a leak if she where actually undercover.
Please, not even the Bush administration tried to make that asinine argument! Where did you come up with it? Even the CIA testified that her identity as a CIA agent or employee was not public knowledge and that she was involved in past covert operations and was still eligible to be tapped as a covert operative ... until the leak happened.

As for Joe Biden, picking him as a running mate was probably a smart move on Obama's part. You pick a running mate that nobody would want as President, and you've got built-in life insurance. Why do you think Bush picked Cheney? Why do you think Bush Sr. picked Dan Quayle? Nobody wanted those mooks as President, and it would give would-be assassins pause when they realize that assassinating the Pres would put someone even worse in office.

Donger
05-18-2009, 12:11 PM
it would give would-be assassins pause when they realize that assassinating the Pres would put someone even worse in office.

Yes, because presidential assassins care so much about having a decent POTUS in office.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-18-2009, 12:15 PM
Shhh...... it's a secret we can't let anyone know what were doing in the dark of night.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/32AB8SxK21c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/32AB8SxK21c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

petegz28
05-18-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm really trying to understand your position on this. So Dick Cheney's attempt to discredit Joe Wilson by leaking his wife's job status to several reporters is somehow Joe Wilson's fault?

Yea, if you want to get down to it. Had Wilson not made premeditated attempts to hijinx that Admin then we probably never would have heard a word about any of it.

Secondly as I understand the law, she needed to be covert and abroad for the argument being made to stick. She was not abroad.

Thirdly her and her hubby were asking for it when she used her position to get him the job in Africa.

Iowanian
05-18-2009, 12:30 PM
Biden reminds me of my 3 year old.

Bless her, she means well, but she's just so excited when she knows something that she can't hold it back.

"we're making this card for mommy for mother's day. Its going to be a surprise and we can't tell her until tomorrow morning, ok"
"Ok dad" [continued coloring]

[5 minutes later, brideowanian enters stage left]
"MOMMY!!!! WE MADE YOU A SURPRISE, ITS A SECRET AND I CAN'T TELL YOU UNTIL TOMORROW!! ITS A CARD!!! but I can't tell you until tomorrow."

Next morning, 5 seconds after sun breaks the darkness....the silence is interupted by the sounds of a 3 year old leaping from bed, the pitter-patter of running feet through the house, the sound of feet running back, the busting open of a bedroom door and a shout "HEY MOM, its morning time...Time for your SURPRISE!! OPEN IT, ITS A CARD!"


that's how Biden acts with secrets.

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:33 PM
Yea, if you want to get down to it. Had Wilson not made premeditated attempts to hijinx that Admin then we probably never would have heard a word about any of it.

Secondly as I understand the law, she needed to be covert and abroad for the argument being made to stick. She was not abroad.

Thirdly her and her hubby were asking for it when she used her position to get him the job in Africa.

So by that logic a woman who is raped because she was dressed slutty was asking for it.

He went to investigate the yellow cake claims and concluded they were false. In an attempt to discredit that and get us into Iraq, Dick Cheney leaked that his wife was a CIA operative. While that may not have been enough to send anyone to prison, it definitely does not mean that she was asking for it.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 12:37 PM
Yea, if you want to get down to it. Had Wilson not made premeditated attempts to hijinx that Admin then we probably never would have heard a word about any of it.
That's just a stupid position to take. It's akin to blaming a rape victim for her rape because she was asking for it.

Secondly as I understand the law, she needed to be covert and abroad for the argument being made to stick. She was not abroad.
No, she does not have to be abroad. I don't know where you got that idea. Covert operations happen in country as well as out. And she was part of an ongoing fact-finding exercise that had already involved several trips out of country and was slated to involve more.

Thirdly her and her hubby were asking for it when she used her position to get him the job in Africa.
She didn't. That myth was debunked long ago. Several CIA personnel, including Plame, all testified that Wilson's name was given to them by officials who were familiar with his past involvements with African nations, and that they (her CIA superiors) actually came to her with the idea and asked her to intercede on their behalf to get him to accept the job.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 12:37 PM
So by that logic a woman who is raped because she was dressed slutty was asking for it.

He went to investigate the yellow cake claims and concluded they were false. In an attempt to discredit that and get us into Iraq, Dick Cheney leaked that his wife was a CIA operative. While that may not have been enough to send anyone to prison, it definitely does not mean that she was asking for it.

In some insances yes. If a woman dresses slutty then goes walking around dark alley's at night, she is asking for it.

And not to get off topic but he never investigated anything and British Intel contradicted him. Sorry if his pool-side chats aren't convincing me.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 12:38 PM
That's just a stupid position to take. It's akin to blaming a rape victim for her rape because she was asking for it.


No, she does not have to be abroad. I don't know where you got that idea. Covert operations happen in country as well as out. And she was part of an ongoing fact-finding exercise that had already involved several trips out of country and was slated to involve more.


She didn't. That myth was debunked long ago. Several CIA personnel, including Plame, all testified that Wilson's name was given to them by officials who were familiar with his past involvements with African nations, and that they (her CIA superiors) actually came to her with the idea and asked her to intercede on their behalf to get him to accept the job.

Welcome to the world of politics. He went over there with the clear intent to try and discredit the Admin. Either way, it is off topic

And yes she DOES have to be abroad. Sorry to keep putting that little fact in the way.

And finally, yes she did.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 12:40 PM
In an attempt to discredit that and get us into Iraq, Dick Cheney leaked that his wife was a CIA operative.
It was more than just that. It was also retaliation because Wilson, who was in a position to speak with some authority on the matter (and thus, in a position to potentially sway support away from the war), publically criticized the Bush Administration's use of intelligence.

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:41 PM
In some insances yes. If a woman dresses slutty then goes walking around dark alley's at night, she is asking for it.

And not to get off topic but he never investigated anything and British Intel contradicted him. Sorry if his pool-side chats aren't convincing me.

So, he didn't come out and show that the documents that were used to justify the yellowcake claims were frauds? That seems like some investigation to me.

Edit: Also, no woman ever asks to get raped. I thought you were more intelligent than that pete.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 12:43 PM
So, he didn't come out and show that the documents that were used to justify the yellowcake claims were frauds? That seems like some investigation to me.

Edit: Also, no woman ever asks to get raped. I thought you were more intelligent than that pete.

I thought you were less naive than that.

Donger
05-18-2009, 12:43 PM
So, he didn't come out and show that the documents that were used to justify the yellowcake claims were frauds? That seems like some investigation to me.

Edit: Also, no woman ever asks to get raped. I thought you were more intelligent than that pete.

Do you think Biden should be trusted with classified information?

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:45 PM
I thought you were less naive than that.

There's a difference between stupidity and asked to be raped. Walking around a bad area late at night dressed slutty is stupid. That doesn't mean the woman is asking to be raped. Take your backasswards view on rape back to 1950.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 12:46 PM
There's a difference between stupidity and asked to be raped. Walking around a bad area late at night dressed slutty is stupid. That doesn't mean the woman is asking to be raped. Take your backasswards view on rape back to 1950.

Riggghhhhttt....

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 12:46 PM
Welcome to the world of politics. He went over there with the clear intent to try and discredit the Admin. Either way, it is off topic
You brought it up. You can't cry, "Foul!" now because we choose to challenge it. And he didn't try to discredit the admin until after he found that their intel wasn't credible and that they were trying to use proven forgeries to sell the war.

And yes she DOES have to be abroad. Sorry to keep putting that little fact in the way.
No, she doesn't have to be abroad. Leaking the identify of a covert agent is a felony, whether that agent is in country or abroad. I don't know where you got the silly idea that it's only a crime if she isn't in the country at the moment the leak occurs.

And finally, yes she did.
No, she didn't. The testimony of the CIA officials who claimed that they came to her with the idea disagrees with you. Either she came up with the idea and used her position to land him the job (which nobody has ever credibly argued), or others came up with the idea and asked her to talk him into it. You claim the former, the testimony claims the latter. You can't have it both ways, I'm sorry. Face it, your myth got debunked a long time ago, and you missed the boat.

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:46 PM
Do you think Biden should be trusted with classified information?

Do you really believe that our enemies don't already know where the vice presidential bunker is?

Donger
05-18-2009, 12:47 PM
Do you really believe that our enemies don't already know where the vice presidential bunker is?

I don't know if they did or didn't. They do know, however.

Now, please answer my question.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 12:50 PM
Do you really believe that our enemies don't already know where the vice presidential bunker is?

Yes I do. How is that. Regardless what excuse is that for Biden? In fact, why have naything Top Secret at all?

InChiefsHell
05-18-2009, 12:51 PM
I don't know if they did or didn't. They do know, however.

Now, please answer my question.

HOw come it takes 3 pages to get to the friggin' point of this whole issue, and you still get your question answered with a question?

Obots on patrol...

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:51 PM
I don't know if they did or didn't. They do know, however.

Now, please answer my question.

Um, I can remember mentions of it being under the Naval Observatory thoughout Bush's term. They didn't confirm it but acting like this is a big secret is nonsense.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 12:52 PM
It's his bunker. The Vice President has the authority to classify or declassify information as he sees fit. Only the President himself can supercede that authority. If he wants to declassify and advertise the location of his own bunker, that's on him. As KC Native correctly pointed out, it was never exactly a secret to begin with.

Donger
05-18-2009, 12:55 PM
Um, I can remember mentions of it being under the Naval Observatory thoughout Bush's term. They didn't confirm it but acting like this is a big secret is nonsense.

Thanks, now please answer my question.

Chief Henry
05-18-2009, 12:56 PM
It's his bunker. The Vice President has the authority to classify or declassify information as he sees fit. Only the President himself can supercede that authority. If he wants to declassify and advertise the location of his own bunker, that's on him. As KC Native correctly pointed out, it was never exactly a secret to begin with.

This is sad in many ways.

KC native
05-18-2009, 12:56 PM
Thanks, now please answer my question.

Nope for the purposes of this thread I'm going to post like you and answer questions with questions and throw out red herrings like there is no tomorrow.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 12:58 PM
This is sad in many ways.
It's also true, whether you like it or not. Now, if he starts blabbing troop movements, giving launch coordinates for the President's secret getaway, or classifying information for the purpose of saving his own ass (ala Cheney), then we'll talk.

Donger
05-18-2009, 12:58 PM
Nope for the purposes of this thread I'm going to post like you and answer questions with questions and throw out red herrings like there is no tomorrow.

You may note that I already answered the question you posed to me in this very thread. A rather feeble effort on your part.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 01:01 PM
You may note that I already answered the question you posed to me in this very thread. A rather feeble effort on your part.
The entire question is pretty much a non-starter, as "classified" and "unclassified" are pretty much at the whim of the Pres and VP anyway.

patteeu
05-18-2009, 01:05 PM
It's stupid, but assuming the VP has the POTUS' blessing under the reported EO that was in effect during the Bush/Cheney administration, it's just stupid.

vailpass
05-18-2009, 01:06 PM
It's his bunker. The Vice President has the authority to classify or declassify information as he sees fit. Only the President himself can supercede that authority. If he wants to declassify and advertise the location of his own bunker, that's on him. As KC Native correctly pointed out, it was never exactly a secret to begin with.

Wrong.

Donger
05-18-2009, 01:08 PM
The entire question is pretty much a non-starter, as "classified" and "unclassified" are pretty much at the whim of the Pres and VP anyway.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 01:12 PM
Wrong.
No, it's not. You missed the part about the Pres being able to override the VP. His is the final say in whether information is classified or declassified, but the VP has the penultimate say.

vailpass
05-18-2009, 01:13 PM
Nope for the purposes of this thread I'm going to post like you and answer questions with questions and throw out red herrings like there is no tomorrow.

In other words you have been cornered and so are trying to dodge the question. SOP for you on this board.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 01:15 PM
How did you reach that conclusion?
Because as long as Obama doesn't override him, he can declassify it if he wants to. Your better question would have been, "Was Biden wise to declassify the location of his own bunker." And the answer would probably be no, although as was previously pointed out, its location was never much of a secret.

vailpass
05-18-2009, 01:17 PM
No, it's not. You missed the part about the Pres being able to override the VP. His is the final say in whether information is classified or declassified, but the VP has the penultimate say.

The VP cannot walk into a SCIF requiring TS/SCI full poly and unilaterally declass data. There are millions of lines of classed data that require more than one signature to even be brought to a meeting much less declassed. Nuclear codes are an obvious example.

Donger
05-18-2009, 01:18 PM
Fair question, sadly.

At least the location wasn't some unlikely to ever be guessed location.

jAZ, what do you think?

patteeu
05-18-2009, 01:18 PM
No, it's not. You missed the part about the Pres being able to override the VP. His is the final say in whether information is classified or declassified, but the VP has the penultimate say.

Maybe I just missed it, but I don't remember you expressing this opinion when Dick Cheney was taking heat for the theory that he was involved in the Valerie Plame deal.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't have worded it the way you did. It's not so much that the President can override the VP as it is that the VP reportedly has the President's authorization to declassify under an EO which is only good until the President revokes it.

KC native
05-18-2009, 01:19 PM
garble garble garble.

Go away Grand Wizard, adults are talking here.

vailpass
05-18-2009, 01:22 PM
Go away Grand Wizard, adults are talking here.

How are things in the DC Underground today n00b? What poison have you brought to spread?
Now how about you answering Donger's question?

Baby Lee
05-18-2009, 01:23 PM
The entire question is pretty much a non-starter, as "classified" and "unclassified" are pretty much at the whim of the Pres and VP anyway.

Which question are we examining again?

Was it;

Is Biden a criminal?

or

Is Biden a dipshit?

Donger
05-18-2009, 01:23 PM
Because as long as Obama doesn't override him, he can declassify it if he wants to.

And how do you know this?

Your better question would have been, "Was Biden wise to declassify the location of his own bunker." And the answer would probably be no, although as was previously pointed out, its location was never much of a secret

My question is perfectly valid. In fact, you have tacitly answered it already.

KC native
05-18-2009, 01:25 PM
How are things in the DC Underground today n00b? What poison have you brought to spread?
Now how about you answering Donger's question?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

blaise
05-18-2009, 01:27 PM
Because as long as Obama doesn't override him, he can declassify it if he wants to. Your better question would have been, "Was Biden wise to declassify the location of his own bunker." And the answer would probably be no, although as was previously pointed out, its location was never much of a secret.

Once it's been declassified by Biden how would Obama override him? By erasing everyone's memory?
I don't know if it's legal or not, but it's retarded, and pretty disrespectful of the people in charge of securing it.

blaise
05-18-2009, 01:29 PM
[

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 01:30 PM
Maybe I just missed it, but I don't remember you expressing this opinion when Dick Cheney was taking heat for the theory that he was involved in the Valerie Plame deal.
You also won't recall my expressing the opinion that Cheney should be prosecuted for any crime, but rather that his motivations (if he was involved, and it's never been proven one way or the other) for having her outed go far toward demonstrating that he's a corrupt bastard, since it was all done for retaliation but could have ended up putting her life in danger.

vailpass
05-18-2009, 01:37 PM
BTW we should all be glad the VP does not have the power to unilaterally declass anything he wants. Imagine Biden with that kind of screw-up authority. Imagine Quail.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 01:38 PM
I figured there was more to this story, so I did a little digging. Turns out this place might not have been as "classified" as it has been reported. It was built for Cheney specifically, and was classified during his Vice Presidency, because it was his personal shelter of choice. It's not the automatic, default go-to shelter for any and all sitting Vice Presidents. It was made for and used by only one VP. There are lots of secure locations designated for these offices, and Cheney decided to have an extra one made. That's what Biden revealed. Even Fox only reports it as a "potentially classified" bunker.

So, was it a stupid gaffe? Probably. Was it a matter of national security? Not likely.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 01:39 PM
BTW we should all be glad the VP does not have the power to unilaterally declass anything he wants. Imagine Biden with that kind of screw-up authority. Imagine Quail.

ROFL

petegz28
05-18-2009, 01:39 PM
I figured there was more to this story, so I did a little digging. Turns out this place might not have been as "classified" as it has been reported. It was built for Cheney specifically, and was classified during his Vice Presidency, because it was his personal shelter of choice. It's not the automatic, default go-to shelter for any and all sitting Vice Presidents. It was made for and used by only one VP. There are lots of secure locations designated for these offices, and Cheney decided to have an extra one made. That's what Biden revealed. Even Fox only reports it as a "potentially classified" bunker.

So, was it a stupid gaffe? Probably. Was it a matter of national security? Not likely.


Well the Free Passes for the Left continue to get handed out blindly....nice to see nothing has changed.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 01:41 PM
Well the Free Passes for the Left continue to get handed out blindly....nice to see nothing has changed.
Saying it was a stupid gaffe is a "free pass?" Will you classify anything short of, "Hang him as a Traitor!" as a "free pass"? Cheney had the bunker built. If Biden isn't planning on using it, then saying, "I saw the room where Cheney hid after 9/11," is kind of like saying, "I saw the room where Lincoln died."

blaise
05-18-2009, 01:42 PM
Just on a side note. When I lived in DC I used to drive by the Naval Observatory almost every day. There was a guy that stood almost across the street from it every day, rain or shine, and he would hold up a sign that said, "Catholic Priests Molest Children". This was back in like, 1998-2000 before most of the stuff came out about the church.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 01:48 PM
Saying it was a stupid gaffe is a "free pass?" Will you classify anything short of, "Hang him as a Traitor!" as a "free pass"? Cheney had the bunker built. If Biden isn't planning on using it, then saying, "I saw the room where Cheney hid after 9/11," is kind of like saying, "I saw the room where Lincoln died."

I guess the standards at which the Left hold their own too fall well short of the standards they hold others too.

Yes, saying it was just a "stupid gaffe" is a free pass when Bush was molested by the Left over "Mission Acomplished" when the whole thing was meant to be about to unit he was speaking too.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 01:49 PM
Just on a side note. When I lived in DC I used to drive by the Naval Observatory almost every day. There was a guy that stood almost across the street from it every day, rain or shine, and he would hold up a sign that said, "Catholic Priests Molest Children". This was back in like, 1998-2000 before most of the stuff came out about the church.

Perhaps he was a molestee?

hawkchief
05-18-2009, 01:53 PM
I figured there was more to this story, so I did a little digging. Turns out this place might not have been as "classified" as it has been reported. It was built for Cheney specifically, and was classified during his Vice Presidency, because it was his personal shelter of choice. It's not the automatic, default go-to shelter for any and all sitting Vice Presidents. It was made for and used by only one VP. There are lots of secure locations designated for these offices, and Cheney decided to have an extra one made. That's what Biden revealed. Even Fox only reports it as a "potentially classified" bunker.

So, was it a stupid gaffe? Probably. Was it a matter of national security? Not likely.

Either way, it's an absolute joke having a tard like Biden a hearbeat away from the nuke button. He makes Pamela Anderson look like a friggin genius, and Yogi Berra a master orator.

SCChief
05-18-2009, 02:02 PM
Afraid he'll leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't know how I feel comparing these two. The leak by Cheney's office was intentionally wrong, which can be punished and reprimanded if proven.

Biden leaks unintentionally. To quote Ron White...

"You can't fix stupid..."

I am not impressed with any of the VPs I have seen lately. I guess it is pick your poison. Would you rather have someone who is intelligent but dirty, or someone who is well-meaning but an idiot? Dirty can be prosecuted, and chances are the intelligent person will not always make ill-intentioned decisions. The idiot will always be an idiot.

I am sure Joe Biden is not an idiot, and I am exaggerating. But I have not seen anything that has impressed me from him yet.

blaise
05-18-2009, 02:03 PM
Perhaps he was a molestee?

Oh, I'm sure he was.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 02:11 PM
I guess the standards at which the Left hold their own too fall well short of the standards they hold others too.
That goes both ways, and you know it well.

Yes, saying it was just a "stupid gaffe" is a free pass when Bush was molested by the Left over "Mission Acomplished" when the whole thing was meant to be about to unit he was speaking too.
First of all, you can't accuse me of that, because I rarely said a word about "Mission Accomplished." However, no, it wasn't meant to just be about the unit he was speaking to. You don't spread gigantic banners across the front of a ship, photograph them, and splash it across every newspaper and television screen in the country, all while simultaneously announcing the end of hostilities in press conferences, if you're only talking about one ship's isolated mission, so I'm gonna call BS on that one.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 02:18 PM
That goes both ways, and you know it well.


First of all, you can't accuse me of that, because I rarely said a word about "Mission Accomplished." However, no, it wasn't meant to just be about the unit he was speaking to. You don't spread gigantic banners across the front of a ship, photograph them, and splash it across every newspaper and television screen in the country, all while simultaneously announcing the end of hostilities in press conferences, if you're only talking about one ship's isolated mission, so I'm gonna call BS on that one.

Yes, yes it was. That was even stated when everyone got their panties in a wad. Was it a bad move? Yes. Did it mean what you and the media are trying\tried to make it out to be? No.

You can call BS just like I call BS on Plame. Savy?

gblowfish
05-18-2009, 02:25 PM
What? Me Worry???

Donger
05-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Elizabeth Alexander, Biden's spokeswoman, offered this explanation this afternoon: "What the vice president described in his comments was not - as some press reports have suggested - an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence, which he understood was frequently used by Vice President Cheney and his aides.

"That workspace was converted into an upstairs guestroom when the Bidens moved into the residence,'' Alexander said. "There was no disclosure of classified information.''

Donger
05-18-2009, 02:31 PM
A massive steel door upstairs? I demand an investigation and pictures, immediately.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 02:33 PM
Yes, yes it was. That was even stated when everyone got their panties in a wad.
No, it wasn't. BushCo didn't start trying to take that backtracking tack until after it was realized that they were premature. It was weeks after the firestorm was already underway before Bush switched gears and tried to claim that he was only talking about that one ship and its mission. Had that been the true excuse, you'd think they would have trotted it out from the start, rather than waiting several weeks before stumbling upon it. Instead, they spent the first several weeks after the incident trying to convince us that the announcement wasn't premature, that the insurgent fighting was just death throes, all to be expected, and that it would die down soon.

Did it mean what you and the media are trying\tried to make it out to be?
Yes.

You can call BS just like I call BS on Plame. Savy?
Yes, but the difference, mine was actually thought out and considers the facts, whereas yours simply repeats a debunked myth and ignores the facts (i.e. the testimony of the officials who stated that they brought the idea to Plame, not the other way around).

orange
05-18-2009, 02:44 PM
BBC News World Edition
Monday, 9 December, 2002, 17:05 GMT

Cheney's neighbours stoke bunker rumours

Dick Cheney is getting a nuclear bunker. Or a spy tunnel. Or a helicopter landing pad. Or maybe nothing at all.
Rumours are rife in Washington about the nature of building work being carried out at the Naval Observatory, which includes the official residence of the vice-president of the United States.

Mr Cheney was taken to secure locations after the 11 September attacks

But though regular blasts and construction traffic show that something is going on at 1 Observatory Circle, no-one will say what it is.

Neighbours upset by the noise were sent a letter from the observatory's superintendent which said: "Due to its sensitive nature in support of national security and homeland defence, project specific information is classified and cannot be released."

The letter went on to say that the work was urgent and needed to be done "on a highly accelerated schedule".

A spokeswoman for the US Navy told BBC News Online that the work was "an infrastructure and utility upgrade".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38568000/jpg/_38568863_vphome_ap300.jpg
Vice-presidents have used the house since 1974

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2559617.stm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is Google Earth Hiding Dick Cheney’s House? (Updated)
By Sharon Weinberger July 23, 2008 | 12:01 pm | Categories: Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance

What the heck is so special about Dick Cheney’s official residence that Google feels the need to obscure it? Oh, must the be that secret bunker allegedly built underneath it. But if that’s indeed the case, why then is the vice president’s home at the Naval Observatory crystal clear on Yahoo Maps?

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/23/one_observatory_circle.jpg

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/what-is-google/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disco Dick Cheney
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: Wednesday, December 11, 2002

WASHINGTON

Some hush-hush bang-bang is going on at the vice president's house: big blasts twice a day, morning and night, that cause the whole neighborhood to quake and shake.

Rattled neighbors cannot learn what's going on at Mr. Cheney's Disclosed Location from the Navy, which maintains the official residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory.

"We're doing infrastructure improvements and utility upgrades," says the Navy's Cate Mueller.

If Dick Cheney won't tell us which energy fat cats drew up our energy policy, he's not going to tell us why we're paying to renovate his pad.

The construction, which could last 16 months, is related to "national security and homeland defense," according to a letter from the observatory's superintendent printed in The Washington Post .

I'd say we have four possibilities:

1. Mr. Cheney is building a giant vault. Now that a judge appointed by the president says that anything the vice president does can be kept secret, there is even more incentive for him to run the government so everything can be secret and stored away in the vault.

2. He's suffering from a bad case of bunker envy and wants a command center and bunker like the president's in the White House and Rummy's in the Pentagon.

3. He's digging a tunnel in case he has his priorities backward and we should be more concerned with Al Qaeda than Iraq. A secret tunnel at his house could easily feed into the secret tunnel at the nearby Russian Embassy leading up to a safe house; the tunnel was built in the late 1970's by the F.B.I. and National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Russian diplomats, and abandoned after the Russians found out about it from the F.B.I. counterspy Robert Hanssen.

4. He's constructing an underground disco. If he appears in a Travolta white suit and gold chains, his desire to replicate the Gerald Ford era would be realized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/opinion/11DOWD.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Steven Clemons, New America Foundation
United Press International | October 5, 2004

Cheney also made it look like it was John Edwards' fault that they had not met during Edwards' entire time in the Senate. Doesn't Cheney have the big home over at the Naval Observatory with a brand new bunker beneath it? He could have invited Edwards to show him the nifty house additions. Bush and Cheney control the invitation list for all those holiday parties and state dinners. If meeting Edwards was on Cheney's mind, the power of the invite lay on Cheney's side -- but Edwards did nothing to capitalize on this other strangely memorable moment in the debate.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2004/george_bush_out_of_sight_out_of_mind

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number One Observatory Circle (Vice President's House)
AlbinoFlea @ 2006-02-15 15:10:09

Description: Still obscured with a case of the giant pixels, but not quite as bad as GL/GE. Apparently, Digital Globe has unobscured imagery available... see cryptome.org.

From Wikipedia:

Number One Observatory Circle is the official residence of the Vice President of the United States and his family.

Located on the grounds of the United States Naval Observatory in Washington, DC, the house was built in 1893 for its superintendent. In 1923, the Chief of Naval Operations loved the house so much that he took over the house for himself. It remained the residence of the CNO until 1974, when Congress had the house refurbished and turned it into the official residence of the vice president.

Before that time, the vice president lived in his own home, but the cost of providing security for these private residences had become prohibitive.

Although Number One Observatory Circle was made available to the vice president in 1974, three years passed before a vice president lived in the home. Vice President Gerald Ford became president before he could use the home, and his vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, only used the home for entertaining since he already had a luxury residence in Washington. Vice president Walter Mondale was the first vice president to move into the home and every vice president since has lived in the house.

The vice presidential mansion was refurbished by the United States Navy in early 2001, only slightly delaying the move of new vice president Dick Cheney and his family.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, plans were quietly made to renovate the house to make it more secure. In late-2002, neighbors reported incidents of what was likely blasting under the house to create a bunker for the vice president's family and staff. The work lasted several months.

http://thumbsgm.virtualglobetrotting.com/1/4/14455.gif http://thumbsll.virtualglobetrotting.com/1/4/14455.gif http://thumbsym.virtualglobetrotting.com/1/4/14455.gif

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/14455/

orange
05-18-2009, 02:46 PM
"Revealing" something that is common knowledge - only FOXNews

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker
The vice president, well-known for his verbal gaffes, confirms at a dinner the existence and location of a secret hidden bunker that Cheney is believed to have used after the 9/11 attacks.
By Jonathan Passantino

FOXNews.com

Sunday, May 17, 2009

:)

jAZ
05-18-2009, 02:49 PM
jAZ, what do you think?

What do I think what? You quoted my thoughts.

orange
05-18-2009, 02:50 PM
Elizabeth Alexander, Biden's spokeswoman, offered this explanation this afternoon: "What the vice president described in his comments was not - as some press reports have suggested - an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence, which he understood was frequently used by Vice President Cheney and his aides.

"That workspace was converted into an upstairs guestroom when the Bidens moved into the residence,'' Alexander said. "There was no disclosure of classified information.''

I guess the FOX reporter just assumed he was talking about the bunker everyone already knows is under the Observatory.

Here's Clift's original words:

Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year. He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall. Cheney has emerged as the leading critic of the Obama administration on national security, saying the president’s policies are making America less safe, and if there’s another attack, it will be Obama’s fault. This is tough stuff, but as the architect of the Bush administration’s policies on war and torture, he has a much bigger legacy to protect than the president he helped steer onto the shoals.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx


FAUXNews stoking up a controversy over their own bungling misreporting - just another day at the circus.


You should change the thread title to something more appropriate:

Should FOX Be Trusted With ANY Information?

Donger
05-18-2009, 03:01 PM
What do I think what? You quoted my thoughts.

What do you think about the question posed in the thread title? "Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?"

You stated that it is a fair question, so I'm curious if you have an opinion on said question.

Donger
05-18-2009, 03:03 PM
I guess the FOX reporter just assumed he was talking about the bunker everyone already knows is under the Observatory.

Here's Clift's original words:

Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year. He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall. Cheney has emerged as the leading critic of the Obama administration on national security, saying the president’s policies are making America less safe, and if there’s another attack, it will be Obama’s fault. This is tough stuff, but as the architect of the Bush administration’s policies on war and torture, he has a much bigger legacy to protect than the president he helped steer onto the shoals.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx


FAUXNews stoking up a controversy over their own bungling misreporting - just another day at the circus.


You should change the thread title to something more appropriate:

Should FOX Be Trusted With ANY Information?

Not really. Bunker-like implies a hardened, typically subterranean, room.

orange
05-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Not really. Bunker-like implies a hardened, typically subterranean, room.

Nonsense. A room is a room. There is nothing in Clift's statement that could be construed as a classified underground bunker - and certainly nothing revealing said underground bunker's location on the Observatory's enormous grounds.

That information was filled in by the FOX reporter from common knowledge - incorrectly.

Hell, "bunker-like" is Clift's own words - it's not even a direct quote.

Donger
05-18-2009, 03:12 PM
Nonsense. A room is a room. There is nothing in Clift's statement that could be construed as a classified underground bunker - and certainly nothing revealing said underground bunker's location on the Observatory's enormous grounds.

That information was filled in by the FOX reporter from common knowledge - incorrectly.

Yes, most normal rooms have massive steel doors. However, it does seem to be the case that Fox added the "under" assumption.

orange
05-18-2009, 03:15 PM
Yes, most normal rooms have massive steel doors. However, it does seem to be the case that Fox added the "under" assumption.

HOLY COW, AN ADMISSION! I congratulate you!

:clap:

petegz28
05-18-2009, 03:17 PM
No, it wasn't. BushCo didn't start trying to take that backtracking tack until after it was realized that they were premature. It was weeks after the firestorm was already underway before Bush switched gears and tried to claim that he was only talking about that one ship and its mission. Had that been the true excuse, you'd think they would have trotted it out from the start, rather than waiting several weeks before stumbling upon it. Instead, they spent the first several weeks after the incident trying to convince us that the announcement wasn't premature, that the insurgent fighting was just death throes, all to be expected, and that it would die down soon.


Yes.


Yes, but the difference, mine was actually thought out and considers the facts, whereas yours simply repeats a debunked myth and ignores the facts (i.e. the testimony of the officials who stated that they brought the idea to Plame, not the other way around).


You have no facts. The media spun "Mission Acomplished" into what the Left wanted and you are going along with it and now calling it a fact. LMAO


Ok...back to the Free Pass statement I made.

Donger
05-18-2009, 03:19 PM
HOLY COW, AN ADMISSION! I congratulate you!

:clap:

Admission of facts hardly requires applause.

But, I ask you, is it more likely that a "bunker-like" room with a massive steel door actually resides on an upper floor as opposed to being underground?

orange
05-18-2009, 03:27 PM
Admission of facts hardly requires applause.

But, I ask you, is it more likely that a "bunker-like" room with a massive steel door actually resides on an upper floor as opposed to being underground?

The point is that EVERYBODY "knows" there is a bunker, there. That's why the FOX guy leaped to that conclusion.

When I googled naval observatory vice president bunker -biden -2009, one of the hits was this item:


Why Gore Fights On and On and... In the bunker: He 'believes he is on history's agenda,' and his instinct is to battle to the bitter end. What makes Al tick.(Al Gore profiled)(Election 2000)
Newsweek | December 11, 2000 | COPYRIGHT 2000 Newsweek, Inc.

It was less than three minutes to air, and no one could find Al Gore. Everything was ready for last Monday's speech kicking off the All Al All the Time media offensive, aimed at convincing the public that the 2000 presidential election wasn't over yet. The living room of his Naval Observatory residence was lit for television and bristling with American flags, now the backdrop of choice in the post-campaign air war. But as the seconds slipped away, no Al. As panicked aides prepared to tell the networks they weren't ready, he finally emerged near the podium, oblivious to the frenzy ...
From that, would you assume Gore was in a real underground bunker? I suspect not. The word bunker was used here - and in Clift's blurb - figuratively. Only the proximity of an actually "known" bunker on the site gave it any extra weight.


FOXNews does this kind of thing all the time. Their idealogical viewpoint is one thing, but there is no excuse for their shoddy carelessness.

jAZ
05-18-2009, 03:32 PM
What do you think about the question posed in the thread title? "Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?"

You stated that it is a fair question, so I'm curious if you have an opinion on said question.

At the moment, the answer is yes. But I'm open to reconsidering that if this isn't an isolated incident.

Donger
05-18-2009, 03:32 PM
The point is that EVERYBODY "knows" there is a bunker, there. That's why the FOX guy leapt to that conclusion.

When I googled naval observatory vice president bunker -biden -2009, one of the hits was this item:


Why Gore Fights On and On and... In the bunker: He 'believes he is on history's agenda,' and his instinct is to battle to the bitter end. What makes Al tick.(Al Gore profiled)(Election 2000)
Newsweek | December 11, 2000 | COPYRIGHT 2000 Newsweek, Inc.

It was less than three minutes to air, and no one could find Al Gore. Everything was ready for last Monday's speech kicking off the All Al All the Time media offensive, aimed at convincing the public that the 2000 presidential election wasn't over yet. The living room of his Naval Observatory residence was lit for television and bristling with American flags, now the backdrop of choice in the post-campaign air war. But as the seconds slipped away, no Al. As panicked aides prepared to tell the networks they weren't ready, he finally emerged near the podium, oblivious to the frenzy ...
From that, would you assume Gore was in a real underground bunker? I suspect not. The word bunker was used here - and in Clift's blurb - figuratively. Only the proximity of an actually "known" bunker on the site gave it any extra weight.


FOXNews does this kind of thing all the time. Their idealogical viewpoint is one ting, but there is no excuse for their shoddy carelessness.

I don't know if there is a bunker or not. Clift used the word "bunker-like" with a "massive steel door." Fox didn't.

Donger
05-18-2009, 03:32 PM
At the moment, the answer is yes. But I'm open to reconsidering that if this isn't an isolated incident.

Fair enough.

orange
05-18-2009, 03:35 PM
At the moment, the answer is yes. But I'm open to reconsidering that if this isn't an isolated incident.

It's not an isolated incident - it's not an incident at all. Biden revealed nothing, classified or otherwise, to the media.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 03:55 PM
It's not an isolated incident - it's not an incident at all. Biden revealed nothing, classified or otherwise, to the media.

Has the Left ever done anything wrong in your eyes?

orange
05-18-2009, 04:01 PM
Has the Left ever done anything wrong in your eyes?

Certainly. They went along with Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq, for example....











Okay, that was just for fun. They have a track record of wasteful spending and their idiot politicians are just as greedy and crooked as the Republicans - but not nearly as efficiently corrupt, though. Rostenkowski stole stamps - Cheney funnelled billions to Haliburton.

In this case - today's Biden nontroversy, there is nothing to see here.

orange
05-18-2009, 04:07 PM
You have no facts. The media spun "Mission Acomplished" into what the Left wanted and you are going along with it and now calling it a fact. LMAO


Ok...back to the Free Pass statement I made.

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

dirk digler
05-18-2009, 04:14 PM
What do you think about the question posed in the thread title? "Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?"

You stated that it is a fair question, so I'm curious if you have an opinion on said question.

Has Biden ever leaked classified info before? I mean he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for years and years.

petegz28
05-18-2009, 04:27 PM
Certainly. They went along with Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq, for example....











Okay, that was just for fun. They have a track record of wasteful spending and their idiot politicians are just as greedy and crooked as the Republicans - but not nearly as efficiently corrupt, though. Rostenkowski stole stamps - Cheney funnelled billions to Haliburton.

In this case - today's Biden nontroversy, there is nothing to see here.

FWIW, I think you are selling Mrs. Feinstein short in her efforts of maniputlaing billions of $'s worth of contracts to her husband's company

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 04:59 PM
You have no facts. The media spun "Mission Acomplished" into what the Left wanted and you are going along with it and now calling it a fact. LMAO
Dude, you're the one who isn't bothering with facts of any kind. You're repeating mantras and talking points without anything to back it up. You'd have us believe it is the media's fault that Bush wrung his hands for weeks telling us the proclamation wasn't premature, that all the insurgency was nothing but the final death throes of Saddam's loyalists, while waiting for weeks before even trying to claim that "Mission Accomplished" only referred to the one ship and its particular mission. You'd have us believe that throwing gigantic banners across the front of a ship, posing for photos, and splashing those photos across every newspaper and television screen in America - just to congratulate one ship on the successful completion of one of hundreds of missions it undergoes each year - is perfectly routine, and that we shouldn't read anything at all into the fact that they were holding press conferences at the same time to tell us that hostilities were ended. In short, you would ask us to throw Occam's Razor out the door and instead believe something the Bush administration only came up with several weeks after the fact in order to cover their own blunder. You're spinning up quite a dust storm, you know that? Did you study at the Patteeu School of Spin?

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 05:06 PM
I don't know if there is a bunker or not. Clift used the word "bunker-like" with a "massive steel door." Fox didn't.
Massive steel doors exist on all floor levels in military buildings, industrial buildings, government buildings, banks and more all over the country. It certainly isn't a feature that is limited to subterranean levels. The building is a military facility, after all, first and foremost, and a temporary residence, second. I inspected a hotel a few weeks ago that had a small general store built into what used to be a bank vault - it is still protected by a massive steel door (though more for novelty, now, than security) - on the second floor.

Another factor to consider is that the room Biden described is the room he was told Cheney was taken to immediately following the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks occurred in 2001. According to all the reports, the construction of the underground bunker (presumably) was in 2002. Given that, it is entirely possible that the place he was taken after 9/11 was on an upper level of the house and is the room Elizabeth Biden spoke of.

jAZ
05-18-2009, 05:09 PM
It's not an isolated incident - it's not an incident at all. Biden revealed nothing, classified or otherwise, to the media.

I'm not following this closely, but I wouldn't be any less suprised that this is nothing as I would that Biden had a gaffe.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 05:47 PM
I'm not following this closely, but I wouldn't be any less suprised that this is nothing as I would that Biden had a gaffe.
I'm pretty sure it's nothing. If it's something, then they're going to have to find a way to reconcile Cheney being spirited away in 2001 to a bunker that wasn't built until 2002. I dunno, maybe they had time travel tech.

old_geezer
05-18-2009, 06:22 PM
Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?

I wouldn't trust Biden with anything sharper than a wet sponge.

Donger
05-18-2009, 06:40 PM
Another factor to consider is that the room Biden described is the room he was told Cheney was taken to immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

You need to read more closely, I think.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 06:55 PM
You need to read more closely, I think.
I think you might want to take your own advice there.



The bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks.

...

and later in the article:

In December 2002, neighbors complained of loud construction work being done at the Naval Observatory, which has been used as a residence by vice presidents since 1974.

The upset neighbors were sent a letter by the observatory's superintendent, calling the work "sensitive in nature" and "classified" and that it was urgent it be completed "on a highly accelerated schedule."

Residents said they believed workers were digging deep into the ground, which would support Biden's report of a secret bunker, but officials never confirmed the purpose of the work performed.

That pretty clearly illustrates that the room Biden was referring to that the naval officer showed him was a room to which Cheney was taken in September 2001, more than a year before the construction of the "classified" underground [presumed] bunker that Fox et al. (and, by extension, several of you) claims Biden was talking about.

Donger
05-18-2009, 07:07 PM
I think you might want to take your own advice there.


That pretty clearly illustrates that the room Biden was referring to that the naval officer showed him was a room to which Cheney was taken in September 2001, more than a year before the construction of the "classified" underground [presumed] bunker that Fox et al. (and, by extension, several of you) claims Biden was talking about.

After the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean right after. The construction took place (supposedly) in December 2002, so it would have been hard for Cheney to use a "bunker" on 9/11 when it wasn't built until 2002.

IIRC. Cheney was in the White House on 9/11 during the attacks.

patteeu
05-18-2009, 07:11 PM
You also won't recall my expressing the opinion that Cheney should be prosecuted for any crime, but rather that his motivations (if he was involved, and it's never been proven one way or the other) for having her outed go far toward demonstrating that he's a corrupt bastard, since it was all done for retaliation but could have ended up putting her life in danger.

LOL, you aren't sure whether it happened, but if it did, you're pretty sure about the motive. :rolleyes:

WoodDraw
05-18-2009, 07:21 PM
Holy Shit!

Protect the Vice President's House!

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 08:38 PM
LOL, you aren't sure whether it happened, but if it did, you're pretty sure about the motive. :rolleyes:
You'd have to be pretty foolish, or a partisan hack to not see the motive. Of course, either one easily explains why you don't see it.

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 08:45 PM
After the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean right after.
It's doubtful that it means a full year after.

The construction took place (supposedly) in December 2002, so it would have been hard for Cheney to use a "bunker" on 9/11 when it wasn't built until 2002.
Near as I can tell, neither Biden nor the naval officer who showed him the place used the word "bunker." That was Clift's addition.

IIRC. Cheney was in the White House on 9/11 during the attacks.
Part of the time. Records show, however, that the phone lines in the PEOC kept cutting out, prompting a number of frustrated complaints from Bush, who was trying to stay in contact with Cheney. I haven't been able to find anything that states when he left the PEOC or where he went after that, but it is entirely plausible that once the threat from incoming aircraft was deemed to be over, they moved him to another location where communication lines were more reliable.

penchief
05-18-2009, 09:01 PM
Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?

I wouldn't trust Biden with anything sharper than a wet sponge.

Seemed to do okay with classified material as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for a lengthy term. It sounds more like the true believers are trying to create something out of nothing again.

alanm
05-18-2009, 09:40 PM
No, she does not have to be abroad. I don't know where you got that idea. Covert operations happen in country as well as out. And she was part of an ongoing fact-finding exercise that had already involved several trips out of country and was slated to involve more.
Negative. The CIA is not authorized to conduct investigations covert or otherwise within the United States. :shake:

Nightwish
05-18-2009, 10:05 PM
Negative. The CIA is not authorized to conduct investigations covert or otherwise within the United States. :shake:
Can you prove that? Whether they are authorized to, or not, they certainly do them.

blaise
05-18-2009, 10:21 PM
Can you prove that? Whether they are authorized to, or not, they certainly do them.

I've always heard that. That it would be FBI jurisdiction in the US, but I don't know if that's true for sure.

KC native
05-18-2009, 11:16 PM
I've always heard that. That it would be FBI jurisdiction in the US, but I don't know if that's true for sure.

I think the subject of the investigation matters. FBI for US citizens and CIA for non-citizens and international espionage. IIRC CIA can't investigate US citizens unless there is a compelling national security interest (spying for example).

patteeu
05-19-2009, 06:43 AM
You'd have to be pretty foolish, or a partisan hack to not see the motive. Of course, either one easily explains why you don't see it.

Yeah, because it couldn't possibly be that the motive was to protect the country or anything honorable like that. :rolleyes:

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 08:06 AM
Yeah, because it couldn't possibly be that the motive was to protect the country or anything honorable like that. :rolleyes:
I rest my case.

stevieray
05-19-2009, 08:20 AM
look out pat, he's gonna fit you for a scarlet letter...lol

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:07 AM
look out pat, he's gonna fit you for a scarlet letter...lol

I sat on a jury one time and after the prosecutor rested his case which included eyewitness testimony from three different witnesses, the defense attorney stood up and rested his case without introducing any evidence at all. Conviction was assured. Nightwish reminds me of that defense attorney.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 11:46 AM
At the moment, the answer is yes. But I'm open to reconsidering that if this isn't an isolated incident.

It's not an isolated incident - it's not an incident at all. Biden revealed nothing, classified or otherwise, to the media.

I'm not following this closely, but I wouldn't be any less suprised that this is nothing as I would that Biden had a gaffe.

I'm pretty sure it's nothing.

Seems it was nothing... that will teach me to appraoch a Donger thread without a massive dose of skepticism ever again.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/anatomy-of-a-myth.html?wprss=rss_blog

Anatomy of a Myth
Here's a classic example of an inaccurate story instantly gaining mythological status.

As Mark Silva blogs for Tribune, Washington yesterday was "abuzz with word that Vice President Joe Biden reportedly had disclosed the location of the undisclosed location that his predecessor, Dick Cheney, made mysteriously famous."

Consider the Fox News headline: Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker.

What set it all off was a blog post by Newsweek's Eleanor Clift: "Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year. He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."

...

The room in question was not Cheney's secret bunker.

As Silva writes: "Elizabeth Alexander, Biden's spokeswoman, offered this explanation this afternoon: 'What the vice president described in his comments was not - as some press reports have suggested - an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence, which he understood was frequently used by Vice President Cheney and his aides.

"'That workspace was converted into an upstairs guestroom when the Bidens moved into the residence,' Alexander said. 'There was no disclosure of classified information.'"

But too late -- Biden's latest "gaffe" has now entered the pop-culture bloodstream.

mlyonsd
05-19-2009, 11:48 AM
Who would describe an upstairs anything as a bunker?

What a DA.

Donger
05-19-2009, 11:54 AM
Seems it was nothing... that will teach me to appraoch a Donger thread without a massive dose of skepticism ever again.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/anatomy-of-a-myth.html?wprss=rss_blog

Anatomy of a Myth
Here's a classic example of an inaccurate story instantly gaining mythological status.

As Mark Silva blogs for Tribune, Washington yesterday was "abuzz with word that Vice President Joe Biden reportedly had disclosed the location of the undisclosed location that his predecessor, Dick Cheney, made mysteriously famous."

Consider the Fox News headline: Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker.

What set it all off was a blog post by Newsweek's Eleanor Clift: "Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year. He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."

...

The room in question was not Cheney's secret bunker.

As Silva writes: "Elizabeth Alexander, Biden's spokeswoman, offered this explanation this afternoon: 'What the vice president described in his comments was not - as some press reports have suggested - an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence, which he understood was frequently used by Vice President Cheney and his aides.

"'That workspace was converted into an upstairs guestroom when the Bidens moved into the residence,' Alexander said. 'There was no disclosure of classified information.'"

But too late -- Biden's latest "gaffe" has now entered the pop-culture bloodstream.

Hilarious. You merely accept Biden's spokeswoman's word on this?

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 11:59 AM
I sat on a jury one time and after the prosecutor rested his case which included eyewitness testimony from three different witnesses, the defense attorney stood up and rested his case without introducing any evidence at all. Conviction was assured. Nightwish reminds me of that defense attorney.
In this case, you pretty much made my case for me. You would have to be a completely daft buffoon and a tunnel-visioned partisan hack to believe that the outing of Valerie Plame was done "to protect the country." Clearly, you fit the bill on all counts.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 12:00 PM
Who would describe an upstairs anything as a bunker?
The only people who used the word "bunker" were Eleanor Clift and Fox. And even Clift didn't call it a "bunker," she called it a "bunker-like room." Only Fox specifically called it a bunker. We'll chalk this one up as yet another Fox gaffe (they rival Biden in that regard).

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:03 PM
Anyway, I assume that we all agree that it probably would have been best if Biden had not publicly mentioned this?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:23 PM
Hilarious. You merely accept Biden's spokeswoman's word on this?

No, this thread seems to raise lots of issues. This little blurb seems to clarify things pretty neatly. However, here's a way to test it out.

Where is the top secret bunker located?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Anyway, I assume that we all agree that it probably would have been best if Biden had not publicly mentioned this?
He shouldn't have mentioned the guest room of the VP's house?

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 12:30 PM
Anyway, I assume that we all agree that it probably would have been best if Biden had not publicly mentioned this?
Gotta have something to cling to, eh?

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:32 PM
No, this thread seems to raise lots of issues. This little blurb seems to clarify things pretty neatly. However, here's a way to test it out.

Where is the top secret bunker located?

I don't know if it is top secret. And, according to Clift, it is a "bunker-like" room with a massive steel door.

Where the room is located within the house? I don't know, nor do I really think it is relevant.

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:34 PM
He shouldn't have mentioned the guest room of the VP's house?

So, you are indeed accepting Biden's spokeswoman's word on this?

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:35 PM
Gotta have something to cling to, eh?

It has been the central issue throughout the thread, has it not? Biden's loose lips?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:35 PM
I don't know if it is top secret. And, according to Clift, it is a "bunker-like" room with a massive steel door.

Where the room is located within the house? I don't know, nor do I really think it is relevant.
Ahh, so you choose to answer a question I didn't ask.

What's new?

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:36 PM
Ahh, so you choose to answer a question I didn't ask.

What's new?

Huh? I did answer your question.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:37 PM
So, you are indeed accepting Biden's spokeswoman's word on this?

Aren't you?

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:38 PM
Aren't you?

No.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:38 PM
Huh? I did answer your question.

No, you assumed that my question needed correcting and then aswered that new question. You ignored mine.

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:39 PM
No, you assumed that my question needed correcting and then aswered that new question. You ignored mine.

No, I didn't. You asked: "Where is the top secret bunker located?"

I answered, "Where the room is located within the house? I don't know."

See?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:42 PM
No.

So you are still assuming the location of the room he mentioned was "the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker"?

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:43 PM
So you are still assuming the location of the room he mentioned was "the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker"?

Why do you think I assumed that to begin with?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:44 PM
No, I didn't. You asked: "Where is the top secret bunker located?"

I answered, "Where the room is located within the house? I don't know."

See?

I didn't ask you about the location of the room Biden reportedly described. I asked for the location of "the top secret bunker".

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:45 PM
I didn't ask you about the location of the room Biden reportedly described. I asked for the location of "the top secret bunker".

And I told you that I don't know if it is top secret.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:46 PM
Why do you think I assumed that to begin with?
Please don't continue to evade my questions.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:47 PM
And I told you that I don't know if it is top secret.

"it" is 2 different things. You continue to assume it's one thing, and I'm telling you I'm refering to another.

You ignore that fact, rinse, repeat.

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:49 PM
Please don't continue to evade my questions.

I'm not.

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:49 PM
"it" is 2 different things. You continue to assume it's one thing, and I'm telling you I'm refering to another.

You ignore that fact, rinse, repeat.

It's not relevant what you call the room.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 12:49 PM
Why do you think I assumed that to begin with?
Because you tried to circumvent any suggestions that it wasn't that room he was talking about, while defending the interpretation that he was talking about the secret underground bunker. If you didn't assume that's what he was talking about, you sure went to a lot of trouble to create the impression that you did, not the least of which was starting an entire thread about it.

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:51 PM
Because you tried to circumvent any suggestions that it wasn't that room he was talking about, while defending the interpretation that he was talking about the secret underground bunker. If you didn't assume that's what he was talking about, you sure went to a lot of trouble to create the impression that you did, not the least of which was starting an entire thread about it.

I don't know if this "room" is secret/classified or not. Why would you assume that I know otherwise?

It may be or it may not be. However, I think it is clear that it was previously undisclosed information.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 12:53 PM
And I told you that I don't know if it is top secret.
I believe his point is that if Biden had indeed revealed the location of the "top secret bunker" (as FOX implied), then you would be able to answer where the "top secret bunker" is located ... because it was revealed. If you can't answer where it is located, then its either because you've paid absolutely no attention, or because the location of the "top secret bunker" was never revealed, but instead the location of a different room - one which was neither secret, nor a bunker - was revealed.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:56 PM
It's not relevant what you call the room.

It is relevant that there might be 2 different rooms.

But for the sake of pinning you down, let me abandon my paraphrase and let's go with the wording of the article you quoted.

Do you *know* that the reported room in question is in fact "the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker"? And if not, where is "the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker" actually located?

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 12:57 PM
It may be or it may not be. However, I think it is clear that it was previously undisclosed information.
So are you moving the goalposts, then, from "should he be trusted with classified information," to "should he be trusted with undisclosed information?" Those are two completely different categories. And are you certain it previously undisclosed? Does the room not show up on floorplans? It seems that the interest in this room lies not in the fact that it exists, or even where it exists, but in what it once used for. In other words, it's a conversation piece, not a matter of national security.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 12:57 PM
However, I think it is clear that it was previously undisclosed information.

Ahhh, so your thread title should "Should Biden Be Trusted With Undisclosed Information?"

Damn typos.

Donger
05-19-2009, 12:58 PM
Do you *know* that the reported room in question is in fact "the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker"?

No, I do not. Neither do you.

And if not, where is "the secret location of the Vice Presidential bunker" actually located?

I don't know. Neither do you.

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:00 PM
Ahhh, so your thread title should "Should Biden Be Trusted With Undisclosed Information?"

Damn typos.

Not at all. It was a simple question based on Biden's propensity to be loose-lipped. No where have a stated that this location was classified in any way.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:02 PM
No, I do not. Neither do you.



I don't know. Neither do you.

So it's not accurate to claim that "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media" since we have no idea if it was classified intelligence.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:03 PM
Not at all. It was a simple question based on Biden's propensity to be loose-lipped. No where have a stated that this location was classified in any way.

It had nothing to do with "Classified Intelligence" mentioned in the article you quoted in whole titled "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media".

Got it.

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:06 PM
So it's not accurate to claim that "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media" since we have no idea if it was classified intelligence.

No, it isn't. Who wrote that?

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:08 PM
It had nothing to do with "Classified Intelligence" mentioned in the article you quoted in whole titled "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media".

Got it.

Nope. IIRC, even Fox' article states "potentially classified." Although their title says secret.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:10 PM
No, it isn't. Who wrote that?

I don't know, you quoted it in your opening paragraph, and forgot to clarify that the statement was false at any point until now.

Maybe you could talk to Donger about his thread title too. It's mysteriously similar in it's linkages to the false claims of the quoted article that encompasses the entire opening post.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:12 PM
Nope. IIRC, even Fox' article states "potentially classified." Although their title says secret.

Holy mysterious coincidences Batman!

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 01:14 PM
Not at all. It was a simple question based on Biden's propensity to be loose-lipped. No where have a stated that this location was classified in any way.
No, you just tried to color the question by posting an article that charged that he had revealed the location of the top secret VP bunker, but didn't feel it was important to offer a caveat that maybe this all much ado about nothing, as the blogger's interpretation of events and subject matter might not be the most reliable. I'm sure there was absolutely no desire on your part that we read the article and come to the same (apparently wrong) conclusion that classified information had, in fact, been revealed.

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:14 PM
I don't know, you quoted it in your opening paragraph, and forgot to clarify that the statement was false at any point until now.

Maybe you could talk to Donger about his thread title too. It's mysteriously similar in it's linkages to the false claims of the quoted article that encompasses the entire opening post.

Ah, I think I see your error. You are linking the other people's apparently incorrect assumptions (that this room was classified) with my question posed in the thread title.

Is that correct?

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:15 PM
No, you just tried to color the question by posting an article that charged that he had revealed the location of the top secret VP bunker, but didn't feel it was important to offer a caveat that maybe this all much ado about nothing, as the blogger's interpretation of events and subject matter might not be the most reliable. I'm sure there was absolutely no desire on your part that we read the article and come to the same (apparently wrong) conclusion that classified information had, in fact, been revealed.

None whatsoever.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 01:20 PM
None whatsoever.
Riiiight. :shake:

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:24 PM
Ah, I think I see your error. You are linking the other people's apparently incorrect assumptions (that this room was classified) with my question posed in the thread title.

Is that correct?

Yes, indeed. It was my error that you posted a false claim in your opening post and then built an entire thread question and discussion around that false reporting that you quoted exclusively.

I should have chosen a better article for you to post, one that wouldn't have caused me to jump to the unintended conclusion that the "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media" and thus calls into question whether or not Biden "Should ... Be Trusted With Classified Information".

My bad.

Oh, and lest I forget, I want to apologize for deliberately bolding the false statement made in the opening post. How was I to know that it would draw your attention to the false statement? Rookie mistake, and one I doubt I will make again.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 01:25 PM
Ah, I think I see your error. You are linking the other people's apparently incorrect assumptions (that this room was classified) with my question posed in the thread title.

Is that correct?
Well, if you weren't also assuming it was classified, based on the article, then it was doubly stupid - first, to emphasize "classified information" in your thread title, if, as you now claim, you hadn't believed that classified information had been revealed; and second, to expound upon that thread title with an article that alleges that classified information was revealed, without offering that the article's conclusions were incorrect.

If you did indeed believe that classified information had been revealed, then it wasn't stupid to phrase the thread title as you did and post the article without caveat - not stupid, just wrong.

But if, as you now claim, you didn't believe the conclusions of the article, then posting and titling it as you did was stupid on multiple levels.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:25 PM
Riiiight. :shake:

The last couple dozen or so posts on this thread says everything you need to know about Donger.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:27 PM
Well, if you weren't also assuming it was classified, based on the article, then it was doubly stupid - first, to emphasize "classified information" in your thread title, if, as you now claim, you hadn't believed that classified information had been revealed; and second, to expound upon that thread title with an article that alleges that classified information was revealed, without offering that the article's conclusions were incorrect.

If you did indeed believe that classified information had been revealed, then it wasn't stupid to phrase the thread title as you did and post the article without caveat - not stupid, just wrong.

But if, as you now claim, you didn't believe the conclusions of the article, then posting and titling it as you did was stupid on multiple levels.

This post doesn't have nearly enough snark given the sheer stupidity of Donger's response to the facts of this matter.

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:47 PM
Yes, indeed. It was my error that you posted a false claim in your opening post and then built an entire thread question and discussion around that false reporting that you quoted exclusively.

I should have chosen a better article for you to post, one that wouldn't have caused me to jump to the unintended conclusion that the "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media" and thus calls into question whether or not Biden "Should ... Be Trusted With Classified Information".

My bad.

Oh, and lest I forget, I want to apologize for deliberately bolding the false statement made in the opening post. How was I to know that it would draw your attention to the false statement? Rookie mistake, and one I doubt I will make again.

I see you are still making the error. Weird.

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:48 PM
Well, if you weren't also assuming it was classified, based on the article, then it was doubly stupid - first, to emphasize "classified information" in your thread title, if, as you now claim, you hadn't believed that classified information had been revealed; and second, to expound upon that thread title with an article that alleges that classified information was revealed, without offering that the article's conclusions were incorrect.

If you did indeed believe that classified information had been revealed, then it wasn't stupid to phrase the thread title as you did and post the article without caveat - not stupid, just wrong.

But if, as you now claim, you didn't believe the conclusions of the article, then posting and titling it as you did was stupid on multiple levels.

I see. We must be so rigid in our thinking that extrapolation is not permitted?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:48 PM
I see you are still making the error. Weird.

Weird indeed.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:50 PM
I see. We must be so rigid in our thinking that extrapolation is not permitted?

It's permitted, but just not of the sort that might suggest that Donger questions Biden being trusted with Classified Information because he disclosed some of it at a dinner party.

Donger
05-19-2009, 01:52 PM
It's permitted, but just not of the sort that might suggest that Donger questions Biden being trusted with Classified Information because he disclosed some of it at a dinner party.

He disclosed classified information?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 01:58 PM
He disclosed classified information?

One extrapolation that is not permitted is that Donger is assuming that "he disclosed classified information" from the opening post.

Donger
05-19-2009, 02:00 PM
One extrapolation that is not permitted is that Donger is assuming that "he disclosed classified information" from the opening post.

I wasn't aware that I had made that extrapolation. Can you show me where I did so, if that is what you are asserting?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 02:21 PM
I wasn't aware that I had made that extrapolation. Can you show me where I did so, if that is what you are asserting?

Oh, let's not start being confused about these fine points of detail!

You did not make any such extrapolation.

In fact, I explicitly said that it is not permitted for anyone to extroplate from the opening post that Donger is assuming that "he disclosed classified information".

That extrapolation is not permitted.

Donger
05-19-2009, 02:25 PM
You did not make any such extrapolation.

Thank you for your honesty and admission of error.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 02:32 PM
Thank you for your honesty and admission of error.

Yes, indeed. It was my error that you posted a false claim in your opening post and then built an entire thread question and discussion around that false reporting that you quoted exclusively.

I should have chosen a better article for you to post, one that wouldn't have caused me to jump to the unintended conclusion that the "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media" and thus calls into question whether or not Biden "Should ... Be Trusted With Classified Information".

My bad.

Oh, and lest I forget, I want to apologize for deliberately bolding the false statement made in the opening post. How was I to know that it would draw your attention to the false statement? Rookie mistake, and one I doubt I will make again.

Donger
05-19-2009, 02:34 PM
Yes, indeed. It was my error that you posted a false claim in your opening post and then built an entire thread question and discussion around that false reporting that you quoted exclusively.

I should have chosen a better article for you to post, one that wouldn't have caused me to jump to the unintended conclusion that the "Vice President Burbles Classified Intelligence to the Media" and thus calls into question whether or not Biden "Should ... Be Trusted With Classified Information".

My bad.

Oh, and lest I forget, I want to apologize for deliberately bolding the false statement made in the opening post. How was I to know that it would draw your attention to the false statement? Rookie mistake, and one I doubt I will make again.

I only bolded it because it was/is the title of the article. You think that I did so for some other reason?

You are full of assumptions, it seems.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 03:07 PM
I only bolded it because it was/is the title of the article. You think that I did so for some other reason?

You are full of assumptions, it seems.

Yes, indeed. I assumed that search of your recent new threads would reveal that when you start a thread with an article, that you bold the article's title every time.

Instead I found that you appear to always remove the article's title entirely.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207724
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207609
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=157307
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207018
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207032
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=206415
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205998
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205879
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196113
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198059
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198229
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198144
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198095
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=197310
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196607
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196597
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196293
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196297
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196213

That's odd.

But hey, this is only every thread you started in DC with an article as an opening post dating back to Nov 2008. I'm sure somewhere, you might find one example of your including an article title at all, let alone bolded.

I'm sure this is another example of a forbidden extrapolation. I stand corrected in advance.

Donger
05-19-2009, 03:09 PM
Yes, indeed. I assumed that search of your recent new threads would reveal that when you start a thread with an article, that you bold the article's title every time.

Instead I found that you appear to always remove the article's title entirely.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207724
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207609
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=157307
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207018
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207032
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=206415
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205998
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205879
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196113
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198059
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198229
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198144
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198095
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=197310
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196607
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196597
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196293
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196297
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196213

That's odd.

But hey, this is only every thread you started in DC with an article as an opening post dating back to Nov 2008. I'm sure somewhere, you might find one example of your including an article title at all, let alone bolded.

I'm sure this is another example of a forbidden extrapolation. I stand corrected in advance.

Heh. You've got me...

Oh wait a moment. You don't.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 03:20 PM
Heh. You've got me...

Oh wait a moment. You don't.

Indeed.

Donger
05-19-2009, 03:21 PM
Indeed.

I'll just allow you to flail around a little bit more before I clue you in as to where you erred (again).

jAZ
05-19-2009, 03:24 PM
I'll just allow you to flail around a little bit more before I clue you in as to where you erred (again).

I extrapolated.

Donger
05-19-2009, 03:26 PM
I extrapolated.

Perhaps someone could clue jAZ in regarding the difference between this thread and the ones he so laboriously listed?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 03:36 PM
Perhaps someone could clue jAZ in regarding the difference between this thread and the ones he so laboriously listed?

The difference is that I should never extrapolate in any way with this thread.

jAZ
05-19-2009, 03:37 PM
The difference is that I should never extrapolate in any way with this thread.

Oh wait! I'm on Punk'd and this was all a big prank!

Ashton!!!!1!qw!z

Donger
05-19-2009, 03:38 PM
The difference is that I should never extrapolate in any way with this thread.

I'll throw you a life line: What were you trying to say in your post #189? Were you attempting to make some kind of point? If so, what was it?

jAZ
05-19-2009, 04:02 PM
I'll throw you a life line: What were you trying to say in your post #189? Were you attempting to make some kind of point? If so, what was it?

I could find no history of you bolding the article title when you post articles. In fact, it appears that you removed the article title from the body of the post every time.

Donger
05-19-2009, 04:08 PM
I could find no history of you bolding the article title when you post articles. In fact, it appears that you removed the article title from the body of the post every time.

What is the difference between this thread and the ones you listed?

Dr. Van Halen
05-19-2009, 04:17 PM
I find it impressive that the Republican Party, in the state of disarray that it is in, is still able to successfully negatively label potential future Democratic candidates. The are feeding the machine that Vice-President Biden is not a wise person -- and laying the foundation that he would not be a good candidate to replace Obama in 2016 (if it comes to that). That's just smart, politically.

I am always amazed that the Democrats never really try to do more of this. They would be wise to keep making Palin looking like a goof and to start making people have second thoughts about trusting someone like Jeb Bush.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 05:13 PM
I see. We must be so rigid in our thinking that extrapolation is not permitted?
You and I both know what you had hoped that people would extrapolate from both the article you posted and from your thread title. Now that the myth is debunked, you're trying to backtrack and play innocent, and that attempt is positively cartoonish. The dishonesty you're showing in this thread is reaching unparalleled heights. I'm not going to beat around the bush, I'm going to come right out and say it - if you try to claim that you didn't assume he had leaked classified information, and that you assumed that the rest of us should reach the same conclusion from the article you posted, you're lying through your freakin' teeth. I'd always pegged you for a wingnut, but until now, I hadn't pegged for an out and out liar. Perhaps I should reassess my opinion of you.

Donger
05-19-2009, 05:15 PM
You and I both know what you had hoped that people would extrapolate from both the article you posted and from your thread title. Now that the myth is debunked, you're trying to backtrack and play innocent, and that attempt is positively cartoonish. The dishonesty you're showing in this thread is reaching unparalleled heights. I'm not going to beat around the bush, I'm going to come right out and say it - if you try to claim that you didn't assume he had leaked classified information, and that you assumed that the rest of us should reach the same conclusion from the article you posted, you're lying through your freakin' teeth. I'd always pegged you for a wingnut, but until now, I hadn't pegged for an out and out liar. Perhaps I should reassess my opinion of you.

Think what you will.

Nightwish
05-19-2009, 05:15 PM
I am always amazed that the Democrats never really try to do more of this. They would be wise to keep making Palin looking like a goof and to start making people have second thoughts about trusting someone like Jeb Bush.
They don't really need to do either, in my opinion. Palin does a good enough job on her own making herself look like a goof, and the name Bush is pretty much unelectable anymore.

Dr. Van Halen
05-19-2009, 08:07 PM
They don't really need to do either, in my opinion. Palin does a good enough job on her own making herself look like a goof, and the name Bush is pretty much unelectable anymore.

Bad examples. But they have a plan. Right now I'm sure they are trying to figure out how to get some sort of ultra-conservative social legislation on the ballot for Nov. of 2010. Something Bible-ish to get the rural population out to vote.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 08:48 PM
I find it impressive that the Republican Party, in the state of disarray that it is in, is still able to successfully negatively label potential future Democratic candidates. The are feeding the machine that Vice-President Biden is not a wise person -- and laying the foundation that he would not be a good candidate to replace Obama in 2016 (if it comes to that). That's just smart, politically.

I am always amazed that the Democrats never really try to do more of this. They would be wise to keep making Palin looking like a goof and to start making people have second thoughts about trusting someone like Jeb Bush.

Huh? Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Trent Lott, and, as you mentioned, Sarah Palin.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 08:50 PM
Perhaps someone could clue jAZ in regarding the difference between this thread and the ones he so laboriously listed?

?

orange
05-19-2009, 08:58 PM
Huh? Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Trent Lott, and, as you mentioned, Sarah Palin.

Sorry, but Trent Lott was expunged by Republicans, not Democrats. Bush wanted a more pliant majority leader.


And Newt Gingrich was run off by his own party after losing the midterms by focusing on impeachment.


No one but himself for George Allen to blame for calling a brown-skinned cameraman macaca.

InChiefsHell
05-20-2009, 05:46 AM
I hate premature extrapolation...

patteeu
05-20-2009, 05:49 AM
Sorry, but Trent Lott was expunged by Republicans, not Democrats. Bush wanted a more pliant majority leader.


And Newt Gingrich was run off by his own party after losing the midterms by focusing on impeachment.


No one but himself for George Allen to blame for calling a brown-skinned cameraman macaca.

Similarly, Joe Biden has no one but himself to blame for getting himself into hot water with his constant gaffes.

None of your "buts" are very meaningful. We all know that the Republicans are more willing to turn on their own than democrats are, but they do it because demagogic democrats demonize people like Lott, Gingrich, and Allen in order to falsely paint the Republican party as racist, insensitive, angry, heartless, etc.

Nightwish
05-20-2009, 08:54 AM
Similarly, Joe Biden has no one but himself to blame for getting himself into hot water with his constant gaffes.

None of your "buts" are very meaningful. We all know that the Republicans are more willing to turn on their own than democrats are, but they do it because demagogic democrats demonize people like Lott, Gingrich, and Allen in order to falsely paint the Republican party as racist, insensitive, angry, heartless, etc.
ROFL

Donger
05-20-2009, 09:07 AM
?

Seriously?

patteeu
05-20-2009, 09:24 AM
Seriously?

I'm guessing that the difference between this thread and the list of threads that jAZ posted is the "?" in the title.

Donger
05-20-2009, 09:43 AM
I'm guessing that the difference between this thread and the list of threads that jAZ posted is the "?" in the title.

Close, but not quite. In all the threads that jAZ listed, I used the headline of the article as the title of the thread I created. Therefore, there was no need to write the headline again, let alone bold it.

In this thread, I posed a question in the thread title not an article headline. Therefore, I included the article's headline in the OP and bolded it.

patteeu
05-20-2009, 10:31 AM
Close, but not quite. In all the threads that jAZ listed, I used the headline of the article as the title of the thread I created. Therefore, there was no need to write the headline again, let alone bold it.

In this thread, I posed a question in the thread title not an article headline. Therefore, I included the article's headline in the OP and bolded it.

:thumb:

jAZ
05-20-2009, 02:47 PM
Close, but not quite. In all the threads that jAZ listed, I used the headline of the article as the title of the thread I created. Therefore, there was no need to write the headline again, let alone bold it.

In this thread, I posed a question in the thread title not an article headline. Therefore, I included the article's headline in the OP and bolded it.

I stand corrected.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5719726&postcount=33

My error doesn't change the fact that you are lying through your teeth and the real question I have is why?

Donger
05-20-2009, 02:55 PM
I stand corrected.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5719726&postcount=33

My error doesn't change the fact that you are lying through your teeth and the real question I have is why?

I appreciate that. What am I lying through my teeth about?

jAZ
05-20-2009, 03:01 PM
I appreciate that. What am I lying through my teeth about?
As Nightwish said so well...
You and I both know what you had hoped that people would extrapolate from both the article you posted and from your thread title. Now that the myth is debunked, you're trying to backtrack and play innocent, and that attempt is positively cartoonish. The dishonesty you're showing in this thread is reaching unparalleled heights. I'm not going to beat around the bush, I'm going to come right out and say it - if you try to claim that you didn't assume he had leaked classified information, and that you assumed that the rest of us should reach the same conclusion from the article you posted, you're lying through your freakin' teeth. I'd always pegged you for a wingnut, but until now, I hadn't pegged for an out and out liar. Perhaps I should reassess my opinion of you.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:04 PM
As Nightwish said so well...

As I said to him, think what you will.

orange
05-20-2009, 03:21 PM
As I said to him, think what you will.

How about getting specific for a change. You ask:

Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?

My answer: Yes. He has disclosed NO classified information of any kind. This item is about something that is not classified, trivial, and obsolete. The fact that writers (I include Clift) extrapolated to false conclusions based on their own knowledge of prior rumors is not Biden's fault. In his years on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on Technology Terrorism and Homeland Security he has divulged no secrets.* The fact that right-wingers are set to pounce on anything no matter how innocuous to trump up into a call for his "stepping aside, perhaps for "health reasons"" is also not his fault and reeks of desperation by the forlorn hopists of the GOP.


Now then, answer your own question.


*(FOX has provided a helpful page of his gaffes if you want to check that out http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/bidens-list-political-blunders/)

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:24 PM
How about getting specific for a change. You ask:

Should Biden Be Trusted With Classified Information?

My answer: Yes. He has disclosed NO classified information of any kind. This item is about something that is not classified, trivial, and obsolete. The fact that writers (I include Clift) extrapolated to false conclusions based on their own knowledge of prior rumors is not Biden's fault. In his years on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on Technology Terrorism and Homeland Security he has divulged no secrets. (FOX has provided a helpful page of his gaffes if you want to check that out http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/bidens-list-political-blunders/)


Now then, answer your own question.

I honestly don't know. I'd like to think that he should be, but his propensity for being somewhat loose with his tongue gives me pause. Also, he's never been VPOTUS before.

orange
05-20-2009, 03:28 PM
I honestly don't know. I'd like to think that he should be, but his propensity for being somewhat loose with his tongue gives me pause. Also, he's never been VPOTUS before.

I tried to rep you again for your straight answer but I've got to "spread it around" first.

I do wish you would learn to not quote me for a minute or two - I like to dress up my posts. ;)

orange
05-20-2009, 03:33 PM
As for Biden's tongue, he does have a fully operational gaffematic attached, but none of his errors are anything of consequence. They tend to come when he's in Campaigning Mode, not during serious work.