Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon May 18, 2009 09:04 AM
from the so-it's-the-basement-then dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Fox News reports that 'Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, may have finally outdone himself, divulging potentially classified information meant to save the life of a sitting vice president.' According to the report, while recently attending the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, an annual event where powerful politicians and media elite get a chance to cozy up to one another, Biden told his dinnermates about the existence of a secret bunker under the old US Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president. Although earlier reports had placed the Vice-Presidential hide-out in a highly secure complex of buildings inside Raven Rock Mountain near Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania, Fox News reports that the Naval Observatory bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks. According to the report, Biden 'said a 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.' According to Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor '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.' 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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:07AM (#27995709)

    Sounds like one of those open secrets like "When did the shuttle launch?"

    "Sorry, it's carrying a classified military payload and we cannot comment on it."

    "I heard a loud rumble at 2pm and saw a pillar of fire rising from the Cape. Was that the shuttle?"

    "We can neither confirm nor deny."

    "Then I'll post it on the internet."

    "ZOMG!!!! Teh tarrists know everything now! Throw this man in prison!"

    • by shaka999 (335100) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:15AM (#27995877)

      Doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have discussed it at all.

      I'm wondering when he'll give away something that actually matters.

      • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:21AM (#27995975)
        You mean kind of like exposing the identity of an active duty undercover CIA agent [wikipedia.org]? He's got a long way to go before he can top that one.
        • How about these? (Score:5, Informative)

          Agents that tortured [firedoglake.com]

          Don't hear too many protests about that one. And of course, there's the famous outing of Air America, and its successor in Latin America. You have Dianne Feinstein confirming covert American operations in Pakistan, and so on.

          Pretty much, Democrats don't really care about the secrecy of anything in the CIA, unless it suits them. 99% of the outrage over Valerie Plame's outing is obviously and utterly false.

          • by Lensman (21605) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:50AM (#27996623) Homepage

            Scooter was charged, and convicted... [wikipedia.org] He just got his sentence commuted by Bush [wikipedia.org] (Heck of a job Scootie)

            • by moeinvt (851793) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:58AM (#27996787)

              "Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts: one count of obstruction of justice two counts of making false statements when interviewed by agents of the FBI, and two counts of perjury in his testimony before the grand jury."

              I always wondered why it wasn't a crime to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent on active duty. If it IS a crime, why wasn't Libby or anyone else ever charged with that offense?

              • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:34AM (#27997455) Homepage

                Did you bother reading your citation?

                It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him: two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators.

                All the convictions were a la Martha Stewart (giving false information during an investigation). Not for some "crime" that was never established...

                The crime wasn't established because Libby screwed with the investigation. That was the entire point of the matter. Did you not pay any attention to Patrick Fitzgerald's findings? Or are you really trying to spout off talking points that were discredited hours after they came out?

              • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:39AM (#27997569) Homepage

                Yeah, yeah, and Al Capone wasn't really a mobster, he merely failed to disclose certain things on his tax returns that may or may not have had anything to do with crime, we can't really say.

                What part of "Libbie was convicted of perjury," as in convicted of lying to conceal the truth, makes you think the truth got out?

                • by Jhon (241832) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:53AM (#27997869) Homepage Journal

                  What part of "Libbie was convicted of perjury," as in convicted of lying to conceal the truth, makes you think the truth got out?

                  In court? The truth that Libbie lied "got out". Since there was no proof that he knew who leaked Plame's name, it obviously didn't come out. It's not unreasonable that this "truth" didn't exist in the Libbie case.

                  However, in 2006, THAT truth DID come out. It was Armitage. He came forward. Novak confirmed.

                  Per Novak:

                  [They] cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

                  And this:

                  Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source

                  Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?

                  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday May 18 2009, @11:16AM (#27998331) Homepage

                    In court? The truth that Libbie lied "got out". Since there was no proof that he knew who leaked Plame's name, it obviously didn't come out.

                    I'm obviously talking about the truth that the lie was intended to cover. Yes there's no proof he knew who leaked, just as there's no proof Al Capon was a mobster. And indeed, maybe Al was truly just a tax cheat.

                    The point is -- when the only facts you have are the sworn statements of those involved, and those involved are known to be lying, believing that the version of "truth" these known liars converge upon is actually the truth is ridiculously naive.

                    [They] cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson.

                    Yeah, we just had high-level administration officials lying to investigators and the court to cover up the truth. What truth? We don't know. Therefore this group of powerful liars could not possibly have been engaged in conspiracy.

                    That's logic.

                    Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?

                    Indeed, why not? For all we know the reason it took so long is because that's how long it took for them to get their story straight in a way that didn't leave anyone (but Libby) swinging in the wind.

          • by afidel (530433) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:52AM (#27996671)
            The problem with revealing even a PAST CIA agent's identity is that every cover company they worked for and every other agent they had contact with is now exposed as well and some of THEM may be still active. It's seriously one of the few areas where 'but national security' is actually true, unlike stupid shit like taking a picture of a building which has been photographed millions of times before.
            • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:04AM (#27996909)
              Those things are all important, but even though she was currently working at Langley, she was still considered as an undercover operative. From the wiki I linked to above:

              On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA, stating that she was undercover and that her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

              Note that at the time she was exposed, she was still considered an undercover operative. And here's another source [nytimes.com]:

              ...whether administration officials had illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer.

              She was still active duty, she could have gone undercover when a new assignment came up, and Cheney and Co. leaked her name anyway to the press for political purposes. And yet somehow my comment above is getting flamebait and troll mods for pointing this out. The words "double standards" come to mind. When Republicans lie and cheat and steal, it's for our protection, when Democrats do it, it's because they're traitorous liberals who hate america. Hypocrisy.

              • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:31AM (#27997413)

                The words "double standards" come to mind. When Republicans lie and cheat and steal, it's for our protection, when Democrats do it, it's because they're traitorous liberals who hate america. Hypocrisy.

                Both sides will lie, cheat, and steal anything they can to make their side look good and the other side look bad. Neither party has a monopoly on douchebaggery.

          • by hey! (33014) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:59AM (#27996797) Homepage Journal

            Actually, she was an active duty agent. She just wasn't stationed overseas. She has "non official cover" (that is she used her own name and identity while working for a front company). In that capacity she traveled overseas and met with foreign intelligence "assets".

            Under the circumstances, she was not put in immediate danger, but anybody overseas she met with was placed in grave danger.

            The reason there were no convictions was that Scooter took the fall for obstruction and perjury. Bush commuted his sentence before he spilled his guts.

                  • by hey! (33014) on Monday May 18 2009, @04:05PM (#28003107) Homepage Journal

                    A non-story?

                    Only if you believe everything Armitage says here, some of which is very self-serving.

                    The claim that Wilson was blabbing this about is ridiculous. First of all, he knew damn well his wife wasn't an analyst. She was an operative. Claiming she was an analyst was as good as telling the world she was an operative, because she worked for a front company. He'd be outing her, and he knew damn well that would be a crime with dozens of witnesses: everyone he told.

                    The "analyst" bit was what got Armitage off here. He's claiming to be repeating scuttlebutt that originated with Wilson. It couldn't have. There's no documented evidence that anybody without a clearance knew her status until the conversation you cite. However making her an "analyst" makes it should like you're repeating poorly sourced scuttlebutt. Since there was no chance this originated with Wilson, it originated with somebody with access to classified information, and it was carefully engineered to be a plausible rumor that Armitage could repeat without getting into too much trouble. Armitage could be the source, or he could be a catspaw, but somebody set her up.

                    As for it being a non-story, she was working on getting information on the Iranian nuclear program. That remains a serious international issue and US national security concern today. So I'd call interfering with that a "story".

          • by paiute (550198) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:37AM (#27997531)

            "He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

            See, this is the part I don't get. I don't style myself an intellectual pundit with my finger on the pulse of Washington, but Good God! What kind of "difficulties" does Novak think known CIA operatives are subject to in other countries? Unable to get good wifi spots? Not able to attract the attention of waiters? I'm thinking...hmmm...it'll come to me... oh yeah. The people who hate us might try to kill her and every asset she ever ran. And I don't even get paid to put in the maybe ten microseconds of logic it took to get there.

            If Sam Adams was alive, he would come in the dead of night for Mr. Novak - with the Sons of Liberty, some pitch, some feathers, and a rail.

      • by jgtg32a (1173373) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:34AM (#27996281)
        Granted he didn't give anything useful away. I figured the only reason anyone cared is because Biden is a senile old man and its always fun to hear them say things they aren't suppose to.
      • by hey! (33014) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:42AM (#27996433) Homepage Journal

        I won't disagree he needs to control his mouth better. His flu remarks were just plain dumb.

        On the other hand, this is no big deal. If somebody wants to target ICBMs to take out the US government's top echelon, they aren't going to skip the old naval observatory because "oh, the veep is in his secret bunker". In any case, the Bush administration pretty much spilled the beans when they had the veep's residence obscured in public imagery data sets.

      • by RingDev (879105) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:47AM (#27996573) Homepage Journal

        Ask the pizza delivery drivers.

        No joke, I was assigned to a tactical response unit while I was in the Marine Corps. I can't discuss much of the specifics, but we would get locked up in a highly secure facility just out side of Washington in case of an "emergency". The existence of the facility at the time was considered top secret.

        Unfortunately, the local staff would often order out for food, and have it delivered.

        So the secret wasn't all that secret, and is even less so now, seeing as how /. is posting about it.

        -Rick

          • Re:Semper Infidelis (Score:5, Interesting)

            by RingDev (879105) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:30AM (#27997387) Homepage Journal

            I ate that apple. Some of the best and worst times of my life. Some of the best and worst of society are contained in there.

            Now, what exactly did I give away? That I was assigned to a unit? That we would be stationed at a facility? That's hardly telling anything of merit.

            The facility had been (when I was in) top secret. While I was in the Corps, I was aware of civilian delivers to the facility. Since I have left active duty, I have learned that the facility I would have been working at has been declassified.

            zOMG, string me up like a traitor for leaking vague references to a facility that is no longer top secret and has had it's location plastered on the front page of /.

            I tell ya what, go down to your local recruiter and join up. You appear to hold Marines in quite high regard, so why not be all you can be? I can assure you, surviving even just a 4 year tour will be far more rewarding to your life than any amount of keyboard jockeying.

            -Rick

          • Re:Genius (Score:5, Funny)

            by wisty (1335733) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:23AM (#27997259)

            Maybe it's just a broom closet. The secret service just tell Biden to practice "covering" in there whenever they need a break from him.

    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:35AM (#27997479) Homepage

      So let me get this straight...

      The "Undisclosed Location" where we hide the Vice President in times of national emergency when we fear for their safety and the line of succession to lead the nation...

      is underneath the "Disclosed Location" where the Vice Presidents lived since the 70s??

      That'd be like Batman hiding his Secret Bat Lair underneath Wayne Manor, if Batman had already fully disclosed that Batman is Bruce Wayne.

      I mean I guess it's one of those "They'd never think to look for him there!" just-crazy-enough-to-work kinds of plans... Or is it just-crazy-enough-to-fail-hilariously?

  • by m0s3m8n (1335861) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:09AM (#27995761)
    Ahh, the Dem. version of Dan Quayle.
    • by JustASlashDotGuy (905444) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:23AM (#27996029)

      Ahh, the Dem. version of Dan Quayle.

      Unfortunately, Biden is making Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar. Will someone please buy that man a muzzle.
      I'm truly at a lose when I try to think of anything that man has brought to the ticket. He's been an embarrassment for Obama.

      On the bright side, if we let him keep talking, perhaps we will all be told more about what happens at Area 51.

      • by larry bagina (561269) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:26AM (#27996091) Journal
        It's assasination insurance.
      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:50AM (#27996621)

        Seriously. Obama had the diversity thing down. That's good, however there are many voters who that sort of thing worries. They find comfort in "experience". in politics, that means an old white guy. You can argue they shouldn't care, but they do. Yes, even democrats. That's what Biden brought. He also brought connections to special interest groups, who are powerful in terms of elections. Obama himself didn't have many of those connections, since he is a young politician. Biden on the other hand is deep within Hollywood's pocket, among others.

        Now I'm sure to you these aren't bonus points and I'm not saying they are for me either. Just saying that's what they brought to Obama. McCain had the experienced, old white guy thing down. That was one thing he could sell really strongly: "I know about politics and war. I've been there, and done that. You can trust me to make decisions from a position of experience." Biden was to help balance that.

        Same deal with Palin on the other side. McCain brought her in for two reasons:

        1) To solidify the fundy base. The fundies were none too happy with his nomination. They wanted another fundy president and deluded themselves in to thinking the nation would go with it. So there was a real risk of losing them. No, they wouldn't vote for Obama, but they might get disenfranchised and not vote. Palin cemented them in for McCain.

        2) To get the diversity vote. A young, and rather attractive, female. Goes well to deal with Obama's diversity. This is doubly true since there were women's groups that were bitter about Clinton losing. Stupid, but they really did vote for McCain because he chose a female vice president.

        Of course what McCain didn't count on was that she was as big a nit wit as she is, and that the press would give her so much play. Normally vice presidents are rather non-entities. They are picked for the reason I stated: To make the president look good in various ways with various groups. However the media really let Palin have it and gave her a chance to sit her foot firmly in her mouth. Gave plenty of people pause when they realized how crazy she was.

        • He also brought connections to special interest groups, who are powerful in terms of elections. Obama himself didn't have many of those connections, since he is a young politician. [Politician I don't like] on the other hand is deep within Hollywood's pocket, among others.

          Can we get off the old saw about corruption in politics? Biden is one of the poorest members of the senate despite being one of the most senior. Obama has more money.

          The Hollywood part is amusing. Delaware politics revolves more around the disposal of chicken shit than it does around Hollywood. The last movie of any significance filmed in Delaware was Fight Club.

          Biden is the Democratic senior member of the foreign relations committee. He presided over Bill Clinton's foreign policy, which has been widely seen as more successful than Dubya, who hadn't even been to Europe before he became president (why do we need "experience" in quotes?)

          • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Monday May 18 2009, @10:42AM (#27997631) Homepage

            Just remember: any self-respecting king has to have a court jester. Obama's got Biden, Bush 41 had Quayle, and Cheney had Bush 43.

            Obama is a court jestor. You can watch his teleprompter ping pong, count the urrr's and ummm's, watch him completely lose the ability to talk when the teleprompters go out, etc.

            No, that would be Bush. Obama is a professional orator (psst, that means he's dun got trainin' in how to speachify). The whole teleprompter thing is the Republicans attempting to attack people on their strengths. They've done this for decades now.

            Obama's a phenomenal speaker, the Republicans have jack and crap for charisma this generation. So, attack him on that, make him look like he's "cheating" or really NOT a good speaker, and hope the public are willing to believe your talking points over their lying eyes.

            Fortunately they're so far out in the wilderness now (they're even attacking Obama's little dog, too) that this kinda thing isn't working. People are tired of National Enquirer style politics.

    • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:33AM (#27996265) Homepage Journal

      >>Ahh, the Dem. version of Dan Quayle.

      Basically. While the sympathetic media reports them as "gaffes" if any Republican said half the stuff that he did, he'd have a lower reputation than Quayle.

      Seriously, google "Biden Gaffes".

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 (160512) <rockchalk88@yahoo.com> on Monday May 18 2009, @09:13AM (#27995829) Homepage

    Does anyone currently have the job of following Biden around at all times with a tape player handy, ready to play the "Whaaah whaaah whhhaaaaaaahhhhh" sound whenever it's needed? Because that sounds like it would be a sweet gig.

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by revscat (35618) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:17AM (#27995903) Homepage Journal
    Even if this is accurate -- which, given the source, I kinda doubt -- so freakin' what? Looks like /. is taking a page from the Fark playbook and posting flamebait worthy articles to drum up page clicks.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:23AM (#27996033) Journal

    Somehow it's a major gaffe and security lapse to let on that there's a secure bunker under the official residence of the Vice President? I think if you'd asked me if there was one before reading this story, I'd just have assumed so.

    Sorry, this is making a story out of basically nothing. I think Biden's kind of a putz sometimes, but this is just kinda bullshitty.

  • by mikemulvaney (24879) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:28AM (#27996137)

    It should read, "Biden reveals location of Vice President's House". I lived in DC for a long time, and I'm pretty sure every one there knows where the Vice President lives.

    This is the worst article I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Not only is the content nonsensical, most of the submission is copied directly from the foxnews "article", but it doesn't have quotes around the copied text.

  • Stupid article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DnemoniX (31461) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:32AM (#27996237)

    Excuse me, but it isn't a secret when EVERYONE already knows guys. If you didn't know, you must have missed the news regarding all of the construction at the house when Dick was in residence. All of the neighbors complaining about the round the clock heavy equipment use making the ground shake. That is when everyone was saying that they were probably expanding/renovating the bunker under the house.

    But hey, keep the non-news coming.

  • Open Secret is right (Score:5, Informative)

    by gfineman (742243) on Monday May 18 2009, @09:32AM (#27996241)
    Open secret is right. I live about three quarters of a mile from the Naval Observatory and the government had to pay for damage, caused by the blasting, to the foundations of nearby residences (including at least one embassy). The local community governmental organization gathered and disseminated the procedures for getting such payments. Why is this considered news and even in Slashdot?
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2559617.stm [bbc.co.uk] Seems the BBC revealed the "secret" location long before Biden. Yet another Fox news lets make a story out of nothing event.
  • by dtmos (447842) * on Monday May 18 2009, @10:06AM (#27996953)

    The location and description of this bunker is in Bob Woodward's latest book, The War Within [bobwoodward.com] , published by Simon & Schuster on 8 September 2008.

          • by ArcherB (796902) on Monday May 18 2009, @11:23AM (#27998485) Journal

            Yes, she did in fact say it.

            Stealing link from AC above:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg [youtube.com]

            No, she didn't. The GP falsely stated that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Wasilla. Palin never said this. In your link, she never said that. She's never said that she could Russia from her house. She did say that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska, and it turns out that is true.

            However, in your link, Palin did say that Alaska sits between Russia and Canada. Now, I don't know how well you know your geography, but if you wander over a globe, map or even launch Google Earth, you will see that Alaska really does sit between Canada and Russia.

            It's sad when someone says something that is 100% true (and not classified), and gets ridiculed for it by the ignorant.