Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker 550
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."
Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And who gave away the ID of that "undercover" agent? If you are implying that Cheney had anything to do with it, you are dead wrong. It was Richard Armitage. Although I understand how tempting it is to pin this on the big bad Dick and his staff, it's simply not true. It does make me wonder, however, of the bad stuff that gets falsely pinned to Dick, if the guy is really that bad at all. If people like you falsely accuse Cheney of this well after it has been proven to be false, how much other stuff out there is being pinned on the Bush administration that it had nothing to do with. I could list several more examples, like "Bush banned stem cell research" but don't want to get further off topic. I feel this is worth pointing out as a fine example of "if you repeat a lie over and over, it becomes true."
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Informative)
There are such things as coincidences, but I wouldn't say the link to the Bush administration has been "proven false" or even much diminished. Due to Libby's perjury and further pardoning by GWB we will probably never have good evidence for either scenario.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
These are private security contractors. Mercenaries. They were paid a fee; they were not protected as an undercover agent is and they certainly did not have Non-Official Cover status. And there's no evidence that a "Democrat" blew their covers. In fact, it sounds like the CIA leaked their names themselves.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Informative)
Scooter was charged, and convicted... [wikipedia.org] He just got his sentence commuted by Bush [wikipedia.org] (Heck of a job Scootie)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you bother reading your citation?
All the convictions were a la Martha Stewart (giving false information during an investigation). Not for some "crime" that was never established...
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Informative)
Did you bother reading your citation?
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?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
And this:
Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Funny)
Giving false information during a Federal investigation. If you ever do it, expect to go to jail for some time --- and deserve it. Doesn't matter if you're even the target of the investigation.
Now, if you are one of the targets of the investigation and you lie to investigators to cover your tracks and impede the investigation... then expect to be convicted on all counts and really deserve it.
(Incidentally, every time a Republican defends Scooter Libby, a Democratic Congressman somewhere wins a special election :)
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Informative)
"Giving false information during a Federal investigation. If you ever do it, expect to go to jail for some time --- and deserve it."
Except in the case of sexual harassment right? Then you get to stay president..
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Insightful)
When is Bill Clinton getting out of jail again for lying in a federal investigation?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
"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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again it shows that the smart thing to do (especially if you ARE innocent) is if the feds/cops come around asking questions. Shut up, and lawyer up.
You know...it has always bothered me that the cops can lie to you with impunity, yet you get in trouble if you lie to them?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that at the time she was exposed, she was still considered an undercover operative. And here's another source [nytimes.com]:
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.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Real Tragedy: Black Racism Against non-Blacks (Score:5, Informative)
I think you may want to look into look into the percentage of African Americans that vote Democrat regardless of race.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given a choice between two (more or less) identical Democrats
Ah yes. And thus does our progress towards completely losing our ability to distinguish continue apace.
Re:Real Tragedy: Black Racism Against non-Blacks (Score:5, Insightful)
Your signature is oddly appropriate in this case.
However, I don't think Obama and Hillary were at all "more or less identical". Except to people who weren't interested in voting for either of them in the first place.
Democrats were fairly polarized over Hillary vs. Obama, and for once it wasn't because the candidates were overwhelmingly the same--it was because they were overwhelmingly different.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if I'm the only who instantly disregards what someone is saying when they use Obama's middle name every time he is referenced.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Funny)
And this was coordinated by the Skull and Bones wing of the Free Masons working in conjunction with the Bavarian Illuminati. They receive their funding from the Rothchilds, you know.
Of course, your claims are only valid if Novak and everyone he cited is lying. But why let that stop you...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
wtf? Where did I claim plame WASN'T an undercover agent?
My claim is that the entire "scandal" was blown way out of proportion and was essentially a non-story politics-wise.
The following exchange was between Woodward and Armitage over a month before Novak published his article:
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
her 'cover' was as the wife of a diplomat, so by outing her, Cheney and the rest of them, now confirmed that every single wife or husband (child, cousin, etc) of a diplomatic officer could be a CIA spy
But Cheney didn't out her. Nor did Libby. Armitage did.
Get that into your thick skull.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like Geraldo Rivera giving away operational plans [cnn.com] of our forces when invading Iraq? You know, endangering our brave men and women as they occupy a foreign country for political purposes.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Geraldo is also an idiot. What is your point?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this relevant, except in your mind that views everything as partisan attacks?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a LIVE broadcast. You think the military had the equipment necessary to do a 3-second delay for EVERY news crew that was embedded with the troops?
Further, it's known to every reporter that under no circumstances do they divulge operational information without it first being cleared by the military censors. Why Geraldo was the ONLY reporter not to understand this dictum is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
should have shot him.
it would have been legal to do so.
-nB
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You want to know where this stuff is? (Score:5, Informative)
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:You want to know where this stuff is? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well hold on.
If your team is at a secure facility, I presume the fact that the team is there is the secret? (And not that the building itself is somehow invisible...)
Unless you order your food by identifying yourselves "Hi, this is Joey from the Bravo squad of the 1st Forecon, er, DRP of the MARSOC, and we're down as 123 Elm Street and need the usual, please" I doubt that ordering pizza is somehow blowing operational security.
How would anyone know that they're delivering pizza to your unit, and not just to the janitor(s)?
(Terrorist leader watches Dominoes.com website carefully: "AHA! We've found the dirty American imperialist commandoes! Nobody in this city orders cinnamon twists AND cheesy bread! It *must* be the Americans! Muhahahah!")
Re:Semper Infidelis (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Semper Infidelis (Score:4, Interesting)
You appear to hold Marines in quite high regard, so why not be all you can be?
Heh.. that's the Army. Don't think any Marine would ever make that mistake. Although you could say "Accelerate your life," since Marines are just the hiking division of the Navy [wikipedia.org]. :P
Re:Semper Infidelis (Score:4, Funny)
My subtle attempt at military humor was not lost ;)
As for being a department of the Navy, that is correct.
We are the Mens department.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or perhaps they want us to think that. ^^
Re:Genius (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:Yeah, real big secret (Score:4, Funny)
Well I didn't know about it. And now I do. This is a problem, because now Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses can interrupt him during his dinner.
As for military payloads, the Air Force just puts up "weather satellites", usually on a Delta II or IV rocket. So the shuttle isn't even necessary. And in the rare cases that it is, there is always some sort of scientific payload they can piggy back onto.
Always a source of amusment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:5, Funny)
He brought the experienced old white guy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
They find comfort in "experience". in politics
I don't. Experience in politics to me just means a sociopath who has hidden the internal monster better than most, and hasn't gotten caught in whatever shenanigans he or she is most assuredly engaging.
Me? Cynical? Nah! The rest of you lot are too trusting.
Re:He brought the experienced old white guy (Score:5, Informative)
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?)
And yet (Score:3, Interesting)
He steadfastly supports draconian copyright measures and the like. Now maybe he's just doing it because he's a dumbass, I suppose there's that. However I think it is more likely that the man owes big media in some way, and thus tows their party line.
That is why people accuse him of being owned by Hollywood. It isn't because of anything secret or shady, it is because of voting record. He routinely pushes for laws with regards to copyright that many would call unconstitutional, and nearly all would call unfai
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:4, Informative)
Obama has excellent speech writers and the ability to read the teleprompter. Anyone who thinks Obama (or any other modern politician) is a "great orator" is either intentionally being an idiot or is just another one of the sheeple
Except that Obama is an ex college professor, wrote 2 bestselling autobiographies, and, oh yeah, has been confirmed to write his own speeches. [time.com]
I know you conservatives are upset that reality has such a well known Liberal bias but seriously, come out of the bubble sometime. The talking point about the teleprompter is a non starter outside of the wingnutosphere.
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:5, Insightful)
>>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".
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:4, Insightful)
>>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".
I did. Most of the "Biden Gaffes" are either from Conservative wingnut blogs or from the media, but upon further examination, they're complete non-issues. Like telling people not to go into enclosed places if people are sick -- well, duh, that's common sense. But the Media has "BIDEN MAEK GAFFE" as a meme right now, so, doesn't matter what he says -- if there's a negative way to take it, zomg, GAFFE.
And I'll have you know that after 8 years of a free pass from Bush basically running this country into the ground by the "liberal" media the very idea that the media has any form of "liberal" bias is laughable. Sure, the reporters might be liberal, but the decision-makers are hardline conservatives. Suddenly the media might "wake up" (read: start actually doing their jobs instead of just copy/pasting press releases) to avoid giving Obama a free pass, but that's fine, because outside of some fabricated scandals, so far, smooth sailing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:5, Funny)
So:
Tomato - Tomatoes
Potato - Potatoes
Oh No! - Oh Noes!
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, what? That's not a debunking, that's a confirmation. He needed a fucking card to spell potato? Nice work there, spanky.
Re:Always a source of amusment (Score:5, Insightful)
His failure to manually make the correction means he's just as wrong as the person who wrote the index card.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't it neat how people condemn the person given the card instead of the EDUCATOR who gave the card to him?
Instead? LOL. I blame both, but I only know the name of one of them, which also happens to be the only one in a position of national power and celebrity at the time.
And sorry, it's a real WTF that either of them couldn't spell.
To be fair, Quayle's job was not to educate our children. Never has a national crisis been solved or solvable by the correct spelling of "potato".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to think a similar dual effect happened with regards to Dan Quayle.
I don't think it did, primarily because the media wasn't as partisan then as it is now. There was no Fox News or MSNBC.
At the same time, none of Biden's gaffes have suggested that he can't spell.
Not that I'm interested in defending Quayle, but I always found the spelling bit a red herring. Lots of *very* smart people can't spell. The ability to memorize a large list of words (or the unwillingness to do so) doesn't convey intelligence one way or the other. I always find it strange that people want to equate knowing lots of little bits of information with intelligence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm interested in defending Quayle, but I always found the spelling bit a red herring. Lots of *very* smart people can't spell. The ability to memorize a large list of words (or the unwillingness to do so) doesn't convey intelligence one way or the other. I always find it strange that people want to equate knowing lots of little bits of information with intelligence.
I might have an answer for that. Intelligence can be measured thru methods, those basically depend on communication skills of individuals. So it does not matter how fast/efficient/creative/clear/clever a person thinks, if s/he cannot tell people what is happening between his/her ears, then there is a problem. Surely the verbal communication is not the only form of communication. There is music, performing arts, mathematical expressions, programming etc. However a politician's main, if not only, mode off com
So... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
He's the Vice President of the United States.
Surely they can spring for an actual trombonist.
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
Surely they can spring for an actual trombonist.
I believe they're actually called tromboners.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a big deal if he divulged information that was actually classified. The nature of the information is less important.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Government Transparency (Score:3, Funny)
Now THAT is how government transparency is done!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I also figure that the handlers around Biden will begin limiting his access to really sensitive stuff. So I'm enjoying the fun while it lasts. Perhaps he can get his hands on some Area 51 stuff and attend a convention where he d
Old USNO ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The old US Naval Observatory was located in Foggy Bottom [navy.mil], just across from where the Kennedy Center is now. If you are coming in from Virginia across the Roosevelt Bridge, you can see at one point the old dome for the 26 inch telescope, where Hall discovered the moons of Mars.
This site is now the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery for the Navy. I bet that the article is referring to a bunker at Observatory Circle.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, what next... revealing the existence of a secret bunker under the White House?!
Fair and Balanced (Score:2)
Yes, if there's one North American politician of the last decade who's been well-known for his verbal gaffes, the first name to leap to mind is of course none other than Joe Biden.
Title title is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Title title is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine (Score:2)
That's nothing. Just imagine what Cheney didn't tell us!
and Cheney and Osama Ben Laden are... (Score:2, Funny)
down there right now playing poker and smoking weed
Stupid article (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Made by vault-tech (Score:4, Funny)
Is this the vault where all the clones go nuts and kill everyone or the one with the virus that makes all the super mutants?
Reflections on those who elect Politicians (Score:3, Insightful)
This bunker is not secret! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This bunker is not secret! (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the first line of the summary is "Fox News reports," we can be sure Hugh Pickens is simply writing a hit-piece on Biden.
Not news. (Score:3, Informative)
That is so far from being newsworthy, it's almost funny.
It's pretty much a given that any facility that a world leader will spend a lot of time in, will have a safe room (bunker, if you will). I'd be fairly confident that the Whitehouse has one. The Pentagon is one. :) Camp David has a back entrance to Site-R/Raven Rock Mountain Complex. There's a ring of underground facilities in a 300 mile radius of DC (except for under the water, I assume) that may or may not be connected by a series of tunnels. It's not hard to find information on quite a few of them.
They aren't new. But, they're likely new to people who are surprised by the possibility of a safe room under the VP's residence.
And no, it's not a evil government conspiracy. It's good security. With a whole variety of safe locations to put the people you're suppose to protect, an aggressive attempt by a foreign power would be dramatically spread out to take every possible bunker location. Even with inside information, unless it's someone in the immediate proximity of the President, it would be very difficult for an aggressor to find him.
For example, say I was a secret service agent assigned to the POTUS. I know that there is an aggressive assault on known locations. I also know that someone inside is providing location details to the aggressor. I call in that he is now being transferred by limo to a site Northwest of DC. We send a driver in the limo by himself (with escort following) and then we take a rather plain looking suburban Southwest to another site. Ok, so the President is missing, but he's safe.
Would the aggressor know until the limo stops? Possibly. So instead of one or two known sites, it's almost anywhere in America. Once they can get on a VC-25, E-4B, C-32, or C-40 it becomes anywhere in the world. As far as that goes, he could end up on any sufficiently supplied aircraft (armor, flight range, etc). If they stay up long enough, it'd be a matter of maybe following refueling planes, unless they stop at random large airports for refueling. It may be a foreign government nervous if Air Force One lands at an arbitrary international airport with two fighters circling. :) It would be virtually impossible for a foreign aggressor to monitor every airport capable of taking large aircraft.
The large aircraft requirement gets interesting. In looking for the requirements of those planes, it appears 6k feet can get one down and back up safely. In that thread [airliners.net], someone mentions a C-5 [wikipedia.org] landing a MKC [flymkc.com] (7k foot runway), and another person mentions a 747 landing at QRA [wikipedia.org]. If it's not loaded down with baggage and passengers, and fuel is kept reasonable, they can get up and down on pretty short runways. It may not be quite as comfortable for the passenger, but I'm sure POTUS will understand in an emergency condition. :)
Re:Still Better than Chaney (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh, true, but it's the same as noting that the sky is blue when asking what the weather outside is like: it's completely irrelevant. Sure you can see Russia from parts of Alaska. So what does that have to do with foreign policy experience? And I'm sure Alaska geographically sits between Canada and Russia. But again, where does foreign policy come into play?
She could have, when mentioning Canada, bring up examples of resource disputes and such with the Canadian government. But no, it seems she decided to imp
Re:Still Better than Chaney (Score:4, Informative)
I'll pick a few here:
Teh GAYS are coming to steal yer marriages!!!!11
Never heard this from a Republican
You are a liar. Bush's "re-election" (his first actual election) was won primarily because they snuck so many anti-equality laws on the ballots. The bigoted wingnuts came out of the woodwork and voted for Bush while they were there.
We're the party of fiscal responsibility!
I would have agreed with this last year. But since the current party has tripled the deficit, it turns out that it's true!
Yes, I am absolutely certain that Obama, in 100 days, managed to triple the deficit, compared to 8 years of Bush spending like a drunken frat boy.
I totally believe that, because, apparently, I am an idiot.
They're not prisoners of war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply!
Were any of these guys wearing a uniform? No? then the Geneva Convention does not apply. Why is this so hard to understand?
Because I have a soul, and the idea of shoving flashlights up little kid's asses [salon.com] in front of the kid's mother is abhorrent to me.
Oh, and here's a POW being waterboarded:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/ [thedailybeast.com]
Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!
I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.
Liar.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/ [thinkprogress.org]
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-team-peddles-911-iraq-link-torture [crooksandliars.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/lieberman-peddles-the-old_b_77198.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html [csmonitor.com]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478 [msn.com]
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm [scoop.co.nz]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm [commondreams.org]
Not only that, it turns out we were torturing people to death and shoving flashlights up children's bums specifically to try and GET a fake link between Iraq and 9/11. [thedailybeast.com] Whoops!