Joe Biden Reveals Top-Secret "Undisclosed Location" or Something [Archive]

OklahomaTuba

5/18/2009, 04:12 PM

We sure dodged a bullet with that Palin chick!!

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 a 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 U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president.

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.

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor, said Biden revealed the location while filling in for President Obama at the dinner, who, along with Grover Cleveland, is the only president to skip the gathering.

According to Clift's report on the Newsweek blog, 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."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/

Sooner04

5/18/2009, 04:13 PM

unimportant.

And I voted Republican.

OklahomaTuba

5/18/2009, 04:19 PM

I think it is important actually.

I wonder how much money this setup cost the taxpayer, which Biden's brainless yammering has now rendered useless???

JohnnyMack

5/18/2009, 04:19 PM

I was literally reading that last night wondering how long it would take Tuba to post it. Whoever had the 4 o'clock hour wins.

Sooner04

5/18/2009, 04:32 PM

According to Clift's report on the Newsweek blog, 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."
If all that stuff is still in there then I'd say it's still pretty safe. False alarm. Everybody back to your desks.

def_lazer_fc

5/18/2009, 04:37 PM

yeah, there is more important stuff to get your panties in a wad over. i think its kinda interesting actually.

JohnnyMack

5/18/2009, 04:38 PM

yeah, there is more important stuff to get your panties in a wad over.

Yeah, like where is Obama's birth certificate?

def_lazer_fc

5/18/2009, 04:40 PM

ill tell ya where it is man. its in africa!

Veritas

5/18/2009, 04:43 PM

He rocked that Biden-style.

JLEW1818

5/18/2009, 04:44 PM

Oh, i thought he was gonna finally admit that he has a vagina on the back of his neck.

def_lazer_fc

5/18/2009, 04:45 PM

technically behind his right ear. but now im just splitting hairs. ****....ive said too much

King Crimson

5/18/2009, 05:39 PM

give Joe a break, he's probably been drunk since November.

his winding down to Dick Gephardt-style career got a big-time deus ex machina.

olevetonahill

5/18/2009, 06:03 PM

give Joe a break, he's probably been drunk since November.

his winding down to Dick Gephardt-style career got a big-time deus ex machina.

That sombitch trying to take MY job ? :mad:

Curly Bill

5/18/2009, 06:17 PM

I wonder how much money this setup cost the taxpayer, which Biden's brainless yammering has now rendered useless???

I'm sure this is just a pittance to what Biden has cost us over his senate lifetime. ;)

yermom

5/18/2009, 06:29 PM

so there is a hardened safe room in the VP's house?

who would have known?

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 06:32 PM

unimportant.

And I voted Republican.

It's not a big deal as far as terrorism, but it is important when it comes to hostile nuclear powers. From what I understand, once a high-profile bunker becomes well known it essentially becomes useless because a hostile nation can target that location and most bunkers can't sustain a DIRECT nuclear blast.

What's going to happen is they'll build another bunker somewhere else for the same purpose so in the end he just cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

Basically the same thing happened with the Congressional bunker at Greenbrier. When a reporter broke the story on its existence it became useless so they had to build another Congressional bunker somewhere else that cost God knows how much money.

soonerscuba

5/18/2009, 06:40 PM

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 06:46 PM

Yeah, this is a known factor. There is a tunnel and bunker system in the Whitehouse that provides for a evac system of Whitehouse personnel. One also exists at the Capital. What's more interesting is things that are actually important aren't kept in the Whitehouse as it's a pretty obvious target, there are a system of warehouses in which things are kept. It's pretty interesting stuff.

And yes, Palin was an unabashed failure who will never sniff DC in an executive role.

Wow, so what you're saying is that there's TUNNELS under the White House and then there's this stuff that we think would be in the White House but it's not because the stuff is somewhere else?

You have an inside source, don't you? ;)

And what exactly made Palin a failure? She improved McCain's numbers by appealing to the base in a way that McCain couldn't or wouldn't. The fact that she lost the election is not her fault and has everything to do with who was on the ticket above her.

yermom

5/18/2009, 06:54 PM

which demographic is that?

who is going to pick Obama over McCain until Palin shows up?

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 06:59 PM

which demographic is that?

who is going to pick Obama over McCain until Palin shows up?

Nobody. I'm not talking about cross-over voters; I'm talking about stay-at-home voters. I know a LOT of people who had absolutely no intention of voting McCain until Palin was put on the ticket. Hell, I myself came close to voting for McCain because of Palin.

You have to understand the degree to which many in the base distrusted and disliked McCain. Palin was seen as the only legitimate conservative on the ticket.

yermom

5/18/2009, 07:05 PM

i can kinda see that, i guess

soonerscuba

5/18/2009, 07:09 PM

Wow, so what you're saying is that there's TUNNELS under the White House and then there's this stuff that we think would be in the White House but it's not because the stuff is somewhere else?

You have an inside source, don't you? ;)

And what exactly made Palin a failure? She improved McCain's numbers by appealing to the base in a way that McCain couldn't or wouldn't. The fact that she lost the election is not her fault and has everything to do with who was on the ticket above her.Heh. I would be more concerned if Biden didn't a have a panic room at the NO.

As for Palin, she is the Rachel Ray of politicians. I know she's mediocre, you know she's mediocre, her offerings to the public are mediocre and yet there is a subset of society that finds her "refreshing". Probably because she thinks Jesus rode a dinosaur and is as dumb as the guy on the couch supporting her. "Hey, it took me six years to get a journalism degree from a no-name university too!", and she's attractive for 40-something and kills things, what's not for the plebs to like? It would have been worse if she was atop the ticket. I think the Republicans knew they were going to catch an asskicking and threw up somebody disposable to preserve the good candidates for 2012. I still think McCain wanted Liberman.

Turd_Ferguson

5/18/2009, 07:16 PM

I still think McCain wanted Liberman.Eeeeew.

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 07:17 PM

As for Palin, she is the Rachel Ray of politicians. I know she's mediocre, you know she's mediocre, her offerings to the public are mediocre and yet there is a subset of society that finds her "refreshing". Probably because she thinks Jesus rode a dinosaur and is as dumb as the guy on the couch supporting her. "Hey, it took me six years to get a journalism degree from a no-name university too!", and she's attractive for 40-something and kills things, what's not for the plebs to like? It would have been worse if she was atop the ticket. I think the Republicans knew they were going to catch an asskicking and threw up somebody disposable to preserve the good candidates for 2012. I still think McCain wanted Liberman.

Oh, I know she'd mediocre. Goldwater she is not. Palin had appeal for me because she was the most genuine conservative in national politics that year. Now, she's an instinctual rather than cerebral conservative which is why I think so many people related to her as a "real person." Her politics didn't come from deep-thought they came from her instincts and who she is as a person. She's not stupid as many people have implied, but since she hasn't come to conservatism from rational intellectual thought she doesn't have a lot of answers to deeper and more complex questions.

Trust me, she's mediocre but as far as conservatives with national appeal go it's pretty slim pickings as of late.

King Crimson

5/18/2009, 07:41 PM

why I think so many people related to her as a "real person." Her politics didn't come from deep-thought they came from her instincts and who she is as a person

more like who message strategists and *********s like Frank Luntz told you "who she was" and "what she believes". let's be real about it.

i'm not even going to touch the "rational intellectual" comment, because as you say...it's slim pickins. having read a few rah rah articles about Mitt, the GOP rebranding itself, and about the "Democratic Socialist Party" motion posted on this board...I'm not sure many of today's GOP "luminaries" could make a B in a senior level political theory class (unless the topic was American Exceptionalism).

edit: just says d-bag above in the *********.

AlbqSooner

5/18/2009, 07:49 PM

ill tell ya where it is man. its in africa!

FAIL!;)
It's in a secret bunker under the Old Navy Observatory.

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 07:55 PM

more like who message strategists and *********s like Frank Luntz told you "who she was" and "what she believes". let's be real about it.

i'm not even going to touch the "rational intellectual" comment, because as you say...it's slim pickins. having read a few rah rah articles about Mitt, the GOP rebranding itself, and about the "Democratic Socialist Party" motion posted on this board...I'm not sure many of today's GOP "luminaries" could make a B in a senior level political theory class (unless the topic was American Exceptionalism).

I don't know the degree to which she was handled. From what I understand, she constantly resisted such efforts to the chagrin of McCain's people. I agree with everything else though.

badger

5/18/2009, 07:56 PM

I think it is important actually.

I wonder how much money this setup cost the taxpayer, which Biden's brainless yammering has now rendered useless???

two bucks, because it was probably built way back when things were on the cheap :D

mdklatt

5/18/2009, 08:07 PM

From what I understand, once a high-profile bunker becomes well known it essentially becomes useless because a hostile nation can target that location and most bunkers can't sustain a DIRECT nuclear blast.

So what you're saying is that now there's going to be a huge bullseye on Washington DC if the ball ever drops.

Damn you, Joe Biden!

King Crimson

5/18/2009, 08:12 PM

I don't know the degree to which she was handled. From what I understand, she constantly resisted such efforts to the chagrin of McCain's people. I agree with everything else though.

i mean more how the pundits (particularly those "sympathetic" to Palin--Bill Kristol, I'm looking at you) tried to make her "mean" something....than the McCain handlers.

for instance, go to youtube and watch the Frank Luntz led focus group on FOX after the first Palin-Biden debate. it's pure artifice.

olevetonahill

5/18/2009, 08:20 PM

****, My fellow Conservatives. Yall embarrassing me :O
the left leaning Mofos are sayin OH **** . Now DC is a target:rolleyes:

NO numbnuts . THAT SPOT is now a Direct target for Precision Guided Nukes get a Brain Morans

Tallywhackin folk dont got them so My fellow Cons Need to quit freaking the **** out over it

Curly Bill

5/18/2009, 08:28 PM

Lets all agree that while Biden is an unabashed dumas, he didn't tell our enemies anything they didn't likely already know.

Vaevictis

5/18/2009, 10:10 PM

Heh, so if you dig into this deeper, you'll find that Number One Observatory Circle is the official residence of the Vice President, just like the White House is the official residence of the President.

Knowing that, is there anyone anywhere with any sense that isn't going to assume that there's a secured bunker there?

Yeah, Biden screwed up and opened his mouth when he shouldn't have, but geez.

It'd be like Obama telling someone there's a secure bunker in the White House. Classified? Probably. Secret? Hardly.

soonerscuba

5/18/2009, 10:45 PM

Lets all agree that while Biden is an unabashed dumas, he didn't tell our enemies anything they didn't likely already know.I can get behind this.

soonerscuba

5/18/2009, 10:49 PM

I'm not sure many of today's GOP "luminaries" could make a B in a senior level political theory class (unless the topic was American Exceptionalism).I don't believe that American exceptionalism is the sole domain of conservatives, given I fully support it's tenants. I truly believe that western, and specifically the American way of life is superior to all other cultures. The proof is in the pudding, we're totally ****ed right now, and still there is not a culture on earth I to which I would rather belong.

Although Sweden is making a serious run at that title.

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 11:16 PM

So what you're saying is that now there's going to be a huge bullseye on Washington DC if the ball ever drops.

Damn you, Joe Biden!

Actually, no. I think the bunker could survive a D.C. hit with the epicenter as some other point than the naval observatory. I may be wrong though -- it's rare but its been known to happen. ;)

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 11:18 PM

I don't believe that American exceptionalism is the sole domain of conservatives, given I fully support it's tenants. I truly believe that western, and specifically the American way of life is superior to all other cultures. The proof is in the pudding, we're totally ****ed right now, and still there is not a culture on earth I to which I would rather belong.

Although Sweden is making a serious run at that title.

My grand-parents had a Norwegian exchange student for a semester. Now Norway isn't Sweden, but it's basically the same damned thing. Anywhoo, she sucked and thus my entire opinion of Norway is now in the dumpster. ;)

I'd go to Iceland.

Frozen Sooner

5/18/2009, 11:36 PM

Actually, no. I think the bunker could survive a D.C. hit with the epicenter as some other point than the naval observatory. I may be wrong though -- it's rare but its been known to happen. ;)

Depends. If we're going to be hit with a full-fledged MAD-type exchange, they're going to saturate DC pretty hardcore knowing that's their best chance of destroying our government.

If we're going to get hit with a couple of nukes from a rogue nation that only has a couple, they'll probably hit New York as a preferred target. Hitting DC destroys our government. Hitting NY destroys the economy of most of the West.

Just my thought. They'd probably throw one at NYC and one at DC.

Frozen Sooner

5/18/2009, 11:37 PM

There's also something to be said for hitting the US in Kansas or Nebraska. While the effects wouldn't be as immediate, we'd starve in rather short order if the weapon was dirty enough.

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 11:37 PM

Depends. If we're going to be hit with a full-fledged MAD-type exchange, they're going to saturate DC pretty hardcore knowing that's their best chance of destroying our government.

If we're going to get hit with a couple of nukes from a rogue nation that only has a couple, they'll probably hit New York as a preferred target. Hitting DC destroys our government. Hitting NY destroys the economy of most of the West.

Just my thought. They'd probably throw one at NYC and one at DC.

And you just KNOW that the focal point will be Joe Biden. He's THAT important.

Frozen Sooner

5/18/2009, 11:39 PM

Well, much as some of you don't like the guy, I can't imagine you'd like having Nancy Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

olevetonahill

5/18/2009, 11:40 PM

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 11:45 PM

There's also something to be said for hitting the US in Kansas or Nebraska. While the effects wouldn't be as immediate, we'd starve in rather short order if the weapon was dirty enough.

I've always thought that hitting the heartland would have a bigger effect on the morale of these United States than hitting NYC or D.C.

Frozen Sooner

5/18/2009, 11:45 PM

Depressing-*** topic, isn't it?

Heinlein used to write on this kind of stuff a LOT-though only from the US/Russia conflict perspective, as he passed away before nuclear terrorism became something we thought about.

After pouring a ton of thought and words into it, Heinlein came to the conclusion that there was just no way the US could survive a full-fledged nuclear war in its current state-and the things we'd have to do to prepare for one would destroy us as a nation. Mind you, this was BEFORE things escalated to the point where a nuclear war couldn't even be talked about as survivable anymore.

On the other hand, he was a big proponent of continuing to build our arsenals and never trusting the Russians or signing a non-proliferation pact.

SCOUT

5/18/2009, 11:48 PM

Yeah, Biden screwed up and opened his mouth when he shouldn't have, but geez.

It'd be like Obama telling someone there's a secure bunker in the White House. Classified? Probably. Secret? Hardly.

Am I the only one who thinks it might be a good idea to have a Vice President who has the ability to keep confidential information...you know...confidential? What is he going to say when he is meeting with people that are not just the press corps and are asking questions that are a little more sensitive than this one? Disclosing the bunker location isn't going to exactly compromise the security of the entire country, but it doesn't help.

Joe needs to learn that classified doesn't just suggest, but requires, that you not disclose it. If it were meant for the public, they would probably use a term besides confidential.

Frozen Sooner

5/18/2009, 11:51 PM

I've always thought that hitting the heartland would have a bigger effect on the morale of these United States than hitting NYC or D.C.

Morale nothing. We'd starve the next winter. Say you drop one on Omaha, Des Moines, Kansas City, and Milwaukee. Set 'em up as really nasty fallout bombs instead of max yield.

We have food riots in 5-6 months.

We have people dying in the streets in 9 months.

SicEmBaylor

5/18/2009, 11:51 PM

On the other hand, he was a big proponent of continuing to build our arsenals and never trusting the Russians or signing a non-proliferation pact.

I am too. No joke, I simply do not trust those people. The fact that they didn't turn the Cold War into a hot one is of pure luck that the succession of Soviet premiers were at least rational enough to stop just short of that. There are plenty of Russians perfectly capable of starting such a war and if just the wrong sort of mad/strong man comes to power then it becomes a very real possibility again. Do you trust our nation's security on Russia's ability to advance toward liberty and put into power rational and moral individuals? Pfft, not with their long history I don't.

olevetonahill

5/19/2009, 12:01 AM

Morale nothing. We'd starve the next winter. Say you drop one on Omaha, Des Moines, Kansas City, and Milwaukee. Set 'em up as really nasty fallout bombs instead of max yield.

We have food riots in 5-6 months.

We have people dying in the streets in 9 months.

Mike yer startin to sound like the Anti tuba
Shat aint happenin ,
we have 2 mebbe 3 countries to worry about with that capability

Then we go back to MAD;)

Frozen Sooner

5/19/2009, 12:54 AM

Mike yer startin to sound like the Anti tuba
Shat aint happenin ,
we have 2 mebbe 3 countries to worry about with that capability

Then we go back to MAD;)

Just gaming it out. That's how [b]I'd[b] do it if I had a limited nuclear arsenal and wanted to destroy the United States as a functioning country. Not saying it's going to happen.

Vaevictis

5/19/2009, 04:58 AM

Am I the only one who thinks it might be a good idea to have a Vice President who has the ability to keep confidential information...you know...confidential?

Nope, that's why I said he screwed up. Dude needs to keep his mouth shut.

I was just pointing out that, despite the freakouts to the contrary, the level of damage done in this case was probably minimal.

SoonerBorn68

5/19/2009, 08:55 AM

Well, much as some of you don't like the guy, I can't imagine you'd like having Nancy Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Heh. That won't happen. She's got enough troubles of her own--but that's a whole different thread.

I'm sure pissing off the CIA has it's disadvantages.

JohnnyMack

5/19/2009, 09:35 AM

Would you like to play a game?

NormanPride

5/19/2009, 09:48 AM

I could beat that damn thing at tic-tac-toe, I bet.

JohnnyMack

5/19/2009, 09:58 AM

That was on the other day. That movie so rules.

OklaPony

5/19/2009, 11:59 AM

I think it's really just a Dem conspiracy to take the spotlight off that dumb biotch SOH that suddenly can't remember who briefed whom on what.

:D

C&CDean

5/19/2009, 03:38 PM

which demographic is that?

who is going to pick Obama over McCain until Palin shows up?

Bitches?

King Crimson

5/19/2009, 03:43 PM

Bitches?

naw, they tried to sell that....a crossover of women voters (remember "hockey moms"?), but the polls didn't really bear it out.

SicEmBaylor

5/19/2009, 03:58 PM

heh. :D

TAFBSooner

5/20/2009, 01:36 PM

I am too. No joke, I simply do not trust those people. The fact that they didn't turn the Cold War into a hot one is of pure luck that the succession of Soviet premiers were at least rational enough to stop just short of that. There are plenty of Russians perfectly capable of starting such a war and if just the wrong sort of mad/strong man comes to power then it becomes a very real possibility again. Do you trust our nation's security on Russia's ability to advance toward liberty and put into power rational and moral individuals? Pfft, not with their long history I don't.

The fact that they didn't turn the Cold War into a hot one is due to a combination of "I want to live" and the fact they'd rather rule 200 and some million people than an underground bunker.

Russia today is an authoritarian dictatorship, but not one with an ideology they want to push on the world. They have no reason to fear us, and no chance to conquer us, and plenty of work for their power-hungry elites just in reclaiming "their" lost empire. Plus they're now once again officially religious (Christian, even), so presumably they aren't nihilists who would prefer a radioactive world to a functioning one in which they aren't the top banana. We always had to fear the godless nihilism thing in order to believe that they would commit suicide by cop, err, superpower.

None of this means that Georgia, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc. are good places to be right now. In fact, neither Georgia is ever a good place to be.

And did you really say "she sucked and thus" you didn't like her?

SicEmBaylor

5/20/2009, 01:47 PM

The fact that they didn't turn the Cold War into a hot one is due to a combination of "I want to live" and the fact they'd rather rule 200 and some million people than an underground bunker.

This is called rational thought which is what I said above.

Russia today is an authoritarian dictatorship, but not one with an ideology they want to push on the world. They have no reason to fear us, and no chance to conquer us, and plenty of work for their power-hungry elites just in reclaiming "their" lost empire.

That reclaiming of the lost empire is exactly what I'm talking about. They don't need a new ideology whose tenenants dictate spreading that ideology around the world. If they try to reclaim their lost territory in Eastern Europe then there almost certainly will be war between the United States and Russia. I'm not worried about them invading or "conquering" us per say.

Plus they're now once again officially religious (Christian, even), so presumably they aren't nihilists who would prefer a radioactive world to a functioning one in which they aren't the top banana. We always had to fear the godless nihilism thing in order to believe that they would commit suicide by cop, err, superpower.

You are seriously discounting the traditional paranoia of Russian leaders and the Russian military. Officially declaring themselves a Christian nation doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't preclude another strong-arm leader from coming to power. Their government is not stable enough to prevent such an occurrence if the right person came along. Christian or not.

None of this means that Georgia, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc. are good places to be right now. In fact, neither Georgia is ever a good place to be.

You do know we've committed ourselves to ensuring their security, right?

And did you really say "she sucked and thus" you didn't like her?

What are you talking about?

King Crimson

5/20/2009, 01:55 PM

SicEmBaylor

5/20/2009, 01:59 PM

TAFBSooner

5/20/2009, 02:55 PM

godless and nihilism are not synonyms. nor does the one imply the other, as well. It's somewhat presumptuous to suggest that because the USSR was not Christian, that "they" (the vanguard Party or ruling class or Politburo) believed in nothing and therefore were sole agents of potential nuclear holocaust.

If they were synonyms I wouldn't have used both.

I doubt they ever were nihilists, but we (US population) had to be told they (USSR) were in order to fear that they would start an all-out nuclear exchange. They were godless (it says so right on the cover), and that made it easier for our propagandists to make the case that they were nihilists. I'm not saying that exact word was used, but our establishment had to create that impression.

There are lots of atheists, agnostics, and non-specific theists who believe strongly in humanity and would never consider using nuclear weapons.

I am most certainly not claiming the Christians aren't capable of using nukes. Harry Truman was a Baptist. History shows that US authorities considered the use of nukes, including a massive first strike, on several occasions after WWII.

Perhaps God stayed our hand, but then how did the USSR, who didn't have a God, manage to keep their finger off the button? (Dang, this sarcasm thing is hard on teh inter nets)

TAFBSooner

5/20/2009, 02:59 PM

Quote (TAFBSooner):
And did you really say "she sucked and thus" you didn't like her?

. . .
What are you talking about?

My grand-parents had a Norwegian exchange student for a semester. Now Norway isn't Sweden, but it's basically the same damned thing. Anywhoo, she sucked and thus my entire opinion of Norway is now in the dumpster. ;)

I'd go to Iceland.

I rest my case.