IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Transcript.
http://www.defense.g...transcriptid=4822

Q: Good morning, sir -- (inaudible) -- Castilla, from Medical Logistics Company.

I'm going to go a bit out of the norm questions here. I understand that this -- the answer to this question might be limited, or not at all, due to security reasons. But with the recent events with Osama bin Laden and the named SEAL Team 6, what measures are being taken to protect the identities and the lives of the SEAL team members, as well as the lives of military forces deployed that might have to face extreme retaliation from terrorist organizations that want to have those identities known?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think, first of all, there is a -- an awareness that the threat of retaliation is increased because of the attacks -- because of the action against bin Laden. I think that there has been great -- frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday -- the next day.

The one thing I would tell you, though, is that I think there has been a consistent and effective effort to protect the identities of those who participated in the raid, and I think that has to continue. We are very concerned about the security of our families -- of your families and our troops, and also these elite units that are engaged in things like that. And without getting into any details -- and I -- and I would tell you that when I met with the team last Thursday, they expressed a concern about that, and particularly with respect to their families. And so we're -- I -- as you say, I can't get into the details in this forum, but we are looking at what measures can be taken to pump up the security.

Q: Thank you, sir.

SEC. GATES: Thank you.


I think it's clear from the context and the history that he's referring to the meeting which had the famous photograph on May 1 - http://www.google.co...&biw=1366&bih=884

The following Monday is May 2.

Biden's speech was on May 3.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Transcript.
A week ago sun...last Thursday

So you are still date challenged unless your only point is that biden wasnt the first person to violate the agreement. Just one of several
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New What's more likely?
1) Gates was ambiguous about describing the date, or 2) There was a big meeting in the Situation Room discussing the raid in Pakistan a week after the events?

You really pick #1?

Cheers,
Scott.
New What are you on about?
In the situation room Sunday (raid day), Gates said there was an agreement NOT TO DISCUSS DETAILS.

2 days later, Biden was off flapping his yap.

2 days after that, Gates was at LeJeune listening to SEALS fearing for their families.

What part about that is hard to understand?
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New Have some more coffee.
The Raid was on May 1. The NY Times said the SEALS were involved on May 2. Biden's speech was on May 3.

http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=45513

Gates's speech was on May 12.

http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=45729

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New So you are saying
Biden saying something was ok, even after his boss said it wasn't, because the NYT did it first.

Ok.

got it.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New I shouldn't need to repeat myself.
1) Biden was complementing a Navy admiral who was getting an award. Biden puffed him up with an ambiguous word ("his"). The admiral had nothing to do with the raid. Biden's comments didn't increase any danger to him and didn't "paint a target on his back" (the admiral's own web pages brag about his work in the attacks on Qadaffi. Why doesn't that paint a target on his back?)

2) Did Biden give any "operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden"? No, he didn't.

3) Was Gates criticizing Biden, even implicitly? No, he wasn't.

4) Do you have reading comprehension problems, and develop selective outrage depending on the party that sits in the White House? Apparently...

Close enough to 12 yet? - http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=45560

:-/

Cheers,
Scott.
New Funny that you continue to harp on this selective..
as no matter what the situation, you are an apologist only for this one.

Even if the admiral comment was "over the top"...now it is plainly apparent that there was an executive mandate to NOT GIVE ANY INFO about the raid...which Joe clearly violated.

But its ok. Cause the NYT did it first.

What ever happened to "I can neither confirm nor deny"...and the ability to compliment someone without naming a specific, very limited, arm of the military?

Nope, its ok because its Joe and B.O....but it isn't ok if its GWB, DC and staff. While you attribute that to my pov, that is CLEARLY your POV.

Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New You're funny.
New Just pointing out the obvious. Glad to help.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New Beam, eye, etc., etc. ;-)
New You konw...I probably should've commented after scott.
I almost did.

Goggle on 5/1/2011 and you'll find references to Seal Team Six taking out Osama.
Goggle on 5/2/2011 and you'll find that Leon sent out an email thanking the Seals.

Should Biden have kept his mouth shut....yeah, I can buy that.

Arguing that Biden let the cat out of the bag....no friggin' way.

But hey, it's a lot more fun to poke fun at Biden than the CIA Director, right?
New Yes, it is.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
     Hmmm - (beepster) - (19)
         Just another RepubliCANT trying to make Democrats look bad - (lincoln)
         Amazing.... - (S1mon_Jester) - (3)
             SSH! 'Stirring-thePot' oft entails counting upon - (Ashton)
             math much? - (beepster) - (1)
                 So...the question is - what is 'a week ago Sunday' mean. - (S1mon_Jester)
         Transcript. - (Another Scott) - (12)
             Re: Transcript. - (beepster) - (11)
                 What's more likely? - (Another Scott) - (8)
                     What are you on about? - (beepster) - (7)
                         Have some more coffee. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                             So you are saying - (beepster) - (5)
                                 I shouldn't need to repeat myself. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                     Funny that you continue to harp on this selective.. - (beepster) - (3)
                                         You're funny. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                             Just pointing out the obvious. Glad to help. -NT - (beepster) - (1)
                                                 Beam, eye, etc., etc. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                 You konw...I probably should've commented after scott. - (S1mon_Jester) - (1)
                     Yes, it is. -NT - (beepster)
         Remember Salmon Rushdie? - (mhuber)

Loaded with more RAM than a goat festival!
81 ms