What are you on about?

Post #342,598 by beepster 5/14/11 10:10:23 AM Reply	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.
Post #342,599 by Another Scott 5/14/11 10:21:38 AM Reply	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.
Post #342,600 by beepster 5/14/11 10:42:46 AM Reply	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.
Post #342,601 by Another Scott 5/14/11 10:53:37 AM Reply	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.
Post #342,602 by beepster 5/14/11 11:18:38 AM Reply	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.
Post #342,603 by Another Scott 5/14/11 11:20:04 AM Reply	You're funny.
Post #342,604 by beepster 5/14/11 11:22:30 AM Reply	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.
Post #342,605 by Another Scott 5/14/11 11:23:56 AM Reply	Beam, eye, etc., etc. ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!