"No Easy Day"

I did not see the interview but the question in my head is why does this guy get to profit from the book while all his teammates do not? 

As far as I understand it the government has a process you have to go through to publish a book about operations like this, and that he skirted the process.

If this is indeed true he needs to be punished.  Otherwise it sets a precedent that you can do and say what you want about classified materials with impunity.

If he's not punished it might lend some credence to the theory that this is all misinformation.

Anyone see "Wag the Dog?"

I think this is true as well, and I also think he is making the SEALS look bad by his timing. I've read a number of other SEAL memoirs, and one of things about them is that they all seemed to discuss "old" operations. One in particular (I don't recall which one) complained about being hamstrung by the Clinton administration and not being able to take out one of the big bad guys in Somalia. But the book came out when it could not have any effects politically - i.e. during the Bush administration. Which to me, seems reasonable. It removes the whole "swiftboat" air from any complaints they have.

In addition, the whole reason he was able to go on this mission and take out Osama bin Laden was that Obama green-lighted it. And it was anything but a "slam dunk" in terms of the call by the commander-in-chief. Many top people (including Biden) have said that based on the intel at hand, they would not have made that call the same way. So while Bissonette may not like having Obama as POTUS, he still made it possible for the SEALS to do what they do best. Bissonette's book and the timing undermines the whole "quiet professional warrior" that I think of when I think of special forces operatives. 

Classified info does not fall under the same umbrella as NDAs.  The contract is with the government.  Free speech is limited when it can compromise national security.

Bottom line is they said keep your mouth shut and he did not.

Well in the interview... he said all the right things... no classified information, he claims he has the support of his peers... he wanted to get truth out about what happened for the families of 911... they do this everyday, nothing special about him, he was just the guy that got called along with 30 others. He said there was no classified info in the book at all and that he didn't give any important details... but even the interview was pretty detailed and I just thought that it didn't "feel" right.

I do want to read thr book though... is that bad? 

Not even close...national security is national security... you are talking apples and Mars. And those guys ARE the pointy end of the sword...they pride themselves on doing the very things nobody wants to know we do... they are indeed assasins.

And I thought it was odd about that too... he said he wanted it to come out on 9/11 for it's significance. He said it was not politicaly motivated in any way ans said, "If those crazies up there on either side of the isle want to turn this into something political (for their gain) then shame on them".

So he said the right things, but just as we are now, we are discussing it and the election is coming up. People will talk and make what ever they want out of it... if anything... it just seems too soon. Just like you said, others have written books, but it was long after the conflict was over. We are still in a war, and we are still engaging Al qaeda.

Ask Carter how well dead special ops guys worked out for him.

Yep.  Otherwise what's the point of even having classified information.

Much of Marcinko's information is obtainable via the FOIA, hence not "classified"

I'm not taking your $5 bet because I agree, I doubt he'll be punished.  Doesn't change the fact that I think he should be.

I'm a civilian (never was in the military) but I have a signed contact with the CIA to never release some information I obtained while interviewing in McClean.  To be honest it's not that interesting anyway and I doubt anything would ever happen even if I did.  However to say that it' my 1st Amendment right to tell it is wrong.

I just never did understand the whole thing.... Carter took all the blame for a failed mission... like he personally crashed the helicopter. I mean he authorized action and they happened to crash. It was wierd how it was all his fault... I was in H.S. though and certainly not up on political affairs so maybe it was just my perception.

Not at all true. And from everything I have read, one of the frustrations that special ops forces routinely deal with is being told NOT to go ahead on a target they believe they can achieve.

What IS true is that after the fact, everyone can make the "right call" - "Oh yeah, we should never have gone into Iraq", or "Oh yeah, we totally knew we had ObL". But at the time, Biden and Robert Gates (secretary of defense) argued AGAINST going in. And for potentially good reasons - we were going into another country without their knowledge or approval. Had things gone south, and it was either NOT the right target, or the SEALS failed to achieve their objective, or were killed, it would have been a complete disaster. And the Republicans would have been all over it.

I'm with TriRSquared here (here comes the zombiepocalypse!). I had an office manager whose husband was in the navy on a nuclear sub as an enlisted man. He was shocked when some movie or book had come out that showed some details that had been classifed when he served, since he knew no one was supposed to be talking (and he had been a civilian for at least a decade or two). 

Loose lips sink ships.