Air Force One Buzzes NYC in Photo Op Gone Bad
by Ted Slater on 04/27/2009 at 1:00 PM
I don't know what to make of this breaking news story.
Apparently the White House wanted to stage a photo op of Air Force One flying in front of the Statue of Liberty. Other reports are that it was an advertisement for a movie; the "fog of war" is keeping us from knowing what really is going on. They told a few people about it, but most didn't know what was happening.
New Yorkers, still sensitive about 9/11, were terrified by the scene playing out before them. At one point the plane, and the two military jets that trailed it, came dangerously close to the Goldman Sachs Tower, the tallest building in New Jersey -- as close as a few dozen feet!
The financial district was in chaos, people pouring out of their office buildings in fear. Comments from people on the scene paint a picture of panic and fear and heartbreak:
David wrote, "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why would they do something like that, which will induce panic with the public. I work in the Exchange place area, and to us those planes were very very close. One flyby is bad, but four times in just plain crazy. 9/11 thoughts anyone? Whoever authorized this flyby needs to be severely reprimanded for this."
Jason wrote, "The plane was flying about 500 feet above the water, and was way too close to nearby buildings. Many of the buildings here in the financial district began to evacuate, and there was quite a lot of chaos for a 'planned event.'"
Mananyc wrote, "It caused so much panic. I think a prior notice to building services would've been the responsible thing to do. I got caught up in the frenzy, ran and fell and injured my elbow. Not to mention the countless people who were scared to death and panicked for no reason."
Sorbs wrote, "Lots of us took stairs over 40 floors - someone could have gotten hurt rushing down the stairs."
JR wrote, "Rattled nerves indeed, especially if you've been through 9/11. We unnecessarily evacuated the building which caused a lot of stress and disruption."
E wrote, "I work in 2 World Financial Center and my floor evacuated (along with what appeared to be the rest of the building) after seeing the planes zip by. Many of my coworkers remember evacuating on 9/11 and were terrified."
Andrew wrote, "I saw a pregnant women carried away and at least a few elderly people being helped. I was on the Pier in Jersey City and I swore it would hit the Goldman building."
Paul wrote, "In Jersey City, where I work (and saw the plane banking toward my building as it flew up the Hudson) people were TERRIFIED."
Mark wrote, "We evacuated our building. People were crying when we reached the ground floor."
Suzanne wrote, "I work on the 46th floor of a financial district building, and we self evacuated our building.... [H]ow could we not have received notice that on a Monday morning, a 747 would fly in a no-fly zone, apparently chased by two fighter jets? Who should be fired for this? We took the elevators from the 46th floor wondering if we would make it to the bottom."
Michael wrote, "Our building at 10 Exchange Place has been evacuated, as well as all tall surrounding office building in Jersey City. The announcements coming from the PA system were very scary as we were marching the stairs. In a panicking voice the announcer was telling us to move as quickly as possible."
CMW wrote, "When I called 911 to inquire, they refused to tell me what was going on.... I've never been so afraid."
Ken wrote, "I guarantee that this killed a few people. I myself almost had a heart attack and I am a healthy 30-year old. There were pregnant women running down 50+ flights of stairs, mass panic over here, etc."
Bailey wrote, "[W]e were very frightened! I evacuated my entire floor .... The plane seemed to be coming right at us. I had one employee with asthma trying to flee from the 36 floor -- she is now in the hospital."
I could go on, copy-pasting comments from various sites from those who were eye-witnesses, but I want to turn this over to you.
If you were there, tell us what you saw and felt. And even if you weren't there, what do you make of this surreal event?
1. Lisa said the following at 1:12 PM on Apr 27:
If what you have said is true, that it was done for a photo-op or for a movie, then IMO it was very wrong--and especially cruel to do this to people in NYC after 9/11.
2. obewan said the following at 1:36 PM on Apr 27:
It sounds like a bad choice, but then why should it suprise us if the government is involved? There was probably some money in it too to justify it.
In their defense, I don't see how they could have warned people. That just might invite a terrorist shoot down in a populated area which would be worse than just panic.
That said, they should have not done it at all. Why can't they use computer animation to do this stuff? It works well enough for all those funky commercials.
3. Melissa said the following at 1:41 PM on Apr 27:
It was Air Force One?!?!? Someone at the Media Relations' office at the White House is in real trouble!
This is just a clear example of the lack of sensitivity towards what's happening outside of Post-Card like DC. Disconnect btwn government and the real needs of the people.
BTW... the local NYC authorities knew about this... why in the world didn't they raise a red flag on how sensitive people still are to 9/11, and how traumatizing this could've been/was to many?
4. BDB said the following at 1:41 PM on Apr 27:
Wow - the Republicans should have thought of this BEFORE the election!
I guess it took something like this to remind people that national security is not just empty rhetoric on Fox News.
5. Mike Miller said the following at 2:04 PM on Apr 27:
Melissa, from post #3, this will not get people fired or even talked to. I have talk to pilots before they take-off for a refueling mission with the president and they can not even tell me what they are doing, I hear after the fact, usually b/c of the news. When the president moves, only they people that need to know, know about the move. I do think that they should have thought of a better way, at least inform the people in the area just before it happened and after it ended. Being in the USAF, I know why they are secretive about the VC-25 flying.
6. Michelle said the following at 2:25 PM on Apr 27:
Wow. That is insensitive and cruel and really very angering.
7. BDB said the following at 2:35 PM on Apr 27:
Mike Miller (#5) wrote:
>>Being in the USAF, I know why they are secretive about the VC-25 flying.<<
Yes. I think they could have let people know there was going to be a military plane exercise in the area, and not to be alarmed. It would be a good test of their emergency alert system. They could have sent it out right before so that the 911 dispatch centers could say, "It's a military flight exercise."
I remember when I went to a college graduation. At the little airport by the college I saw an unmarked executive jet parked in an odd way.
The graduation speaker was the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff. His son was graduating, too. He swore in all the ROTC graduates, which I'm sure was a treat for them.
I'm sure it was his plane, too.
8. Rachael said the following at 2:42 PM on Apr 27:
Wow. Good thing it was just a photo-op and nothing terroristic. But that must have really been surreal for people, especially if they'd witnessed and been directly impacted by 9/11. Maybe this event caused someone to think more about the brevity of life, and draw closer to God...?
9. Jonathan said the following at 2:42 PM on Apr 27:
Mike (#5): I dunno...the president wasn't on board (technically making the plane not AF1), so from that standpoint security is not an issue. Who knows why this stunt was pulled off, but whoever thought it up/implemented it should be at least severely reprimanded. This is about as stupid as sending in masked men with rubber duckies (fake M-16s) to a school as a 'publicity stunt' without telling any of the school admin or students that it would be happening. Just plain dumb, and yes, cruel on a certain level.
10. jd said the following at 2:47 PM on Apr 27:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6782403
According to ABC news city officials were notified last week, but not the general public.
11. Stephanie said the following at 3:30 PM on Apr 27:
Very interesting.
On another note, I hate to sound like a broken record or as if I don't appreciate an interesting article such as this one every now and then, but I really would like Boundless to go back to more articles in keeping with its mission, especially more of the marriage, dating and single life articles. Yes, I know they are still there, but there seem to be so few of them now-a-days.
12. Dr. Ransom said the following at 3:33 PM on Apr 27:
Oh, Ted, do we really need all this hurtful, divisive, political rhetoric on Boundless? He's our president after all and the Bible commands us to support wholeheartedly whoever the president is while keeping any disagreements confined to locked dark rooms if even that and by the way it's so right-wing of you and right-wing is just so 1990s really and don't you think there are more important things to worry about such as feeding the poor and curing AIDS and pretty much making this a perfect world all by ourselves and isn't that what the Gospel is all about anyway like helping people?
(I'm Dr. Ransom, and I approved this gentle parody.)
13. Janice said the following at 3:48 PM on Apr 27:
Ohmygosh, that is rude and wrong. If it were for Hollywood, they should have prepped the public for weeks so people would know and not freak out. Any other purpose than a movie is inconceivable and reprehensible. It is tantamount to making Titanic survivors play themselves in a remake of the movie, or military service men and women suffering from PTSD return to active duty, or the OKC bombing victims' families relive that terrorist attack; I could go on and on. This is disrespectful of an entire city's grief and loss.
14. Saidahwk said the following at 4:11 PM on Apr 27:
Wow. That's beyond bizarre. I'd be way upset.
15. Brian Maloy said the following at 4:25 PM on Apr 27:
Ted --
Thanks for posting this. I can't even being to imagine how horrible it must have been for people working on the 40th floors in the financial district. I know this article isn't about dating (which is fine), but this applies to the world we live in too. It's a good reminder of how if our goal is to love others, we have to be sensitive to their needs and emotions, and obviously this was a good wake-up call. That said, thanks for being awesome.
16. farmer Tom said the following at 4:46 PM on Apr 27:
Dr. Ransom beat me to it,
Oh, well, nothing to see here, move along people. There are so many more important things in the world. Someone somewhere needs to blow their nose. Someone somewhere is doing laundry. Someone somewhere is having steak for supper. Can't you all focus on the important stuff??
Stop the hate. I'm sure Jorge the Younger Shrub did something just like this. Beside, you just hate our president because he's black. So there.
On a related note, I see the President has now gotten his halo.
"The Truth"
17. Samantha said the following at 5:06 PM on Apr 27:
:-) Dr Ransom (12), you missed that being right-wing is also a threat to national security, at least according to the department of homeland security.
18. Jethro said the following at 6:01 PM on Apr 27:
Wow, you can probably also bet that Hussein Obama was on board sacrificing a goat foetus to the Dark Lord.
19. BDB said the following at 6:16 PM on Apr 27:
The WSJ is updating the story. It seems that the relevant authorities were informed yesterday that a transport plane and fighter plane would be conducting this flight today, but that the information should not be released to the public in advance.
In other words, they had enough information to notify building security, the 911 dispatch centers, etc. People would still be surprised by the 747-200 when they were expecting a C-17 Globemaster III.
I did have a similar experience once. A "heightened" alert was put out on the news. A few minutes later, a fighter aircraft, at low level, shook the building with afterburners on. Felt like an earthquake, but the sound was unmistakable.
My first thought was, "Oh (*&#& - it's happening here!"
I went outside to see where the planes were. A fighter aircraft made another low-speed pass...
...over the airport across the street. I forgot that there was an airshow that coming weekend. The pilot was simply making his practice run. This happened every year, but sometimes they are transport aircraft (a C-17 did it once), some times they are quieter aircraft, such as the A-10 "Warthog"
Freaked me out just the same.
20. Barb Lamont said the following at 6:22 PM on Apr 27:
Why Obama wanted to do an airplane photo op right around the site of the World Trade Center defies the imagination...
See this video my friend captured. Obama Photo Op Disaster: New Yorkers Running Scared in the Streets by Goldman Sachs
Video: http://tinyurl.com/c7ujkj
21. brx said the following at 7:12 PM on Apr 27:
Interesting... very interesting... I have a hard time believing we have all the information here to properly understand the situation... The biggest suspicion factor being the number of well-educated people required to make such an event happen.
22. Chris said the following at 7:33 PM on Apr 27:
Two comments:
1) It was authorized by the White House Military Office for the purpose of updating some photos. The President was apparently livid when he'd heard what happened; obviously, he didn't authorize it.
2) I guess the terrorists really won. People see an airplane in the air and panic. Fear rules us.
I don't mean to sound cruel, but such an incident happening again (at least in the US) is highly unlikely. No pilot behind a locked cabin door is going to open it in a terrorist attack. They all know what would happen. They'd jack that stick and passengers would do the rest.
We need to worry more about someone blowing up a plane since we don't do a good job of searching checked or carry on baggage......or walking into an elementary school with an automatic weapon at lunch time and shooting kids at random. In short, terrorists aren't stupid. They know how to exploit weaknesses.
23. Ted Slater said the following at 8:44 PM on Apr 27:
Chris (#22) --You wrote:
"The President was apparently livid when he'd heard what happened; obviously, he didn't authorize it."
You really believe that? I don't. I have a hard time thinking that someone can take the President's plane for a joy ride without his knowledge, especially when it has been planned for over a week. I think he's just saying what he has to say to get people to release him from this, his latest faux pas.
24. BDB said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 27:
Oh man - the video in #20 - that would freak me out, too. It looks like the F-16 is trying to get the 747 to land. That TOTALLY looks like it could be a suspected terrorist incident. You can't tell it's "Air Force One" from the ground!
Though, based on what I've seen on the Discovery Military Channel, I'll bet the F-16 was doing the video taping as a "Chase" airplane. They do that all the time at Edwards AFB.
Frankly, if I was in the high desert and saw that, it wouldn't bother me at all. I'd assume that the Air Force was just testing something out of Edwards.
25. Roger said the following at 8:54 PM on Apr 27:
Heads should roll, but in our Fascist dictatorship nothing will come of it other than some slaps on the back and some ataboys. It is interesting to note how the government spends our money on a 747/fighters flyby for a movie while the private Federal Reserves is engineering us into a depression. Wake up America!
26. Randy said the following at 9:26 PM on Apr 27:
I think this was horribly irresponsible. I would have been completely re-traumatized.
I see lawsuits and/or boycotts on the horizon.
27. JB said the following at 9:31 PM on Apr 27:
Ted,
Do you really think Obama signs off on publicity shots using a reserve jet for Air Force One? That seems like the sort of thing you'd delegate and not bother the leader of the free world with. It seems plausible to me that Obama wouldn't micromanage those kind of details. Surely Obama is doing other things than ensuring that the "stock photos of presidential aircraft" file is kept updated.
28. Ryan said the following at 10:40 PM on Apr 27:
The REALLY sad thing?
In a time when our country is facing widespread economic turmoil (since Carter, NOT since the Great Depression) and government is spending our money by passing bills they don't even read, there apparently is enough money to take those planes for a joy ride to create a tourism commercial...
My, how out of touch Washington is. THIS is why there were tea-parties Jeannine Garrafolo. Not because we are racist, red-necks.
How disenfranchised can a people become before politicians are held accountable for stunts like this?
29. Jethro said the following at 3:09 AM on Apr 28:
Props where props are due. I didn't think you'd publish that comment of mine. Given that I criticize when you censor, I should also applaud you when you do not.
30. Chris said the following at 4:29 AM on Apr 28:
Ted writes:
You really believe that? I don't. I have a hard time thinking that someone can take the President's plane for a joy ride without his knowledge, especially when it has been planned for over a week. I think he's just saying what he has to say to get people to release him from this, his latest faux pas.
You know, now that I think about it, you're right. I'll bet the President also gets the maintenance reports on the planes. They probably interrupt him in meetings to let him know the cleaning crew finished shampooing the carpets.
31. Carrie (the original) said the following at 6:38 AM on Apr 28:
Let's just hope the good citizens of NYC remember this in 2012.
32. Brendan said the following at 7:18 AM on Apr 28:
Ted -
Just wanted to say, I appreciate the way you treated this subject. It's politics and current events without any jabs or barbs, and it gives us an open forum to discuss an event. Thanks so much.
As for my opinion? Well, if there was a reason for no one telling anyone, then it'd better be a VERY good reason. Also, I hope they got the pics in, so that the whole thing wasn't for nothing. They (a shadowy pronoun without antecedent) should have just told someone!
33. Debbie said the following at 9:19 AM on Apr 28:
I was suprised to witness even any concern. I thought the Liberals have convinced all Americans there are no terrorists!
34. Katie said the following at 9:27 AM on Apr 28:
I'm not going to point the finger at anyone saying they're to blame, but I think we can all agree that what has happened was extremely insensitive, and definitely NOT thought thru. I do wonder if all the bills/costs of the injuries sustained, premature babies being delivered because of the labor brought on by the stress, and other things will be paid for by the one who authorized this act? I think this was a sad reminder on how even little projects that we might deem important, can have adverse affects on others, and to thoroughly search it out prior to acting. What's the "Golden Rule" anyways?? I hardly think they would have been overjoyed to have been in the shoes of someone rushing down 47 flights of stairs in fear of their life.
35. Jeremy said the following at 9:37 AM on Apr 28:
"Other reports are that it was an advertisement for a movie; the "fog of war" is keeping us from knowing what really is going on."
The link provided for that has one person saying she heard a PA announcment about a movie in her building. That seems a lot different from the almost conspiratorial tone of the quoted sentence -- it seems like at this point everyone knows exactly what was going on, and that the White House has been very open about it. This was undoubtedly a bad move from a PR perspective, but it seems clear that there was no malicious intent or cover-up.
36. Stephanie said the following at 10:34 AM on Apr 28:
#12 & #16 - er, a little defensive, eh? lol! By the way, some of us have no problem with people having different view points and we don't worship Obama, but genuinely want Boundless to go back to some of the things that drew us to the site to begin with - but maybe I am just biased because I have a good guy prospect now and would appreciate more of the articles that were helpful to me in the beginning. Never thought I would say this but oh how I long for a good SAHM vs working mom debate. :-)
37. Stephanie said the following at 10:45 AM on Apr 28:
#27 - you may have a valid point about President Obama not knowing about it. The first link in the blog post above mentions Mayor Bloomberg criticizing his own office for not telling him about it. So maybe it's possible high ranking officials aren't involved in every little decision their staff makes. Or maybe Bloomberg is covering up his own faux pas too.
38. Keith said the following at 11:01 AM on Apr 28:
When I read this story, the Proverbs 26:18-19 came to mind:
"Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrow is a man who deceives his neighbour and says, 'I was only joking!'"
39. Jo said the following at 11:09 AM on Apr 28:
Jethro:
"Wow, you can probably also bet that Hussein Obama was on board sacrificing a goat foetus to the Dark Lord."
Now THAT would have been a pretty good photo op.
40. Keisha said the following at 11:25 AM on Apr 28:
Ted said:
"I have a hard time thinking that someone can take the President's plane for a joy ride without his knowledge, especially when it has been planned for over a week. I think he's just saying what he has to say to get people to release him from this, his latest faux pas."
This statement, along with others in the original blog post, is factually inaccurate. It was not the "President's plane" being flown yesterday - only a decoy. The White House was not in charge of organizing the photo op - it was the Department of Defense. Given these facts, I find it plausible that President Obama didn't know about this "mission" until it was already underway.
That said, it was pretty misguided and embarrassing, not to mention a complete waste of time and money. Haven't these guys ever heard of Photoshop?
41. Ted Slater said the following at 11:45 AM on Apr 28:
Keisha (#40) -- no, the plane was not a mere "decoy." It was one of the two planes the President uses as Air Force One.
And no, it wasn't the "Department of Defense" who organized the photo op. It was the White House Military Office. Louis Caldera, who heads up that office, accepted blame yesterday: "I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."
The White House had scheduled another photo op on May 5 or 6 over Washington, D.C. They've canceled that one.
I suspect Caldera will be thrown under the bus, like all Obama appointees and friends who display an increasingly predictable lack of discernment.
I'd like to know the passenger manifest. Who was on that plane? Will the administration trying to make a name for itself as "the most open and transparent in history" release that information? Doubt it.
42. Stephanie said the following at 12:28 PM on Apr 28:
#41 - Ted, thanks for the link to the change website. I knew there was one but didn't have the address. I like it - especially the part about the website posting non-emergency legislation and giving the public 5 days to comment on it before the President signs it. That might prove to be a good place for people to voice concerns.
43. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 1:27 PM on Apr 28:
Wouldn't it have been easier to Photoshop a picture of Air Force One and a picture of the statue of Liberty together, instead of scaring the tar out of all of those people? Wow. Even my 12 year old knows how to do THAT.
44. Ted Slater said the following at 5:28 PM on Apr 28:
For the curious, it's being reported by Bret Baier on Fox News that the photo op cost American taxpayers $328,835.00. And a lot of carbon emissions (not that I'm too concerned about that).
45. Mark J. Scott said the following at 7:04 PM on Apr 28:
Anyone who doesn't consider this audacious stunt a carefully planned and calculated event is deluded.
Like MARX and his beliefs were perpetuated by LENIN, OBAMA is nuturing the teachings of his dead mentor Saul ALINSKI. Alinskism is the "Bamsters'" Marxist hand downs from the great beyond. Look up the book "Rules For Radicals" to see where OBAMA cut his teeth (along with Ayers, Dorn, Wright, Flager, Seale, Weathermen, etc, etc...).
The NYC overflight could happen only from the top down. This stunt is both a taunt and a test in the face of EACH AND EVERY American, their individual stupidity nonwithstanding.
Welcome to the abomination of our new "Obamanation".
46. Leah said the following at 7:09 PM on Apr 28:
Um, from what I heard, whoever was in charge notified certain authorities, but it sounds like those authorities didn't pass on the message to people like mayors, newspapers, etc. It wasn't "cruel", "rude" and "wrong", just bad judgment and communication.
And really, who cares who was on the plane? Doesn't make any difference. Obama wasn't, and I think that's all people want to know.
Point is, the local authorities knew about it and should have notified newspapers so that there could be a warning on the front page or on local news bulletins. No need to run around pointing the finger at the White House saying "how dare you!"
47. Chris said the following at 7:50 PM on Apr 28:
Ted writes:
I'd like to know the passenger manifest. Who was on that plane? Will the administration trying to make a name for itself as "the most open and transparent in history" release that information? Doubt it.
Really now, Ted. Do you honestly think that the security of the President and those who transport him should be compromised? Should they openly publish the names of the pilots and flight crew so terrorists/spies/etc. know whose families to target or threaten? Should you, me, and Osama bin Laden all get copies of who flies on the planes that can be Air Force One? What's next? Letting everyone know which helicopter is actually Marine One when they're in the air?
This is not a moral issue that touches upon what lengths we'll go to in order to extract information. It's simple security.
Kimberly Eddy writes:
Wouldn't it have been easier to Photoshop a picture of Air Force One and a picture of the statue of Liberty together, instead of scaring the tar out of all of those people? Wow. Even my 12 year old knows how to do THAT.
So you're suggesting that the government create blatantly false pictures? What other photoshopped images should the government distribute? Soldiers being met by people as liberators? The President attending a function? Think of all the money/time/effort to be saved by simply cutting and pasting Obama into (insert event here). After all, when the President makes an appearance, the Secret Service, local law enforcement, and numerous agencies (state, federal, local) are involved.
I thought Boundless readers and contributors were open proponents of security and truth.
I'm sorely disappointed.
48. Ted Slater said the following at 9:48 PM on Apr 28:
Leah (#46) -- you said that "whoever was in charge notified certain authorities, but it sounds like those authorities didn't pass on the message to people like mayors, newspapers, etc." You added that "the local authorities knew about it and should have notified newspapers so that there could be a warning on the front page or on local news bulletins."
Leah, they were not **allowed** to tell anyone. It was a "secret" (to use **their** word) event. They were **prohibited** from saying anything to anyone.
You ask, "who cares who was on the plane?" I do. The President clearly wasn't. But was his wife? Were his friends? Was George Soros? President Obama pledged to be transparent. Let us see the passenger list. Perhaps only a few photographers were on Air Force One; prove it.
Oh, and maybe let's see President Obama's birth certificate while we're at it. Clearly there's something embarrassing on it, or he would not fight the "let's see it" lawsuits with such fervor and at such expense.
49. JB said the following at 10:39 PM on Apr 28:
"Oh, and maybe let's see President Obama's birth certificate while we're at it."
Aaaaaaand we're through the rabbit hole!
50. Jethro said the following at 12:09 AM on Apr 29:
"Oh, and maybe let's see President Obama's birth certificate while we're at it. Clearly there's something embarrassing on it, or he would not fight the "let's see it" lawsuits with such fervor and at such expense"
You're buying into that one too Ted?
51. Leah said the following at 12:56 AM on Apr 29:
Well clearly you care about who was on the plane, but why? All that matters is WHY it was flying around sky scrapers.
What is with automatically assuming that just coz someone wants to keep something private, it must be bad? (re: Obama's birth certificate). I don't know about American presidents, but I don't recall any Australian Prime Minister whose birth certificate has been demanded of him. You know, by keeping his birth certificate secret, he's not just protecting his own privacy, but the privacy of his parents.
I'm getting really sick of all the attacks on Obama. I don't like his policies any more than you do, but I'm not going to go and make personal attacks on him or cast aspersions on his integrity. Would you have demanded to see George W Bush's birth certificate even if he'd refused?
52. Chris said the following at 5:52 AM on Apr 29:
Ted writes:
Oh, and maybe let's see President Obama's birth certificate while we're at it. Clearly there's something embarrassing on it, or he would not fight the "let's see it" lawsuits with such fervor and at such expense.
Somebody already has seen it.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
53. Stephanie said the following at 8:47 AM on Apr 29:
#49 - "Aaaaaaand we're through the rabbit hole!" LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! I am so with you on this! You know that's where we are now for sure! lol! Yes, when someone doesn't agree with them, some people do start bringing up other stuff they can't let go! But when others do the same thing, they are quickly accused of changing the topic because they can't deal with the criticism. Thanks for this post, it made my day! ROTFL!!!
54. Ted Slater said the following at 9:19 AM on Apr 29:
Stephanie (#53) -- you wrote that "when someone doesn't agree with them, some people do start bringing up other stuff they can't let go."
I agree. I see it from certain commenters all the time. Rather than address the point at hand, they come up with hypothetical situations, or say "so-and-so did the same thing," or otherwise avoid directly addressing the issue at hand.
The reason I brought up the birth certificate issue is that it's another example of how the President has pledged certain things (to be transparent, to allow time for a bill to be reviewed online by constituents before congress votes on it, to be bipartisan, etc.) that he doesn't follow through on (his birth certificate in fact has *not* been released, he continues his costly legal fight to keep it from being released, we don't know why he allowed one of his two personal aircrafts to be unavailable to himself in case of a national emergency, we don't know why the photo op was such a secret, we don't know who was on board, etc.).
Did you know that President Obama's paternal grandma (and two siblings) has stated that she was present in the delivery room at Barack's birth in Kenya? Or that the Kenyan people are proud of the fact that Obama was born there, to the point of wanting to put up a marker at his birthplace?
To add to the confusion, even if we believe he was born in Hawaii, two different hospitals -- Kapiolani Medical Center and Queen's Medical Center -- are reported to be the location of his birth.
And why did President Obama's Web site include an image of a phony Photoshopped birth certificate for so long -- if he's going to put *something* out, why put out a fake? If he was a citizen of the U.S., did he lose that when he was adopted in Indonesia (the school he attended listed his citizenship as "Indonesian")? Why did he go by so many different names while growing up (Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham, Barry Dunham)?
So much incongruity, so many questions, so little transparency. So the reason I brought up the birth certificate things was to illustrate how non-transparent this President clearly is.
55. IMO said the following at 9:29 AM on Apr 29:
You know, Ted, before some people jump down your throat, maybe they should honestly answer those questions. But probably those same people dismiss them. To laugh at what Ted wrote and make fun of it makes you look bad, imo. Show some respect, if you know how that looks like.
56. Stephanie said the following at 9:41 AM on Apr 29:
Ted- #54 - you may indeed have valid concerns about President Obama's birth certificate. But that wasn't what the post was about. The post wasn't about transparency either - that was a topic that you brought up later in one of your comments.
Conversations like these tend to go down several roads and topics as each person gives their opinions. It's the nature of discussion and human conversation, particularly in a forum such as this where several people are responding to several other people all at the same time -- and there's nothing wrong with those detours in my opinion, if they occur. But when other posters do it, it seems as if they are immediately criticized. You can try to make a distinction here between your detours and those of other people - but sorry, I really just don't see it.
57. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:02 AM on Apr 29:
Leah (#51) seems not to realise the obvious difference: an Australian PM doesn't have to be born in Australia, while the American President by law must have been born in America (Hawaii counts).
What "integrity" does Leah think that this abortion extremist has to cast aspersions on?
58. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 10:05 AM on Apr 29:
Chris, #47
"So you're suggesting that the government create blatantly false pictures? What other photoshopped images should the government distribute?"
That's a good point, and one I didn't consider...but the fact is, if it's a no fly zone, and yet they were so eager to have a photo of the AF1 in front of the statue of liberty, there are cheaper, easier, and more eco friendly options out there. That was my main point, not that I was promoting deception. There's enough of that in government!
I didn't mean to imply deliberate deception (in my mind, letting people know that because of their concern for the environment, they went that route instead of taking an actual picture would have made them look good, don't you think?), instead of freaking out the citizens of NY and NJ while wasting my tax dollars.
As for the commenter who said they did notify the authorities, the reports said they notified the authorities and then ordered them to keep it quiet...because, like, who would notice a low flying aircraft in a no fly zone, near the location of a terrorist attack, with a few f-16's trailing it? I think they should have told the general public just to give them a heads up...if they had to do this at all. Praise God no one was injured seriously in the panic that was caused. For that we can be thankful.
Remember, they did all this just to snap a picture.
59. Mark W said the following at 10:50 AM on Apr 29:
Ted has some valid questions; however, I think Chris's post (#52) demands a response from anyone who would say that Obama was not born in the U.S. and/or does not have a valid birth certificate.
On another note, while I certainly would not put it past any politician (including the Obama) to feign ignorance for a decision like this so his staff can take the fall; I seriously doubt that the gov't workers who would be responsible for this sort of thing would bother the president with it. Ted, does Jim Daly get briefed on every article that gets posted on Boundless? In the grand scheme of things, a VC-25 photo op is about as important (it's not, technically, Air Force One unless the president is onboard).
Also, please stop pretending that the fact that this plane is often used to ferry the president makes it "his plane" in the same way someone would worry about their personal car. The president doesn't drive it, maintain it, or even own it. The aircraft is owned and maintained by the USAF, and its use does not require presidential approval.
Personally, I can agree that this was a stupid use of taxpayer money without having to blame Obama for it. I am no fan of the president, but I fear that this conservative obsession with personal attacks over almost-meaningless issues (see Rush Limbaugh), rather than intelligently engaging liberals in discussions about policy issues that matter is why the conservative movement has zero credibility in the mainstream today. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - the conservative movement in its current form (Limbaugh and his ilk) is not something that this old school style conservative would like to see succeed. Hopefully America can realize, before it's too late, that it's all a shell game and the real solution is less gov't - not a "red" or a "blue" driver at the controls of the leviathan.
60. BDB said the following at 11:11 AM on Apr 29:
The photo shoot probably wasn't President Obama's idea.
But it smells like a political idea. There was another flight scheduled over Washington D.C. Why would someone want pictures of Air Force One with the 9/11 locations as a backdrop?
President Bush was the President that day. Was someone in the military trying to get these shots for his library? If so, why didn't they do it earlier? Bush WAS a fighter pilot, my sense is that he's not the type of guy who would want this.
Did someone in the political office for Obama think it would make him look more "presidential" for a future video featuring him? His political team is good at putting together those video bios. Was it their idea?
61. Ted Slater said the following at 11:31 AM on Apr 29:
Not having that plane available for the President's use, I would argue, was an irresponsibly risky thing to do, and put our President in danger.
When the President travels anywhere, both VC-25s go with him. The one he is on is called Air Force One; the other is a decoy or backup. Other assorted aircraft also accompany his entourage (a jumbo jet, helicopters, numerous armored vehicles).
In the case of a national emergency, one that required President Obama to leave the White House immediately, this entourage would be incomplete until that second VC-25 joined the entourage.
That's why I'm concerned about this blunder, and am skeptical that the President wasn't aware of it. I'd think that someone would have mentioned it in the weeks leading up to the NYC photo op, even in passing.
Another question: If the plane was being photographed in front of the Statue of Liberty, why use F-16s (which, I believe, can only accommodate one person -- the pilot) rather than some sort of plane that can accommodate photographers? Or were the cameras mounted to the F-16s and operated remotely?
Again, things don't add up here. If nobody of importance was on-board the VC-25, why all the secrecy and the military jets? Perhaps the White House was paying back a political favor to some VIP? Yeah, speculation ... because (as I wrote in my OP) this event is so bewildering.
An aside -- I'd be interested in getting more info about the photo of Air Force One in front of Mount Rushmore. I believe the President was on-board at the time, and it didn't get all that close to the mountain, so the circumstances are significantly different from this NYC photo op.
62. DJS said the following at 1:44 PM on Apr 29:
Wow, some of you need to read the article closer. Just b/c Ted has criticized President Obama in the past, doesn't mean that he is doing that in every post he makes.
Other than saying that the White House authorized this (which is true) there is no mention of blame at all.
Maybe being so defensive for President Obama is just a knee jerk reaction! He has made several very basic diplomatic mistakes in less than 100 days in office.
63. BDB said the following at 2:37 PM on Apr 29:
Ted Slater (#61) wrote:
>>why use F-16s (which, I believe, can only accommodate one person -- the pilot)<<
The training versions are 2-seaters.
The reason you use tactical aircraft for this is that they are very maneuverable and th pilots are quite skilled at flying in formation close to other planes. They are also quite used to flying close to large aircraft, which is what they do when conducting in-flight refueling operations. (I got to see this from INSIDE a KC-135 once - very cool!)
In addition to maneuverability at close quarters, tactical aircraft have plenty of extra power. They can easily speed up to get ahead of the aircraft they are photographic. They can pull back a mile, speed up and catch it easily, etc. I'm assuming they conducted this exercise sub-sonic, but you still need plenty of power to move around like that.
The F-16 in question was moving around to all sorts of camera angles. Under normal FAA flight rules, they would NEVER be that close - they should be a mile or two back because of wake turbulence, which is a huge risk from a 747-200, but something an F-16 pilot is trained to deal with. A Cessna would end up doing cartwheels in the sky.
Here's a picture of a NASA DC-8 with a F/A-18 chase plane. This is the Dryden flight test center at Edwards AFB. They have an explanation of why they use old F/A-18 two-seaters as chase airplanes.
Of course, the F/A-18 is a Navy plane. If the Air Force wanted to film Air Force One, it would use an Air Force chase plane - the 2-seat version of the F-16. Here is a picture of an F-16 chase plane flying with an F-22. Notice that both have Edwards AFB tail markings.
Not that there is any rivalry or anything...
64. Cassandra said the following at 5:41 PM on Apr 29:
#36 Stephanie
Here you go.
www.boundlessline.org/marriage_family
65. Denise said the following at 8:32 PM on Apr 29:
I'm convinced that everyone involved now realizes what a horribly bad decision this was. How anyone could not have realized this somewhere down the line from this being an idea to where it came into fruition is beyond me, but hey, that's just me. So they messed up. Let's hope they don't do anything so utterly thoughtless and insensitive again. I want to add that I'm so sorry for the people that had to be on the receiving end of this brazenly stupid mistake, sorry for the panic and fear they must have felt, sorry that they had to go through it.
As for President Obama's birth certificate...what is all the hubbub about that anyway? Does it really matter? What could be on it that would be so incriminating..unless Satan is mentioned as the father and I really don't think that's the case here. It's really a moot point now anyway, isn't it?
66. Chris said the following at 8:35 PM on Apr 29:
Ted writes:
In the case of a national emergency, one that required President Obama to leave the White House immediately, this entourage would be incomplete until that second VC-25 joined the entourage.
If there was an emergency, the President would leave the White House via Marine One, not Air Force One. And it's a short hop from NY to Washington. The plane could easily be recalled. In fact, I'd argue having the plane elsewhere could increase security since it could be sent to another place than the other plane. Since numerous helicopters are used when Marine One is in flight, this would make it harder to target the President.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, Ted. The military, Secret Service, and so forth are all highly trained professionals. I'm sure they plan for numerous contingencies, including one where Air Force One is not available (well, the planes since AF1 is any Air Force plane carrying the President.) I doubt any President spends a significant amount of time worrying about these aircraft, their status, and so forth. That's the job of the civil servants and military professionals.
You needn't wrap your distaste for the President in concern for his security.
67. Chris said the following at 8:37 PM on Apr 29:
Stephanie writes in #56:
You can try to make a distinction here between your detours and those of other people - but sorry, I really just don't see it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I've found it to be standard MO when counterpoints are brought up.
68. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:43 AM on Apr 30:
Mark W (#59):
//Hopefully America can realize, before it's too late, that it's all a shell game and the real solution is less gov't - not a "red" or a "blue" driver at the controls of the leviathan.//
Cf. P.J. O'Rourke, The ditch carp of democracy, 22/04/2009:
It's going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans did, but the Democrats can do it if anyone can.
The Left is the party of government activism — the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, slimmer, taller, and take a dozen strokes off your golf game.
The Right is the party that says government doesn't work. And then they get elected and prove it.