We know who has taken the fall, Louis Caldera, the Director of the White House Military Office. But lots of questions remain. And in today’s political climate, “taking the fall” means being the one who says he’s sorry. The days of falling on one’s sword, even metaphorically, are long gone for Democrats.
Who wanted new pictures of Air Force One against the New York skyline? Why was there a demand for secrecy? And, of course, the big question: who thought that low flying jumbo jets over Manhattan would pass un-noticed by the people who watched their friends die just eight years ago?
The first question: who wanted the pictures is likely someone in the Obama political image camp. Caldera is political appointee (who is not particularly popular even with Obama supporters) in a post that is traditionally held by a military officer. We either have to believe that he woke up one morning and decided that the pictures of Air Force One in the archives were out of date, or … more likely … someone in charge of the Obama image machine decided that images of Air Force one next to the Statue of Liberty would be useful in the future and tasked Caldera to do it.
The second question – the demand for secrecy – is a puzzle. You can’t run a 747 up and down the Hudson River without anyone noticing. Only months ago someone landed a commercial airliner in the river. It’s one of the most densely populated parts of the world. Were they afraid that if they told New Yorkers that they would be able to see Air Forced One fly by someone would take a shot at it?
I think that I have the answer to question number 3, why the people who ordered this had no idea of the reaction. The people who populate the Obama administration really don’t believe in 9/11. They may have read about it, They may know intellectually that it happened. But they view it the same way we may view a lightning strike that hits an isolated golfer: a billion-in-one shot that “just happened.” That’s why the Obama team is renaming the attacks of 9/11 as “man-caused disasters” putting it on the same moral plane as an auto wreck. That’s why the Obama team is not really concerned about revealing what we do to interrogate prisoners with vital information. They don’t believe we haven anything to worry about. Unlike the people who evacuated their buildings during the fly-bys and who ran for their lives, believing that they were under another attack. For Team Obama, it’s always 9/10.
Who wanted new pictures of Air Force One against the New York skyline? Why was there a demand for secrecy? And, of course, the big question: who thought that low flying jumbo jets over Manhattan would pass un-noticed by the people who watched their friends die just eight years ago?
The first question: who wanted the pictures is likely someone in the Obama political image camp. Caldera is political appointee (who is not particularly popular even with Obama supporters) in a post that is traditionally held by a military officer. We either have to believe that he woke up one morning and decided that the pictures of Air Force One in the archives were out of date, or … more likely … someone in charge of the Obama image machine decided that images of Air Force one next to the Statue of Liberty would be useful in the future and tasked Caldera to do it.
The second question – the demand for secrecy – is a puzzle. You can’t run a 747 up and down the Hudson River without anyone noticing. Only months ago someone landed a commercial airliner in the river. It’s one of the most densely populated parts of the world. Were they afraid that if they told New Yorkers that they would be able to see Air Forced One fly by someone would take a shot at it?
I think that I have the answer to question number 3, why the people who ordered this had no idea of the reaction. The people who populate the Obama administration really don’t believe in 9/11. They may have read about it, They may know intellectually that it happened. But they view it the same way we may view a lightning strike that hits an isolated golfer: a billion-in-one shot that “just happened.” That’s why the Obama team is renaming the attacks of 9/11 as “man-caused disasters” putting it on the same moral plane as an auto wreck. That’s why the Obama team is not really concerned about revealing what we do to interrogate prisoners with vital information. They don’t believe we haven anything to worry about. Unlike the people who evacuated their buildings during the fly-bys and who ran for their lives, believing that they were under another attack. For Team Obama, it’s always 9/10.
UPDATE: A few other thoughts:
Who was doing the photography? In the pictures I saw the Air force jet trailing Air Force One was not in a position to take good pictures. Was there a photo plane? If so, where was it? Would it have not been much cheaper to photo-shop an image of Air Force One next to the Statue of Liberty and get the same effect? Were there any passengers on Air Force One during this flight? Was this a joy ride that bombed?
Welcome Instapundit readers.
UPDATE 2: Via The Corner at National Review - a few photshop pictures that were a lot less expensive to make than the $328,835 it cost the taxpayers.
UPDATE: OK this could not have been a "photo op." Here's the picture the White House released of the flight.
There is no way the Air Force would have taken a picture this lousy for a photo shoot. This was an amateur shot from a fighter plane that was not equipped to take pictures. Team Obama must have turned over heaven and earth to get this snapshot and pass if off to the Lewinski wanna bees in the press corps as a photo shoot. People who believe this are too stupid to be allowed to wander away alone.
These are real Air Force publicity pictures..
and...
and...
Anyone still want to claim that the presidential jet buzzing Manhattan was a photo shoot?
50 comments:
Question #4: Was there anyone else on the VC-25 (technically, it ain't AF1 unless the Prez is onboard), and if so, who?
A question I'd like answered is -- why did they actually need to fly Air Force One around New York to get pictures of Air Force One flying around New York?
Has nobody in Washington heard of Photoshop?
My guess is that the current AF1 picture in lower Manhattan contained the Twin Towers. They wanted one without that background.
Did Obama political types want this photo? I can't think of a rational reason why they would want it, since a lot of other photos are available, but of course power hungry political aides are not rational.
ExurbanKevin, that is exactly what I was asking (is it okay to admit I was shouting it at the t.v.?)
Napolean Dynamite says it best, "IDIOTS!"
My guess is that the video was part of a planned "First Hundred Days" celebration of the reign of King Obozo the First.
"So who wanted the pictures of Air Force One? "
Why, Michelle Obama, of course.
She is the more egomaniacal of the two. She will want her face on Mount Rushmore before long.
Being a left-wing female is hazardous to a woman's physical appearance (funny).
"Has nobody in Washington heard of Photoshop?"
If it is inexpensive, it is not valuable.
Of course, that viewpoint is now extending to taxpayer money.
"Has nobody in Washington heard of Photoshop?"They haven't heard of 9/11, so...
Oh, it's all true. Obama is an Islamonazi who hates America and thinks Sept. 11 was a mass delusion. He's also a bad American because he doesn't love torture. Do I have your talking points about right? Or is that a little too sane?
It was a dry run of the next 9/11. Borat Hussein Osama wanted to make sure that the defenses are sufficiently weakened so that when a jet is flown into the freedom tower, all goes smoothly.
It was a dry run. It is obvious. Remember who's side Obama is actually on.
" He's also a bad American because he doesn't love torture. "
Exposing the American public to television footage of Michelle Obama IS torture. Daily torture.
Plus, Pelosi approved of torture.
Facts are a bitch, eh? And don't get too excited by the word 'bitch'.
Question #5: Who took the photos or videos? And let's not forget the inevitable request: Let's see them.
And I concur with ExurbanKevin's request for an answer to his Q#4 and it ought to be directed towards Secretary Gates. It's his command and he ought to produce it.
BHO = Worst President Ever.
Cameras on the F-16s probably.
New Yorkers will still vote for BHO 90%-10%. So it didn't cost him any votes.
D:
I think you have the straw men all lined up. Good boy. Have other people questioned your sanity?
For your information, D, there was more than a little panic on lower Manhattan during that joy ride. So we have to ask the question of you: why didn’t they think that people who watched their friends die from large planes flying into buildings a few years would get more than a little worried when they re-created the scene?
I'm no expert, but I heard someone call in to a radioshow today who said that the photos are used by the USAF personnel who run/fly the plane, so they can sign something to say thank you to the ground crews that have to deal with AF1 when it travels. I don't know about that, but I do know that several years ago, the state govt office I worked for hired a guy who had been managing some ground force at Whiteman AFB where the B2 is based. When I met him, we chatted about normal stuff, and he asked if I had kids. When I said I did, he pulled out several professional, but mass-produced on cardstock, photos of the B2 flying over .. something. Don't remember what. So, is this what the "glamour shots" are used for?
Photoshop is NO fun for the big money donators.
Why are we surprised? Isn't this what the Clintons did with the Lincoln Bedroom?
Obama just one upped 'em...with the help of ex-Clinton people in his White House.
I don't doubt you but just curious: where did you get the info that theObama team is renaming the attacks of 9/11 as “man-caused disasters”?
Wait, but if 9/11 was America's 'chickens coming home to roost' (an opinion the Obamas probably agree with), then there should not be fear of another 9/11, no? It is a deserved response to our foreign policies.
"Good boy."
You are too generous with the use of the word 'boy'.
Speculation I saw: It was for background on the credits of a forthcoming movie about the Tuskeegee Airman. The trailing F-16 has the same red tail as the WWII bombers.
"Speculation I saw: It was for background on the credits of a forthcoming movie about the Tuskeegee Airman. The trailing F-16 has the same red tail as the WWII bombers."
That is colossally stupid, as the scene could be produced cheaply with computer FX, rather than at a cost of millions out of the budget of a movie.
Dumb theory. Try again.
Dan,
Thanks for the question. I have added a link in my post that I meant to have included all along. The quote is from an interview of Napolitano in Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
Go back to my article where I have provided the link.
I suspect they knew what would happen and wanted to scare the daylights out of people. The libtards are full of hate and get their jollies pulling that sort of thing. You think that's crazy? Just wait. They're well on the way to the destruction of this country.
And yes, I'll bet they took their pals for a ride in the process to watch the people running on the ground. You can't get that with Photoshop.
What if an older person with a heart condition actually died as a result of being scared like this?
I think the family of that person could sue for manslaughter.
"I suspect they knew what would happen and wanted to scare the daylights out of people. The libtards are full of hate and get their jollies pulling that sort of thing. You think that's crazy? Just wait. They're well on the way to the destruction of this country. "
It is not for jollies, it was a dry run for the next 9/11, when they enable Al-Qaeda to topple the new freedom tower.
The leftards who say Bush knew about 9/11 are just projecting the realities of their wishes.
This was a dry run....
I don't know how this could be proved (I assume the Pentagon and White House wouldn't just 'fess up) and the picture itself may just be a trick of the light. However, George Lucas is filming "Red Tails", about the Tuskegee Airman of WWII, famous in part for the red tail marking on their plane and, as, for example, in this photo of the flyover.
I don't know how he would work it into the film but it would be a cool cinematic postscript to the WWII history of a spiritual heir to the Tuskegee Airmen was escoring our first black President in AF!.
All fiction, of course, and George Lucas ought to be able to do that with special effects. Still, it's an idea.
Tom Maguire
Dear Mr. Moneyrunner/Virginian/Whatever:
The people who populate the Obama administration really don’t believe in 9/11.Later, you write:
I think you have the straw men all lined up. I think this is what we call a classic case of projection.
PS. Don't lecture me about 9/11 and New York, pal. I happened to be there and know people who perished. The difference between you and me is that I didn't become a pants-wetting baby who felt the best way to respond to the attack was to imprison innocent people, torture, and launch a stupid war against a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.
Don't lecture me about 9/11 and New York, pal. I happened to be there and know people who perished.
People, if you want to see what bullshit looks like, look no further than "D".
D,
I knew people who perished in the WTC and on the plane that flew into the Pentagon.
So what?
That doesnt give me any more moral authority than you knowing people who died as well. Disagree all you want but dont presume that knowing people who were murdered that day somehow justifies your misguided views.
D (which clearly stands for Dumb),
Waterboarding is not torture. Plus, Democrats like Pelosi approved it. Obama approves of it.
You do remember the 1993 WTC attacks (since you claim to live in NYC), don't you? Saddam was behind the 1993 attacks. But since the attack was unsuccessful, Saddam is innocent, according to leftards.
Plus, the Iraq war clearly made America safe from further attacks. It even made Europe safe (no repeat of the Madrid and London attacks after 2005).
Thank god we won in Iraq.
"...and launch a stupid war against a country that had nothing to do with the attacks."
Typical comment from someone who's side LOST in Iraq.
Luckily, my side (America) WON. Better luck next time, D.
And if anyone needs ammo to prove that we WON in Iraq in 2008, here is a quantitative run-down of the parameters of victory. Give a leftard a vein-popping stroke by showing them this.
We conservatives are such pikers. We don't know how to play the game. This isn't about the morality of scaring the bejesus out of nervous liberals in New York for political purposes. They will forgive. This isn't about spending 1/3 of a million $ on image. It's their guy's image. If it were Bush, either of those points would rule the news cycle for weeks. It would result in hearings, special prosecutors, etc.
The point to be hammered here is the CO2 burn. Hammer it.
Any corporate CEO who wasted money like this, for something that could be done for 1/10,000th the cost, would be ousted by the Board/Shareholders.
We should start impeachment proceedings against Obama, as he has proven to be a totally incompetent steward of the US Federal budget.
You do remember the 1993 WTC attacks (since you claim to live in NYC), don't you? Saddam was behind the 1993 attacks. But since the attack was unsuccessful, Saddam is innocent, according to leftards.That is some grade-A, classic, fact-free wingnuttery. You realize that even uber-neocons like Daniel Pipesand Andrew McCarthy don't believe this crap anymore?
"That is some grade-A, classic, fact-free wingnuttery. "
Translation : D has been stumped with a fact that he has not been exposed to before, since he belongs to an ideology that requires an IQ below 70. He had been humilatingly defeated, and is indignant.
So who was behind the 1993 WTC attack? Or was the attack itself a hoax?
And why did Clinton bomb Saddam in 1998 (Operation Desert Fox)? 1998 was before 9/11/01, in case you were wondering.
Don't you have a butt-buddy appointment or something?
dick cheney, that's who ordered it!
D:
The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis.
Did anyone notice that President Obama said it wouldn't happen again. Meaning, he knew there were plans for another flight. The other flight planned for a "photo op" was for May 5th or 6th around Washington D.C. I don't buy the excuse that they wanted photos without the World Trade Center showing the skyline as it is today for NYC. I believe Obama knew about this flight for NYC. They said he was "furious" when he found out, but he also stood up and said he was "just as angry as we were" conerning the AIG bailouts. Even though he signed the Bill that gave AIG the bonuses! He is a fake! We are under siege from within. We have much more to fear than a flu virus.
The NYC flyby was stupid and insensitive as Obama is arrogent and out-of-touch. Which is a lot.
As far as the war and terrorists, if keeping my children (and America) safe requires hooking a terrorists balls up to a car battery then all I have to say is - Black is positive, red is negative.
I don't care who you are or what you believe, nothing is more important to me than my children and I want any threat to their safety eliminated as thoroughly and as effectively as possible.
What ever happened to the big stick in "speak softly and carry a big stick"? All Obama is doing is speaking softly and with a forked tongue.
The mistakes this administration is making is mind-boggling.
The planes were a thoughtless, insensitive and inexcusable stunt; no question. Inexcusable. But, a conspiracy? Your tinfoil hats are so very becoming (not!).
Gulp. This nation is so screwed.
Kris,
You are not hip to the new left-wing guidelines for political correctness :
"Black is positive, red is negative"
That sentence alone is racist in the modern era.
"nothing is more important to me than my children "
Having children is environmentally irresponsible. You have committed a moral crime against the environment.
Next time, they will mandate political correctness from you.
Can't confirm that "having children is environmentally irresponsible". Certain, however, that stupid people should not breed. Obviously much too late for that.
"Can't confirm that "having children is environmentally irresponsible". "
Enviro-leftists say that all the time.
Pretty soon, they will shoot up a school and defend the action as a necessary culling of children before they reach reproductive age. Surely you don't think they are not capable of doing this.
Air Force One Flyover: Blogosphere and Talk Radio Go Where MSM Fears to Tread
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/04/29/air-force-one-flyover-blogosphere-talk-radio-go-where-msm-fears-tread
We now know that the F-16 following AF One was from the Tuskegee Alamaba unit called the "red tails" made famous because the Tuskegee Airmen was the first black unit in the Air Force.
Clearly this was a photo op with a racial component. I'd really like to know WHO ordered it. I doubt anyone can just call up Andrews AF Base and say "Hey, it's my birthday today can you have Air Force One fly over?"
"I'd really like to know WHO ordered it."
Michelle Obama did. It is obvious.
You do remember the 1993 WTC attacks (since you claim to live in NYC), don't you? Saddam was behind the 1993 attacks. But since the attack was unsuccessful, Saddam is innocent, according to leftards.
WTC 1993 was successful to the extent it blew a big-a** hole in the WTC parking garages, spread fear and terror, etc. Isn't that what terrorism is about? Oops, I used the "T" word- twice!
Post a Comment