Viewers of President Obama's prime-time press conference might have noticed a significant omission. During a hour of give-and-take with the press, there wasn't a single question about Monday's fly-by debacle in New York.
Never mind that lots of New Yorkers are still ticked. Or, that many questions about the airborne photo op remain unanswered. The White House has appointed a deputy chief of staff to look into the matter and his report will (most likely) be released on a Friday afternoon, six months from now. That's the cue for the MSM to drop the matter and let Louis Caldera hang onto his job. Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama's friends in the press corps are only too happy to comply.
But the fly-by scandal may not die as quickly as Mr. Obama--or the media--would like. A little digging shows the "training mission" could be a bit more complex than the White House will admit.
For starters, Air Force sources have confirmed that the F-16s that escorted the VC-25 over Manhattan are assigned to the Alabama Air National Guard, not the D.C. Guard as the AP (and other media outlets) originally reported. The Alabama guard has painted some of its Vipers in a distinctive "red tail" paint scheme, honoring the legendary Tuskegee Airmen of World War II. One of the fighters observed over Manhattan had the same markings.
Why does that matter? The distance from Dannelly Field in Montgomery (where the F-16s are based) is roughly 750 miles from New York City. According to the Pentagon, the fighters logged just under four hours of flight time during their mission. During that time, they burned as much as 20,000 pounds of fuel, based on an optimal cruise speed and a configuration that included two external tanks.
With "two bags of gas," an F-16 has a maximum fuel capacity of 11,900 pounds. Subtract the "divert minimum" that pilots must maintain for safety (typically 1,500 pounds), and the amount of on-board fuel drops to just over 10,000 pounds. So, the F-16s had to take on extra gas somewhere between Montgomery and the Big Apple.
In other words, there was at least one in-flight refueling as a part of the mission--and possibly two--requiring at least one tanker aircraft. So, factor in the added expense of a KC-135 or KC-10 and its crew. At the beginning of this decade, the cost of each Stratotanker flying hour was pegged at more than $10,000. Operating a KC-10 is even more expensive, just over $13,000 an hour. Multiply that cost by three to five hours, the typical length of a tanker sortie.
That may not seem like much, considering the total bill for the photo-op was at least $300,000. But it also shows a level of planning (and support) that the White House hasn't discussed. Obviously, in-flight refueling is a routine part of USAF operations. But adding tankers to the equation expands the coordination process, and increases the overall cost of the photo op.
How much was actually spent on the New York fly-by? We still don't know--just as we don't know why it was suddenly necessary to update public relations photographs for Air Force One. Will the forthcoming White House report discuss those issues? Don't bet on it.
#2
*smirking giggle*
Now, think about this...he wasn't on plane so when he hands these pictures out to family, boosters, and foreigh dignitaries..he isn't on that plane, its just a picture of a couple planes on a skyline...howz about for Christmas I take a picture of my car - not me and/or the family in it - just the car...and send that out as our official Christmas gift! Gawd its aweful! Haha ha here's a picture of my nice ride.
#3
suddenly necessary to update public relations photographs for Air Force One.
Sorry, but this cover story is weaker than snail piss. This was either a administration publicity film shoot or a campaign add. I'm still waiting for some 06-09 USAF officer to get balls and roger up to what really took place, what the Air Tasking Order (ATO) actaully said.
#4
Other than the fact that the plane flew low over Manhattan, without anybody alerting the public, I have no real problem with this flight. Fighter and tanker pilots do need to get in a certain number of flight hours every month in order to maintain their proficiency. If, in fact, the crews were simply on a routine training mission, there really was no extra cost to the government.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
04/30/2009 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I just wrote to the CO of the 187th FW out of Montgomery, AL. We'll see if he answers, hands me off to his PAO, or hits delete.
The return of Sen. Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party (he flipped in 1965 from "Kennedy Democrat" to Republican) is something that should be celebrated by Republicans, at least those who are proud to call themselves conservatives. Specter is a career politician whose first priority is himself.
Specter, whose predictable lament that the GOP is not the "big tent" he had been led to believe it was, now embraces a Democratic Party that is an even smaller tent. How many pro-life Democrats exercise any influence in that party? How many opponents to same-sex marriage are in the Democratic leadership? Smaller government? Lower taxes? No leading Democrat, inside or outside Congress, subscribes to such things. And yet the big media and many pundits continue the fiction that Republicans are in electoral trouble because they do not tolerate liberal ideas.
The day Democrats embrace those holding conservative ideas and implement at least some of them will be the day Republicans can be told to water down their principles. In fact, Republicans in recent years have behaved more like Democrats than Republicans and have paid the electoral price for doing so. Republicans under George W. Bush added to the size and cost of government. Republicans created new spending programs and increased the reach of the federal government in education and other areas. The major difference between Republicans and Democrats these days is this: Democrats know how to use power when they get it; Republicans, when they gain power, spend most of their political capital trying to prove they are not mean, uncaring, racist, sexist and homophobic. Republicans masquerade as Democrats and want to be liked. Democrats live to rule.
The Republican Party, much to the consternation of conservatives, saved Specter's bacon in the 2004 election. Part of Karl Rove's strategy was to re-elect Republicans, no matter how liberal. Specter won that election thanks to the efforts of the Bush White House and gobs of Republican National Committee money that was poured into his race. How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless politician.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/30/2009 08:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am very happy for Arlen Spector and his new found friends. They certainly belong to one another.
#3
To update Gen. Patton:
"I would rather have a democrat in front of me than Arlen Spector behind me"
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
04/30/2009 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
MSM want you to believe that anyone opposed to abortion and same sex marriage is so far outside the mainstream that they don't belong in the big tent. If that's true then the country really is going to hell. We wouldn't be the first civilization to turn to dust. Then they get you all worked up about red herrings like the swine flu so you don't notice the government grabbing all your money and all the means of production. Then they declare a victory when a weasel like Specter defects. Well, maybe it's time for a purge. I can think of a few others who might as well leave the Republican party too. Make room for people who really are conservative and who can articulate conservative values instead of being all wishy-washy and they might actually win some elections.
#5
To add to Ebbang's post: thes MSM also wants you to believe that anyone who still believes and wants to uphold the constitution of the U.S. & the intent of its founders is so far outside the mainstream that they don't belong in the big tent either.
If we don't start fixing this mess our grand kiddies will rue the day we took breath.
If any one person holds primary responsibility for the fresh rush of carnage in Iraq, it is none other than Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a politician who has shown he cares little about the fate of his nation.
Consider the suicide bombers' targets last week: a Shiite Islam shrine and a gaggle of Iranian travelers coming to Iraq for worship - all direct or indirect constituents of al-Maliki, the protector of Iraq's Shiite majority. Al-Maliki had betrayed the perpetrators.
Do you remember the goals behind the so-called surge of American troops last year: to reduce the level of violence in Baghdad, and to set the table for national reconciliation? Well, the American troops did their part. Al-Maliki shirked his.
It's hard for any thinking person to hold sympathy for Iraq's Sunni minority. Saddam Hussein was Sunni. During his 24 years in power, he and his Sunni enforcers mercilessly oppressed and slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites. So it came as little surprise that when Iraq held general elections in December 2005, Shiite politicians won a majority of seats in Parliament and chose one of their own to be prime minster, first Ibrahim al-Jaafari and then, in April 2006, al-Maliki.
His primary goals in office have been to protect the nation's Shiite citizens while also enriching himself and his aides. On his watch, Iraq's government has grown to be one of the two or three most corrupt on Earth.
Well, in the last couple of years, the Sunnis have gone a long way toward redeeming themselves. They participated in the provincial elections in January and have become political players. And last year, 94,000 of them, primarily from the Sunni triangle, dropped their allegiance to insurgent groups that were planting roadside bombs and killing civilians. Instead, they joined forces with the United States. These were the soldiers of the Awakening Councils, armed and financed by the U.S. military to fight al-Qaida.
They were quite effective. For all the talk about the success of the Bush administration's surge of American troops, the Awakening Councils were equally responsible for the drop in violence. From the very beginning, however, the Americans told the Sunni soldiers the day would come when the U.S. would leave Iraq, and they would have to join Iraq's national security forces.
That started early this year, as the U.S. began scaling back its operations. Al-Maliki assured the Americans the Awakening Council soldiers would get government jobs. And so the Americans began letting them go. But the jobs never appeared. Al-Maliki's government suddenly argued it was short of cash and had no money to pay the Sunni recruits.
Now, just how stupid is al-Maliki? Most of the Sunni soldiers are former insurgents who were dedicated to killing Shiites (and Americans). And in recent weeks they have been perfectly clear about their alternatives. In numerous media interviews, they have explained that if the Iraqi government will not hire them, al-Qaida is willing and eager to take them on.
Al-Maliki knows this. Of all his priorities, isn't pacifying the enemy among the highest?
But reconciliation is not a part of al-Maliki's lexicon. Consider a distressing story in the New York Times this week describing American-led mediation efforts between al-Maliki and former generals in Saddam Hussein's army. The generals wanted to return to Iraq and help stabilize the country. Al-Maliki would have none of it. Saddam Hussein's former officers, he howled, are "filled with hate from head to toe!"
Reconciliation? Forget it.
So then, on April 23 three bombings killed at least 80 people. Most were poor Shiites and Iranian tourists. Sunni leaders endlessly complain al-Maliki is too close to Iran. When Saddam Hussein was in power, Iran was the enemy; the two states fought a brutal war in the 1980s.
Then last Friday, two suicide bombers blew themselves up outside the Imam Musa al-Kadhim Shiite shrine, killing more than 60 people.
For several days after, the city was relatively quiet. Sunni militants had left their message. Al-Maliki's response? He ordered the arrest of two policeman in charge of protecting the shrine and set up a committee to investigate the attack.
What's there to investigate? Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani blamed al-Qaida. Didn't those Awakening Council members say al-Qaida had been trying to recruit them once al-Maliki abandoned them?
Prime Minister al-Maliki, if you want to find out who is to blame for the attacks, you don't need to a committee. You have only to look in the mirror.
Frontpage Interviews guest today is M. A. Khan, author of the new book Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery. In November 2005, he started the Islam-watch.org website, which is emerging as a leading ex-Muslim initiative for the enlightenment of Muslims.
Highly recommend it
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Incredible! I think the book he is pushing may be suppressed, but it sounds like the one I wanted written! Equally significant, he contends that Western/Christian imperialism and slavery were a defensive reaction to Islamic practices (i.e. "whatever works to survive.")
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
