« Mileage Tax Imposed in Holland | Main | Sometimes, You Have to LOL to Keep from Screaming »

But wait, it wasn't technically Airforce One, since the president wasn't on board.

Yea. That's the ticket.

No offense to this site's editors/writers, or its readers/commenters ... But New York City has always struck me as a 'love it or hate it' town.

Was there once several years ago and I hate it. Have no desire to visit again or to, God forbid, live there.

Having said that, I give enormous credit and admiration to people who do live in NYC. They are a damn tough bunch that grind out their lives everyday in that rat race that is considered the crown jewel of this nation. Ask anyone in another country to name a city in America and I would wager New York City is first on the list (probably interchangeable with Hollywood ... another town I have no need to be in, but do not admire those living there even half as much as I do NYers).

Truth be known, if the rest of the world's perception of our nation's people comes from any one city I would much rather it be NY than Hollywood ... or Detroit.

So, I do not fault these tough-assed folks living there if after 9/11 they are still on pins and needles over things that interrupt their daily lives as completely out of the ordinary (steam pipes pumping what looks like smoldering smoke, and planes flying threatening close to their buildings overhead.)

The AF1 photo-shoot has never been fully explained to the American people. But seeing the unfolding patterns since (the stagnation coming out of the CiC's office in regards to Afghanistan, the moving of terrorist trials to NYC instead of military courts, the refusal to recognize terrorism period especially in attacks on our military here within this country since this jackass took office ... his AG in the DOJ kissing ass with the New Black Panthers in a voter discrimination case, his Sec. of Homeland Security deeming military vets and 'rightwingers' as terror threats and assuring Muslims abroad after a terror attack her office will carefully watch the non-Muslims at home and keep them in line ...) I don't need to go on and on.

Fact is, I believe the rest of the country that is serious about taking back our country needs to get a spine and some balls like NYC has ... because we're going to need it with this enemy within.

God bless NYC. Stay strong and let those bastards defending KSM and the rest know they are not the victims, the victims were murdered on 9/11 ... and you are not victims but avengers in their name.

"Amusing to no end, the lengths that the State-Run Media will go, to make Our Dear Leader B. Hussein Obama's feces smell sweet."

And from the way Michelle dresses it is obvious you can't polish a turd.

Amusing to no end, the lengths that the State-Run Media will go, to make Our Dear Leader B. Hussein Obama's feces smell sweet.

So true, but not amusing, just irritating. This is one of the prime examples of MSM hypocrisy. Had a Republican president pulled that stunt, there would have been no stopping the pillorying, the charges of "gross insensitivity", the spittle of Olbermann and Tweety - they'd still be bringing it up.

Calling the plane that buzzed NYC "Air Force One" isn't accurate since Obama wasn't on the plane, but calling it "a low flying plane" was clearly intended to obfuscate that it was one of the planes typically used as Air Force One.

TheMaryHunter asks if coverage of the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was to be tried in New York was "slanted" by the MSM and, as proof it was, offers the airplane quote.

So, if the writer of the Reuters report had said: "Several security scares since 2001 — a 2007 steam pipe explosion and earlier this year a low flying plane, one of the aircraft that becomes Air Force One when the President is on board, trailed by a fighter jet flying over the Statue of Liberty for a photo shoot — have created panic among still jittery New Yorkers." would you be happy?

The emphasis of the original article was to present viewpoints, both pro and con, for having Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stand trial in New York.

Was reporting opinions from both sides on that issue slanted?

Was reporting opinions from both sides (re: KSM) on that issue (stand trial in NYC) slanted?


Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2009 9:58 AM

This is an issue with two sides?

Just what two sides are these?
Who benefits by having a terrorist tried in NYC?

Calling it Air Force One may not be technically correct, but when someone refers to Air Force One, this is the plane people think of. The plane that Bush landed on that aircraft carrier in was technically Air Force One for the few minutes he was on it. If the News reports had said: "here is Air Force One landing on an aircraft carrier", people would have been confused as shit.

In summary and conclusion, calling that plane Air Force One would not have been technically accurate, but not calling it that is intentional obfuscation on the part of the Leftwing Media.

Fiberal, the "two sides" presented in the article quoted opinions from those who think trying KSM in New York is the right thing to do and those who don't. I asked if the article was "slanted" by favoring one side over the other.

From our friends at Wikipedia:

"Air Force One is the official air traffic control call sign of any United States Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States. Since 1990, the presidential fleet has consisted of two specifically configured, highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft – tail codes Special Air Mission (SAM) "28000" and SAM "29000" – with Air Force designation "VC-25A". While these aircraft have the call sign "Air Force One" only while the president is on board, the term is colloquially used to describe either of the two aircraft normally used and maintained by the U.S. Air Force solely for the president, as well as any additional Air Force aircraft used by the president, including a C-37A Gulfstream.

Air Force One is a prominent symbol of the American presidency and its power.[3] The aircraft are among the most famous and most photographed in the world."

As Jeff M, Judith M and others have said, it is technically true that it was not "Air Force One" buzzing New York, but as Wiki points out:

"...the term is colloquially used to describe either of the two aircraft normally used and maintained by the U.S. Air Force solely for the president....."

And paid for by us, the taxpayers.

"obfuscate" is far too polite of a word for what the MSM is trying to pull here.

Posted by: TonyD95B at November 14, 2009 12:50 PM

Yea, what Tony said.

Is it just me or does this look like it was shot in the 1970s? I mean the color of the video looks like those old photos with the color distorted and the hue faded.

RE: Posted by: Frank White at November 15, 2009 8:28 AM

Frank asks, "Is it just me or does this look like it was shot in the 1970s? I mean the color of the video looks like those old photos with the color distorted and the hue faded."

Yeah, sort of. If we ignore the late-model cars, the cellphones, the 747 with Air Force One markings, and the fact that they weren't using a big bad F-4 Phantom for a chase plane, yeah I guess the washed out color has that 70's look to it.....