Memo to Obama attack dog Robert Gibbs: stop pooping on our lawn

click here for dog poster
from The Telegraph.co.uk
Posted By: James Delingpole
May 29, 2009

Memo to US Press secetary Robert Gibbs

1. Congratulations. Your presidential regime has managed to secure the most supine, slobbering, spineless, unquestioning media coverage since Enver Hoxha's Albania. A report last month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs said Obama has received more coverage than his two predecessors combined. On ABC, CBS and NBC news the majority of evaluations - 58 per cent - have been favourable. (Compare GW Bush - 33 per cent; Bill Clinton 44 per cent - in first 50 days of office). More importantly, you have Pravda. Yes, no less than 73 per cent of all evaluative comments in your chief propaganda organ - aka The New York Times - have been favourable to Obama.

2. Sure your congenitally libtard Mainstream Media were probably biased that way anyway, but you have played your part. Your combative style - which led you to dismiss the entire British print media just now in one glib, sneering phrase - has earned you the nickname "The Enforcer." You have a reputation for coming down hard on any media outlet which doesn't follow your approved version of reality. "I work the referee a little bit," as you once put it. (A reference, perhaps, to when you played goalkeeper for your college football team).

3. If you are going to make clever-sounding football references displaying your rich understanding of the British press, try to get your terminology right. We call it the "Champions League." Not the "Champions League cup."

4. That's only the beginning of your problems, matey. Your treatment not just of the British media but of Britain generally smacks of a risible ineptitude. First, you let President Obama send back the Winston Churchill bust. Then, you insult our visiting prime minister with a dismally low-key reception (worthy of a minor African head of state, not your closest and most loyal ally) and shoddy gifts (those DVDs). Then you compound the insult by having one of your monkeys declare, Chicago-politics-style, ""There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." OK so we know Obama's not much interested in foreign affairs and has a special loathing for Britain because it roughed up his Kenyan granddad during the Mau Mau insurrection. But don't you realise, that one of your jobs as his press secretary is to make out like he loves us so much even his underpants have a union flag on them?

5. Insulting the British print media. Big mistake. We know we're not angels. We know we can go over the top sometimes. But unfortunately that's a much bigger problem for you than it is for us. You see, while a lot of your mainstream media will hold fire on stories which they think may reflect poorly on your wondrous Obamamessiah - what his half-brother has been up to, say - we have fewer qualms about telling it like it is. So far, you've had a pretty easy ride. The Obama Kool Aid has proved almost as popular beverage in Britain as it is in the US. But just you wait till we start showing our teeth.

6. A lot of Americans know this. They appreciate our irreverence. They enjoy our frank criticisms of all the myriad areas where Obama is getting it so badly wrong - everything from his disastrous cap and trade measures, to his brutal treatment of Chrysler dealerships which didn't support him, to his pork barrelling, to his failure to do anything that looks remotely like rescuing the US economy. That's why they come to read us online: because they can and there's nothing you can do to stop them.

7. We had a guy just like you over here once. Guy named Alastair Campbell. Did for our now heavily discredited prime minister Tony Blair what you do for Obama: a little light press bullying; professional turd polishing; that kind of thing. We hated Alastair Campbell, really loathed him. But he got away with bullying us because in those days we didn't know any better. We were still going through this sort of dumb-cattle phase where we still had some vestigial respect for politicians and trust that they knew what they were doing.

8. But we don't respect politicians any more. Not our politicians, and not yours either. Imagine how this new strain of irreverence bordering on utter contempt is going to affect our reporting of political affairs. Actually, you've no need to imagine. Just read some of our Telegraph blogs.
Click to read the article and the comments

Obama on the Golf Course...

image by rees

Helen Thomas To Gibbs: 'What Is The Threat From Iran?' Prove It!

Helen Thomas to Gibbs: Hey, are we sure Iran’s a threat?

from Hot Air.com
2009 by Allahpundit
May 18, 2009

I don’t know what to say about this that I didn’t already say when she asked The One a stupid question about Israeli nukes at his February presser, so refresh your memory. Grandstanding hack then, grandstanding hack now. In fairness to the left, as much as she prides herself on beinga liberal, I think denial about Iran’s intentions is a minority position even on their side. The only question here, really, is whether she earnestly doubts that Iranian nuclear weapons would pose a threat or whether she recognizes that they would but is willing to tolerate them anyway in the name of moral equivalence. Smart money’s on the latter.

If you’re not familiar with the quotes from Iranian leaders that Gibbs mentions near the end, start here. Exit question: Seriously, isn’t Greg Hengler right about her keeping her seat at these pressers not because she’s asking anything worthwhile but out of simple respect for her longevity? That’s one less question per day that might advance a story that Gibbs is being asked.



HERE'S SOME MORE HELEN THOMAS:

U.S. Ready to Take out Pakistani Nukes

from the blog Islam In Action
Saturday, May 16, 2009

As the violence has escalated in Pakistan since the inception of Sharia law in the Swat Valley, many of us have wondered about the nuclear arsenal within Pakistan. Here is what one Pakistani news organization had to say.

Hat tip to The Religion of Peace.

‘Plans ready to take out Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal’
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Monitoring Desk

WASHINGTON: The US has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, al-Qaeda or other Islamic extremists, a leading TV network reported.

“American intelligence sources say the operation would be conducted by the Joint Special Operations Command, the super-secret commando unit headquartered at Fort Bragg, NC,” a report by Rowan Scarborough of the FoxNews said on Friday. The report has also been posted on foxnews.com, the website of the TV channel.

It said: “The JSOC is the military’s chief terrorists hunting squad and has units now operating in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s western border. But a secondary mission is to secure foreign nuclear arsenals — a role for which the JSOC operatives have trained in Nevada.

“The mission has taken on added importance in the recent months, as Islamic extremists have taken territory close to the capital of Islamabad and could destabilise Pakistan’s shaky democracy. “We have plans to secure them ourselves if things get out of hand,” said a US intelligence source, who has deployed to Afghanistan. “That is a big secondary mission for the JSOC in Afghanistan.”

The source said the JSOC had been updating its mission plan for the day President Obama gave the order to infiltrate Pakistan. “Small units could seize them, disable them and then centralise them in a secure location,” the source said. A secret Defence Intelligence Agency document, first disclosed in 2004, said Pakistan had a nuclear arsenal of 35 weapons. The document said it planned to more than double the arsenal by 2020.

FoxNews quoted a Pakistani official as saying the US and his country had an understanding that if either Osama bin Laden, or his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, was located, the US troops and air strikes might be used inside the borders to capture or kill them.

“What makes the Pakistan mission especially difficult is that the military has its missiles on the Soviet-style mobile launchers and rail lines. The US intelligence agencies, using satellite photos and communication intercepts, is constantly monitoring their whereabouts. Other warheads are kept in storage. The US technical experts have visited Pakistan to advise the government on how to maintain and protect its arsenal.

“Also, there are rogue elements inside Pakistan’s military and intelligence service, who could quickly side with the extremists and make the JSOC’s mission all the more difficult.“It’s relatively easy to track the rail-mounted ones with satellites,” said the intelligence source. “Truck-mounted are more difficult. However, they are all relatively close to the capital in areas that the government firmly controls, so we don’t have to look too far.

“The JSOC is made up of three main elements: Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and a high-tech special intelligence unit known as the Task Force Orange. The JSOC was instrumental in Iraq in finding and killing Abu Musab Zarqawi, the deadly and most prominent al-Qaeda leader in the Middle East.

“There is speculation in the intelligence community that a secondary reason for Army Lt-Gen Stanley McChrystal being named the next commander in Afghanistan is that he headed the JSOC in 2006-08 and is read-in on its contingency missions in Pakistan.

“Adm Michael Mullen, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, this month said that based on the information he had seen, Pakistan’s nuclear warheads were safe. “I remain comfortable that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are secure, that the Pakistani leadership and, in particular, the military is very focused on this,” it said. “We, the United States, have invested fairly significantly over the last three years, to work with them, to improve that security. And we’re satisfied, very satisfied with that progress. We will continue to do that. And we all recognise obviously the worst downside of — with respect to Pakistan is that those nuclear weapons come under the control of terrorists.”
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Unbelievable Quote by by a U.S. General...

Lt. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik, a U.S.-based Marine commander, suggests that General McChrystal who is replacing General McKiernan as the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, "will do things differently."

"He really does understand that you're not going to win the war by killing all the enemy. That's just not going to work," he said.

Are you kidding me??? I think it would be quite obvious that if you killed all the enemy, the war would be over! Who would you still need to fight???

What war college did he graduate from? I believe they usually teach you that the object is to kill all of the enemy. This is just an unbelievably bizarre statement to make. Are these the new talking points from Obama? Are we going to fight a war where the object is not necessarily to kill the enemy? Obama has turned this world upside down.

I would like to recommend this quote from General Patton:

"There is one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."- General George S.
Patton Jr.

As long as there are Taliban left standing, there will be a war.
Rees

Analysis: Obama seeks effective war innovations

By Robert Burns
Ap National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is struggling to confront a central reality of the Afghanistan war it inherited — that more troops, more aid and a retooled strategy alone are not enough.

It wants to energize the effort with new ideas, too — and do it before American public patience runs out.

It's a grim given that U.S. casualties are likely to increase in the months ahead as additional soldiers and Marines arrive to take on the Taliban in their southern strongholds. Already some prominent members of Congress — including from Obama's own party — are questioning whether Afghanistan is a lost cause.

That concern may explain, in part, the decision Monday to sack Gen. David McKiernan as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and replace him with an officer known for innovative action, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Pentagon chief Robert Gates said it was time for "new thinking and new approaches."

Yet it seems unlikely the switching of commanders portends a new U.S. war strategy. Obama announced a revised plan just two months ago. Instead the administration is hoping that a military command shake-up will lead to a more effective implementation of the existing strategy, which is aimed at defeating al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and preventing their return to either country.

William Fallon, the retired Navy admiral who was responsible for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East in 2007-08, is optimistic that new leadership will make a difference.

"I have the highest confidence in his judgment," Fallon said of McChrystal. "He gets it."

The change at the top in Afghanistan won't mean new marching orders for arriving Marines, said Lt. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik, a U.S.-based Marine commander. However, Hejlik, too, suggested that McChrystal will do things differently.

"He really does understand that you're not going to win the war by killing all the enemy. That's just not going to work," he said.

McKiernan recently described the war as "stalemated, at best" in the southern part of Afghanistan where the Taliban are strongest. For months he has called for an increase in U.S. forces, but during the Bush administration his requests went unmet as Iraq dominated the White House's focus.

Obama entered the White House promising to make Afghanistan and Pakistan the higher priority, arguing that stopping al-Qaida from launching new attacks was of greater strategic importance than the task in Iraq. He also said he would "not blindly stay the course" in Afghanistan and would regularly review his approach. Since then the situation — militarily and politically — has arguably gotten worse.

The boldness of the insurgency was underscored Tuesday. Eleven Taliban suicide bombers struck government buildings in a daylong assault in the eastern city of Khost. The assault led to running gunbattles with U.S. and Afghan forces that killed 20 people and wounded three Americans.

At the heart of Obama's approach to the war is his view, shared by senior commanders, that military power alone will not lead to success — and that stability in Afghanistan is not possible without stability in neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan, where the radical Taliban movement has been on the rise.

That means Obama will look to McChrystal to find more effective ways of linking military action with an accelerated effort to build workable Afghan government ministries, to expand and improve Afghan security forces, to promote Afghan reconciliation with more moderate elements of the Taliban, and to improve the U.S.-led coalition's ability to overcome remarkably effective propaganda efforts by the Taliban and al-Qaida.

It also means that turning around the war in Afghanistan will require changes beyond Obama's control — perhaps most importantly a more effective Pakistani government response to the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan.

Two months after announcing his new strategy, Obama has little to show for it, although the extra 21,000 troops he approved as reinforcements are only now beginning to arrive and there is the prospect of a further restructuring of the U.S.-NATO command in Afghanistan. Also, the new U.S. ambassador in Kabul, retired Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, just arrived in the capital last week.

The outlook is not bright. At a hearing Tuesday, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, painted a grim picture, saying he was stunned by a lack of progress in Afghanistan, which he called a "black hole" with no bottom.

"It is just breathtaking, the amount of money, the American lives we've spent there, and you have a government that has control maybe to the outskirts of the capital," Risch said.

The man to whom Risch was speaking, Richard Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat who is coordinating the administration's policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, responded that his own initial assessment was not much different. Holbrooke insisted, however, that the administration has a workable strategy and that dismantling the terrorist network that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 is too important not to press ahead.

Obama needs Congress to go along with the piece of his strategy that calls for providing billions more in aid to Pakistan with the aim of preventing a collapse into chaos that could spill over into Afghanistan. But it was evident from Holbrooke's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that some of the most skeptical and reluctant members of Congress are from Obama's own party.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he feared that adding U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan would only expand the trouble in Pakistan.

"You are absolutely correct that an additional amount of American troops, particularly if they are successful in (southern Afghanistan), could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan, which would add to the instability," Holbrooke said. He said this would require closer coordination with the Pakistani government.

Another obstacle to progress in Afghanistan that has seemed beyond U.S. efforts to overcome is the recurrence of civilian casualties. It's a problem that has undercut Afghan public support for the U.S. mission and assisted the Taliban in promoting the notion that the Afghanistan government is a U.S. puppet.

One more problem demanding an innovative solution.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

A Perfect Storm? Will Pakistan Implode?

By Investor's Business Daily
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009

Terrorism: After long demanding that Pakistan get a legitimately elected president, Democrats now threaten to abandon his war efforts. Meanwhile, the Taliban and al-Qaida eye Islamabad's sizable nuclear arsenal.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto and leader of her Pakistan People's Party, has come to Washington, but he hardly conquered it.

After meeting with Zardari for 90 minutes, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, threatening de-funding, were grumbling he said little about his game plan on defeating the Taliban, whose forces have made inroads into more populated areas.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House panel, remarked that Zardari "did not present a coherent strategy for the defeat of this insurgency." When confronted with Berman's complaints on NBC's "Meet the Press," the best Zardari had to offer was to say he has "always have been of the view that democracy is the answer to the problem."

He spent much of the interview complaining that his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, was a dictator and that the United States had supported him.

But as flawed and heavy-handed as Musharraf was, at least while he was in power the Taliban and al-Qaida were not making inroads toward overthrowing Pakistan's government — and gaining possible access to as many as 100 nuclear weapons.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the U.S. Central Command, confirmed that "the location of al-Qaida's senior leadership is, indeed, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of that very rugged border region of western Pakistan just east of Afghanistan."

And according to U.S. and Pakistani officials, al-Qaida operatives seek "to sow chaos in Pakistan and strengthen the hand of the militant Islamist groups there," the New York Times said Monday.

In a March Washington Post interview, David Kilcullen, top counterinsurgency adviser to Petraeus during the surge in Iraq, described the situation as "reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state . . . ."

Kilcullen noted that "the Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don't follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state."

Former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn, now leading the Nuclear Threat Initiative group, recently pointed out that Pakistan's "generals aren't guarding those weapons. The privates are — the young people are . . . . And that's . . . a big question mark, as the country becomes more subject to revolutionary-type zealots."

Pakistan, the only Islamic nuclear power, now has a president who, while possessing democratic bona fides, seems weak, has questionable control of and respect from his military, and has cultivated a reputation for obfuscation.

Meanwhile, a resurgent Taliban may threaten the Islamabad regime's very existence; al-Qaida, headquartered in Pakistan, sits perched, ready to take advantage; and Democrats in Congress seem eager to pull the financial plug.

Is a perfect storm gathering that will empower al-Qaida or its allies with nuclear weapons?
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Gates (Obama) Tosses A General Under The Bus For The Civilian Air Raid Deaths - and blames Bush again

Obama via Gates, conveniently tosses General McKiernan under his bus. He's doing this to deflect criticism arising from the large number of civilians that were killed in the recent U.S. bombing raid. Obama is making McKiernan the scapegoat. He's asked for McKiernan's resignation so he can replace him and then say the problem has been resolved. From this point on, Obama will not want to hear any more criticism.

Gibbs in his press conferences will just say we investigated what transpired and we've taken corrective action. Cased closed. No more questions.

I'm not disappointed that he's being replaced. I made a post back on April 10, 2009, after General McKiernan made a statement where he was apologizing for past U.S. mistakes and saying he is was studying the Quran. He was doing the Obama goose step feel good approach with the Taliban. Well, it doesn't look like it worked out very well for him and the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. Imagine that!.

The picture is of Stanley McChrystal. Here is Stanley McChrystal's Joint Chiefs of Staff biography. He is the new commander for all U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. His resume is very impressive. I like the fact that he has a Specials Forces background. Here is his Wikipedia biography.
Rees

from Yahoo News.com
By Pauline Jelinek And Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon replaced its top general in Afghanistan Monday as President Barack Obama tries to turn around a stalemated war. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he asked for the resignation of Gen. David McKiernan. Gates said new leadership is needed as the Obama administration launches its strategy in the seven-year-old campaign.

The change is aimed at "getting fresh thinking, fresh eyes on the problem," Gates told a Pentagon news conference.

The move comes as more than 21,000 additional U.S. forces begin to arrive in Afghanistan, dispatched by Obama to confront the Taliban more forcefully this spring and summer.

Replacing McKiernan will be Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has had a top administrative job at the Joint Chiefs of Staff for less than a year. He is a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command.

McKiernan held the command in Afghanistan for about 11 months.

Gates recommended to Obama that McChrystal be nominated for the top job and that Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez be McChrystal's deputy. He urged the Senate to confirm the two quickly.

Obama had approved 17,000 additional combat forces for Afghanistan this year, plus 4,000 trainers and other non-combat troops. By year's end, the United States will have more than 68,000 troops in the sprawling country — about double the total at the end of Bush's presidency but still far fewer than the approximately 130,000 still in Iraq.

McKiernan and other U.S. commanders have said resources they need in Afghanistan are tied up in Iraq.

Asked if McKiernan's resignation ends his military career, Gates said, "Probably."

Gates visited Afghanistan last week to see firsthand what preparations and plans are under way to set the president's counterinsurgency strategy in motion.

"As I have said many times before, very few of these problems can be solved by military means alone," Gates said Monday. "And yet, from the military perspective, we can and must do better."
He noted that the Afghan campaign has long been shortchanged of the people and money needed in favor of the Bush administration's focus since 2003 on the Iraq war.

"But I believe, resources or no, that our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders," he said. "Today we have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission, and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed."

In June 2006 McChrystal was congratulated by then-President Bush for his role in the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. As head of the special operations command, his forces included the Army's clandestine counterterrorism unit, Delta Force.

McChrystal also came under fire for his role in the furor surrounding the friendly fire shooting of Army Ranger Pat Tillman — a former NFL star — in Afghanistan. An investigation at the time found that he was "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending that Tillman get a Silver Star award.

McChrystal acknowledged he had suspected several days prior to approving the Silver Star citation that Tillman may have died by fratricide, rather than enemy fire. He sent a memo to military leaders warning them of that, even as they were approving Tillman's Silver Star. He told investigators that he believed Tillman deserved the award.

The Army overruled a Pentagon recommendation that he be held accountable for his actions.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

New White House Photo of Air Force One landing in Wahsington, D.C.

Previously unreleased White House photo
This photo op was priceless

You Can't Read This Post - It's Classified Information

The following information is from the blogs Don Surber, A Blog For All and Ace of Spades HQ (language warning for ACE). You'll enjoy the news and the sarcasm.
Rees

from A Blog For All
Posted by lawhawk
Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Scare Force One Photos Wont Be Made Public

After claiming last week that the flyby of the VC-25 aircraft that is designated Air Force One when the President is on board was meant to upgrade the file photos of the airplane over national landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the US Air Force now says that they won't make the photos public.

Are you kidding me? After spending $328,835 [ed: corrected the figure] to make the effort and causing quite the scare and stir in the NY metro area because of the low flying aircraft that no one except a chosen few in the FAA and a few people that the FAA informed, the Air Force and White House owe it to the taxpayers and the New York metro area residents to see what they got for the trouble.

The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.

"We have no plans to release them," an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.

The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.

"The photos . . . are classified -- that's ridiculous," Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said.

New Yorkers said they could not understand how a president who shares intimate snapshots from the White House could justify classifying these.

"So we're not gonna see the fruits of this cruel joke?" said Frank Antonelli, 39, one of the Wall Street traders spooked by last week's flyover.
Also, after claiming he was angry that the photo op caused such a stir, the President must make the photos available.

This only adds an unnecessary diversion to the White House (which could be precisely why they're going this route?).

UPDATE:Don Surber links. Thanks! Don also notes that the White House is hell-bent on releasing hundreds of photos showing alleged abuse of detainees. So, it's real easy to find reason to criticize the US (and particularly the prior administration), but if you find reason to criticize the current occupant of the White House, those photos remain classified (although not for long as Michelle Malkin has filed FOIA requests to release the photos and other information stemming from the overflights).

UPDATE:This is top quality snark, courtesy of Ace of Spades reader C.Jordan:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to read the article and the comments

The best New York flyover video

Stupidity + Arrogance = Gibbs

AIR HEADS IN WHITE HOUSE TERRORIZE NEW YORK CITY

Scare Force One - The Doh!meister is at it again!
IDIOTIC FLIGHT SPURS '9/11' EVAC

By MURRAY WEISS, DAVID SEIFMAN and JEREMY OLSHAN
from The New York Post
April 28, 2009

"Air Farce One" played out over lower Manhattan yesterday -- in a terrifyingly bizarre military photo op that sent office workers fleeing from their buildings fearing a new 9/11-type attack.

But it turned out that the backup Air Force One jet and the fighter that appeared to be pursuing it only 1,000 feet above Ground Zero were staging the spectacle to get publicity shots of the presidential plane with a New York backdrop.

"We all ran to the window, and I thought, that's it, we're all dead," said Chris Biancamano, 36, who works at a brokerage in Jersey City. "It brought back all the memories of 9/11. I said, 'I have to get out of here now!' "

The planes flew over the Verrazano Bridge, buzzed Lady Liberty's left ear, continued up the Hudson past Jersey City and then circled back toward Staten Island, federal officials said. The jets then completed two more loops as photographers aboard the F-16 took the world's most expensive snapshots.

Although the Air Force had permission for the 10 a.m. flyover, no one bothered to warn the people on the ground, and as the two jets hurtled toward lower Manhattan, many mistook Obama's plane for Osama's.

President Obama himself was not in the plane at the time, but the 747 flew so low that New Yorkers had no trouble reading the aircraft's insignia.

Dominick Caglioti, who works at the Mercantile Exchange in lower Manhattan, thought the planes were headed straight for his window. After learning it was all a photo op, he fumed.

"It's so stupid because they tell you about every fire drill, but they didn't tell us about this," he said.

Jillian Pizzarello, who also works at the Mercantile Exchange, said, "You don't do this to people down here after all we have been through."

Thousands of people were evacuated from buildings on both sides of the Hudson during the half-hour episode.

Federal aviation officials had notified Mayor Bloomberg's office -- but not the mayor himself -- and the NYPD last week. But officials were given clear instructions not to share the classified mission with the public, sources said.

NYPD brass told 911 operators in advance to explain to callers that the planes -- which came within 500 feet of the Statue of Liberty's torch -- were conducting an "authorized" military operation.

The only relatively high-ranking person in the Bloomberg administration told of the plan was Marc Mugnos, the director of operations in the Office of Citywide Event Coordination -- a man normally charged with approving street fairs, sources said.

Bloomberg said he never received word of the plans, and he was "furious."

"Why the Defense Department wanted to do a photo op right around the site of the World Trade Center catastrophe de fies imagination," he said. "Poor judgment would be a nice way to phrase it. Had I known about it I would have called them right away and asked them not to." Mugnos was reprimanded for failing to notify the mayor, a source said.

It's unclear how much the stunt cost taxpayers, but officials said earlier this year that flying Air Force One comes with a $40,000-per-hour price tag.

At first, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed complaints and said he had no knowledge of the flyover.

"I was working on other things. You might be surprised to know I don't know every movement of Air Force One or what happens to it," he said.

But Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, later said he approved the mission.

"I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption," he said. "I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

Obama did not know of the elaborate plans for the photos.

"When he found out, he was absolutely furious," a White House aide told The Post.

The new photo of the plane with the Statue of Liberty was to replace the current publicity shot of Air Force One above Mount Rushmore.

Additional reporting by Kirsten Fleming and David Hastie
murray.weiss@ny post.com
Click to read the article and comments

Obama Apologizes for the 3 Pirate Deaths!

Please Read! This is an absolutely great article.
Rees

Posted by: Laer
April 24th 2009
White House Issues Clarification On Somali Attacks

The White House has issued a clarification on its stated policy regarding operations in Somalia related to the activities of pirates, and apologized for the recent incident in which three pirates were killed.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that the Navy had misunderstood President Obama’s orders, resulting in the unfortunate death of three working class, teenage pirates and a probable deterioration in how pacifists and life-long America-haters may feel about America.

Gibbs stated that a careful review of audiotapes of a conversation between the president and the Secretary of Navy proved the president did not say, “I authorize ATTACKS on the pirates,” but rather, “I authorize A TAX on the pirates.”

Gibbs said that as a result of the missunderstanding, the president has issued a formal apology, which will be delivered to Somalia as soon as someone finds a Somali government official to deliver it to. Gibbs also confirmed that the president has signed a new excutive order, ruling that 95 percent of Somalis will now receive a tax cut.
Click to read the rest of the article and comments