The $357,000 photo
posted at 4:55 pm on May 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Worth every penny, baby. Cost of psychological damage to me and the rest of New York not included.
Louis Caldera, the White House official who approved the flight, is now nestled snugly alongside Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, and about 20 other people under the Messiah’s bus. Culprit or fall guy? Here’s what Cheney told Scott Hennen yesterday:
Hennen: Our guest, former Vice President Dick Cheney on the Scott Hennen Show and The Common Sense Club today. By the way, there is an incredible double standard here in the media coverage. Is that frustrating to you at all? I look at the recent flap over the photo opportunity for Air Force One above New York City, and I imagine had that happened — not that it ever would — in the Bush administration, how the media would have hyperventilated over that forever! And it’s been forgotten. We’re led to believe somehow the President was mad about it. Is it possible for the White House Military Office now under a political appointee, different from your administration when it was a military officer that held that post, that the White House or some high-level staff didn’t know about that?
Cheney: I would assume that some senior staffer signed off on that. Especially a mission with, with in effect what is the backup for Air Force One, there are two of those planes, big 747’s. Either one can function as Air Force One anytime the President is on it. I used them a couple of times during our administration for special trips. You know, they don’t turn a wheel without a lot of people knowing about it and signing off and approving it. A pilot can’t just go out there and get on board and take it for a spin.
I guess Caldera counts as a “senior staffer.” If you want to read the memo, here’s the PDF via Drudge.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
That’s the photo?
lorien1973 on May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I question the timing of the release of the picture
ordi on May 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM
lorien,
this wasn’t about the photo. that’s smoke.
this was about the passenger list.
doesn’t anybody remember history? remember back when some big donor was onboard a U.S.N. submarine doing “emergency surfacing drills” and they rammed a fishing trawler?
who the hell was on that plane?
Mew
acat on May 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I could photoshop a better photo of Air Force One using a photo editior on my 1982 Commodore 64.
Norwegian on May 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I’m guessing they never heard of Photoshop?
originalpechanga on May 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM
That’s not a very good photo.
BadgerHawk on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
who was in the plane?
rob verdi on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Incredible. Just incredible.
I want the passenger manifest. And I want to see every photo taken inside and outside the plane.
BardMan on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Who’s cell phone did they use for that pic?
fogw on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I question the whole thing. How many of these photo ops have there been?
ddrintn on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
For $357,000 they could have composed it a little better
Chainsaw56 on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Eh. Not a bad shot, but definitely not worth the hassle.
Would have been better a bit lower ;)
JamesLee on May 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Photoshop would have been so much cheaper…what an administration.
ladyingray on May 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Flying from the LEFT TO RIGHT!
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM
What a waste.
bluelightbrigade on May 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Nice lighting.
BardMan on May 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM
acat on May 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I do recall.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Personally, I don’t even mind the money so much. The military does frequent expensive photo shoots and other pr activities like air shows. I’m ok with that, for the most part.
However, the mass panic this caused and the media double-standard is a disgrace.
juliesa on May 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Lets get a hi-res version of that photo and zoom i on the windows.
AverageJoe on May 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM
You take a picture of new york, and the statue of liberty, with warehouses in the background? Who does this?
Come on. Obviously wasn’t a picture shoot.
lorien1973 on May 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM
ooooooooooooooooooooh. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. oooooooooooooooh. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Nope. One oooh, and aaah short of being worth what it cost.
capejasmine on May 8, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I want to know who was on that plane
macummings on May 8, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Obama, $357,000.00 is a lot of money outside of Washington DC.
It could have kept more of the National Guard employed from the cut you just made.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I could have done a better job with MS Paint, and that’s a POS.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:04 PM
ROTFLMAO!
portlandon on May 8, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Wow. All those people scurrying in terror look like ants from up here.
Ronnie on May 8, 2009 at 5:04 PM
“Cost of psychological damage to me and the rest of New York not included.”
About the only good thing in this for me was the sight of all those sanctimonious effete NYC liberals screaming and running for their lives from the “nonexistant threat”. Funny stuff!
elduende on May 8, 2009 at 5:04 PM
What’s the matter? You don’t think this photo was worth the money spent and the panic in NYC that it caused?
What are you, unamerican?
/sarc
UltimateBob on May 8, 2009 at 5:04 PM
It looks as though it’s about to drop a bomb on Lady Liberty.
baldilocks on May 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Really odd angle to shoot from, if the whole idea was to get a photo of the Statue of Liberty with Air Force One. In this, the statue is almost an afterthought — centered at the bottom but diminished by the angle to near insignificance, which makes the flyover itself even more unfathomable.
Surely, there have got to be more photos with a straight-on angle out there, if the whole idea was to get a photo of the plane with Lady Liberty in the background (and given all the shots of the plane flying around the Lower Harbor, my guess is they picked a shot that would make AF1 look as though it was flying as high as possible over the city, almost as high as the old LaGuardia Airport approach patterns that flew right over Manhattan before turning east to Queens).
jon1979 on May 8, 2009 at 5:06 PM
“Gee, them people look like ants down there! …’ceptin’ I don’t think ants can run that fast…”
Maquis on May 8, 2009 at 5:06 PM
The weather in the background should clue anyone into thinking that this was not about the photo shoot. If the sole purpose for the mission was to get new, high quality photos and the weather sucks for it, you reschedule.
This sounds a lot more like a joy ride.
BadgerHawk on May 8, 2009 at 5:06 PM
This photo is fake!
here is the real photo:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?filter=app_2305272732#/photo.php?pid=1851756&id=514096246&ref=mf
Sheoncebelieved on May 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Beat me in part! :)
Maquis on May 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Were I a more cynical, conspiracy minded fellow I might say that this was a donor flight and that the picture (as horrible as it is) was just taken quickly to cover it up in case there was a controversy over it.
“Hey, take a quick picture in case someone asks for the photo from this.”
And that would explain why the White House tried to hide the image from the flight as long as it could.
But of course I have complete trust in the White House.
amerpundit on May 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM
“…this was the photo op we inherited from the previous administration.”
-President September Tenth
regal on May 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Isn’t Michelle demanding the release of the details. I’d like to know who was on
Obunghole’sOUR plane too.marklmail on May 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I would fire the photographer. Was the F-16 pilot the photographer?
I want names!! Exposure & composition are horrible. Yon can’t even see NYC…
Hell, I would have only charged $300,000 and delivered an IMAX movie.
izoneguy on May 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM
It looks as though it’s about to drop a bomb on Lady Liberty.
baldilocks on May 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Instead, it took a dump on NYC.
txag92 on May 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Looks photo-shopped.
R D on May 8, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Yea, We can also see the screaming people below in NYC!!
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 8, 2009 at 5:11 PM
This definitely falls into the document dump Friday afternoon pile.
davek70 on May 8, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Passenger manifest needed. And no matter what the White House says, there is one.
We can’t fly any passengers, military or civilian, without a detailed manifest. No way the rules for AF1 are less restrictive.
BadgerHawk on May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM
You had a C64 in 1982? Rich bastard.
My Vic-20 and I are retroactively jealous.
YYZ on May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Fall guy……..
…………… but that’s OK, I hear ACORN is hiring.
Seven Percent Solution on May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Photo of Air Force One over the Statue of Liberty: $357,000
Photo of Air Force One over New Yorkers fleeing for the lives in terror: Priceless.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM
It looks like Obama’s plane is casting a shadow over Liberty, looming over her, threatening her.
Loxodonta on May 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Give me a script and an ObamaCard graphic, and I’ll whip up another Priceless commercial.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Wasn’t the original spin that it was a training mission?
rw on May 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Assuming that’s a standard camera, I’d have to judge the altitude of the VC-25 at something over 3,000 feet. The videos suggest the terror fly-bys happened at something under 2,500 feet.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Seriously, that’s nowhere near the quality of former AF1 pictures and I don’t believe for a second that the White House spent $300,000+ for that photo and then left thinking it was just fine.
I tend not to engage in conspiracy theories, but I don’t trust the WH on this one. We need a passenger manifest. I can picture the administration taking a quick picture to show the public in case anyone asked for it.
amerpundit on May 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Also, notice the comparative sizes.
Obama’s fuselage = Very big and in your face.
Liberty = Very small, hardly noticeable.
Loxodonta on May 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
What is suspicious is that the photo was taken from the F-16 escort plane. But any photographer knows you can’t take a quality photograph through a bubble canopy as you find on a fighter plane, and the result is what you see in this photo. Air to air photos require special platforms and special aircraft. Those were not used. Instead we just had a run of the mill fighter pilot using his point and shoot camera for a set of photos that was, allegedly, to be used as some kind of postcard Whitehouse souvenir. Doesn’t add up.
keep the change on May 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
They took a night photo too? That’s funny, it looked like daylight in films of New Yorkers scrambling for cover…
Somebody needs to tell the genius in the White House where the Brightness button is on the computer. For $357K and lots of lost time in New York, we deserve better.
Steve Z on May 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Take out the plane and you just have another bad snapshot from a first-time tourist arriving in NYC.
sherry on May 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Steve Z on May 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM
So they continue to call it Air Force One and claim that Obama wasn’t on board. Liars or just incompetent?
Ronnie on May 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I thought this was the official footage:
The Fly Over
Here is a White House report summary of the official investigation:
White House Statement
DeathB4Tyranny on May 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Yes it was. In fact, they’re still saying that they were shooting approaches at a Jersey airport.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I don’t think that’s even a photo. It looks like a still from a video for crying out loud.
Guardian on May 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Interesting – ABC News has apparently retouched the photo.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I think you are right. This is nothing like the quality air-to-air photos that you can find right now in the thousands on the Air Force website. This almost looks like a snapshot taken with a cheap personal camera as a personal keepsake. Something smells fishy as all heck.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Check out this from the report:
Lets put that in perspective; the Empire State Building is 1,250 Feet tall. The WTC buildings were 1368 feet tall. The Statue of Liberty is 305 feet tall.
That plane was very low.
AverageJoe on May 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Ego eclipses Liberty.
Maquis on May 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM
With both still cameras and video cameras using digitized images, there isn’t really a difference anymore.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Gee, you mean one could retouch a photo, say adding a plane to an aerial shot of the Statue of Liberty? I wonder how much that would cost.
rbj on May 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Heh…I predicted Caldera would be unemployed over this.
jediwebdude on May 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM
The glare forward of AF1 appears to be the reflection of the canopy, no?
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Read the second comment:
Wow. Just wow.
lorien1973 on May 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I remember it costing $600 w/tax in ’82 or ’83; which was a bargain back then. The Atari cost twice as much.
I had a Vic 20 as well! Later on I bought a C128 and then an Amiga 500. Loved Commodore products, too bad they went belly up in the 90s. Far superior to Macs or PCs imho….
Norwegian on May 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM
And another:
Blaming Bush: (LOL!)
lorien1973 on May 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM
That’s not much better. You can see the glare on the glass, the shadow/blackness in the right-bottom corner, and the colors are distorted. Still nowhere near the usual quality of these images.
amerpundit on May 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I prefer the Miss California panty photo.
RobCon on May 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM
The Left works hard every day to prove Liberalism is a mental disorder.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM
One could. One could also punch up the brightness to make the shot look better than it is.
Photoshop is, depending on the version, a couple hundred bucks. MS Paint, which doesn’t allow for altering of light levels, but which does allow a crude transposition of one object on top of another, is free.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Executive Summary of WH Investigation:
Obama didn’t know anything about it – he only only lives there, and he only flies in the other one, anyway. And when Boeing built it, Obama was only 28 years old. In conclusion, shut up.
drunyan8315 on May 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Not all of us are effete and sanctimonious, and many of us remember the sight of people jumping from the World Trade Center the last time we got buzzed by low-flying aircraft in lower Manhattan.
That said, this incident has caused far less outrage among New Yorkers than I hope it would have; had Chimpy BusHitlerBurton done this, people would be foaming at the mouth with anger. It’s infuriating that people here are giving Chairman Bow a pass on this.
Fallen Sparrow on May 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
OK I know they didn’t take just one crappy photo. So where’s the album I paid for?
Ronnie on May 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I believe mhking has the appropriate “just” phrase – Just Damn!
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Ta ell with the photo, the real story is in the report at Drudge.
No one. Not a single person even considered that a low flying jumbo jet in and around New York City might cause some people some concern.
Jim708 on May 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Or was it poor camera settings that have simply been lightened? Obamatron comments from the link like this:
Liberals still living in September 10th.
Loxodonta on May 8, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Nowhere near. Here’s a whole website filled with examples of their work. This looks like a photo the pilot of the chase plane snapped with his personal disposable camera as keepsake.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2009 at 5:31 PM
It’s craptacular!
jennifernaz on May 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I read the report, the WHMO comes off as sloppy, with poor communications and attention to detail (the director didn’t read email from his deputy on the event for over 3 days).
What’s really incredible, though, is that, if the report is to be believed, nobody who knew about the plan — not in the White House, not in the FAA, and not in the military — thought there was any big deal about flying a 747 at low-altitude over New York City without any prior public warning. There was supposed to be a 3-day period of public relations before the flight, but that got cut down to a single day, and then disappeared in the actual event, replaced with someone at the FAA answering queries over the phone. In an administration that believes itself more in-tune with the public than any other before, this is tone deafness of an amazing degree, and, I think, indicative of a pervasive 9/10 mentality.
Socratease on May 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Lightened by ABC, not by the White House. Wherever AP got the pic above, as well as Fox News and CNN, have the real-dark version.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
That’s just part of the Messiah’s halo.
Josiah on May 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Exactly. I’m not believing that this is what they spent so much time, money, and secrecy for. Anyone with a functioning brain would’ve looked at that and said “we need to get another one”.
amerpundit on May 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I’m certain my friend, who could see the 1st plane inside the WTC from the street outside his apartment in the Village, would beg to differ.
ladyingray on May 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM
As does local media and the NY Post. CBS, however, appears to have done some of its own retouching. They make it look like a picture taken 30 years ago.
amerpundit on May 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Didn’t the press rage a while ago about how out-of-touch the automaker CEOs were to have spent all that money flying on private jets to Washington to beg for taxpayer money??
What should we say when the government starts asking us for more money when they use their private jets (BIG private jets) to take some souvenir photos?
AverageJoe on May 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Has anyone grabbed a copy of the pic from wherever the whitehouse released it to see if they stripped out the embedded camera information, assuming that it was digital?
It would be a bit embarrasing if $357k photo shoot is being done with a $100 digital camera. It would also lead one to think that they not releasing whatever high end pictures they took with their professional equipment.
rw on May 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM
The flight included instrument approaches to Atlantic City International Airport?
Buried way at the end of the Reuters dispatch.
So, the President plans to hit Atlantic City?
Gonna bet the economy on Texas Hold ‘em?
coldwarrior on May 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM
They keep quoting that amount $328k with the obvoius intention of showing how little the operation actually cost. There is no way that figure could be whittled down any smaller.
Don’t you think that if it happened under Bush that we would get the “real cost”, including time spent by everyone talking about it? I mean every second spent talking about this and defending or investigating it is an actual cost too.
I’m not even talking about the mental anguish of the people who witnessed it. Or even about the 8-to-5 morons like me who spend time at work reading about this and contributing to a blog.
Excluding THAT, the “real cost” would have to be in the tens of millions. And it’s all due to the utter hubris of the administration. Obama cannot even bring himself to take responsibility. But I’ve never heard that man apologize in earnest for anything.
connertown on May 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM
He’s “nestled snugly” alright. He still has tenure at UNM. I bet he’s pleased as punch to be leaving that sinking ship.
Y-not on May 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Wow, I’ve taken better pics of NYC with my little Canon digital camera.
Give me $357,000!
mjk on May 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Indeed. What doesn’t Obama’s ego eclipse?
Loxodonta on May 8, 2009 at 5:38 PM
It took me until the 12th page to find some shots that were undeniably taken from the air. It is on the low end of the shots, but it is plausible.
Somebody upthread noted that this particular photo was likely the one taken from the highest altitude, and is not necessarily what would have been released if the people of New York hadn’t complained massively about being buzzed in a manner reminiscent of 9/11.
steveegg on May 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »