F 16 Photo Op in NYCFollow

It's somewhat amusing how subjective the view of "prolonged" is though. Something that reflects poorly on the Republicans and/or Bush? Perfectly ok to run it for months if you can. Reflects poorly on Democrats and/or Obama? 24 hours later, it's "old news" and anyone still talking about it is some kind of Conservative shill.


Can we just accept that this *was* a big deal to the people working in Manhattan at the time? And yes. There were thousands of people who fled their office buildings in panic. This was not orchestrated by some Right Wing political group in order to make the Obama administration look bad. No one exaggerated the screams and shouts from the crowd as they watched the plane flying low overhead. It was very real to those who were right there at the time, and no amount of other people insisting that is wasn't, or shouldn't have been a big deal will change that.


It just sometimes seems like you Liberals have become so used to scripted and planned events designed to invoke outrage and action that you have a hard time realizing that sometimes the fear and anger is real. You've become so accepting of the methodology used by your own side to generate political action that you somewhat cynically assume that everything that causes any sort of public response must also just be agenda based. Sometimes it's just a really dumb thing that scared and pissed off a bunch of people and no amount of spinning is going to change that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you acknowledging that for 8 years we've been subjected to stories critical of the Bush administration lingering for months and sometimes years when they were/are just as much non-events as this one (moreso in some cases)?

Heck. Someone instantly brought up the whole "Bush landing on an aircraft carrier" thing. Talk about a non-story that has somehow lingered for 5+ years for no apparent reason at all other than it apparently sounds good around the Liberal koolaid cooler.




Um... It shouldn't. But it does.

I would guess it's because the snafu reflects poorly on the organization and planning of the Obama administration and liberals don't like anything that could hint that their great leader isn't so great or that he might even look bad by association? Gee. Could it be that for 8 years every single thing that happened whether it involved Bush directly or not was laid at his feet anyway?

I suspect that most liberals have a knee-jerk defensive reaction to this story exactly because they know darn well that had a Republican been in office when this happened, they'd be the first to make a big deal out of it themselves. And they wouldn't stop at "It was a dumb mistake" either...



Maybe you. Maybe. I somehow think that you'd be at best sitting quietly on the sidelines allowing others to make a big deal out of it. It's not like I've seen you ever act to do so during the last few years, have you?

Tell you what. Find me an example of you posting to defend against an accusation made against the Bush administration. Just one. And I'll retract you from the group of "you Liberals". Sound ok?

Hey. The White House Waffles are really good! You don't want your staff to eat them all before you get there. Seriously!...

But oddly, the same or similar logic does not apply when it comes to releasing documents about interrogation techniques at Gitmo. Gee. One might think there's a more political motivation behind the choice of opposing or supporting a given action than just whether or not it sends a message of weakness to our enemies.


Maybe you bought Smash's BS hook, line, and sinker Joph. I'll grant you the possibility. But I saw it for what it was. A deflection. The reason many on the left are downplaying this has nothing to do with how our reaction may play out on an international stage and everything to do with the perception of a major snafu by the Obama administration. Have you been reading Smash's posts for the last 8 years and in any way thought that his motivation involved whether or not Al-queda thought we were weak or ineffectual? He uses that argument when it's convenient for his political ideology. That's it.




Again. Do you actually believe it when someone says that we shouldn't make a big deal out of this because it sends a message to the terrorists? Really? Cause I didn't think you were that gullible...




Yup. And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the reaction to the story. I was also not just responding to you, but to the general tendency to downplay the whole event. The folks in NYC weren't really that scared. It was just a few hundred, not thousands of people. Anyone could see it was a presidential plane and shouldn't have been alarmed. I happened to quote you Joph, but that part of my post was more general in nature.

Re-read the thread. Count the number of times someone dismisses the fears of the folks in NY as unwarranted, or suggests that they shouldn't have made such a big deal out of it, or suggests that the story is being exaggerated and it wasn't really that big a deal even to those who were there. The thread is full of those sorts of sentiments Joph and one should ask why. What is the need to downplay this? And I don't buy "OMG! We're telling the terrorists we're scared of them!!!".



And yet, it's amazing how hard so many posters have worked to downplay the entire issue. Bush was blamed for any and everything that was even remotely connected to the White House. Heck. He got blamed for 5+ years about taking us to war on a lie, when the president doesn't even have that power. Whole cottage bumper sticker industries have grown up around the practice of blaming Bush for everything that happened, whether he was directly involved or not.


I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the same folks who've been doing that for 8 years against Bush might assume that this would be done in reverse and might want to act to downplay it before that happens. Just a thought...

Sure. If you're dying to find partisan motives for it all. Which you are, from the looks of it.Right. Which is why I said I was of two minds and started with admitting that the other side had a point. Look, let's just cut to the chase and say that you're just looking for another reason to cry about liberals, okay? That's what this is all about. Right. Which is why you were responding to my post and started ******** about "you liberals". One might think that, if we're in agreement that I wasn't engaged in these things you're accusing "us liberals" of, maybe a blanket statement about "us liberals" was painting with an overly broad brush. Yes?So, just like Varrus, this is really about you being butthurt about Bush and looking for a reason to start jumping up and down and pointing a finger at liberals. A big game of "Gotcha", not because you think there's a real issue but because you're just steamed up about Bush being (in your eyes) mistreated.

At least you're transparent about it. I'll thank you for that.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 4:23pm by Jophiel

By the way, I did read it. There's only a handful of statements like this. Why don't you quote them all for us? I think there's far less than your statement would imply -- but maybe that's just me downplaying things.

Am I? Or am I just pointing out the partisan motives that I see? How do you decide which is which?


I'm trying to point out the double standard in terms of how many of you view events based on who is reflected well or poorly by those events.

I'll point out that my first response was that this occurred at a level well below that of the President himself, so hanging it on Obama was silly. I didn't downplay the stupidity of the set of decisions involved, but absolutely downplayed the suggestion that Obama somehow personally was at fault.


My point is that you agree with me now in this case. But I suspect that had this happened while Bush was in office, you and virtually all of those who are downplaying this would have held almost diametrically opposite positions. The "Mission Accomplished" landing/photo-op is a great example (and was even brought up in this thread). Something that had no real impact, didn't scare anyone, and shouldn't have meant anything other than Bush wanted to congratulate the crew of a Carrier for a job well done (and get a photo-op and speech in at the same time), yet for some reason it's been latched onto as some kind of symbol of a mishandled PR event.


Can't you just step back for a second and compare your reactions and responses to those two for just a minute? Isn't it odd that mine are pretty similar. I don't hold Bush responsible for the words on a banner behind him, and I don't hold Obama responsible for the decision to fly a presidential jet over NYC. Your responses are curiously opposite though. Even to the point of being perfectly willing to accept the reasons for "prolonging" the talk about "Mission Accomplished", while arguing for the opposite in this case.


Yet, I'm the partisan hack, right? Lol...


And for the record Joph. You're one of the more moderate liberals on this board. I debate with you, not because you're the "enemy", but because I honestly believe that you're moderate enough to get a reasoned debate on an issue. But "moderate" seems to be increasingly less so over time.

My point is that you agree with me now in this case. But I suspect that had this happened while Bush was in office, you and virtually all of those who are downplaying this would have held almost diametrically opposite positions. The "Mission Accomplished" landing/photo-op is a great example

No, no it isn't. It bears no similarities at all. It's as good of an example as a picture of laughing tree.

Yeah, I remember that. In the next breath you mocked his administration and then I laughed at you.Do you realize at all how lame the "But if it was Bush you KNOW you'd act just like THIS!!" argument is? Any idea at all?No, it's not. The "Mission Accomplished" event was 100% about showing Bush off. This event was all about getting some nifty photos for stock usage having nothing to do with Obama.Can we find two similiar events to compare first? I find it difficult to believe that you really think that an event that completely centered around Bush (hell, it was set up so he could give a speech) is comparable to an event that had nothing at all to do with Obama. They take these sorts of photos with Air Force One near landmarks on a somewhat regular basis. Had they decided to fly it over Mt. Rushmore that day instead, no one would have even heard about it because it would have made zero news. Bush's event was created entirely to generate news for him; the NY flight was never intended to generate news and the news it did create was only because people screwed up in planning it.

Both events are open to criticism but for entirely different reasons.

Da dum dum dumdee deeeeee dum





He's ******* with you man.

I'm not saying it's false; it may or may not be. Either way he's ******* you, and either way you're going to lose. Being dissapointed? Lost, get angrier? lost Get calmer? Lost.

Smash's style is so close to psychotic that you think he's just going to shatter one day, but his ability to stay at that threshold between troll and angry uebermensch is well practiced.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 10:43pm by Pensive

Are we really still talking about an event which actually meant nothing?

For the record. I HAVE put my life on the line for this Country. I am a combat Veteran of a foreign war ( Desert Storm). I HAVE lived in NYC before and I DID lose friends on 9/11.


Really? See much "combat" did you? Or were you sitting on your *** in a tent wondering what was happening? I think we both know what the reality was, don't we?

I lost friends in a car accident. Oddly I don't start pissing myself and faint when I see a car. I admit that it's hard for me to see the point of view of a weak emotional cripple, but maybe if you keep posting, I'll come around.