At other points, the plane was described as a backup Air Farce One but the subject line states differently.
The memorandum states the radio call sign, if a president is aboard, is "Air Force One." No radio transmissions are included in the statement so presumably Obamabow could have been on board.
"Our review was limited to the White House's involvement in the April 27 flyover."
The limited review might imply that the WH is not in control of other agencies or that they did not expect cooperation from others.
This internal review "did not review the conduct of other federal agencies or departments that participated in the flyover, including the Department of Defense (the "DoD") or the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA").
What is the role of the DoD and the FAA in this fiasco? Is there any coordination between the agencies? Will there be subsequent reviews in these agencies? Is there no coordination, e.g., as in the case of the lack of coordination between the FBI and the CIA which led to the mistakes on 9/11?
The memorandum states that there are "reviews," plural, in the DoD? Are there competing factions in the DoD?
Nothing is mentioned about a FAA review. Why?
No one thought to interview or question Obamabow?
Another obvious question, where is the passenger manifest? Who was on the plane?
The White House Military Office (WHMO) discussion seems like a red herring. The ruse seems to be to provide lots of irrelevant detail which does not clarify the basic questions about the flight.
The initial planning states that the idea was floated in March or earlier although there is no evidence provided.
If it is true that the first real discussion began on 3 April, it seems that the flight was out of the ordinary from the very beginning. If so, there is no reason for the obvious gaffes in planning and lack of attention to what the memorandum describes from the very beginning as an unusual event.
The evidence presented, if true, states that on 9 April the photo shoot is described as "unusual."
As planning continued, on 20 April, the flight is again characterizes as "unusual."
Now, around the 23 - 24th, as plans solidified, everything seemed to be in order for the out-of-the ordinary flight.
If the quoted email is accurate, it states the "WH shouldn't catch any questions about it." Why? Why would the WH not catch any flak? Is it so the WH can claim plausible denial? In the three days before the flight, is something not being stated that might cause the WH to catch flak? It is also, oddly, described as an "AF" [Air Force] operation, in close coordination with FAA."
How is this an Air Force operation? Is this really a military flight? Why?
The WHMO Director states that he did not read the plans until after the flight on the 27th. Why? He didn't review the unusual flight plan for three days, between the 24th to the 27th?
What email accounts does he have? The Director states he has two accounts: the WHMO account, and a WH account? What's the difference and why does he have two work email accounts? In any event, he didn't check his more frequently accessed account, and besides he left work early a couple days. Neither explanation makes much sense. He could check his accounts, plural, and from any location even if waylaid by health issues.
On the 24th, the Deputy and the Director had a brief but "direct" conversation of thirty seconds about the flight. This thirty second conversation covered all the issues related to the unusual, imminent flight three days hence. No one seemed to think the odd flight required any more attention than this?
The Deputy and the Director's account differs, both appear to be covering their derriere, but the essentials are troubling enough. No one seems to have taken the flight very seriously. And, since there is disagreement here, I would suspect that the flight was not really planned at all until differing accounts, and contradictory details could emerge, i.e., that the flight was not planned, or the mission changed, on the 24th or thereafter as another unstated issue emerged.
Neither individual had any issues according to the statement's account of the exchange by the early afternoon on the 24th and no one reported up the chain of command for the unusual flight.
The most garbled portion of the memorandum is the Director's summary. He didn't seem to understand the mission, though no one else seemed to be asking many questions or planning very well either. Perhaps no one knew the actual mission of the flight.
Then, at almost 3 p.m., Colonel Turner seems to have the sign off with the Deputy, and all along on the planning for this sensitive flight, no one seems to have made concrete plans, and the approvals are coming from lower members of the echelon the entire time. If this flight really was about something else, as it appears to be, then the photo excuse is barely plausible. Someone higher up was calling the shots since no one at this lower level seems to be planning much of anything.
Colonel Turner followed up on the 25th, the most active of the planners, as seems befitting of an Air Force operation, rather than a White House photo opportunity flight. He included the Air Force Mobility Command and the FAA in the notifications.
The reaction, or should I say fall out, fell on the shoulders of the Director. But something transpired from the 24th - 27th to make this more of an Air Force operation. The Director, although his actions seem to be lethargic, is not the sole individual to blame. I think it rather that he was the highest ranking WH employer that could take the fall. It fell to him to make apologies and allow the WH to present a public face of anger and a promise that something like this would not happen again.
The memorandum is obfuscating. Nowhere does it identify the passengers, the actual mission, the military implications of relevant Air Force involvement, and numerous critical issues along these lines. There are many details but little substantive information. This was an unusual flight from the very beginning which flies in the face of the lack of detailed planning and coordination that would accompany such a flight.
The eyewitnesses, those how have nothing to hide, stated that the flyover appeared to be a pursuit. Sidney Bordley, a floor director in an office building at 1 Battery Park Place, said, “People were running out of the office, claiming they saw a commercial flight being pursued by F-16’s.”
Posts
