Login

MalabarJag · 11-06-2017, 10:05 PM

RJ has claimed that the story of Obama's dog taking a solo flight to a family vacation was not merely false but "patently false." I thought it deserved to be discussed in its own thread, rather than further derail the DNC opposing every possible candidate but Hillary. And yes RJ, we can discuss things that aren't true, especially when it's not clear that it's untrue.

There was no denial, not even from the White House, that the dog flew to the vacation on a separate plane from the rest of the Obama family, so that seems to be a fact. RJ claims that it was "patently" false to say that it was a solo flight. I think it's understood that at a minimum there was a pilot and dog handler on the flight. In this case solo clearly doesn't mean that the dog flew the plane. We're not talking about Barkmelia Earhart.

As far as the actual flight, the first question is why did the dog take a different flight? Surely the dog doesn't need his own seat, so the claim that there was a lack of room on Obama's plane is not a valid argument. While a dog handler needs a seat, I'm sure a dog could ride on a short flight full of people, including his owner, without the need for a dedicated handler.

Here is what Snopes says:

Quote:Bo flew to Maine in a different plane than the rest of the First Family not because he was part of a special canine-only flight, but because the local airport (Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton, Maine) was too small to accommodate the Boeing 747-200B in which the President usually travels. Therefore, the Obamas flew to Maine in a Gulfstream GIII/G3 jet (which seats six to nineteen passengers), while Bo was loaded onto an earlier flight which carried a contingent of presidential aides and staff members.

This is based on a report from the Waterville Morning Sentinel that reported Bo's flight but then revised it's original story to:

Quote:Today’s story about the arrival of the Obamas said the Obama’s dog and one aide arrived on a small jet before the First Family, but there were other occupants on the plane, including several other staffers. The presidential party took two small jets to the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton because the airport was too small to accommodate the president’s usual jet.

Presumably the WMS got it's revised info from Obama's press staff after the fact, since the original article only mentioned one person departing the plane. That's probably all the reporter saw. Pardon me if I question the revision from the people who claimed the Benghazi attack was because of a video.

And even if true, who exactly are the "several other staffers"? They weren't named. Could they have just been the dog's extended personal staff? I don't think the story is definitively refuted by what Snopes has presented. Certainly not to the point of "patently" false.

Note also how "several other staffers" became "a contingent of presidential aides and staff members" in the Snopes text. If Snopes wasn't so glued to Obama's rear they might actually be embarrassed at that exaggeration.

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"