Anyone know how long it takes the White House to fly to Iraq?

[HardWorkingDem]

I ask because when I was flown to the Gulf for the first go around, the commercial flight took 20 plus hours. I'm just curious how a trip can actually be a "quick surprise trip" and no one had any idea Shrub was headed that way.

[hlthe2b]

1. pssst... I think you mean AF1....

LOL


I'm guessing they could do it overnight, which is what has been suggested by the stories--maybe 14 hours? Someone more knowledgeable will surely weigh in.

[rsmith6621]

2. About 9 to 10 Hours

That is if he is able to AIR refuel enroute......By the way.....I figured bush was not going the way of the Pacific yesterday when the TFR(temporary flight restriction) for Hickam AFB in Hawaii was removed suddenly after being listed for several days and no other tfrs issued anywhere in the US.


I guess he thinks he is LBJ...

[maseman]

3. If AF1 leaves the US

it would be pretty tough for anyone to know where it is located at any moment. They communicate on a private channel with controllers. You could never see it from the ground as they are traveling at high altitudes.

They have in-flight refueling capabilities so they don't have to land for fuel.

[rsmith6621]

5. Geez maseman...did I not say in my....

....thread....AIR refuel???????

[maseman]

6. Geez Mr. Smith

You did.

[DemReadingDU]

4. just discussed on CNN

left about 7pm Sunday night. took 12 hours.

[Sukie1941]

7. Eleven Hours

11 hrs

[Auntie Bush]

8. I heard 12 hours.

[HardWorkingDem]

9. I understand the need for secrecy, but isn't the media complicit...

in a PR stunt like this when it does not report on it in a timely manner? Surely those who follow the White House knew exactly what was going on and again did not report it until after the fact. So, I guess in a few days we will be reading how the media was sworn to secrecy again. So, if so, isn't the media failing to do it's job and acting in concert with a big PR scheme?

Also, it reminds me of all the media round tables I have seen where media purists discuss if they would or would not intervene in something if it meant not getting the story. That it is their job to get the story accurate and not interfere (for example, taking photographs in war zones and not interfering it what is going on).

And don't think I don't care about the troops meeting a commander in chief - I do believe there are many would love to just do that, but what I'm getting at is how in cases like this, the media is helping to create the narrative and not report on it.