The President may well consider this some kind of daring exploit, and is proud of it. The article suggests that he was playing up the danger beforehand.
If true, this is really embarrassing. Have security standards really fallen that far, that we can't protect the US president in a more dignified way? That this story is even out there at all is an embarrassing low point for US competence and security. Amidst a ton of other incompetence and general displays of weakness from the US.
The Secret Service has a lot more to be embarrassed about in its recent history than this decoy maneuver, which seems to have been executed fairly well. And I really doubt it was a “cart” - it was probably the room sized catering containers that trucks lift up to the side of the plane.
It was, and the picture even demonstrates the size of these carts. The article even mentions as follows:
"The president reportedly boarded the old Air Force One jumbo jet in view of television cameras, and then was secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane via an airport catering truck typically used to load meals and other supplies preflight, a US official told the Post."
Zero downsides except looking weak and like a doofus. The US is already looking super weak having given up the Strait to Iran for zero gain, and now begging them to just open the Strait up and publicly signaling that the nuclear demands could be dropped. Crawling around in catering trucks or carts to avoid Iran's threats is at best demeaning to the entire nation.
As for "highly effective" well..... Would have been far more effective if there weren't such loose lips that embarrassed the office. Seriously, lock that shit down.
This is probably a case of a presidency so weak that it doesn't even realize when its signaling weakness, and thought it was "cool" or something to do this, which is why they leaked it. Meanwhile our allies feel sad for us and our enemies laugh at us.
> Crawling around in catering trucks or carts to avoid Iran's threats is at best demeaning to the entire nation.
The article actually says "secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane via an airport catering truck". The picture shows the size of the truck. No crawling was involved; The Guardian just crafted the headline to make Trump look "weak and like a doofus" and you bought into it.
It doesn't matter what the reality is, but what it can be made to look like. The fact that Trump needs some stupid maneuvers is already a terrible look, after that it becomes a joke.
I think the problem is that Iran is a threat well beyond its borders to the US, despite the US administration (and numerous unrelated morons) claiming the US won the war against Iran, that it was obliterated, etc.
Effectively using a plane full of people as a decoy, whilst believing there was a significant risk of them being shot down and killed.
An alternative would have been to keep the original plane grounded and feign some delay while the smaller plane made the trip. After signaling that the President had already been transported to the target location there would be no more danger for the original plane. This is of course more risky to the President, but it is a viable alternative.
TFA says Clinton did something similar. I'm sure it happens more than we're told. The Secret Service is paid to be paranoid. Decoy flights and vehicles are out of the standard playbook.
The embarrassing thing isn't using an unmarked flight like Clinton did. That's totally normal, and not something I'd find unusual in the least. It's that shuttling around in a catering cart... Why would anybody ever admit it, even if true? Just baffling bad idea to leak that part of a detail.
Airports are an easy target especially with all that jet fuel around the place. If they dont get you on the ground they only have to wait a few moments and they can easy get the plane as it taxis or takes off.
The new technology wars should make it obvious that there is a considerable inbalance between missiles or other projectiles and systems to counter them.
> When asked later by reporters why they had to keep their shades shut during the [decoy] flight, Trump said it was because they were “probably on a dangerous flight”. He went onto say: “But if I go, you go. Right?”
Is that... "go" as in travel, or "go" as in die alongside the Pharaoh in his tomb?
I assume it's "as in travel". Sounds like the usual Trump ego thing. "It's dangerous, but I know you have to follow me because that's your job to report on what I'm doing, so now you're in danger."
There is an interesting tell, they sent the old presidential plane. But then Trump flew onwards from England on the new one. The two planes are sufficiently different that they can't be mistaken for one another.
So all the news outlets are crowing about the old and the new "Air Force One", but security/aviation wonks all know that "Air Force One" (and "Marine One") is a callsign, not an aircraft designation.
So if the President snuck into a smaller decoy aircraft, what callsign did these planes use? Does "Air Force One" keep up the ruse over the radio as well? If this is the case, and considering how difficult it is to keep secrets secret, then how large of a circle needs to be "read in" about the true situation, in order to protect the right aircraft? What contingencies do they have if one of them is actually attacked... keep up the ruse?
Yes, I admit, we've all seen too many action/adventure films with complex decoy scenarios. It would seem that doing them in real life would just induce headaches.
Also, my father is totally convinced that Qatar loaded-up the new aircraft with bugs and surprises, and they won't in a hundred years sweep them all clean. I feel like maybe Qatar wouldn't be that nakedly stupid. I mean, the Russians were really coy about their gift of The Thing!
That article was published July 16, 2024, before the election. Biden was in charge of US intelligence agencies when they claimed Iran was trying to assassinate Trump.
They are [flagged][dead] and yet they're right. The title has since been changed from "catering cart" to "catering container" and the image and caption clarify it as "catering truck". "Catering cart" and "catering truck" are completely different things.
That must have been a rather large cart.
It was, in fact the article also refers to it as a catering truck.
Echoes of Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn smuggling himself from Japan in a music equipment box while on bail for financial crimes
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57760993
Why would they admit all this?
Probably because they used a secret third method and don't want anyone to know.
The President may well consider this some kind of daring exploit, and is proud of it. The article suggests that he was playing up the danger beforehand.
If true, this is really embarrassing. Have security standards really fallen that far, that we can't protect the US president in a more dignified way? That this story is even out there at all is an embarrassing low point for US competence and security. Amidst a ton of other incompetence and general displays of weakness from the US.
The Secret Service has a lot more to be embarrassed about in its recent history than this decoy maneuver, which seems to have been executed fairly well. And I really doubt it was a “cart” - it was probably the room sized catering containers that trucks lift up to the side of the plane.
It was, and the picture even demonstrates the size of these carts. The article even mentions as follows:
"The president reportedly boarded the old Air Force One jumbo jet in view of television cameras, and then was secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane via an airport catering truck typically used to load meals and other supplies preflight, a US official told the Post."
Is it, though? It was highly effective with basically zero downsides, and well executed. I’m honestly not sure what the problem is.
Zero downsides except looking weak and like a doofus. The US is already looking super weak having given up the Strait to Iran for zero gain, and now begging them to just open the Strait up and publicly signaling that the nuclear demands could be dropped. Crawling around in catering trucks or carts to avoid Iran's threats is at best demeaning to the entire nation.
As for "highly effective" well..... Would have been far more effective if there weren't such loose lips that embarrassed the office. Seriously, lock that shit down.
This is probably a case of a presidency so weak that it doesn't even realize when its signaling weakness, and thought it was "cool" or something to do this, which is why they leaked it. Meanwhile our allies feel sad for us and our enemies laugh at us.
> Crawling around in catering trucks or carts to avoid Iran's threats is at best demeaning to the entire nation.
The article actually says "secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane via an airport catering truck". The picture shows the size of the truck. No crawling was involved; The Guardian just crafted the headline to make Trump look "weak and like a doofus" and you bought into it.
It doesn't matter what the reality is, but what it can be made to look like. The fact that Trump needs some stupid maneuvers is already a terrible look, after that it becomes a joke.
> It doesn't matter what the reality is, but what it can be made to look like.
I disagree, I think it matters what the reality is, but do what feels right for you.
Did reality matter in Trumps campaign? Did it matter his facts were check to be consistently incorrect?
I don't mean what matters to you or me, I mean what has proven to matter to the general population.
Oh, if you mean campaign strategy, Democrats and the media spent most of 2016 (and all the years since) mocking Trump. How well did that work out?
I think the problem is that Iran is a threat well beyond its borders to the US, despite the US administration (and numerous unrelated morons) claiming the US won the war against Iran, that it was obliterated, etc.
> I’m honestly not sure what the problem is.
Effectively using a plane full of people as a decoy, whilst believing there was a significant risk of them being shot down and killed.
An alternative would have been to keep the original plane grounded and feign some delay while the smaller plane made the trip. After signaling that the President had already been transported to the target location there would be no more danger for the original plane. This is of course more risky to the President, but it is a viable alternative.
TFA says Clinton did something similar. I'm sure it happens more than we're told. The Secret Service is paid to be paranoid. Decoy flights and vehicles are out of the standard playbook.
The embarrassing thing isn't using an unmarked flight like Clinton did. That's totally normal, and not something I'd find unusual in the least. It's that shuttling around in a catering cart... Why would anybody ever admit it, even if true? Just baffling bad idea to leak that part of a detail.
Someone has been watching too many movies.
Airports are an easy target especially with all that jet fuel around the place. If they dont get you on the ground they only have to wait a few moments and they can easy get the plane as it taxis or takes off.
The new technology wars should make it obvious that there is a considerable inbalance between missiles or other projectiles and systems to counter them.
Why does everyone involved in this seem so keen to talk about it?
Hopefully the catering truck was full of cheeseburgers, he must have been so happy :D
Presidential security is a fascinating topic. See also the presidential motorcade's operating procedures: https://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-motorcade.htm
> When asked later by reporters why they had to keep their shades shut during the [decoy] flight, Trump said it was because they were “probably on a dangerous flight”. He went onto say: “But if I go, you go. Right?”
Is that... "go" as in travel, or "go" as in die alongside the Pharaoh in his tomb?
It’s more clearly meant as “die” given the quote used by the NY Times:
> “I’m number one on their list, before you,” he told the reporters. “But if I go, you go. Right?”
I assume it's "as in travel". Sounds like the usual Trump ego thing. "It's dangerous, but I know you have to follow me because that's your job to report on what I'm doing, so now you're in danger."
DIE is cast.
Let's cross the Rubicon.
But not in a Jeep Rubicon. Piece of junk will break down as soon as it sees water
Was it serving oreja de cerdo?
There is an interesting tell, they sent the old presidential plane. But then Trump flew onwards from England on the new one. The two planes are sufficiently different that they can't be mistaken for one another.
So all the news outlets are crowing about the old and the new "Air Force One", but security/aviation wonks all know that "Air Force One" (and "Marine One") is a callsign, not an aircraft designation.
So if the President snuck into a smaller decoy aircraft, what callsign did these planes use? Does "Air Force One" keep up the ruse over the radio as well? If this is the case, and considering how difficult it is to keep secrets secret, then how large of a circle needs to be "read in" about the true situation, in order to protect the right aircraft? What contingencies do they have if one of them is actually attacked... keep up the ruse?
Yes, I admit, we've all seen too many action/adventure films with complex decoy scenarios. It would seem that doing them in real life would just induce headaches.
Also, my father is totally convinced that Qatar loaded-up the new aircraft with bugs and surprises, and they won't in a hundred years sweep them all clean. I feel like maybe Qatar wouldn't be that nakedly stupid. I mean, the Russians were really coy about their gift of The Thing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
If you do an ADSB playback the C-32 was flying as SAM112 In trail of AF1
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2026-07-08-21:06&icao...
I don’t know what Iran expected for trying to assassinate Trump back in 2024: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/iran-assassination-pl.... Of all the people who weren’t just going to let that slide. Maybe they thought he wouldn’t win?
Remember this administration never passes up a lie about anything when the truth would do. There is no credibility.
"this administration"
Except the claims were by the previous administration according to the article.
There is no credibility there, either.
You think the Biden administration lied about Iran trying to assassinate Trump?
That article was published July 16, 2024, before the election. Biden was in charge of US intelligence agencies when they claimed Iran was trying to assassinate Trump.
[flagged]
The only winning move is to not care.
They are [flagged][dead] and yet they're right. The title has since been changed from "catering cart" to "catering container" and the image and caption clarify it as "catering truck". "Catering cart" and "catering truck" are completely different things.