« Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- Sept. 28, 2007 | Main | Pictures from Michelle Steel's BOE Office Grand Opening »

September 28, 2007


Long-time politico

Does anyone know which government entity owns/controls that airport. This is a story that the MSM would run with if they were not so completely biased.

BTW, next time you see a soldier in uniform traveling, buy their meal. There are few other small gestures you can perform that will make you feel better, and it is the least that we can do.


Port of Oakland, see http://www.flyoakland.com/index2.cfm


Port of Oakland, see http://www.flyoakland.com/index2.cfm

What was the reason given for this weird treatment given to Marines? Was it a security issue or what? This story belongs in the strange but true collumn of the week.


In 1970 when I returned from VietNam, we were not allowed to wear uniforms at Oakland Airport. Everyone had to buy civi's at Oakland Army Base. They said it was for security reasons. 1970-2007, somethings just never change.

Green Machine

As a former Marine, this really bothers me. I understand if there is some sort of a legitimate security threat, but wouldn't having Marines IN the airport increase security?

Is anything being done to investigate the validity of the claim made in the email?

As a O.C. Veteran, I am proud that our County and the Residents support our Troops. The treatment of the Troops by the "Bay Area" Liberals indicate the condition of the Liberal Establishment.

On a different Note, Rumor has it that O.C. Project Prayer Flag Founder-Shawn Black is serving In Iraq again and has received a full brief of this treatment of the troops. Others are saying he will begin a new California support project and might even make a run for State Assembly after Chuck Devore leaves office .....


What a sad situation! Kind of similar to the Berkeley fire department not being able to fly American flags on their trucks for fear of vandalism. The powers-that-be in the Bay area disagree with the policies of the present administration, and that's o.k. Reasonable dissent is to be respected. However, Bay area "leaders" left reasonable behind a long time ago.


...and SF will not allow the Marines to film a promo video on the streets.


This is blatantly FALSE.

OAK (Oakland international airport) has one of the best USO clubs in America.

The airport is known by sailors and GI's alike as a good place to travel through.

Many of the previous posters forget (or are too ignorant) that the Bay Area absorbed TENS OF THOUSAND service members after WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Patrica, post your lies elsewhere.

Grunts Mom

The situation in Iraq is not going to end anytime soon and knowing this Oakland Airport and the USO Club might want to get off their butts and at least put temporary accomodations and consessions-a catering truck and a tent would do- when they know these flights are coming in. Im glad someone finally spoke up for a group of military personel who might have been too exhausted and too close to home to have questioned why Oakland hasnt thought to accomodate all its flights.


"The text below is unedited, although I have removed the name of the Marine who authored the email:"

No source, no proof. If this is really how it happened (and why it happened), a source would be necessary, in order to validate the story.

But I do understand why you would want to protect the source. After all, the Oakland Port Authority is pretty scary. I suppose a Marine might be intimidated by them.

Maybe the story is true. Maybe it plays out exactly as you speculate. The Bay Area is rife with idiots who think every soldier is their enemy (odd, especially since so many soldiers are black and Latino, and the Bay is so proud of LOVING all minorities - especially if they can keep the confined to Oakland (ironically), where they keep them fenced in as a sort of zoo exhibit that liberals can go look at from time to time.

But I've gotten email from a Marine in Nigeria before, and he scammed me out of tens of thousands of dollars.

Validate the source, or show some official policy links to the Oakland Airport's website. Until then, I'm skeptical. A story's just a story - until it is proven. Only then does it become truth.

Ok, here's your reason:

I investigated this issue (I know, I know "investigating" something is a big pain in the rear, as opposed to just blurting out "Oakland hates soldiers", which is much easier to do)

Here are your links:========
... Day and Night
Aircraft Restrictions: The following aircraft shall not depart Runways 27R/L, nor land on Runways 9R/L except during emergencies. These aircraft must use Runway 11/29.

* Turbojet and turbofan powered aircraft.
* Turboprop aircraft over 17,000 pounds.
* Four-engine reciprocating powered aircraft.
* Surplus military aircraft over 12,500 pounds.
* Regularly scheduled passenger and cargo airliners or regional jet commercial passenger aircraft operations shall not land on Runways 27L/R at the North Field, except for emergencies or when Runway 11/29 is closed for maintenance or repairs. ...

Yes, this is a NOISE REDUCTION measure, which was done a long time ago, to satisfy people who live in neighborhoods near Oakland Airport.

Military aircraft are sent to Runway 11/29. And look at a MAP, and you will see that this runway is physically separate from the others.

Here's a map:=======

So, there you are. Oakland Airport doesn't "hate the military". The problem seems to be that military aircraft often don't have noise suppression equipment found on commercial aircraft. I suppose that they could individually rate each aircraft that the military uses, and make a case-by-case rule for each kind, but that would be a kind of stupid way to approach it.

After all, they could rate each model of civilian Turboprop aircraft over 17,000 pounds, but why bother? A lot of them are noisy, so they are sent to the remote runway. That's how they deal with noise.

Its just a broad policy about several types of aircraft (many of which are civilian), and clearly the policy is a product of neighborhood noise complaints.

Courtney L.

I see people are questioning whether this is true or not...first of all, why would someone make that up? Second of all, I caught this on CNN last night down on their little ticker...clearly they didn't feel it deserved much attention (which it DID) but surely the most liberal news network would check their facts before running it and putting a blemish on the record or their favorite state.

Knuckle dragger


The troops in question here flew in on a commercial aircraft. All members of the military who are brought back to the U.S. from Iraq/Afghanistan fly into the US on leased commercial aircraft.

So, while it may be true that military aircraft are supposed to land elsewhere at Oakland, it is also true that these members of the military landed at the airport on a commercial airplane.

Next argument sir!

Thom Little

Here's the thing that I don't get: Michael Ledeen has this email over the NRO Corner. But he says it came from a Marine Chaplain. Yours says from the "brother of a Marine."



Steve Munson

If you really investigated you would know that the military used commercially leased aircraft and has for over thirty years.

I flew into the Bay Area from Vietnam in August 1970 "aboard commercial aircraft" and was treated with similar Bay Area hospitality.
My..how history does repeat itself.


I have no personal knowledge of this story, but the "noise reduction" explanation seems insufficient to me. For one thing, even if the military airplane was required to land at the remote runway, wouldn't it have been able to taxi to the terminal upon landing? And the e-mail said that "Marines and soldiers" were not allowed into the passenger terminal, not just that their plane was not allowed to pull up to the terminal. The writer contrasted that treatment with the Leipzig airport where the military personnel were allowed to enter the terminal to use the convenience store, restrooms, Internet, and phones -- implying that the troops were not allowed in the terminal at Oakland at all.

Army Wife

As a fellow Californian, former Soldier and wife of a Soldier this really bothers me. However, like a few people have mentioned before, I don't like to take everything I read on the internet as truth without getting my facts straight. Being that my husband is stationed in Hawaii and I know some of the Soldiers that were on that flight all I have to do is pick up the phone to get first hand information. I can understand that security is a concern at every airport now, but does anyone honestly think that our Service Members coming home from a tour of duty, that has in some of their cases kept them away from their family and friends for 15 long months, think that Oakland the last stop before being reunited with their wives and children would be a place for them to terrorize something. Come on think about it! I know that for some people this is a concept not understood. You have to live the life to fully understand what it takes for a family to have to survive a deployment. I will look into this further and get back to you and let you know what I found out. Regardless of what I find though, I think everyone here should remember that the Service Members on that plane were protecting your right to sit here and have your own opinion to express yourself and live your life the way you choose to live it. Don't try to make light of a situation unless you have signed up to serve and have the courage to be put in that situation yourself.

James of England

Thom Little, the "brother" is not the person who authored this. You'll note that "The text below is unedited, although I have removed the name of the Marine who authored the email:"

It is possible that the email is a fake, but one person (Leeden)being sent it by person A and another person (Solsby) being sent it by person B, who claims to be forwarding something written by an author meeting person A's description is not evidence of it being a fake.

Since Kos recognises the possibility of authenticity and there is no other evidence he brings forward of inauthenticity, I'm not sure that there's an issue here.

It's true that Kos correctly establishes that, although spitting is used as an analogy in this mail, spitting did not actually happen. It's a Gotcha! in the same way as spotting that Saddam did not actually kill Mr. Mandela and all his family.


Until YOU produce the soldiers name that sent this e-mail to someone in the blogging community that is not a right wing water carrier. I and every other blogger will dismiss this story as just more republican propaganda.

Thank you.

-Chuck Adkins


Pray everyday for everything west of Oaklan to fall into the Pacific. Would make the world a better place.

L. W. Rapp, SSGT USMC 1969-76 Vietnam 69-70

Treated us the same way when we came back. Nothing changes in California, serviceman are still despised while liberal, anti-government, anti-military, anti-america people run the state and continue to abuse. The time will come and not far off. You will be begging but no one will come.


I am the wife of a Marine stationed in Hawaii. Last summer, along with the USO of Hawaii’s Deployment / Re-Deployment Support Program, I sent these Soldiers out, and these Marines out earlier this year. I had the honor and pleasure of welcoming these troops "home" back in Hawaii once again with the USO. I also spoke with each and every one of the Soldiers right before they got to see their families at their welcome home ceremony this past Friday. To say they way they were treated in Oakland is a shame just doesn't cut it. It infuriates me to no amends. These men and women (yes the Army had females returning) put their lives on the line day in and day out for 12 - 15 months. They are trusted to defend America in whatever manner the President sees fit, yet they are not allowed to enter a terminal on US soil??? because of security reasons??? Whenever you see a man or woman in uniform, please thank them for their sacrifice; say a prayer for them and their families; and thank God that it is not you having to go “over there”.

Army Wife

Go to the following link to read the Port of Oakland's response. Here is your proof that it did happen.


The comments to this entry are closed.