Talk:Public image of Bill Clinton

Allegations

Alright. I do not support the content inserted twice by @86.70.4.126:. As @StAnselm: stated, the Gawker article was "sourced only to a Gawker blog." Pagesix is another non-WP:RS gossip site, and the Telegraph article stated: "[The journal] also listed extensive contact details for Epstein’s house guests, who had “no connection whatsoever” with alleged offences, including Mr Clinton, the former US President, and Mr Trump, the famous businessman." In other words, Clinton's not connected. And this is just editorializing. GAB^Hello! 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Public image of Bill Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119053947/http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/Bush-Presidency-Closes-34-Approval-61-Disapproval.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/Bush-Presidency-Closes-34-Approval-61-Disapproval.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010204521/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/10/cnn.poll.clinton/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/10/cnn.poll.clinton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Hairgate"

I was on duty in the Air Traffic Management Unit at Albuquerque ARTCC the day of "Hairgate." Albuquerque, and Denver Center provided all the necessary spacing for all LAX arrivals that came from the eastern part of the country. Due to generally good weather, and 4 runways we only ever held for LAX twice in my time there. The first was for the Rodney King riots, and the second was for Bill Clinton's haircut.

We most certainly did delay aircraft for Bill Clinton's haircut, because Los Angeles Center shut us off for LAX arrivals. They did so because active VIP/Presidential procedures required them to shut down 2 of the 4 runways while the President was on that half of the airport. Trying to depart and land on only 2 runways caused them to get backed up. Once a Center (ARTCC) gets too many arrivals for one airport, they shut off the adjacent Center that is feeding them.

When the FAA was asked for the records of the delayed aircraft none were found for 4 reasons:

1. The Management at the Center didn't want to take any heat for delaying aircraft ever. ARTCCs that delayed aircraft had to explain themselves to the ATCSCC in Washington. Especially if it had a high profile publicity component like this did. So nobody in FAA managment wanted to be responsible for making the boss look bad. Subsequently when more automated ways were developed, and the airlines wanted real data, it became public knowledge that the FAA had underreported delays for years.

2. Rumors were already afoot that Bill Clinton was going to take Air Traffic Controllers out of the GS pay scale, and give us big raises. (This subsequently did happen officially in 1996- by the end of the 90s we were making more money than almost all other federal employees) In the hopes of getting more money from the President, the vast majority of the Union workforce was strongly for Clinton's re-election and thus had no interest in pushing the issue.

3. Holding (delaying aircraft) still had to be logged on paper holding sheets at that time. There was no automated way to determine how much an aircraft was delayed. So if you were holding, you had to start manually filling out holding sheets with all the pertinent information. If you were holding, then you were usually also too busy to mess around with writing it all down. Often times holds weren't logged. It was a lot of extra work at the wrong time.

4. Somewhat technical- Since it was such a hassle to log the delays, and nobody wanted to have to report them anyway, managment came up with a decision that only delays of 15 minutes or more were to be considered a reportable delay. So on the day of the Clinton haircut, many of the delays occurred like this: Sector 93 held the aircraft at Gallup for 11 minutes, then Sector 92 held the aircraft at Prescott for 12 minutes, then Los Angeles Center gave the aircraft a couple 360s at Twentynine Palms. So even though the aircraft was easily delayed for at least a half hour, there were no "Reportable Delays." Thus an FAA spokesperson could say, " There were no reportable delays for arrivals to LAX." While it was technically correct per our terminology, this was misleading, because to a layman this sounds like you are saying nobody got delayed.

While I can only speak to what occurred at Albuquerque Center, landline communications with the controllers at Los Angeles Center confirmed that they were holding for LAX, and delaying some small turboprop airliners on the ground at smaller airports east of Los Angeles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle kursk (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)