• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

As usual, those who disagree with Bush get punished (1 Viewer)

A

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Congressman Peter King was planning to go to Iraq this month for official purposes. The Pentagon, within days of King expressing disagreement with the Dubai deal, denied his request. He stated he found this to be "very coincidental."

Whatever happened to respect for dissent? For Bush, you're either with him or against him. :roll:

No Iraq Trip for Legislator Who Opposed Deal on Ports
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 3 — Representative Peter T. King's prominent opposition to a proposal to allow a Dubai company to take over some terminal operations at American ports may have earned him some punishment from the Bush administration: He has been grounded.

Mr. King, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, confirmed Friday that a few days after he first threatened legislation to hold up the port deal, the Pentagon informed him that it could not provide an aircraft for his planned March Congressional delegation to Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. . . .


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04king.html
Click to expand...
 
That's called politics, he can get his own way over.
 
Do you have something besides speculation to back that up? There were a good many pols on both sides against the deal, and it isn't the military's job to stop everything else so some congressman can make a photo op trip.
And I am quite sure he could have flown on a MAC flight, but he probably wanted one of the pamper jets instead.
Your article provides no evidence, merely speculation as to what happened.
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
Do you have something besides speculation to back that up? There were a good many pols on both sides against the deal, and it isn't the military's job to stop everything else so some congressman can make a photo op trip.
And I am quite sure he could have flown on a MAC flight, but he probably wanted one of the pamper jets instead.
Your article provides no evidence, merely speculation as to what happened.
Click to expand...

Sure it's speculation, Joe. Are you aware that Peter King is a huge supporter of Bush? The fact that he has suspicions says a lot to me. Also, this is what Bush has been doing since he has been in office. He punishes anyone who isn't with him. It reminds me of kids in elementary school.
 
aps writes:

Sure it's speculation, Joe. Are you aware that Peter King is a huge supporter of Bush? The fact that he has suspicions says a lot to me. Also, this is what Bush has been doing since he has been in office. He punishes anyone who isn't with him. It reminds me of kids in elementary school.

Any other information on that? It was pretty scanty, indeed, aps. I tried to bring up some other sources, but there was nothing I found to support this two sentences in the NY times.

Thanks.
 
Cookie Parker said:
aps writes:

Sure it's speculation, Joe. Are you aware that Peter King is a huge supporter of Bush? The fact that he has suspicions says a lot to me. Also, this is what Bush has been doing since he has been in office. He punishes anyone who isn't with him. It reminds me of kids in elementary school.

Any other information on that? It was pretty scanty, indeed, aps. I tried to bring up some other sources, but there was nothing I found to support this two sentences in the NY times.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I have not made an effort to look into this any more than just reading the article. I don't think it's that important an issue. Why did I post about it? Because to me, it was another example of Bush being Bush.
 
have not made an effort to look into this any more than just reading the article. I don't think it's that important an issue. Why did I post about it? Because to me, it was another example of Bush being Bush.

aps. I don't have a subscription to the NY Times on line. I don't find any information on this anywhere else.

Online forums are very mysterious in that who knows who we all are and what we say. Information, or evidence, I feel is crucial in not only debating and supporting your idea, but defending your position.

I'll keep searching for more information. Please, in the future, remember not all of us have a subscription to NY times and try to locate information which is open for us all.

I'll keep in mind to do the same.

Thanks.
 
what's that?

correlation does not equal cause?

Maybe it was really that they didn't have enough air crafts... if it was someone else who did support the Dubai deal, the media wouldn't report that would they? :shock:
 
Cookie Parker said:
have not made an effort to look into this any more than just reading the article. I don't think it's that important an issue. Why did I post about it? Because to me, it was another example of Bush being Bush.

aps. I don't have a subscription to the NY Times on line. I don't find any information on this anywhere else.

Online forums are very mysterious in that who knows who we all are and what we say. Information, or evidence, I feel is crucial in not only debating and supporting your idea, but defending your position.

I'll keep searching for more information. Please, in the future, remember not all of us have a subscription to NY times and try to locate information which is open for us all.

I'll keep in mind to do the same.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Ahh, Cookie, I see what you're saying. So are you telling me that you could not read the article? I thought that articles on the NYT's main pages are able to be read by everyone. It's the editorials and such that I thought you needed a subscription for. Am I wrong?

If that is the case, I did not understand what you meant in saying you had tried to find this information elsewhere. I assumed that you were looking to see if another newspaper covered the issue as well for newsworthy purposes. I apologize.

Do you need me to post more of the article? We can't post the entire article, as that is against the rules. Just let me know.
 
aps said:
Whatever happened to respect for dissent? For Bush, you're either with him or against him. :roll:
Click to expand...

How about Bill Clinton and the way he treated Richard Shelby and Newt Gingrich?
 
And the speculation goes on. Do you actually know how they determine who gets on a military flight, or are you letting the press educate you on this issue?
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
And the speculation goes on. Do you actually know how they determine who gets on a military flight, or are you letting the press educate you on this issue?
Click to expand...

I admit it is speculation. Peter King is suspicious, and two Congressional leadership aids said that htey were "surprised" that King was not being allowed to go. Do you want to educate me? Let me warn you, you can educate me, but it won't change my suspicions that King is being grounded for speaking out against the prez.
 
Fine. Here is how it goes. The military has X number of what are luxury jets. These are the ones that congressmen, senators, etc. fly on. There are not a lot, as there are reduced numbers of pilots available, and if they are all in use or stationed elsewhere (the generals and admirals fly on these as well), then they are relegated to what is called a MAC flight.
A MAC flight is Military Airlift Command. Just imagine a Jackhammer with wings. Not comfortable, but free if on orders, as the congressman would be. The way they determine who gets to fly?
Those on PCS (Permanent Change of Station) orders go first. Then those on TAD (Temporary Additional Orders) fly second. Then those who are simply dependents or taking a vacation. Their seats are $10.00 a piece.
A congressman or senator can fly on these flights for free, as well, but they are not going to let anyone boot off an entire plane of people so their 'staff' can fly with them.
That, and most of your congressional and senatorial personnel find these flights 'demeaning' and refuse to fly them.
Also, some times you get to make 'transfers' from one flight to another along the way.
Do I believe the congressman was refused for political reasons? No. I believe the plane he wanted wasn't available, and he refused the alternative, but never bothered to mention that.
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
Fine. Here is how it goes. The military has X number of what are luxury jets. These are the ones that congressmen, senators, etc. fly on. There are not a lot, as there are reduced numbers of pilots available, and if they are all in use or stationed elsewhere (the generals and admirals fly on these as well), then they are relegated to what is called a MAC flight.
A MAC flight is Military Airlift Command. Just imagine a Jackhammer with wings. Not comfortable, but free if on orders, as the congressman would be. The way they determine who gets to fly?
Those on PCS (Permanent Change of Station) orders go first. Then those on TAD (Temporary Additional Orders) fly second. Then those who are simply dependents or taking a vacation. Their seats are $10.00 a piece.
A congressman or senator can fly on these flights for free, as well, but they are not going to let anyone boot off an entire plane of people so their 'staff' can fly with them.
That, and most of your congressional and senatorial personnel find these flights 'demeaning' and refuse to fly them.
Also, some times you get to make 'transfers' from one flight to another along the way.
Do I believe the congressman was refused for political reasons? No. I believe the plane he wanted wasn't available, and he refused the alternative, but never bothered to mention that.
Click to expand...

Hi Joe. I appreciate your taking the time to tell me how the system works.
 
Anytime. The policies are in place because one thing about the military: It may be strongly conservative, but it is completely unbiased when it comes to political orientation.
They work for the government, that means a congressman or senator has more pull. They could schedule a MAC flight just for him/her, but most don't want those planes. As I said, they are not the most comfortable flights around.
 
aps

Sorry I was not very clear. Yes, I cannot access anything in the NY Times I would like to see part of the article.

I'm not sure why I could not find this elsewhere. I am shocked to find he was denied talks with the Pentagon in getting clearance and set-up to go to Iraq.

I think that anyone who crosses Bush does end up chastised. But I'd really like to read the article; or parts.

Thanks so much and once again, am sorry I was not clear.
 
Cookie Parker said:
aps

Sorry I was not very clear. Yes, I cannot access anything in the NY Times I would like to see part of the article.

I'm not sure why I could not find this elsewhere. I am shocked to find he was denied talks with the Pentagon in getting clearance and set-up to go to Iraq.

I think that anyone who crosses Bush does end up chastised. But I'd really like to read the article; or parts.

Thanks so much and once again, am sorry I was not clear.
Click to expand...

I sent you a private message . . . Shhhhh, don't tell anyone what I said about them. ;)
 
aps said:
Whatever happened to respect for dissent? For Bush, you're either with him or against him. :roll:
Click to expand...

Since when is it suppressing or disrespecting dissent to not pay to fly someone overseas to trash you, your policies, and your country?

Considering the source (NYT) I will bet that there is more to this story. There is nothing less likely in this world than to hear the Republicans side of a story in the New York Times. Why don't you find this story from a slightly more credible source, like Al Jezeera?

BTW, the title of this thread is nauseatingly whiny and phony. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Cookie Parker said:
How about you telling us, Blue Collar, how elected officials get on military flights under Bush.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


I already covered that above. And it is the same under Bush as under Clinton as under Bush as under Reagan, etc. If you guys think that someone like the pres is going to waste time playing these kind of stupid games when the folks at the Pentagon Do Not book the flights, more power to you.
 
Just curious... can anyone provide a list of oh say 20 politicians who've been 'punished' by Bush for their views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom