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
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.
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.
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.
aps said:Whatever happened to respect for dissent? For Bush, you're either with him or against him. :roll:
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?
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.
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.
aps said:Whatever happened to respect for dissent? For Bush, you're either with him or against him. :roll:
Cookie Parker said:How about you telling us, Blue Collar, how elected officials get on military flights under Bush.
Thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?