- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In fact, the central claims of the Washington Times piece are both false.1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”
2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.
Be still everyone. We'll soon find out that President Bush was behind this.
It was no accident, danavik. It was humor - levity. Sorry you missed it.Did I say that, or did you troll that? I know, I know. After telling everyone on this board, ever since you joined, that people should debate the issues, instead of posting inflammatory crap, you did this accidentally, right? Hey, its OK. Everybody screws up sometime. Accidents happen. :mrgreen:
It was no accident, danavik. It was humor - levity. Sorry you missed it.
Pelosi is a tough broad, so none of this will phase her. If it's true that the Post trumped up this scenerio, it's nice to see the biased shoe on the other foot for a change.So what is your opinion of the Washington Times article?
Is it really that big of a deal who flies the bigger aircraft? Nobody cares whose metaphorical penis is bigger than anybody else's.
What hasn't been posted from the original source, not the blog that was cited.
"The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time.""
She wants to go far beyond what Hastert ever did.
Not true. The Air Force made the recommendation for a larger plane, due to the fact that Pelosi has a lot further to travel than Hastert did, and the plane Hastert used did not have the range needed. That was documented in the link I provided. On the other hand, your link................
Oops, thats right. You did not provide one.
You mean Stinger blew that information out of his a$$? No way!!!!
What hasn't been posted from the original source, not the blog that was cited.
"The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time.""
She wants to go far beyond what Hastert ever did.
Originally Posted by Middleground
You mean Stinger blew that information out of his a$$? No way!!!!
I specifically and clearly referenced the link in the OP which is a blog but links to the original report from which I further quoted, you can issue your appology now.
I specifically and clearly referenced the link in the OP which is a blog but links to the original report from which I further quoted, you can issue your appology now.
STATEMENT BY SERGEANT AT ARMS
In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.
I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.
Subsequently, several members of the Speaker’s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.
media bias aside, I don't see much of a security concern in refueling.
In fact, I see no reason why commercial airlines aren't satisfactory. A dead Politician is just as replaceable as you or I afterall.
I think takeoff and landing are the most dangerous moments for an aircraft, just from a statistical standpoint. Whatever the reason, I don't see anything really newsworthy in the assertion that she wants to avoid it.
Are dead politicians just as replaceable? Why not, then, have the President fly coach? And for god's sake, WHY are we paying Secret Service people?
the president is replaceable, but since the executive branch of government is staffed much smaller, losing him would have a much bigger impact then a mere congressman in the short term. This is why extra effort is needed to protect him.
So yes let the president fly privately - and heavily gaurded and everybody else can fly coach.
I'm going to have to just say, I disagree, although I do agree the President should be more heavily guarded. The Speaker is third in line of succession to the President, and is in a powerful and coveted position.
Hell, I even hope the Senate minority leader is not required to fly on commercial craft. Having these people fly on board aircraft with regular passengers is possibly even a risk to those passengers. I am not certain I wouldn't have second thoughts about flying seated next to the Speaker of the House.
Pelosi's push for jet remains up in air - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's NewspaperMrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff.
The defense source, who asked not to be named, termed her request "carte blanche," saying she wanted a plane that could carry an entourage just like President Bush, who flies on Air Force One, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who also always flies on military planes.
This is not a false report, not only is Pelosi demanding the aircraft but she is also threatening to cut funding for the military if she doesn't get it.
Ok, I'll bite. LINK PLEASE.
And don't you dare say its in the article. The article merely states that she is a powerful Congressperson who may be able to affect defense funding.
Why do you think that she has John Murtha the head of the Appropriations Committee calling the military?
The way I understand it, she's asking for a Boeing C-32 transport, a militarized version of the 757.
C-32A - Military Aircraft
The USAF has, on hand at Andrews, several smaller long-ranged transports that can fly coast/coat w/o refuelling
C-37 (Gulfstream V)
C-37A - Military Aircraft
C-40 (Boeing 737)
C-40 - Military Aircraft
Pelosi's push for jet remains up in air*-*Nation/Politics*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
She's the Speaker, and as such, is entitled to military transportation in the post 9/11 world. That doesnt mean she needs transportation that can carry an entourage just like President Bush, or thatcan also carry fellow Congressmen and their families -- or whoever else. Lincoln bedroom, anyone?
If she or anyone else can show why she needs something more than a Gulfstream V, I'll accept it -- otherwise she's just looking to spend more taxpayer money than necessary on her own self-importance.
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?