Queen Pelosi wants free rides on Military aircraft for her and friends

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, well......looks like Queenie doesn't like the new ethics rules restricting how she can fly around the country so she wants to be able to use our military as her personal private jet fleet for her, her staff, HER FAMILY, and various hangers-on.

 

Power hasn't gone to this biatches head, has it?

 

WASHINGTON — With ethics rules having changed the Congress to prevent lawmakers from taking private corporate jets, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking to get routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, The Washington Times reported Thursday.

 

Sources familiar with the discussions told the newspaper that the speaker, who lives in San Francisco, is pressuring the Bush administration for domestic rides aboard military aircraft for herself, staff, relatives and select members of the California delegation.

 

A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

 

The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249561,00.html

[Cdub100 3,996]

Well, well......looks like Queenie doesn't like the new ethics rules restricting how she can fly around the country so she wants to be able to use our military as her personal private jet fleet for her, her staff, HER FAMILY, and various hangers-on.

 

Power hasn't gone to this biatches head, has it?

 

WASHINGTON — With ethics rules having changed the Congress to prevent lawmakers from taking private corporate jets, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking to get routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, The Washington Times reported Thursday.

 

Sources familiar with the discussions told the newspaper that the speaker, who lives in San Francisco, is pressuring the Bush administration for domestic rides aboard military aircraft for herself, staff, relatives and select members of the California delegation.

 

A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

 

The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249561,00.html

 

Sources familiar with you, told me you're a child molester.

 

Also

[DAVID RUFFIN 3]

Sources familiar with the discussions

[Rude Rick 0]

You lost your right to speak after the election, RP...get with the times.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Sources familiar with the discussions

 

Yep, pretty familiar. The Queen's aide confirms the story.

 

An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that discussions are ongoing with the administration. "It would be done for security reasons," said the aide, adding that the speaker has used military aircraft for at least one trip back to San Francisco.

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request.

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22225-1157r.htm

[Cdub100 3,996]

Yep, pretty familiar. The Queen's aide confirms the story.

 

An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that discussions are ongoing with the administration. "It would be done for security reasons," said the aide, adding that the speaker has used military aircraft for at least one trip back to San Francisco.

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22225-1157r.htm

 

An aide to Recliner Pilot, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that he is a fock tard.

[Rude Rick 0]

An aide to Recliner Pilot, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that he is a fock tard.

[Guest Davaco]

at least she didnt start an illegal war

[Recliner Pilot 61]

An aide to Recliner Pilot, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that he is a fock tard.

 

lol

 

That's the best ya got?

 

Pretty pathetic.

 

[gocolts 300]

Wow RP, you must really of hit a tender spot of the liberals. The 8th post in this thread they already started on the "War was illegal" BS.

 

Not one liberal can dispute this, unless you call name calling a dispute.

 

This is great, and I'm sure like you said before, this woman as speaker is going to be funny as all get out.

[Rude Rick 0]

at least she didnt start an illegal war

[IGotWorms 4,063]

This article is from Fox News, quoting the Washington Times.

 

Talk about questionable sources!

[jerryskids 7,251]

This article is from Fox News, quoting the Washington Times.

 

Talk about questionable sources!

Where else can you get such stories? The predominantly lib media either doesn't report them or buries them on page 47.

[Rude Rick 0]

Where else can you get such stories? The predominantly lib media either doesn't report them or buries them on page 47.

 

Lib media? If we had a "liberal" media...where were they on the Downing Street Memo?

[gocolts 300]

This article is from Fox News, quoting the Washington Times.

 

Talk about questionable sources!

So now you are sayin that Fox News and the Washinton times are not liberal.

 

This thread is getting good.

[lickin_starfish 2,056]

Why doesn't she keep her ugly ass in Washington and try to get our country's problems fixed?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Lib media? If we had a "liberal" media...where were they on the Downing Street Memo?

 

 

The Downing Street Memo? Gee, what is that, Rick? I guess I'll look it up myself.

 

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

 

Thats interesting. It seems to prove that Bush misled the nation in leading us to a war of choice. I must've misssed it when they reported this on Fox News?

[Foamfinger 0]

Call us when she starts flying out to aircraft carriers and announcing "Mission Accomplished".

[nobody 2,978]

Call us when she starts flying out to aircraft carriers and announcing "Mission Accomplished".

Good idea. We can make a phone tree. Everyone post your number.

[DAVID RUFFIN 3]

Call us when she starts flying out to aircraft carriers and announcing "Mission Accomplished".

 

 

That will leave a mark

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Call us when she starts flying out to aircraft carriers and announcing "Mission Accomplished".

 

 

Pffffft...........That's the best ya got?

 

The banner referenced the mission that the Aircraft carrier just completed, not the war. Do you want to claim they didn't accomplish their mission?

[jerryskids 7,251]

I find it fascinating that the libs think the cons myopically defend anything connish. Yet here is a clear opportunity for a lib to say, "you know, she may be out of line with this one." But do we see that? Not yet. Just errr... she didn't say mission accomplished. WTF? It's the president's job to keep up troop morale. Errr... at least she didn't start a wrong war. Yeah, that's relevant.

 

[Badmojo1006 0]

Pffffft...........That's the best ya got?

 

The banner referenced the mission that the Aircraft carrier just completed, not the war. Do you want to claim they didn't accomplish their mission?

 

Backpedal, Backpedal, twist, turn, retract, half truth...

 

I give that a 9.5 Pretzel Boy

[Rude Rick 0]

Backpedal, Backpedal, twist, turn, retract, half truth...

 

I give that a 9.5 Pretzel Boy

[DAVID RUFFIN 3]

I'm going to choke on my words...BUT...she is out of line with this one."

[jerryskids 7,251]

I'm going to choke on my words...BUT...she is out of line with this one."

That's a start. Don't you feel better now?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Backpedal, Backpedal, twist, turn, retract, half truth...

 

I give that a 9.5 Pretzel Boy

 

Backpedal?

Twist?

Turn?

Retract?

Half truth?

 

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong.

 

..........as usual.

 

HTH

 

[kpbuckeye 3]

I find it fascinating that the libs think the cons myopically defend anything connish. Yet here is a clear opportunity for a lib to say, "you know, she may be out of line with this one." But do we see that? Not yet. Just errr... she didn't say mission accomplished. WTF? It's the president's job to keep up troop morale. Errr... at least she didn't start a wrong war. Yeah, that's relevant.

 

 

 

best post in the thread

[Cdub100 3,996]

I find it fascinating that the libs think the cons myopically defend anything connish. Yet here is a clear opportunity for a lib to say, "you know, she may be out of line with this one." But do we see that? Not yet. Just errr... she didn't say mission accomplished. WTF? It's the president's job to keep up troop morale. Errr... at least she didn't start a wrong war. Yeah, that's relevant.

 

 

The reason why you don't see it is who knows if it's true. I'm still waiting on a creditable source, rather then people who chose to remain anonymous and a source familiar with the discussion. Are you kidding me?

[Snoopy1 0]

I find it fascinating that the libs think the cons myopically defend anything connish. Yet here is a clear opportunity for a lib to say, "you know, she may be out of line with this one." But do we see that? Not yet. Just errr... she didn't say mission accomplished. WTF? It's the president's job to keep up troop morale. Errr... at least she didn't start a wrong war. Yeah, that's relevant.

 

 

Sometime last week or so RP posted the "Obama raised Muslim" BS story. Washington Times using their standard journalism & 'sources familiar' 'connected to' claimed that those in the Hilary Clinton campaign were investigating and starting a smear campaign. In that thread I said the entire story looked to have as much credibility as something you would find in the national enquired.

 

Shocking, days later the entire thing is found to be completely made up out of whole cloth. Why on earth would anyone say its' wrong or condemn this stuff until they actually knew whether it had occured, especially when sourced by the WT's.

[Strike 6,119]

The reason why you don't see it is who knows if it's true. I'm still waiting on a creditable source, rather then people who chose to remain anonymous and a source familiar with the discussion. Are you kidding me?

 

You don't believe Pelosi made this request????

[Cdub100 3,996]

You don't believe Pelosi made this request????

 

Yes, I question whether she made the request. I know it's silly of me not to trust, "Sources familiar with..." & "An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named..." Everyone knows they would never lie.

[phillybear 366]

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

Harry Potter is real, people

I'M A MAN WH0RE

 

:oldrolleyes:

[jerryskids 7,251]

Yes, I question whether she made the request. I know it's silly of me not to trust, "Sources familiar with..." & "An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named..." Everyone knows they would never lie.

If you were "an aide to Mrs. Pelosi," would you want your name out?

 

Also, if you are waiting for the NYT to jump all over this to "validate" it, you will be waiting a long time.

[Cdub100 3,996]

If you were "an aide to Mrs. Pelosi," would you want your name out?

 

Also, if you are waiting for the NYT to jump all over this to "validate" it, you will be waiting a long time.

 

If I were "an aide to Mrs. Pelosi," I wouldn't bite the hand that feeds me.

 

All I'm saying is, I would like something a little more creditable rather than hear say.

 

Sources familiar with the subject & An aide to President Bush said the United States was going to attack Canada next.

 

See how easy that is. You can't prove it's a lie.

[FranksTanks 0]

I don't see the issue. Hastert used them and if you're second in line to the throne you should be allowed a little protection. Maybe its a little much to ask for others, but if they are already burning the fuel on her, why is it a big deal if more people get on the plane? I'm sure they more than one seat.

[Snoopy1 0]

If you were "an aide to Mrs. Pelosi," would you want your name out?

 

Also, if you are waiting for the NYT to jump all over this to "validate" it, you will be waiting a long time.

 

 

Sorry, that doesn't really cut it.

 

As I pointed out, the WT flat out makes stuff up & attributes it to anyone. With a track record like that again why should anyone comment on anything that paper prints.

 

And yeah, like Cdubb, I'll wait until I see something more credible.

[parrot 790]

If you were "an aide to Mrs. Pelosi," would you want your name out?

 

Also, if you are waiting for the NYT to jump all over this to "validate" it, you will be waiting a long time.

Here's a wacky idea, maybe, just maybe, Fox News would cast this in the worst light possible, say by not including something like

 

Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons.

[Franknbeans 46]

I find it fascinating that the libs think the cons myopically defend anything connish. Yet here is a clear opportunity for a lib to say, "you know, she may be out of line with this one." But do we see that? Not yet. Just errr... she didn't say mission accomplished. WTF? It's the president's job to keep up troop morale. Errr... at least she didn't start a wrong war. Yeah, that's relevant.

 

 

they're choosing to take a page out of the con playbook and attack the messenger

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Sometime last week or so RP posted the "Obama raised Muslim" BS story. Washington Times using their standard journalism & 'sources familiar' 'connected to' claimed that those in the Hilary Clinton campaign were investigating and starting a smear campaign. In that thread I said the entire story looked to have as much credibility as something you would find in the national enquired.

 

Shocking, days later the entire thing is found to be completely made up out of whole cloth. Why on earth would anyone say its' wrong or condemn this stuff until they actually knew whether it had occured, especially when sourced by the WT's.

 

My post was not going after Obama for being Muslim, or going to madrassas. My post was to point out how Hitlery was going after Obama. The maddrassas story turned out to be false, the fact it was leaked by someone in the Hitlery camp was never proven false.