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

[parrot 790]

the fact it was leaked by someone in the Hitlery camp was never proven false.

[kpbuckeye 3]

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

 

what happened to the new ethical congress?

 

same dirtbags, different letter in front of their name.

[Cdub100 3,996]

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

 

They can't "attack the messenger" because nobody knows who the messenger is.

[FranksTanks 0]

what happened to the new ethical congress?

 

same dirtbags, different letter in front of their name.

 

Why is it unethical to fly with a little protection?

[kpbuckeye 3]

Why is it unethical to fly with a little protection?

 

because its not just about protection, its also about convience for them as well as expenses which will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. If they are so concerned about protection, they have access to the secret service.

[FranksTanks 0]

because its not just about protection, its also about convience for them as well as expenses which will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. If they are so concerned about protection, they have access to the secret service.

 

I won't argue that its not costly or convenient, but I think it is more about protection which would probably justify it. As long as its not abused and her friends and family are getting free rides around the country without her, but that is yet to be seen.

[kpbuckeye 3]

I won't argue that its not costly or convenient, but I think it is more about protection which would probably justify it. As long as its not abused and her friends and family are getting free rides around the country without her, but that is yet to be seen.

 

it is a free ride. If you are coming in screaming about being ethical, then stick to it and don't look for freebies. She has access to the secret service if she is so concerned with security. None of these dirtbags deserve crap. they already get too much because people rationalize it away as you are doing. When do we finally stop all this crap? I think its going to take a few congressmen getting killed by average citizens for people to wake up and realize whats going on around them. When this happens she can get he little free plane rides for her and her buddies, when there is an actual risk. Until then she can use the secret service.

[Strike 6,121]

I won't argue that its not costly or convenient, but I think it is more about protection which would probably justify it. As long as its not abused and her friends and family are getting free rides around the country without her, but that is yet to be seen.

 

Are you suggesting that security at the commercial airport is lacking? What is the purpose of the TSA then?

[itsbigmoni 1]

As far as i know, the secret service doesn't have jets. I'm sure she already has a SS team but they can't fly her. I'm not saying its right or wrong but i can't label it unethical for 100% sure. Especially considering she's not the first to do so.

 

I don't get how cons are blasting her for doing things cons did for the past 14 years. At least she's doing something. No more chartered flights from corporations. Its a start. You guys are making it sound like unless she does everything 100% ethical, then any progress she makes is useless. Isn't it good that we're making some steps? Or would you rather have the dems not want to clean up ethics in congress and let private flights continue? I don't get how you guys can dismiss the little progress that has already been made just because she hasn't done everything.

 

With that logic you can't support the war. Since everything hasn't gone 100% right, the whole war wasn't worth it, even though there was a little progress. Same thing right? If the congress did 100 things unethically and she came and got it down to 98, i'd consider that a success. So far she cut out private jet flights and added a 5 day work week. Or would we be better off if we still had the same unethical congress as always?

[wiffleball 4,799]

{cough}JOHNTOWER{cough}

[wiffleball 4,799]

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.

 

 

 

Gotta be honest, I'd like to jump on her (uh, not that way), hypocrisy - if it's true - but all we got here is a story from FoxNews quoting WashPost citing 'unnamed sources'. After all the BS we've been through (especially Fox's latest "obama was trained in a Madrassa" - where they cited a source, which cited a source - and nobody checked the facts), it's not worthy of response yet. Seems like this story might force Pelosi's office to issue an official statement. Then, it'll be dogpiling time. (so to speak).

[FranksTanks 0]

it is a free ride. If you are coming in screaming about being ethical, then stick to it and don't look for freebies. She has access to the secret service if she is so concerned with security. None of these dirtbags deserve crap. they already get too much because people rationalize it away as you are doing. When do we finally stop all this crap? I think its going to take a few congressmen getting killed by average citizens for people to wake up and realize whats going on around them. When this happens she can get he little free plane rides for her and her buddies, when there is an actual risk. Until then she can use the secret service.

 

Do you suggest that she hop on the back of the SS and they piggy back her around the country? What does the SS have to do with her security in the air?

Also, I think it was 911 that started the precedent, that's when Hastert started using military planes, and since we clearly must still have not quite "won the hearts and minds" of everyone across the globe it, its plausible there may be some risk currently to worry about.

 

Are you suggesting that security at the commercial airport is lacking? What is the purpose of the TSA then?

 

Should the VP and Pres start flying United too? I don't know if you guys understand her position.

[kpbuckeye 3]

As far as i know, the secret service doesn't have jets. I'm sure she already has a SS team but they can't fly her. I'm not saying its right or wrong but i can't label it unethical for 100% sure. Especially considering she's not the first to do so.

 

I don't get how cons are blasting her for doing things cons did for the past 14 years. At least she's doing something. No more chartered flights from corporations. Its a start. You guys are making it sound like unless she does everything 100% ethical, then any progress she makes is useless. Isn't it good that we're making some steps? Or would you rather have the dems not want to clean up ethics in congress and let private flights continue? I don't get how you guys can dismiss the little progress that has already been made just because she hasn't done everything.

 

With that logic you can't support the war. Since everything hasn't gone 100% right, the whole war wasn't worth it, even though there was a little progress. Same thing right? If the congress did 100 things unethically and she came and got it down to 98, i'd consider that a success. So far she cut out private jet flights and added a 5 day work week. Or would we be better off if we still had the same unethical congress as always?

 

its either ethical or it isn't, you can't be 90% ethical. When a rep was doing it, it was unethical period.

you missed the point completly on the SS. I don't expect them to fly her. I expect them to escort her on a comercial plane if she feels that she needs it. that analogy with the war is just too whacked out to address.

what progress has been made? did my taxes get reduced bc they eliminated the kickbacks and wasteful spending? the lady wants to claim she is heading a new ethical congress, well lets see some focking action.

for the past 10 years its been nothing but spend, spend, spend. that shiot gets old. we send phillybear to washington to chop some congressmen up in little pieces and sprinkle them around the washington monument I bet things get in order real fast.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I meant more so i haven't made up my mind whether it was unethical or not. If i make a decision, then yes, in my mind it'll either be ethical, or unethical. Considering she's 2nd in line, im thinking its not that outrageous for her to want to have a military plane escort. The SS can accompany her on a plane but what if some assclown decides to light the bomb in his shoe?

[wiffleball 4,799]

It's kind of a tough question - rep or dem. I mean, not too long ago, they had pretty much unlimited access to corporate jets. I've worked for companies where our jets spent more time hauling congressmen around than our own people. Hopefully, they don't have that anymore. (but I'm not betting on it).

 

So now, you gotta choose between commercial flights and military flights. I know they nailed John Tower for doing the exact same thing 20 years ago. (Then, ironically, he died in a corporate jet). I dunno, given that - for example - the Speaker of the House is what - 3rd in succession? It might make sense for her to get roughly the same kind of protection/treatment as say, Cheney.

 

I mean, that's a pretty fine line, isn't it? Cheney doesn't do diick - could die tomorrow - and his role wouldn't be missed, but losing a SOH would definitely damage the workings of congress for a while.

 

Dunno where you draw the line. They make (supposedly) the Executive Branch pay for the cost of any flights that are strictly for campaigning (worst enforced rule evah). Maybe that's what they do with Pelosi; You can take military flights, but you pay the differential between commercial and military costs. Hell, in some cases these days, it may be a shiitload cheaper.

[jerryskids 7,251]

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.

My understanding is that Hastert used such flights in the near term after 9/11, which is certainly prudent, but was not doing so in the long term, and had stopped doing so. Of course he had access to private corporate jets... I don't know enough about the safety of such flights vs. commercial, perhaps an argument can be made for the military transport after all. In which case, they should just let her have an exception to the private jet rule? Then again, how far down the chain of command do you allow such exemptions?

 

I would say it would be interesting to see how this plays out, but I suspect it will just go away.

[Strike 6,121]

 

Should the VP and Pres start flying United too? I don't know if you guys understand her position.

 

The Pres, and I suspect the VP as well, are doing work 24/7. When Bush is on his farm in Texas on "vacation" he's still on call and working. Same thing on his plane. Congress does everything they can NOT to work. Didn't they take a day off right after promising to work 40 hours a week so they could watch a football game or something? And, for the record, I do differentiate between the #1/#2 positions vs. #3. Has #3 ever actually had to take over in the history of our great nation? So no, I'm not really worried about the security of the 3rd person in the chain nearly as much as I am #'s 1 and 2, especially when #'s 1 and 2 are safe. If, and/or when, she ascends to the #1 spot she can have a private plane.

[D_House 0]

umm, so so far all she's done is ASK for this right? seems worthy of 2 pages of partisan bickering.

 

dooshes

[Cdub100 3,996]

The Pres, and I suspect the VP as well, are doing work 24/7. When Bush is on his farm in Texas on "vacation" he's still on call and working. Same thing on his plane. Congress does everything they can NOT to work. Didn't they take a day off right after promising to work 40 hours a week so they could watch a football game or something? And, for the record, I do differentiate between the #1/#2 positions vs. #3. Has #3 ever actually had to take over in the history of our great nation? So no, I'm not really worried about the security of the 3rd person in the chain nearly as much as I am #'s 1 and 2, especially when #'s 1 and 2 are safe. If, and/or when, she ascends to the #1 spot she can have a private plane.

 

Assuming she even asked for it in the first place...

 

umm, so so far all she's done is ASK for this right? seems worthy of 2 pages of partisan bickering.

 

dooshes

 

No, so far we have a report with unnamed sources and people close to the discussions that says she asked.

[Strike 6,121]

Assuming she even asked for it in the first place...

 

 

Of course. The question was posed on that assumption, as is my response.

[kpbuckeye 3]

umm, so so far all she's done is ASK for this right? seems worthy of 2 pages of partisan bickering.

 

dooshes

 

well asking is ok.

 

 

 

moron

[Greedo 13]

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.

 

 

Let's see if it's true. If true, then I don't like it any more than (see below)

 

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.

 

I liked the previous speaker doing the same thing.

[paulinstl 296]

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?

 

 

Another proven lie.:

 

Rumsfeld unwound that spin in Woodward's book "State Of Denial". Rumsfeld flat out admitted that the phrase was actually in Bush's speech until Rumsfeld took it out.

 

For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.

 

"We put it up. We made the sign," White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

 

You keep saying this grbage, but it is never going to make it true.

[D_House 0]

Pelosi makes me mad

 

puzzay

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Another proven lie.:

 

Rumsfeld unwound that spin in Woodward's book "State Of Denial". Rumsfeld flat out admitted that the phrase was actually in Bush's speech until Rumsfeld took it out.

 

For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.

 

"We put it up. We made the sign," White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

 

You keep saying this grbage, but it is never going to make it true.

 

Ya got a point or not?

 

WTF difference does it make who put it up? It was referring to the mission of the Aircraft carrier, not the entire Iraq war.

 

Surely you can't be that dense since Bush is on record numerous times BEFORE and AFTER said incident saying the Iraq war would be going on for years.

[wiffleball 4,799]

I thought the "Mission" was to show how nifty the presidential package looked in a flight suit.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I thought the "Mission" was to show how nifty the presidential package looked in a flight suit.

 

Whatever floats your ship there Cupcake.

[torridjoe 48]

The average turnaround time from big scandal to ridiculous mistake by the right wing press is down to about 2 days, it seems:

 

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.

 

 

The Sgt at Arms has served in his position since 1995. Not exactly a wild partisan.

 

And why is it a bigger plane, big enough for 42 people? Because the Air Force recommended she use that plane--seeing as how to get from California to Washington as opposed to from Illinois means YOU NEED MORE FUEL.

 

[rallo 139]

weird... another bureaucrat wasting american dollars... how is this news???

[D_House 0]

umm, so so far all she's done is ASK for this right? seems worthy of 2 pages of partisan bickering.

 

dooshes

The White House thinks you're all a bunch of silly ninnys too:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/08/pel...e.ap/index.html

[MDC 8,227]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

 

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

 

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco, California, without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200. (Watch Pelosi call the GOP charges 'a myth' )

 

In an interview with Fox News Wednesday night, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

 

"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.

 

The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee nonstop service. (Read the Pentagon's letter to Speaker Pelosi -- PDF)

 

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips home. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.

 

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert's practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

 

"I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial," she told Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family."

 

Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican leader, called Pelosi's desire for a large transport plane "an extravagance of power that the taxpayers won't swallow."

 

"It's important we see what the specific request was," Putnam said.

 

But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office -- or the White House.

 

The guidelines provided by the Pentagon say Pelosi could be accompanied by family members, provided they pay the government coach fare. The plane could not be used for travel to political events. Members of Congress could accompany her on the plane if the travel is cleared by the House ethics committee.

 

Hey what a shock, Recliar Pilot caught lying again.

[kpbuckeye 3]

The White House thinks you're all a bunch of silly ninnys too:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/08/pel...e.ap/index.html

 

right, what do they care about spending more money, they have been pretty good about spending our money.

[D_House 0]

right, what do they care about spending more money, they have been pretty good about spending our money.

problem is, the thread was started about "Queen Pelosi" and it seems like the DoD is more at fault here. this was partisan bickering, like I said. If people wanted to comment on government waste, they'd talk about the $12 billion lost in baghdad that is being investigated by the House oversight committee.

 

 

i guess that's too boring and we'd rather about non-issues.

[Uh-huh 0]

Hey what a shock, Recliar Pilot caught lying again.

If we ever have a FFT liar's draft, the Lemming is the #1 pick. No contest.

[Frank M 181]

RP? You there?

 

 

idiot

[Guest Davaco]

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

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/pel...lane/index.html

 

 

she didnt even ask for it

[parrot 790]

So some zero-credibility, right wing rag manufactured this story in the worst light possible, FoxNews dutifully repeated their claims with no independent verification or fact-checking - and even editted our pertinent facts like the fact that Hastert had a jet at his disposal - and RP posted it here as gospel truth?!

 

I am shocked! SHOCKED I say!

[D_House 0]

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.

[wiffleball 4,799]

Man, between CNN Busting Fox on the whole "Obama was taught in a Madrassa" and now this, Fox is taking a beating.

 

No wonder they started whipping out the cheap shot ads right after CNN nailed them on Obama.

[kpbuckeye 3]

Where were all you guys when dan rather got busted for his fake info? I didn't see many of you jumping all over CBS? CNN has never gotten a story wrong.......