Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Force To Become Pelosi Air

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Air Force To Become Pelosi Air

    It didn't take long for Nancy Pelosi to create the imperial Speakership. She has requested that the Pentagon supply her with military aircraft at all times, and not just for herself, but also for her staff, her colleagues, and her family:

    The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
    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."

    "They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

    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. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.


    I'm not even sure that the succession is good enough reason to meet the demand for the House Speaker, even if Denny Hastert used that reasoning. The Speaker is second in line for the Presidency in the case of the death of the President and Vice-President, and therefore deserves some special security protocols. It doesn't take a military flight to implement those, especially just to fly home on the weekends.

    This request by Pelosi goes far beyond even that questionable consideration. Pelosi's staff doesn't have anything to do with the succession, and neither do her colleagues in the House. The military is not a charter service for politicians who want to avoid using the same airports as the rest of the hoi polloi. The military has other responsibilities, especially in a time of war, and pampering Congressmen shouldn't take precedence over them. That most certainly applies to flying Pelosi's family around, too.

    I seem to recall that Pelosi and her party ran on the notion that the Republicans had grown too fat over the perquisites of power. The GOP lost touch with the people of America, they claimed, and let power go to their heads -- and certainly in some cases they were right. It's hard to square that rhetoric with these new demands that the Pentagon start providing free charter flights to Democratic politicians and their staffs and families at a moment's notice.

    But all of this luxury doesn’t come cheap. Hourly operating costs for an Air Force C-32 — the planes that typically carry the vice president, the first lady, and Cabinet officials — are about $15,000 an hour.

    So for one of those planes to fly the speaker home to San Francisco, drop her off, and fly back and get her, would cost taxpayers around $300,000 — while round-trip commercial fares start at $233. That doesn’t qualify as “waste and abuse”?

  • #2
    You're amazing.....Make sure of the facts before you post this crap that you find from the Conservative propaganda machine. These guys love a person like you......This all started with former Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, who used military aircraft to travel to his district. Your story was copied directly from the Washington Times.....

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/...itary-aircraft



    FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft

    On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled “Speaker pursues military flights,” which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been “pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.” Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”

    The story was disseminated widely through right-wing talk radio and blogs, spurring posts like, “First Class Pelosi,” “Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air,” “Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power,” “The Imperial Speakership,” “Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy,” “Pelosi wants military airlift,” and “Nancy Pelosi’s Private Military Plane.”

    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.

    Digg It!

    Read the full Sergeant at Arms statement:

    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.
    Last edited by KazDog; 02-08-2007, 01:20 AM.
    [email protected]

    I'm just here so I won't get fined....

    Comment


    • #3
      Kaz, that was taken from the lefty site. What is it refuting? Pelosi wants a bigger jet to take her, AND her family coast to coast for a cost of 300k RT. Just b/c the guy before her did it, it now means she should, as well as add family to it? Wasteful without question. But if it is required, then why the addition of her family? That's my issue. If something is wrong, it's wrong.

      Comment


      • #4
        " 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."

        It has NOT been confirmed that she wants it. So far it's being disputed and has not been made official. YET. The sergeant at arms in the House inquired about it. The plane requested would be bigger to avoid refueling. This isn't that big of a deal even it does mean she gets to fly.....IF she does get a bigger plane and IF she does use it to fly to her district. Why would she be in the plane alone? That would be useless....Let's wait and see what becomes of this before the crucifixion...It could be that she is inquiring as to why Hastert was using this. Or maybe that she wants it. This type of shit has gone on for years at the taxpayer's expense. It's bi-party crapola....

        KAZ
        Last edited by KazDog; 02-08-2007, 02:16 AM.
        [email protected]

        I'm just here so I won't get fined....

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think she should get it just b/c the guy before her did. Especially if everyone considers it wasteful and you run on a campaign of no more gov't waste. And this isn't about the "right" or "left" as bottom line is it's wasteful. Just like the non energy efficient bulbs and the possible "requirement" of use. If your platform is to get rid of the waste, step up to the plate and set the example. If the guy ahead of you was wasteful, then wouldn't it look better to your constituents(sp) that you are shunning the "old school" way of doing things as promised? Wouldn't it kill two birds with one stone if she led by example AND was able to throw her predecessor under a bus all at the same time? As opposed to "biz as usual?" And don't get me started about Congressional and House pensions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KazDog

            It has NOT been confirmed that she wants it. So far it's being disputed and has not been made official.
            KAZ

            So who made the request of 42 seats, with a bed, and upgraded communication and entertainment systems? With an onboard staff of 16 and a total cost of about 300k RT.

            Comment


            • #7
              NOTHING HAS BEEN CONFIRMED!!! PROVE IT FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE

              Damn man....What part of that don't you get? This has been done since 911 under the veil of security. Why didn't you step up and announce this when Hastert was abusing this freebie, which we know IS A FACT!? You wait til someone alleges that Pelosi is going to do it or abuse from a Liberal.

              What was Hasturd's platform when he ran? Would like like to bet me every bit of money you are worth that in one of his speeches he claimed to cut Gov't waste? You KNOW that's a bet you would lose.....Get off the soapbox.....It's old

              KAZ
              [email protected]

              I'm just here so I won't get fined....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KazDog
                NOTHING HAS BEEN CONFIRMED!!! PROVE IT FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE

                Damn man....What part of that don't you get? This has been done since 911 under the veil of security. Why didn't you step up and announce this when Hastert was abusing this freebie, which we know IS A FACT!? You wait til someone alleges that Pelosi is going to do it or abuse from a Liberal.

                What was Hasturd's platform when he ran? Would like like to bet me every bit of money you are worth that in one of his speeches he claimed to cut Gov't waste? You KNOW that's a bet you would lose.....Get off the soapbox.....It's old

                KAZ

                So "IF" it is found out that she is requesting this insane waste, you will be the first to say it's not right, correct? Especially based on the Dem platform right? Two rights don't make a wrong so if you think it's wasteful, regardless of what her predecessors on both sides of the aisle have done in the past, you certainly would want her accountable right? Leading by example. Or would you think she deserves a "pass" b/c others have done it? All of this of course "IF" it is proven to be true.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KazDog
                  " 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."

                  It has NOT been confirmed that she wants it. So far it's being disputed and has not been made official. YET. The sergeant at arms in the House inquired about it. The plane requested would be bigger to avoid refueling. This isn't that big of a deal even it does mean she gets to fly.....IF she does get a bigger plane and IF she does use it to fly to her district. Why would she be in the plane alone? That would be useless....Let's wait and see what becomes of this before the crucifixion...It could be that she is inquiring as to why Hastert was using this. Or maybe that she wants it. This type of shit has gone on for years at the taxpayer's expense. It's bi-party crapola....

                  KAZ

                  I think that summed up what I feel about it. Republican's have done this for years. It's NOT right if the Liberals do it either. We'll see IF it becomes fact....There are FAR more things that politician's do that bother me....See Iraq war and the Ka-Billions being wasted on a fruitless war.....Everyday

                  KAZ
                  [email protected]

                  I'm just here so I won't get fined....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KazDog
                    I think that summed up what I feel about it. Republican's have done this for years. It's NOT right if the Liberals do it either. We'll see IF it becomes fact....There are FAR more things that politician's do that bother me....See Iraq war and the Ka-Billions being wasted on a fruitless war.....Everyday

                    KAZ
                    I am glad you edited to put the "NOT" in there!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Freudian slip.....Ha ha!!!!!

                      KAZ
                      [email protected]

                      I'm just here so I won't get fined....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Marco..............Polo.......................Marc o......................Polo....................... Marco..............Fish out of water.............."you caught me"

                        signed,

                        Nancy Pelosi

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kbsooner21
                          Marco..............Polo.......................Marc o......................Polo....................... Marco..............Fish out of water.............."you caught me"

                          signed,

                          Nancy Pelosi
                          That's the gayest post in the history of Bettorschat!!!!

                          KAZ
                          [email protected]

                          I'm just here so I won't get fined....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            flip flop flip flop flip flop

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hurry up and get a Yahoo account....Homo!

                              KAZ
                              [email protected]

                              I'm just here so I won't get fined....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X