Stinger

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.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Dezaad

I'm afraid you'll have to concede, Middleground, he didn't make it up himself

Instead he quoted a source who cited someone named 'Sources', who actually supposedly said it. 'Sources' is the same person, apparently, who made up the misleading statements that danarhea was originally talking about, who therefore, has no credibility. Although, I could be wrong, it could be a different 'Sources'. Its rather difficult to tell, what with all the different people named 'Sources' in the Washington Times article from the blog from the link in the OP.

Now, apologize, Middleground. You've besmirched the credibility of another poster without cause...

danarhea

No you didn't. You referenced the accusation which was made by the moonies, and reprinted in the "blog" for the purpose of debunking, which the "blog" did. Jeez, such unmitigated dishonesty.

Moreover, I like how you used the word "blog", as if it had no credibility, despite the fact that the blog quoted the exact words of the Sgt at Arms:

Once more, you show your dishonesty.

By the way, the Pentagon approved the plane for Pelosi.

__________________
Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2012

http://danarhea.blogspot.com

ARealConservative

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.

Dezaad

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?

ARealConservative

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.

Dezaad

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.

ARealConservative

this is a free country. Nobody is required to fly on commercial airlines. That is simply the extent of the cost we are willing to reimburse. The politican's cost to fly coach is payed for. Not family members, not fancy seats, and not a plane big enough that they can't be "inconvenienced" with a refueling.

Personally, I think it would be great to have the speaker next to me. I would certainly make the most of my captive audience.

Goobieman

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.

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

Dezaad

You know, I just realized this is a power thing. The 'entourage' that travels with the President is often journalists or otherwise influential people they want to wine and dine. Pelosi may be trying to make the case that the Speaker needs this so that the Speaker has the same capacity. And it is probably actually for this reason that the right wing news sources don't want her to have it.

I'm all for letting a bit of power devolve into the Congress. And no, its not B/C its Dems, I've been saying that for years without fail. Even when it was Reps in Congress and a Dem President, I forced myself to argue for it, even though in the short term I knew that it would have weakened those who share my ideas. I think the Presidency is far more powerful than it should be. The House is the best representation of the will of all Americans.

As soon as you all start saying that the President should be able to fly with only his family and a limited group of other members of his government, I'll start believing you're credible.

Its really not that big of a deal anyway.