Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft - Page 2

Stinger · 02-07-07, 01:09 PM

Quote:

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.

Dezaad · 02-07-07, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

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.

Quote:

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'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 · 02-07-07, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Quote:

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.

Once more, you show your dishonesty.

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

ARealConservative · 02-07-07, 01:43 PM

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 · 02-07-07, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 02-07-07, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 02-07-07, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 02-07-07, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 02-07-07, 04:04 PM

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

Quote:

Mrs. 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.

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.

Dezaad · 02-07-07, 08:05 PM

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.