• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

You continue to post the moonie Washington Times article, which has already been debunked by both, the Sargent at Arms of the Senate, and the Air Force. It's a hit piece, nothing more.

Washington Times = Moonies = Swiftboat Journalists for Untruth


News from The Associated Press

"It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi said Wednesday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."

Funny I can think of a couple miltary aircraft that can fly from coast to coast without using a aircraft that costs $300,000 in fuel alone, not even talking about the 16 crew members she wants.......Gulf V comes to mind.....

so boy, heres a AP story where they quote Pelsio stating why she needs the aircraft.....

So you fake so-called conservative go lick the feet of your liberal buddies as usual because you have shown not only that you are a liar but a punk trying to pass yourself off as an conservative
 
Last edited:
Hey, its OK. Everybody screws up sometime. Accidents happen. :mrgreen:

You're right...accidents DO happen...want proof? Pelosi is speaker of the house...

BubbaBob
 
News from The Associated Press

Funny I can think of a couple miltary aircraft that can fly from coast to coast without using a aircraft that costs $300,000 in fuel alone, not even talking about the 16 crew members she wants.......Gulf V comes to mind.....

so boy, heres a AP story where they quote Pelsio stating why she needs the aircraft.....

So you fake so-called conservative go lick the feet of your liberal buddies as usual because you have shown not only that you are a liar but a punk trying to pass yourself off as an conservative

The link goes to AP, but no article.

And correct me if I am wrong but Pelosio is nr 3 in line to the White House, after the President and the VP. The President and VP get goverment funded planes to fly around, and those planes are not exactly cheap either, not to mention the several C5s and what not that come before, with and leave after the president and VP. I mean where is the bitching about goverment waste (which this has to be, as it cant be a partisan attack can it now?) when Bush travels to political fundraisers for others (which is not part of his job discription is it now?), or travels every few months "on vacation" to Texas? Or how about the VP being at various "undisclosed" locations.. how does he get there, by bus?

As for what type of plane, well if Bush can fly in a gas guzzling 747, then I think that the US goverment can let the 3rd in line travel on something smaller :) and that as I understand it is what she "wants".. if the story is correct, which I have doubts about.

As for AP, there are certain AP journalists that have been caught time and time again printing anti democrat stories, so the AP article validity depends on what journalist is behind it... and as we cant use the link well.
 
>>And correct me if I am wrong but Pelosio is nr 3 in line to the White House,

But she is not in the White House. The President and VP are unique targets, they are elected by a vote of the states to their office and the executive branch travels with them, they have unique duties even when out of the office. Not so with the SOH, she was elected by the congress it self, doesn't need to take the congress with her.

This whole thing was put in place after 9/11 and has probably lived passed it's necessity, certainly it doesn't need to get bigger just to stroke Pelosi's ego which is all this is about.
 
Did the Republican leader of the House have a plane to take him around?
 
I live near an airport. On several occassions, on my way into work, I have had to pull over and pause as the presidential motorcade proceeds through. I got to thinking that the government must have to spend a LOT of money for Air Force One, all those black SUV's, all the city cops on motorcycles blocking the entrance ramps, and all the other security hoopla that accompanies the big wigs that run this asylum we call home.

When the president rolls into town to make a 30 minute appearance at some party fundraiser luncheon, who foots that transportation/security bill? When a roll of toilet paper costs twenty bucks by the time the gov't pays for it, how much does it cost to shut a city down? You also gotta wonder if your tax dollars are helping to fund a belief, ideology, or political party you don't personally support.

If these expenses are paid by an outside source, so be it. Live and let live. But I don't want my tax dollars going to help fund these political fundraisers or stump speeches.

I'm sure all presidents have abused the Air Force One privelege for either personal or party gain. I just wonder, who pays the bill for that? Does anyone know?
 
Nobody griped (either side) when Hastert was given this extra security after 9/11. His was a 700-mile flight, Pelosi's is a 2,800-mile trip. Quite a difference. Should Pelosi start reimbursing the government after 700 miles? After all, that's all that the Republics got. It's not fair that she gets to fly 4 times as far
Just another petty bitch session. Like 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'. Then when the sky really is falling, everybody goes pfffft, yeah right.


The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It's normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.
Ahhhh, but they're Republics.
IOKIYAR (It's OK If you're a Republic)
Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.

Source

Cons are funny. Funny cons.
 
The link goes to AP, but no article.

And correct me if I am wrong but Pelosio is nr 3 in line to the White House, after the President and the VP. The President and VP get goverment funded planes to fly around, and those planes are not exactly cheap either, not to mention the several C5s and what not that come before, with and leave after the president and VP. I mean where is the bitching about goverment waste (which this has to be, as it cant be a partisan attack can it now?) when Bush travels to political fundraisers for others (which is not part of his job discription is it now?), or travels every few months "on vacation" to Texas? Or how about the VP being at various "undisclosed" locations.. how does he get there, by bus?

As for what type of plane, well if Bush can fly in a gas guzzling 747, then I think that the US goverment can let the 3rd in line travel on something smaller :) and that as I understand it is what she "wants".. if the story is correct, which I have doubts about.

As for AP, there are certain AP journalists that have been caught time and time again printing anti democrat stories, so the AP article validity depends on what journalist is behind it... and as we cant use the link well.

NO Speaker had a governemnt-supplied plane until after 9-11, and then only for security reasons.
Given that, what argument is there that, suddenly, he needs one like the President/VP has?
 
Nobody griped (either side) when Hastert was given this extra security after 9/11.

Not true as I didn't like it then either.

Once you give goverment a crack, they widen it. Here is the perfect example of that. We first give them access to a smaller plane they can use to travel, and within 5 years it becomes a larger, more expensive plane that allows them to sleep, and bring numerous companions. The staff and cost required to fly the plane more then tripled in such a short time.
 
On balance, this is just another example of politics as usual: those out of power digging at those in power. It doesn't matter one bit if they are Repubs or Democrats -- if the folks in the respective in/out of power positions were reversed, the outctome would be the same. Some excerpts from today's WP story on the Pelosi jumbo, otherwise known as "Pelosi One":

The Department of Defense yesterday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that puts limits on the size of the plane she may use to travel across the country and restricts the guests she can bring, The Washington Times has learned.
A congressional source who read the letter signed by Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Wilkie said it essentially limits her to the commuter plane used by former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, which requires refueling to travel from Washington to Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district. A second source, in the Bush administration, confirmed the contents of the letter.
[...]
The letter from the Pentagon yesterday cites specific U.S. Code that government policy does not include the routine use of military aircraft for the speaker of the House.
"Nonstop service is not guaranteed, meaning she's getting Hastert's plane and nothing bigger," the congressional source said, referring to the commuter jet Mr. Hastert began using for security reasons after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
But the administration official said Mrs. Pelosi "wanted to be able to fly between Washington and the West Coast nonstop."
The letter leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Pelosi may get a larger plane that does not require refueling if one happens to be available in the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. But, generally, the larger military passenger jets are in high demand, especially due to the Iraq war.
In addition, the letter stipulates that the Air Force will only fly her between Washington and her San Francisco district and places limits on who can travel with her.
[...]
The Washington Times reported earlier this week that the Pentagon denied a request by Mrs. Pelosi to fly on a military aircraft to last weekend's Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, a two-hour drive from Washington.
"Non-governmental personnel, i.e. political supporters and contributors, may not fly," the congressional source said yesterday, paraphrasing the letter sent to Mrs. Pelosi. "The plane may not ferry her to any political events and other members may only accompany her after approval by the House ethics committee, which means Republicans would have to OK it."
Immediate family members who fly with her must pay the U.S. Treasury for the flight.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly acknowledged the letter but declined to get into specifics about it.
"We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the speaker's security," he said. "We are reviewing their letter."
Mr. Daly said the negotiations with the Pentagon and the Air Force over using a larger plane is a matter of security based on her position as second in line to the presidency.
"The military is saying she needs this for her security," he said yesterday afternoon. "She's the speaker of the House."
But the congressional source noted that no speaker of the House has ever succeeded to the presidency.
"Just because she's second in line to be president does not entitle her to a military taxi service around the United States," the source said.
[...]
"I wish I didn't have to have so much security, because I like my freedom of mobility," she said, adding that she would be willing to fly commercial aviation. "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."
But Mrs. Pelosi's requests for the larger jet still has drawn ridicule from Republicans, who have dubbed the requested plane "Pelosi One."
It's especially galling, they say, since Mrs. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats ran on campaigns to clear out many of the perks provided to lawmakers.
One of the first changes she made to the rules governing House members was to ban free air travel by members of Congress on corporate-owned or chartered planes.
The "jumbo request," as one Republican called it, also comes at a time when Democrats are trying to push through Congress a resolution that sending 21,500 reinforcement troops to Iraq "is not in the national interest of the United States."
"So let's get this straight," Republican Study Committee spokesman Brad Dayspring said in a statement yesterday that reproduced a picture of a transcontinental U.S. military jet. "During a week in which Democrats are pushing a resolution that states, 'it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq,' they believe that securing Speaker Pelosi the military plane pictured below for luxury flights is in the national interest?"
 
ARealConservative said:
Not true as I didn't like it then either.
If there was griping, it was short, brief and forgotten quickly, much like this one will be in a day or two. Just petty, partisan jabs.
ARealConservative said:
Once you give goverment a crack, they widen it. Here is the perfect example of that. We first give them access to a smaller plane they can use to travel, and within 5 years it becomes a larger, more expensive plane that allows them to sleep, and bring numerous companions. The staff and cost required to fly the plane more then tripled in such a short time.
Agreed!! But the premise in this particular issue is the person receiving the security measures enacted by this administration, now that that person is not a Republic.
 
If there was griping, it was short, brief and forgotten quickly, much like this one will be in a day or two. Just petty, partisan jabs.

Which side is involved in partisan jabs?

One group of elected officials are pointing out that the cost of a previously acceptable use of government is skyrocketing.

We should all be up in arms over this, yet you ignore the abuse and focus on who is bringing this information to light. Their motivations to do so are likely partisan. But your motivation to ignore the factual account of this abuse of government is also partisan.

Agreed!! But the premise in this particular issue is the person receiving the security measures enacted by this administration, now that that person is not a Republic.

No, the premise is that this is an unnessary increase in government cost. As citizens it shouldn't matter which party brought the situation to light, it is our duty to remedy it.
 
Which side is involved in partisan jabs?
Andy Jackson, back in the 1820s.

One group of elected officials are pointing out that the cost of a previously acceptable use of government is skyrocketing.

We should all be up in arms over this, yet you ignore the abuse and focus on who is bringing this information to light. Their motivations to do so are likely partisan. But your motivation to ignore the factual account of this abuse of government is also partisan.
No one is questioning the speaker having basic goverment-supplied air transportation, for security reasons, in the post 9/11 world. What we have here. however, is Pelosi wanting more than she needs, for personal and political reasons.

Why does she need more than a Gulfstream V?
Why should the people need to pay the cost of more than a Gulfstream V?
 
Did the Republican leader of the House have a plane to take him around?

After 9/11 he had a plane. It probably isn't necessary anymore, especially one like Pelosi wanted nor should the tax payers pay for all those she wanted to fly around the country.

As it is she will have use of the same plane Hastert did under the same conditions.
 
No one is questioning the speaker having basic goverment-supplied air transportation, for security reasons, in the post 9/11 world.

Well....I am.

It was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 but it's really silly.

Unlike the president/VP, the speaker wasn't directly selected by the American people so he doesn't truly represent the American people. If something unfortunate happened to the speaker he is quickly replaced with a floor vote.

In over 200 years the only time the speaker was elevated to president had nothing to do with security concerns anyway. It was caused by an impeachment and subsequent resignation.
 
After 9/11 he had a plane. It probably isn't necessary anymore, especially one like Pelosi wanted nor should the tax payers pay for all those she wanted to fly around the country.

As it is she will have use of the same plane Hastert did under the same conditions.

How to respond to someone who continues to repeat the lie, even after it has been debunked? Just keep posting the facts from the link:

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.
 
How to respond to someone who continues to repeat the lie, even after it has been debunked? Just keep posting the facts from the link:

Does the term hearsay mean anything to you?

An unidentified spokesman said that the Air Force said.... And this debunks something? :rofl

Does CINO mean anything to you?
 
Does the term hearsay mean anything to you?

An unidentified spokesman said that the Air Force said.... And this debunks something? :rofl

Does CINO mean anything to you?

Do the words spoken by the Senate Sgt. at Arms mean anything to you? He made the request, not Pelosi.

Does CINO mean anything to you?
Sticks and stones, bud, and irrelevant to this discussion. If that is all you have for rebuttal, then you are in big trouble in this debate.
 
Do the words spoken by the Senate Sgt. at Arms mean anything to you? He made the request, not Pelosi.

Terrific. So since Pelosi didn't request this as you claim she won't care that the request was turned down.

When posting a portion of the article you claim is going to debunk something, you might want to make sure it proves what you think it proves.

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

This doesn't debunk a thing...and your link is to a site that requires registration.

Sticks and stones, bud, and irrelevant to this discussion. If that is all you have for rebuttal, then you are in big trouble in this debate.

Hardly. Real conservatives have a problem with this kind of abuse of government spending.....you don't.

The events of 9/11 showed a vulnerability in flying commercial, not in takeoff's and landings. Why a self proclaimed conservative thinks all of America needs to pay so that a representative from California doesn't have to refuel is beyond me.
 
Here is the latest in the Pelosi issue

ABC News: Pelosi Seeks Upgrade for Government-Provided Plane

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2007 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.
Pelosi charged that the Pentagon is treating her request for a military plane differently than that of her predecessor because she is a woman.
The Speaker told gathered reporters, "As a woman, as a woman speaker of the House, I don't want any less of an opportunity than male speakers when they have served here," implying a sexist undertone to the recent criticism.
"This is something that's very strange that the Department of Defense and the Pentago, which I have been a constant critic of the war in Iraq…has decided that they will go public about a conversation on an issue that applied to the other Speaker," Pelosi continued, refering to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.
But by Thursday, Pelosi's tune had changed, telling reporters, "If they can have a plane that can go cross country then I'll take that plane. If they don't, I will go commercial."
Pelosi claimed on Wednesday that news reports suggesting that she seeks a lavish jet suggest a "misrepresentation that could only be coming from the administration. One would wonder why the practice deemed to be necessary from a security standpoint would be mischaracterized in the press. I know that it's not coming from the president, because he impressed upon me the amount of security I need to have."
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the speaker of the House of Representatives — second in the line of succession to the presidency behind the vice president — has received what the Air Force refers to as "shuttle service," the use of military planes to travel for security reasons. Pelosi's predecessor, Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., used a C-20, the military version of the Gulf Stream 3 business jet, a twin-engine turbo-fan aircraft that seats 12 passengers with a crew of five.
But while the C-20 could fly to Hastert's Aurora, Ill., district, which is slightly more than 700 miles from Washington, D.C., without stopping to refuel, Pelosi's home district is in San Francisco, more than 2,800 miles from the nation's capital, and the C-20 generally would need to stop and refuel to make it all the way to the Bay Area. So Pelosi requested a plane that could make it to California without having to stop along the way, and asked for clarification from the Pentagon about whether friends and colleagues could accompany her.
Various Republican officials in recent days have claimed that Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels — a luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It's normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.
 
Terrific. So since Pelosi didn't request this as you claim she won't care that the request was turned down.

When posting a portion of the article you claim is going to debunk something, you might want to make sure it proves what you think it proves.

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

This doesn't debunk a thing...and your link is to a site that requires registration.



Hardly. Real conservatives have a problem with this kind of abuse of government spending.....you don't.

The events of 9/11 showed a vulnerability in flying commercial, not in takeoff's and landings. Why a self proclaimed conservative thinks all of America needs to pay so that a representative from California doesn't have to refuel is beyond me.

When posting a portion of the article you claim is going to debunk something, you might want to make sure it proves what you think it proves.
I did, but I will go one better:

As you can see, Pelosi never asked for the plane. She only asked for the guidelines for using it, AFTER the plane was given to her. Of course, the Moonie Washington Times twisted that around to make it appear she had asked for the plane itself, which is a pretty despicable lie.

Hardly. Real conservatives have a problem with this kind of abuse of government spending.....you don't.
I never saw you complain when Hastert had a plane. I didn't complain either, because the Speaker of the House is next in line for the Presidency if both the President and Vice President are killed. In light of 911, this makes the use of an Air Force plane a national security matter. At least, that is what Homeland Security stated when they requested one for Hastert, and I agree with them.
 
Bigger government..bigger planes.
 
Pelosi said:
"If they can have a plane that can go cross country then I'll take that plane. If they don't, I will go commercial."

On 9/11 muslims boarded a commercial airliner with intent of crashing it and succeeded. As a result it was determined that such critical members of government shouldn't fly commercial...IMO out of hysteria but that is a seperate debate

Somehow, as usual, the intent of legislation is lost on liberals. The security concern was the unknown element of other passengers and the vulnerability of commercial travel, not on a 30 minute refueling at some anonymous point along the route. But if Pelosi insists, I hope her bluff is called. :mrgreen:

I simply don't find this position deserving of the extra security - and expense. It has nothing to do with partisanship, at heart she is representative of one state. The position of third in line was not a position decided by the people and can be easily replaced with another floor vote. I don't see how this position is any greater of a security target then that of the 100's of others in the legislative branch that represent one state.
 
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2007 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.
Pelosi charged that the Pentagon is treating her request for a military plane differently than that of her predecessor because she is a woman.
The Speaker told gathered reporters, "As a woman, as a woman speaker of the House, I don't want any less of an opportunity than male speakers when they have served here," implying a sexist undertone to the recent criticism."

And so now it starts, everytime Pelosi is critisized watch for the "I am woman hear me roar" hammer come out to smash down any desent.
 
Back
Top Bottom