"I`M Leaving On A Jet Plane"
 

Pelosi's push for jet remains up in air

By Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has requested access to a large Air Force passenger jet that can make nonstop flights to her home district of San Francisco, such as this Boeing C-32. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has requested access to a large Air Force passenger jet that can make nonstop flights to her home district of San Francisco, such as this Boeing C-32. ( )

The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources.
A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants.
The congressional source said Pentagon officials complained that Mr. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, is accusing them of sexism for not immediately heeding her request.
Megan E. Grote, Mr. Murtha's press secretary, said, "Mr. Murtha absolutely never said anything about being 'sexist.' We have no further comment."
Meanwhile, Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam of Florida said Mrs. Pelosi's request represents "an arrogance of office that just defies common sense" and called it "a major deviation from the previous speaker."
Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri called it a "flying Lincoln Bedroom," and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican, labeled the speaker's plane "Pelosi One."
"This is a bullet point to a larger value -- Pelosi's abuse of power continues," Mr. McHenry said yesterday. "It began when the speaker denied minority rights to Republicans, continued with her 'TunaGate' scandal, and now she's exploiting America's armed forces and taxpayers for her own personal convenience."
"TunaGate" was a reference to Democrats exempting American Samoa from legislation to increase the minimum wage. Star-Kist Tuna, whose parent company Del Monte Corp. is based in Mrs. Pelosi's district, had lobbied against the wage increase.
An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who is arguing she needs the jets for security reasons, yesterday referred questions to the Air Force, which is studying the California Democrat's request along with lawyers at the Pentagon and at the White House. "A lot of people are working this," an Air Force source said.
The congressional source said government lawyers are trying to reconcile Mrs. Pelosi's request with Defense Department policy and congressional travel rules.
The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the administration for access to Air Force aircraft. Sources said the request went beyond what was offered to former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.
Mr. Hastert used an Air Force commuter-type jet to travel to and from his district. Mr. Hastert gained the access for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the House speaker, who is second in the line of succession to the presidency, used commercial flights for such trips.



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 speaker's request is being handled by her chief counsel, Bernard Raimo, a veteran Democratic lawyer on Capitol Hill.
"Who she can take is being worked out, outside the Air Force," said Ed Gulick, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon.
He said the Air Force is studying what types of planes are available for long, cross-country flights. Currently, three planes assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base can make such nonstop flights year-round -- the C-32, C-40B and C-37.
Such VIP planes are in high demand.
"She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source. "It will most directly impact the House, because they're the heavy users of the large aircraft. Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."
The congressional source said the speaker's office requested an Air Force plane to take her to a weekend Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, but the Pentagon declined.
The source said Mr. Hastert on one occasion used an Air Force plane for such an event. The Air Force later determined it was a mistake, and such flights were not repeated.
The source said the Pentagon will likely give in to Mrs. Pelosi's requests for a large plane and travel entourage, given her and Mr. Murtha's power over defense spending.
Mr. Raimo argues that Mrs. Pelosi needs a military aircraft, as opposed to commercial flights, for security reasons.
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.
c Christina Bellantoni contributed to this report.

An ABC News article.

Summary:

Pelosi lives further from DC than Hastert did, so she needs a plane with a longer range.

"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.


Gee....that`s the ticket for our new empress...she can`t make any stops...I don`t suppose it has nothing to do with flying her family and friends there too...Nah!


http://images.washtimes.com/photos/f...14603-7791.jpg

Yup, that's part of the security.

Nah...The party of entitlement ....

BUT THEY FEEL YOUR PAIN!.....






Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col Cathy Reardon tells ABC News that when Hastert used the plane, "it was himself, and he usually had one to three staff members and two security staff — members of the Capitol police force. His wife would sometimes fly, and he reimbursed the government for everyone," paying the government for the cost of a commercial flight to the same place. Hastert's office did not return a call for comment.

So Hastert took staff and family members, and Pelosi wants to as well.

Huh.

On a military corporate jet....not a frigging large airliner.

On a military jet in both cases. Whichever jet was (for Hastert) or will be (for Pelosi) provided by the Pentagon based on availability and range.

If she doesn't want to end up landing in a parachute, she'll make sure she's got a least 3 republican Senators with her on any flight she takes...

On a military jet in both cases. Whichever jet was (for Hastert) or will be (for Pelosi) provided by the Pentagon based on availability and range.






its Pelosi jet size

By Charles Hurt and Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 8, 2007

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 Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the Department of Defense for an Air Force aircraft large enough to fly nonstop to San Francisco. She also has pressed to be able to include other members of the California congressional delegation, her family members and her staff on the plane.
"It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters yesterday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."
Earlier, Mrs. Pelosi did not comment on the matter but yesterday began a counteroffensive accusing the Bush administration of twisting the story.
These "misrepresentations could be coming from the administration," she told reporters yesterday.
"One would only have to wonder why," she said, though adding that she did not suspect President Bush "because he has impressed upon me over and over again the need for me to have the security that I need."
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.

Now days I think all aircraft can reach California...even Piper Cubs...she just doesn`t want to stop for refueling...seems like as a demorat she would want to have a smaller "Carbon Footprint"....NAH!

There's nothing behind this "scandal". Another silly Republican whispering campaign.

There's nothing behind this "scandal". Another silly Republican whispering campaign.


Quote:
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."


Yeah...right....at least she tried....Haaaaaa....haaaaaa...

Is that your only response?

Is that your only response?


Yawn.!..just another liberal complaining about her right to represent the "REAL" people...."Some People Are More Equal Than Others"..you don`t get it do you?

I think senators should ride commerical unless they specifically need to fly direct or quickly. I'm not defending her but you always do the Haaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa thing when you have no response.

I think this particular 'scandal' if you could even call it that, is pretty small in comparison to the larger issues one could discuss.

The White House said the same thing yesterday.

the article also says it's a smear campaign by Republicans and is not necessarily based in reality:

also

And finally:

And echoed by asshole cherrycoke. He has nothing substantial to add, so pages of huge, spread out posts, consisting of unnecessary quotes, and stupid cracks to avoid any meaningful dialog. In other words a troll.

Ronald Cherrycoke gets the same intelligence everyone else does, but how does he use it?

From here.

I'd say his remarks "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" or the dwellars or other readers of this forum. While the justice system has no mechanism for responding to this sort of misbehavior, the cellar does.

Ronald Cherrycoke, you are hereby found guilty of trolling. While lumberjim finds sport in your type, I do not, you "context-shaving liar". You have been condemned to my ignore list. May you rot there in silence.

I think banning is in order for RC if he doesnt shape up fast.

I disagree, citing the "he must be silenced" attitude of Ibram and V -- far too censoriously leftist-totalitarian, guys. You don't want to wrap yourselves up in a red flag.

Uh...

He's being a troll. His political views are irrelivant to that fact. I don't call for you to be banned for the filth you believe; if you were a troll I would say you should be banned, even if you agreed with every single word I said.

I think his viewpoint is valid if factually inaccurate, in that he has a right to his viewpoint. Unfortunately, his approach is annoying. I vehemently disagree with UG, but at least UG is sufficiently literate and has a low ratio of noise to content. RC appears to be UGs much stupider clone.

Personally, I don't think he deserves to be banned. Of course, I also didn't think Mari deserved to be banned and I will state that RCs body of work seems similar to hers in terms of attitude and reason (or lack thereof).

In 10 years on various incarnations of the Cellar, only one person ever made it on a permanent basis to my ignore list and I'm pretty sure that it was really a bot. RC really has my mouse twitching on the button.

Bingo, on the money, Rich. :thumbsup:

My objection is the proliferating white space and quoting a whole long post just to say, I agree/disagree. It makes it tedious to follow a thread and discourages debate.

So I post an article three days ago from a legitimate news source and it turns out to be not entirely true and I`m guilty of being a troll and a liar? Wow wouldn`t be the first time the news is wrong.

P.S. Ignore buttons are for cowards.


THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2007

Ow....that hurts me to the heart!

Haaaaa...Haaaaaa...

Troll

Hmmmm...how come it took Livingood three days to speak out...maybe that had to build an airplane for her?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i8...nanonecopy.jpg

You could have found out that it wasn't true three days ago.

Legitimate news source - Well, each man chooses his poison.

Ignore buttons are for cowards. - Maybe, but until assault weapons are legal it's all we have.:rattat:

I really need to find the liberal equivalent of the Washington Times for balance. Unfortunately, while the Post and Slate can be accused of a liberal bias, they tend to be too bound up in journalistic ethics to make a good match. Maybe if I could get the National Enquirer to do a series on national health care they could qualify as liberal.:rolleyes:

Capitol Hill Blue is the liberal equivalent of Ronald's sources.

I really need to find the liberal equivalent of the Washington Times for balance.


That`s easy Dude...it called the MSM..."Fake But Accurate"


Haaaaa....Haaaaaa...

I admit I rather like Ronald... and no, he's no copy of me. Quite the independent entity, particularly in that he doesn't hew to the left-of-center groupthink that commits such absurdities.

UG, while I may deeply disagree with you I still harbor respect for you since you're a member of The Cellar. What I mean is that you're not here solely to push an agenda. Mr. Cherrycoke on the other hand seems to be here to push an issue. What would your reaction be if I was only here to copy and paste articles from liberal sites?

That in minds as in computers, garbage in means garbage out.

I like direct flights. She did what I do, "you won't give me one, ok, I'll go to another carrier". End of story.
Rep. smear campaign.

So, as long as you agree with them it's A-OK?

Right on Rich. He is actually more of a problem for hard-righters who have to work doubly hard to show that conservatism isn't just for nutters.

When I came back from Vietnam I use to hang around radicals in Ann Arbor (I was in for the "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll") I experienced Group Think closely...it`s a disease of liberals and socialist.

Which is **precisely why I refuse to listen to RC--I care about what I take in and I find his garbage wholly indigestible.

You, on the other hand, I keep around for other reasons.
I think your bullshit detector needs recalibration.

Ha. RG is just UG with the spell checking disabled and auto-thesaurus-afterburner flamed out. We've seen them before.

I don't think RC is anything like UG at all. I wish RC would sod off mostly and I rarely bother even responding to him. UG on the other hand can be quite entertaining, even if he doesn't believ you could be giggling at his posts instead of absorbing it all and letting it wash the liberal thoughts right out of your mind. :)

Does this mean I'm too late to post some witty comment regarding Pelosi's stand on the environment?

Way too late. We've moved on to slagging each other off. :)

Especially since all but the nuttiest now know that the story was a complete fabrication.

And right out of your hair. :) To cause an algal bloom in the South Pacific.

So Aliantha's a shit head? That's real nice.

Here's something else we can "thank" the freedom-hating Democrats for: Generic Candy Corn Will Give You AIDS.

Perhaps most importantly, keep in mind that eating just a single kernel of candy corn manufactured by a company other than Brach's Confections will give you a deadly case of full-blown AIDS. Haaaaaa....haaaaaa...

Well some people might think I'm a shithead. That's ok. In this case though, I think UG was attempting to be funny. With a bit more practice he might get it right. ;)

You're very generous. I wonder what UG would say. As to being funny, he wasn't. As to his attempt, I've already named it. He's just mean. He reminds me of a ill tempered chihuahua. All yappy-ass barking and nipping at heels. Always wound up, seeing threats at every turn, feeling the need to act and sound as aggressive as possible to mask some deeper sense of inferiority. I've seen it many times from him and frankly, it chaps my ass.

Try not to let stuff like that bother you too much V. It's really not worth it, and if you see through it, I reckon mostly everyone else does too. ;)

Hmmph.


Ok, I'll try.


Again.


If I have to.

;)

you don't have to, but it'll probably save a lot of effort if you do. ;)

V, you didn't recognize a reference to South Pacific when you saw it? That musical's older than either of us!

Musicals? That so ghey.:worried: