[MuseZack]

Why are we even still talking about this? When even Tony Snow admits it's a nothing story, it's time to move on, folks. Find another smear. Maybe trot out the old one about the workers at her husband's vineyard and see if you can make that dog hunt....

[Tricia]

Spidey....

You keep insisting that Nancy Pelosi asked for this despite the links given to articles posted in this thread that say that she did not....

So here's another one another one to show what we are talking about.

Quote

The White House weighed in, as well. “This is a silly story,” its spokesman, Tony Snow, said.

Mr. Snow said that the Republican criticism was unfair and that the Bush administration essentially sided with Ms. Pelosi.

Quote

In a statement released on Thursday, the House sergeant-at-arms, Wilson Livingood, said he had been behind the call for the long-distance airplane. “The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security reasons,” Mr. Livingood said, adding he regretted that the security concerns had become a political issue.

and reaction from some Republicans who also think this is not an issue

Quote

Some Republicans were put off by the flight fight. “This is a bunch of baloney,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois, who said he had flown on Mr. Hastert’s military plane.

“Next week,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said, “we are going to steal their mascot and short-sheet their beds.”

And now i am off to worry about more important things.

This post has been edited by trikay: 12 February 2007 - 10:45 PM

[CJ AEGIS]

[quote] Gode: Would she know that? I mean I can't imagine the average beltway insider has a tremendously detailed knowledge of military aircraft and if your military person (presumably the Sargeant at Arms) tells you to fly in this plane, would she necessarily have known that these other two models would have worked just as well?[/quote]The C-21 and C-37 are both military variants of civilian bizjets. Any CongessCritter has probably flown on civilian variants of them a dozen times or more in their life. On top of that they are commonly used to transport around Congressional Delegations. So she should have had ample chances to encounter and be familiar with them. Then last but not least they've both been mentioned as alternatives in the media. These are two fairly common aircraft and I'd be shocked if she was in the dark on them.


[quote name='Kosh' post='958544' date='Feb 12 2007, 04:57 PM']
[quote]Pelosi may have requested it but I don't see her saying no please give me a C-20 or C-37.[/quote]

She didn't make a request. What she had said was that she would continue to fly commercial, to go non stop, then it got blown all over the board.
[/quote]
I left out a not.... "Pelosi might not have requested it.....

[quote}Trikay: Unless you know that she is well acquainted with the types of aircraft mentioned or that someone sat down and wrote out a detailed listing of each one's advantages and cost effectiveness etc, then I feel like you can not direct outrage at someone for not doing the research like CJ did.[/quote]
You can pull all the information on them off the USAF online fact sheets in about 3 minutes or less. So its very public and easy to acquire knowledge.

[Tricia]

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 12 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

Quote

Trikay: Unless you know that she is well acquainted with the types of aircraft mentioned or that someone sat down and wrote out a detailed listing of each one's advantages and cost effectiveness etc, then I feel like you can not direct outrage at someone for not doing the research like CJ did.

You can pull all the information on them off the USAF online fact sheets in about 3 minutes or less. So its very public and easy to acquire knowledge.

Maybe....but how many people would have done that?

Especially when they....or in this case, she...were trusting someone else who supposedly knew what they were doing and was perhaps more familiar with the types of transport available.

So maybe all one could really fault Pelosi for is not doing her research and trusting someone to handle things properly for her. Again, someone who supposedly knew the details.

Maybe she has done the research since this all came up. Maybe she had someone else do it for her.

[Natolii]

Incessant attacks, Spidey? And I post How frequently here? Methinks there is a serious perception problem... So leave off with the venom, aight?

You do have a proven track record of attacking the "ebil democrats" rather viciously as has been pointed out others. I am also very prepared to back my stance with "non-expired" news articles.

First, the Washington Times...

http://www.washingto...21345-5680r.htm

Quote

In a statement yesterday, House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood assumed responsibility for the decision to request a larger plane for Mrs. Pelosi.
"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled *me* (Livingood) to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security reasons, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," he said. "Such an aircraft will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security."
He also said he regrets "that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue."

The Sergeant at Arms *made* the request, not Speaker Pelosi. This has been admitted to by the man himself. The leaks to the media were perpetrated to get people outraged at the wrong person. Frankly, you've been played. The Leaks were a craefully crafted smear campaign that appears to work, however the persons involved in the actual acquisition have come forward. Snow and Livingood have both step forward to say Pelosi *did not*

http://mediamatters....ms/200702120010

Quote

In fact, Pelosi said, "It has nothing to do with family and friends, and everything to do about the security." The House sergeant at arms wrote that it was his recommendation that Pelosi fly in a military aircraft "that is capable of making nonstop flights" to and from her district, "unless such an aircraft is unavailable." As Media Matters for America previously documented, Pelosi's staff has stated she "will not use the plane for political travel."

.. snip ..

Quote

The new Speaker may request, in writing, that other members of her family fly on the plane, but they must reimburse the government at coach rate for the flight and for incidentals such as meals.

Other Members of Congress may not travel on the plane without the express consent of the ethics committee, which would determine reimbursement rates.

.. snip ..

Quote

HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER STENY HOYER (D-MD): Tim, this is -- this is much ado about nothing. Tony Snow, as you pointed out, said this is silly. The Republicans are frustrated because we've been so successful in the first month at doing our new direction, at doing six for '06. We had an average 62 Republicans vote for those bills, 124 for the bringing down college expenses for students and their families. The fact of the matter is, they were looking for something. The Sergeant at Arms suggested to the Defense Department that this was necessary for the speaker's security. The speaker didn't ask for this. All of this other stuff that's being added on is for political purposes, not for substantive purposes. Obviously, Speaker Hastert was flown to his destination, which was 1,000 miles closer than Ms. Pelosi's destination, and the Defense Department and the Secret Service or the Capitol Police are making arrangements. Nancy Pelosi hasn't asked for this.

To repeat, she did not ask for this, Wilson Livingood did.

Now, all I side previously was...

Natolii, on Feb 9 2007, 06:38 PM, said:

Basically this is a complete knee-jerk reaction based on a rumor and it has been proven false.

Ummm, Spidey, James, how about an admission that you were wrong in this case?

And your response was

Spidey, on Feb 9 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

Natolii, on Feb 9 2007, 03:38 PM, said:

Basically this is a complete knee-jerk reaction based on a rumor and it has been proven false.

Ummm, Spidey, James, how about an admission that you were wrong in this case?

Sure, when hell freezes over. Because I am not wrong.

Pelosi says there is a security risk when landing. How so when the plane would refuel at a military base. If a United States military base isn't a secure location in the United States, I don't know what is.

Simply, I can not believe you don't see an issue in this? Is it because you all love Pelosi, and are liberal so much that you feel liberals can do no wrong?

We are talking about a mis-appropriation of funds here-OUR tax money so she can fly around in more luxury. If she can not handle one pit stop, then maybe she should not have gone into politics where travel is required.

There is a huge difference in a plane requiring $4,000/hour to fly to a plane costing more than $20,000/hour to fly. PER HOUR! That money can be better spent on a whole lot of other things.

The request itself and the reasoning behind it is simply rediculous and vain. It's only been two months since she took office, approximately. What other requests will she be making?

Time will tell. Maybe there won't be any more. And for the record, I may not like her, but this thread was by no means a witch hunt. It simply was about something that I felt was wrong. If McCain did it, same thing. If Edwards made such a request, I'd be just as unhappy.

I don't see an issue here, because a rumor and a lie has been used to create a political attack to distract from the fact that Pelosi did not ask for this. She'd just as soon uses Commercial Air travel and has said as much...

However, I do take offense to the attack when none was offered originally. And I am damn tired of getting attacked by people.

I've supported my argument with both Active articles and political analysis. So far I've been attacked and the only support was an Expired article.

No, there is a double standard in play. The one where an attacker cries they were attacked when the opposite is true. I respond in kind, dear.

[enTranced]

What Kosh said, what Zack said and what Natolii said and even what Tony Snow said.

Until something new happens on this story I think I am out of this thread.

enTranced

[Woodmansee]

I gotta say, government waste is government waste no matter who does it (Republican or Democrat). Whether it is wasted billions on Halliburton war profiteering or millions on excessive sized personal jets for the speaker of the house, it is our duty as citizens to make our elected officials explain their actions when they don’t make sense. CJ makes an excellent rational case that there is no need to use the expensive C-32 instead of the cheaper (both to buy and operate) C-20 or C-37 which could both make the trip non-stop and meets Pelosi's needs. To attack his criticism as partisan politics is unjustified.

Yes, Pelosi might not know about her options as the Sergeant at Arms made a bad request on her behalf. But she should know now (assuming she has competent staff and cares both about reducing waste and her image) and seek to correct things.

Of course if DoD wanted to be spiteful they could have tried to used a C-130 instead. It has the range and room for more people. But would be one helluva long uncomfortable coast to coast trip.

Paul

[QueenTiye]

Woodmansee, on Feb 13 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

I gotta say, government waste is government waste no matter who does it (Republican or Democrat). Whether it is wasted billions on Halliburton war profiteering or millions on excessive sized personal jets for the speaker of the house, it is our duty as citizens to make our elected officials explain their actions when they don’t make sense. CJ makes an excellent rational case that there is no need to use the expensive C-32 instead of the cheaper (both to buy and operate) C-20 or C-37 which could both make the trip non-stop and meets Pelosi's needs. To attack his criticism as partisan politics is unjustified.

Yes, Pelosi might not know about her options as the Sergeant at Arms made a bad request on her behalf. But she should know now (assuming she has competent staff and cares both about reducing waste and her image) and seek to correct things.

Of course if DoD wanted to be spiteful they could have tried to used a C-130 instead. It has the range and room for more people. But would be one helluva long uncomfortable coast to coast trip.

Paul

That just about says it all. Pelosi is responsible for good government - and should have the information available that proves she doesn't need the plane suggested. The Sgt at Arms darned well SHOULD have known better, and one wonders what money goes in what pockets to get him to overspend by 16k as a matter of course. And those who said Pelosi requested this should amend their statements to acknowledge the facts.

QT

[Captain Jack]

Woodmansee, on Feb 13 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

I gotta say, government waste is government waste no matter who does it (Republican or Democrat). Whether it is wasted billions on Halliburton war profiteering or millions on excessive sized personal jets for the speaker of the house, it is our duty as citizens to make our elected officials explain their actions when they don’t make sense. CJ makes an excellent rational case that there is no need to use the expensive C-32 instead of the cheaper (both to buy and operate) C-20 or C-37 which could both make the trip non-stop and meets Pelosi's needs. To attack his criticism as partisan politics is unjustified.

Thank you, that's just what I have been trying to say.

Quote

Yes, Pelosi might not know about her options as the Sergeant at Arms made a bad request on her behalf. But she should know now (assuming she has competent staff and cares both about reducing waste and her image) and seek to correct things.

Pelosi is not ignorant. She knew what she wanted (a bigger plane), and didn't care or consider the cost.

Quote

Of course if DoD wanted to be spiteful they could have tried to used a C-130 instead. It has the range and room for more people. But would be one helluva long uncomfortable coast to coast trip.

Paul

LOL

[Hibblette]

I believe Ms Pelosi did handle this with the attitude of "I don't have to travel this way-I'll go commercial."

[Captain Jack]

Hibblette, on Feb 13 2007, 06:17 PM, said:

I believe Ms Pelosi did handle this with the attitude of "I don't have to travel this way-I'll go commercial."

But then, I have to ask, how is flying commercial any more "secure" than what she already had? That was the basis of her case, for more "security". It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory actually.

[Balderdash]

Spidey said: "Pelosi is not ignorant. She knew what she wanted (a bigger plane), and didn't care or consider the cost.



You have got to be kidding!? Pelosi didn't ask for anything, she even said that she'd rather fly commercial. She had nothing to do with the choice of plane. The Sergeant at Arms and the DoD made the arrangments. You don't want the facts, you just want to believe what you want to believe no matter how wrong it is. You have been offered links and facts and still you blame Pelosi. What is up with that?

[Hibblette]

Spidey, on Feb 13 2007, 08:26 PM, said:

Hibblette, on Feb 13 2007, 06:17 PM, said:

I believe Ms Pelosi did handle this with the attitude of "I don't have to travel this way-I'll go commercial."

But then, I have to ask, how is flying commercial any more "secure" than what she already had? That was the basis of her case, for more "security". It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory actually.

Careful-you'll be arguing against yourself before this is over.

She DID NOT ask for the bigger plane.

That was her point.

And as I stated above I'd rather none of them were on one of my flights. But if they don't go commercial-then the taxpayer has to pay.

[Tricia]

Spidey....I love to read your opinions


But what part of 'she did not ask for this', do you not get?

Many links have been supplied that say WHO did ask for the larger plane in posts #8, 28, 62, & 65 as well as many other posts pointint this out to you.

Quote

In a statement yesterday, House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood assumed responsibility for the decision to request a larger plane for Mrs. Pelosi.
"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled *me* (Livingood) to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security reasons, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," he said. "Such an aircraft will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security."
He also said he regrets "that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue."

So lots of evidence to contradict the insistence that she asked for the larger plane....

BTW I am like Hibblette. Not sure I'd want her on my plane not just because of the extra security but because there are always ways around that and I'm not sure I want to be sitting near or on the same plane as someone who is such a tempting target, perhaps, for terrorists.

This post has been edited by trikay: 14 February 2007 - 09:26 AM

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Trikay: So maybe all one could really fault Pelosi for is not doing her research and trusting someone to handle things properly for her. Again, someone who supposedly knew the details.

That doesn’t chalk up either especially when she has more than likely flown on the C-20 and I know she has flown on the C-37 cross country. It isn’t like either jet is a well kept secret because Congress uses them all the time to get here or there. I suspect this is more of a case of the SaA making a wasteful choice for an aircraft. Then the blame goes to Pelosi not really rejecting it because the C-32 would be a nice bird to fly around in unless she is incredibly ignorant of what the DOD has for transport aircraft. It would shock me if she wasn’t somewhat familiar with both jets considering the amount of time that she has been in Washington.

Plus with all this controversy by this point she has to be aware of the fact that the C-37 and C-20

Quote

Woodmansee : I gotta say, government waste is government waste no matter who does it (Republican or Democrat).

I gotta say that it what this really comes down. I suspect most of the people attacking Pelosi for it in Congress and the media would be mostly interested in her hide rather than stopping waste. The White House sure isn’t going to say because the waste tons of resources and don’t want anyone calling them on it. If the Republicans and Democrats are interested in protecting one thing together it’s any waste of taxpayer money that benefits them both.

Woodmansee, on Feb 13 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

Of course if DoD wanted to be spiteful they could have tried to used a C-130 instead. It has the range and room for more people. But would be one helluva long uncomfortable coast to coast trip.

That would cut down on the excess trips by CongressCritters... Make them all fly via Air C-130.... Though I'd jump at the chance in a heart beat.

This post has been edited by CJ AEGIS: 14 February 2007 - 03:12 PM

[Tricia]

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 14 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

Quote

Trikay: So maybe all one could really fault Pelosi for is not doing her research and trusting someone to handle things properly for her. Again, someone who supposedly knew the details.

That doesn’t chalk up either especially when she has more than likely flown on the C-20 and I know she has flown on the C-37 cross country. It isn’t like either jet is a well kept secret because Congress uses them all the time to get here or there. I suspect this is more of a case of the SaA making a wasteful choice for an aircraft. Then the blame goes to Pelosi not really rejecting it because the C-32 would be a nice bird to fly around in unless she is incredibly ignorant of what the DOD has for transport aircraft. It would shock me if she wasn’t somewhat familiar with both jets considering the amount of time that she has been in Washington.

We could argue this point all day but...


Um...not all of us know the exact type of airplane we are flying on, be it military (which most of us have not) or commercial or private.

Your statement is based on the assumption that Nancy Pelosi is interested in exactly what type of plane she is flying on.

Some of us just get on and go, ya know.

And not all of us research the types and history of our transportation. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe she is like most of us.

Also she may not have rejected it but she did say that if a non-stop flight was not available thru the DoD, no matter what type of plane it was, that she would fly commercial. and that she preferred commercial anyway.

Quote

Plus with all this controversy by this point she has to be aware of the fact that the C-37 and C-20

Did you forget to finish your sentence?

This post has been edited by trikay: 14 February 2007 - 04:15 PM