Then it would make sense to direct the outrage to the individual who is responsible for making the request, wouldn't it?

^ Trust me plenty of my outrage if aimed at the Sargent of Arms. Yet I'm directing it at Pelosi too who hasn't stood up and said a C-20 or C-37 would be just fine for my needs.

She is the Speaker of the House so I think she has a little control over what she flies around in. She could easily say a C-32 is way too extravagant between the size of it, the huge crew, the fuel it burns, and the fact that it can haul around half of the senate. Pelosi may have requested it but I don't see her saying no please give me a C-20 or C-37.



Security makes for a good excuse when it comes to wasting money. The C-20 and C-37 can both make the flight nonstop one way just like the C-32 that was requested and Murtha went rabid for her to have. So there is no security issue of them having to land during the trip. Now both the C-20 and C-37 are smaller and faster jets than the C-32. That makes them more maneuverable than the larger jet and better equipped to dodge fire from the ground or evade a aerial attacker.

So what is the security advantage of the C-32?

Tell me what the security advantge of the C-32 is? The C-20 and C-37s can fly as far, are faster, and are more maneuverable so they are actually more secure planes compared to a lumbering C-32. The only security advantage of a C-32 is Speaker Pelosi can curl up in her personal stateroom for a nap, watch her favorite TV shows on her personal entertainment system, and she might not catch any germs from other people in her personal bathroom. Plus she can haul around 45 people in the back in business seating. The issue isn't about security it is about extravagant spending and the type of thing that Speaker Pelosi is apparently against. Yet she hasn't said one thing about let me fly in a C-20 or C-37. Sorry but Pelosi, the Sargent of Arms, and Murtha are being pigs with taxpayer money. The only way they could waste more money is if they demanded the use of one of the VC-25s.


Yeah because Bush has demonstrated how much fiscal conscious has when it comes to spending large amounts of money on extravagant things.

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.

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 necesarrily have known that these other two models would have worked just as well?

^^^

I have to agree with Gode here....

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.

And I doubt that any of that was done for Nancy or that she even requested the info as she trusts others who handle that sort of thing to know that info and make the best choices.

But then I guess if one choses to be outraged then they can be.

To clarify, Spidey...

Aside from your unwarranted attack on my character, I am independent. If I had a way to shake up the whole bleeding system from the ground up and fire the lot of them, I would.

Of course, I am used to dealing with the Radical Right forumites and the Looney Liberals. Please get your facts straight before you vilify a person for a Choice that was made for her. Hades, I just extracated myself from a fight with said liberals on another forum.

You refuse to read anything that might destory your "ebil democrat" notion.

Frankly, I think all politicians are "ebil."

Come to me when you have proof that it was her choice. Frankly, Your boy Bush's peeps have already said she didn't ask for it, they did. It maybe waste, but given the price of Oil rising again, I want to see a cost analysis based on the travels and fuel consumption.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070208-2.html

From the 8 February White House press briefing:


In other words the Vice-President has first dibs on the 757, always. After that, it depends on what aircraft is available for the Speaker when she (or her office) is trying to schedule a trip.

Anna

What about your incessant attacks on my character. You're the one who keeps doing it. I too am an independant, yet you never conveniently seem to remember that, or you don't read my posts. However, I do very much agree entirely on your last sentence. I'd be on your side firing the the lot of them as well.

My facts are straight from the get go. She wanted a BIGGER plane, not just a little bigger, a lot bigger, and used a poor excuse to get it. She simply wanted a much larger plane. When the whistle was blown, she then down played the whole thing to cover her own behind. It doesn't matter if it was a 757, or any other large craft, the fact remains she wanted a more luxurious plane on our tax dollar.

How could some one so worried about their own security then sway saying she wouldn't mind flying commercial? Come on, that doesn't make any sense.



Damn, talk about character assassination. You couldn't be any more wrong.

Abso-freaking-lutely.



Come to me when you pull the whool from your eyes and recognize a B.S. move from a politician who thinks she queen. Bush isn't my boy, and if you had read any of my posts, you'd know that. Now look who is making false statements? It isn't me. She did, in FACT ask for a larger plane. According to the L.A. Times this is the plane that Pelosi wants, the military C-40-A which is based on the Boeing 737-700C. As a passenger plane it can hold 120 passengers and is rated at 5,000 pounds of cargo. Range = 3,400 NM.
http://concordmonitor.com/apps.../NEWS

The only person that seems bitter here is you Spidey. You've been grinding one microscopic axe or another for weeks. If it's not Pelosi it's Clinton. It's like a teeter totter, back and forth, back and forth. What's up with that?

I think I just found that double standard G's been talking about...

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....

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.



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




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

[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.

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.

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.washingtontimes.com/national/20...21345-5680r.htm



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.org/items/200702120010

.. snip ..



.. snip ..



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

Now, all I side previously was...



And your response was



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.

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

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

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

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



LOL

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.

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?

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.

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.




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.

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



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.


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.

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.




Did you forget to finish your sentence?