Pelosi Denying...Murtha Threatening

Carpro

She usually does not know the truth . . .

Sad . . .

 

As I have pointed out - the plane that she wanted replaced by a trans-continental bird . . . had a 10% greater range then the 'recommended' replacement.

The real difference was in the COST!

:laugh:

Democrats don't want to spend to keep our troops safe, but they will claim their own safety is in jeopardy so that they can spend more on themselves . . .

I vote for her flying in a piper cub . . . just to make amends for her travesty . . .

 

Democrats think that having the troops die in an unnecessary war that was started on false information is not the best way to insure their safety.

 

The problem is that our troops are commited on the field of combat against a terrorist enemy.

Ya' know . . . it is odd that so many people say that going into Iraq was wrong because there were no terrorists there . . .

The enemy was there all along.

They have murdered our men and women.

 

They are in the middle of a civil war which we precipitated.

Ya' know, no one ever said that. Specific terrorist groups, most notably al Qaeda, wasn't there as of March 2003 even though the Bush administration claimed Saddam was in cahoots with them. Well, they're there now, big time.

The people who became insurgents after the war began were there all along, but they hadn't been our enemy, back then.

And vice versa.

 

Daisy

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim terrorists have killed over 50,000 . . . .

How many of them have our troops killed? a couple of thousand. . . .

How many civilian casualties have our troops caused? maybe 1,000 . . . .

That is not a 'civil' war. I realize that you are probably only repeating the Muslim propaganda that you like to believe - but, that is not the definition of a 'civil' war.

The terrorists are TARGETING civilians . . . that is terrorism.

You have been arguing upon their behalf for some time now. As you argue for their POV, are you supporting the terrorist through:

A. Tacit approval of their operations?

B. Just giving them moral support?

C. Political and/or religious approval of their theology of terror?

C. Financial support?

D. Active physical support?


So? Just how long have you been supporting the terrorists?

A. Recently.

B. 1 - 2 years.

C. 3 - 4 years.

D. Since 9-11.

E. Before 9-11.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

 

Which ones and where? You're so vague as to be meaningless.

Where did you get that number from?

Caused or directly killed? The minimum directly killed and verified is is 56,574 according to IraqBodyCount.net (linky) up to 600,000 indirectly caused. You're only off by 55,574 to 599,000. This is only Iraq; there are thousands more in Afghanistan.

What is not a civil war?

First, that is not Muslim propaganda; I have only heard American analysts say this. What is not the definition of civil war? Internecine fighting, such as is going on in Iraq, is the definition.

There are more than just terrorists there.

You are sorely mistaken that I am arguing on their behalf. You should stop spewing that particular canard. Nor am I arguing any terrorists' POV. I am against terrorism, absolutely. If you persist in saying that I support terrorism, then you will be lying, bearing false witness. I suggest you NOT do that.

Again, if you say that I do any of this, you will be guilty of lying.

This is a vile personal attack.

El_Guero, you should look at yourself and be ashamed. Until you apologize, I will have nothing more to do with you.

 

Daisy

I have never been ashamed of the truth.

You have routinely defined terrorists and their activities to be the activities of 'civil war'.

That is not the definition of civil war. That has never been the definition.

Even Castro had the activities of a 'civil war'. Even Che Guevara came close.

And blaming the USA for what terrorists are doing is giving moral support to the enemy.

TOTAL US caused casualties are a couple of thousand. TOTAL.

The 50,000 to 500,000 thousand civilians murdered by the terrorists are not the 'fault' of the US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you want to blame the American Soldier for the atrocities of an enemy - I am gonna hold you to your words.

 

And no . . . using bad logic with you as my exemplar is not a vile personal attack . . . but, it is terrible logic.

Sadly it is the same logic that you continue to use to blame the American Soldier for what our enemy has done.

 

This is an absolute lie. You have done nothing except accuse others here of supporting the terrorist, and being against the American soldier just because they disagree with you!

I had just about quit responding to your ignorant rantings and constant lies and now even Daisy has seen the light.

What is truly amazing is that I can call you a liar, which you are, which is the truth and might have my words edited. You, on the other hand, can continue to say the ignorant things you say directed at others and nothing will happen to you.

 

Terry.

I agreed with you once . . . and if I am guilty of a 'lie' that would be it.

 

True. For example, it took only a brief search to find out who invented the story that Pelosi demanded the largest aircraft in the inventory. You can find it on the DMN site.

The two key lies were:

1. That Pelosi asked for a plane capable of going nonstop. That was the House Sgt.-at-Arms, who did the same for Hastert (again, admittedly, he was republican and a male which makes a difference for you)

2. Even the Sgt.-at-Arms never specified a model; only that it be able to fly nonstop.

Even more dishonest was pretending that Pelosi asked for a specific model, but that didn't stop some people from pretending otherwise, did it?


Washington -- Democrat Nancy Pelosi received some rare help Thursday from the White House against a barrage of Republican criticism over how the new House speaker intends to get back home.
For security reasons, Pelosi is entitled to fly to her San Francisco district on military planes.

The House sergeant-at-arms, who helps oversee security for the House, suggested that flying nonstop would be the safest way home for Pelosi, next after the vice president in the line of presidential succession...

Republicans, led by aggressive junior lawmakers, seized on the most extreme possibility: Pelosi flying on the military equivalent of a Boeing 757 with the latest in travel comforts...

Too much ado about nothing, the White House weighed in.

"I have never asked for any larger plane," Pelosi said. "I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast."

To presidential spokesman Tony Snow, "This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker."
http://cleve.live.advance.net/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/ispol/117102951480910.xml&coll=2

Even Bush & Co. won't take part in a smear this crooked. The House republicans still don't get it; they still don't understand that this kind of blatant dishonesty is why voters no longer trust them.

 

Ay chihuahua . . .

When someone accused me of name calling . . . my posts were deleted in like 20 minutes. You break the rules. Tell the whole world that you are breaking the rules . . . Falsely claim that I get away with it and you don't . . .

But, YOU get away with it.

Maybe I should take lessons from you and call everyone that is correct a liar. Of course, that would mean that I could never call you a liar . . . Unless you made a mistake and told the right thing for once.

I wonder if a conservative can get away with breaking the rules as long as, a whatever it is that you are, you can.

 

Well yeah, she lives in California so she wants an aircraft that will reach her destination. You got a problem with that?

Second verse, same as the first...

 

Yes, I have three problems with that.

One - we need to ship her to Iraq.

Two - California has too many liberals arlready.

Three - The plane truth is that the gulfstream always was able to reach California better than the big plane.

 

:tongue3:

:laugh:

I guess even on the BB there is a left-wing bias against you right-wingers, right? :laugh:

 

Well, my posts get eradicated in minutes when I am right and play by the rules.

. . . and your go for days when you are wrong.

I don't know if that means that there is a left-wing bias or conspiracy . . . but, it does mean something.

:wavey:

 

The problem is............ a Gulfstream III will easily reach CA without refueling. Perhaps the Sgt. at Arms was ignorant of that fact. It would sure seem that the national media is ignorant of it.

Oh that the press would simply give us the facts and let us think for ourselves. Instead, they don't supply the facts and only give us what they want us to hear.

Here are the spec's if you didn't catch it the first time, Daisy.
Specifications (Gulfstream III)
General characteristics
Crew: Captain, Co-Pilot, Crew Chief
Capacity: Twenty-six
Length: 88 ft 4 in (25.35 m)
Wingspan: 77 ft 10 in (23.72 m)
Height: 24 ft 6 in (7.47 m)
Empty weight: 38,000 lb (17,237 kg)
Loaded weight: 69,700 lb (31,615 kg)
Useful load: 31,000 lb (14,061 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 69,700 lb (31,615 kg)
Powerplant: Two× SPEY-MK511-8 Turbofan, 11,400 lbf (50.7 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: knots (mph, km/h)
Cruise speed: 459 knots (528 mph, 850 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 knots (121 mph, 194 km/h)
Range: 3,767 nm (4,335 mi, 6,976 km)
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Rate of climb: 4,049 ft/min (20.6 m/s)

 

I'm sorry.... I should have mentioned the distance from Washington D.C. to San Franciso, CA.

According to Yahoo maps it is 2,814 miles. For most people that should easily fall well below the range of a gulfstream III.

She deserves a plane. She also deserves a staff who gives her the facts and doesn't make her look as stupid as this whole situation seems to have done.

Her asking for a plane that is nonstop when the most basic plane in our inventory for VIP's meets that standard makes her look stupid.

Even as a Republican, I don't want the third person in line for the presidency to look stupid to our enemies.