Pelosi Denying...Murtha Threatening

This is a silly story

Much ado about nothing...as usual.

 

It seems that yesterday, Pelosi started playing the girl card, insinuating that she may not be getting what she wants because she is a woman.

It seems to me that she is getting exactly what Hastert got. A plane. She wants more than Hastert got, namely a plane to fly coast to coast without restopping. Why is that important? Land, refuel and take off. It will add about 30 minutes to the flight.

Besides if energy and global warming are really that important, do we need another plane in the air?

For Murtha to start threatening is lame.

 

Yeah, that's such a girlie claim.

Even the WH said this brouhaha is silly.

 

Why leak?

Politics.

Why post what even the WH says is a "silly story"?

 

Why is it such a big deal that she wants a plane that can fly non-stop? With Hastert it wasn't a problem since he was going to Illinois. She is crossing the country, something that can be done easily on a commercial flight. But the [SIZE=-1]House sergeant-at-arms said the practice of a secure flight should continue as with Hastert. Why should she have to deal with extra landings and take-offs and fueling delays because someone else wants her on a secure flight? Everyone, even the White House, freely admits she wasn't even behind the request to begin with.

This is the kinda partisan garbage that makes everybody look like fools. Attack her numerous legitimate political idealogies you differ with her on, not something stupid like this.
[/SIZE]

 

The "girl card" I was referring to had nothing to do with the comments you cite, but with comments Pelosi made about being a woman speaker and being denied what men had had before her.

Personally, I think this is pretty silly myself, which is why I wonder why Pelosi and Murtha even dignified it with a response. Why not let it go?

The only interesting thing is that the speaker who says we need emission controls and lower carbon output is asking for a jet that provides more.

 

Deal with extra landings?? A passenger doesn't deal with landings and take offs. They sit there. It is hardly an inconvenience other than having to buckle up for a few minutes. It's not a long addition to the flight.

and it doesn't really matter. This is hardly substantive.
[/SIZE]

 

Why make a big deal of this? Because with the republicans getting beaten from pillar to post with pedophilia, bribery, lies about WMD, and so on, they are dying for an example of "democrat corruption."

When the House Sgt.-at-Arms requested a plane for Pelosi, they thought they had an issue.

Expect them to act as though it were the equivalent of Hastart protecting Foley from exposure, or the WH outing a CIA agent to our enemies.

And, in their value system, perhaps it is.

 

Galatian.... please

Only Republicans thought Saddam had WMD's? Please don't even attempt to rewrite history. President Clinton, Senator Gore, Senator Clinton and a host of democrats made statements against Saddam based on the same intelligence information that the President had.

The same information that the British, French, Russians, Egyptians and many other countries said regarding Saddam. Either those weapons were moved to Syria or somewhere else or Saddam ran the most incredible bluff in the world.

But to say President Bush lied is just flat out unfair. If your gonna call him a liar, please be honest enough to list ALL the others who lied right along with him.

I get so tired of revisionist history.

As to Pelosi... The cost to taxpayers will be $300,000 dollars for this larger plane. It will hold 42 business class seats and require a crew of 16 personnel. I'm not saying that perhaps she may not need it due to security reasons, but it's something that the taxpayer should be aware of.
Oh, and just because the request came and is suppose to come from the Sergeant at Arms, doesn't mean a request for this plane didn't happen prior to his announcement. Let's be fair.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would sight the finding in the investigation into the Foley matter that says Mr. Hasert somehow protected Foley from exposure in that matter. There was plenty of accusations toward Mr. Hassert, but when the report was issued, I don't believe they made that finding.

To simply go on what is said in the press is intellectually dishonest and mudslinging. Mr. Hassert was a HS teacher and wrestling coach who loved kids and worked with them. To smear him with nothing more than news accounts is shameful.

 

Just another thread by Carpro trying to attack a Democrat.

Wow, what a surprise!

 

New revelations out today make it even more painful for those who floated this little scam. It's not just that even the White House labels this one as silly. Well, we'll get to that in a moment.

Today in the Dallas Morning News:

Intelligence provided by Douglas Feith, the fomer Undersecretary of Defense, to the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's Inspector General.

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released [Thursday] by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."

Bad news just keeps coming, um?

No need the real thing is sufficient. And the truth is coming out at an increasing rate. Your revisionist history is taking a beating.

Yep. Let's be fair. Again, in the Dallas Morning News (which supports almost all Republicans, including Bush):

Pelosi was advised by the House Seargent-at-Arms that the safest approach would be to take a plane that could fly nonstop, as the previous speaker did. And then...

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

So she never asked for a plane that size. Some of the less-honest republicans dreamed it up and pretended that she ordered one. This is bad news for the country. It says that the republicans still don't get it. The voters took Congress from them over things like this, but they still haven't gotten the message.

Also from the DMN:
"Mr. Snow called Ms. Peolosi to make sure she knew the White House supported her use of a military plane.

Which caused a small snit from GOP rep John Shadegg, who was understandably miffed that Bush wasn't going along with their little scam.

Pelosi might be flying home, but it appears that the Congressional republicans prefer to go by Swift Boat.

"Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.





Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley's contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership's inaction. Foley abruptly resigned his seat Friday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093001265.html

And yet, you were pleased to smear Pelosi before you even learned the facts. This one isn't over. If I was a democrat, I'd be beating those guys over the head with it until they were sorry they ever lied about it.

 

The concern was about terrorism. The previous speaker used a small military jet because that was adequate to fly non-stop to Ill. All Pelosi wants is what he got, a military jet able to fly non-stop to her constituency. Since the Speaker of the House is second in line for the Presidency if something should happen to the President, it had been decided previously that that's what the Speaker should use.

 

My question is, why the need for such a large plane? If there is a smaller plane which is able to fly cross country, then that should be what she uses.

42 seater? Is that really necessary?

I do believe she should have adequate accomodations and the ability to fly non-stop, but it seems to me that the particular plane requested is more than is necessary for such trips back home.

I would hold any member of Congress to the same.

If the necessity is allowing her to move cross country without stopping, then a plane ought to suffice which can do the job while not adding too much to government expenses.

Example:
I need a vehicle to get to work and elsewhere. I drive an 2005 F-150 pickup. It's nice with cd player, a/c, back seat (4 people can ride comfortably, 6 if 2 are small people), electric windows and doors. Now, would I rather drive a 2007 Lincoln Navigator all decked out with 12 disc cd, 18 a/c vents, Soundmaster Ultra-Awesome Entertainment Package with dvd player and satellite hook-up and the ability to hold 8 people at a time? Absolutely. Why don't I then? Because a $25,000 truck is adequate for me and I can't afford an $80,000 SUV. I see the plane situation as similar.

If, however, this is a reasonable aircraft size for the ability to cross-country without stopping, then I see no harm in it.

 

The concern was not about terrorism. The need to fly coast to coast would have been met by the smaller jet.

The C-20 has a normal range of over 4,000 miles for a flight of about 2500 miles . . . more than enough extra fuel for a detour . . .

m m m . . .

Wonder what the range of a 757-200 is . . .

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

terrorism or pride . . .

You could just google something before you made such claims . . .

 

I don't care what the concern was and I don't care what plane she flies in. It is irrelevant. She played the woman card and it was silly.

But nice to see Galatian still revising history. The truth is, in spite of Galatian's continued denials of the evidence in front of his face, that virtually everyone said that Hussein had WMDs. At some point, you would think Galatian would quit this line of attack. It is silly and useless.

 

Maybe Air Force One should always be a commercial flight as well. Or maybe a little Lear Jet or even a Cessna.

 

According to the Dallas Morning News' investigation, on one asked for one. What happened was the Sgt.-at-Arms recommended a plane that could fliy direct to home, and some republicans presented it as being for the largest plane that could fit that description.

And now, they're backtracking and spinning like crazy trying to convince people that they weren't the ones who brought it up.

If the Dallas Morning News is right, she agrees with you. Turns out it's just another swift boating.

Then you're on the same page with Pelosi and the Sgt.-at-Arms (who did the same thing for the last Speaker)