FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft
FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft
On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled “Speaker pursues military flights,” which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been “pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.” Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”
The story was disseminated widely through right-wing talk radio and blogs, spurring posts like, “First Class Pelosi,” “Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air,” “Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power,” “The Imperial Speakership,” “Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy,” “Pelosi wants military airlift,” and “Nancy Pelosi’s Private Military Plane.”
In fact, the central claims of the Washington Times piece are both false.
1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”
2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.
Read the full Sergeant at Arms statement:
STATEMENT BY SERGEANT AT ARMS
In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.
I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.
Subsequently, several members of the Speaker’s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
96 Responses to “FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Well, lying about everything is integral to the makeup of the Republican mind.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pmIt’s the MOONIE TIMES.
I’m glad Nancy Pelosi is made of tough stuff.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:10 pmShe can take the worst they’ve got.
We have to rid the country of the animals that run these “think tanks.” They are sub human.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:10 pmOops, forgot this:
Uppity woman hate speech in 3….2….1…..
February 5th, 2007 at 7:10 pmHow has venality, bullying and dissembling become the lingua franca of America?
Every day, in every medium this kind of bile spews forth. Who is the audience for this?
It seems, from afar, as though the chortling, sneering, leering bullies are triumphant in the USA.
For the world’s sake, make it stop. There is so much constructive work to be done, and this kind of circus side-show is a tragic distraction.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pmShame on you TP. Once again TP chooses to spin rather than report.
The story does not debunk Speaker’s use of a military plane, it merely confirms that her staff and the Seargent-At-Arms are pursuing the use of such a plane by her.
This kind of BS is why I hate the Repugs and their apparatus. How shameful that my own party and its outlets engage in the same garbage as Faux News.
Shame on you.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pmGood work, Rebel. I’m sure the neocons at the Washington Times appreciate your diligence.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pmRebel, TP doesn’t seem to be spinning this one much to me. I see big differences in how the right wingers are portraying Pelosi’s actions vs. what she has actually done. And I don’t think the summary offered in your post accurately reflects what TP has written here. The TP post is not trying to “debunk Speaker’s use of a military plane”. It is trying to accurately characterize Pelosi’s actions within a greater context, unlike the context-free claims made by right wingers.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pmRebel,
This is what needs debunking:
“First Class Pelosi,†“Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air,†“Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power,†“The Imperial Speakership,†“Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy,†“Pelosi wants military airlift,†“Nancy Pelosi’s Private Military Plane.â€
February 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWhy are democrats so simple in mind and spirit? Is it all the years of Communist Lemming Doctrine that you all believe in doing it to you?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:31 pmmoonie times lying about a democrat? I’m shocked, shocked!
February 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pmRebel,
The key claims of the Times article are 1) Nancy Pelosi is pursuing the use of a military plane and 2) that she has requested a larger plane than the one Hastert used so that she could accommodate “herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.” These are the two claims that TP is debunking, and with the House Sergeant-At-Arms’ statement, it’s clear that the claims are false.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pmComment by Spotsylvania
Party on deed.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:46 pmThey are just jealous of Nancy and are afraid of her new power. She will slam the hammer down!
February 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmRebel In CA
Just once could you post something was actually “rebellious” toward the Republicans or change your screen name?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:49 pmHow has venality, bullying and dissembling become the lingua franca of America?
It started with Reagan when he killed the fairness in reporting. Why? Possible because our politiciians thought that Americas inability to win the vietnam war was due to the medias reporting. since then it has been a pundit nightmare, facts get tossed out the window in favor of opinionated bias, such as FOX news who considers itself fair and balanced though it really isn’t, now we have people parroting that garbage as its truth. They don’t bother to research anything and take some pundits word for it. Stick around and you will see it firsthand when the ‘informed’ come in here with their regurgitated bilge.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“corpse is cool” !!!???
How perfect a name for a koolaid-drinking member of the cult-of-death that is today’s conservativism.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:51 pmIS Rebel in CA really George “Felix” Macaca Allen?
-GSD
The nerve of Nancy Pelosi to expect the same treatment as Dennis Hasturd! What an uppity woman, she should use a hangglider.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pmcould rebel be another case of namejacking?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:54 pmWith todays technology do these senators really need to be flown around so much?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pmDo repubs get anything right
the shoot first ask no questions mentality is killing their already razor thin credibility
February 5th, 2007 at 7:58 pmkaty, there is someone here today jacking names. He posted a rambling thing about dosing salad bars with LSD under my handle over at the “Obesity funding” thread.
It just shows that they’ve got nothing.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:01 pmComment by Spotsylvania
I know your joking but you might wanna tame that down before you end up under a magnifying glass.
Why are democrats so simple in mind and spirit? Is it all the years of Communist Lemming Doctrine that you all believe in doing it to you?
Comment by corpse is cool
Democracy is what you live in today. Are you a communist?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:02 pmso - who will know of this FACT CHECK ???
i take it that TP sends this out to all the “right-wing talk radio and blogs” listed above… not?
and the “released a statement today clarifying the facts” - who will see it?
good job, TP… but, now, how to get the truth out?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:06 pmi will send this to my rightie list… a start…
Communist Lemming Doctrine -CIC
Jesus was communal and what meager posessions they did have was shared.
This site is secular and has nothing to do with communism. Maybe you forget it was secular progressives that cleaned up the mess of the industrial era and put a stop to child labor, or else you would be working in a dingy dirty factory for 12 cents an hour. 7 days a week 16 hrs a day.. Think about that
February 5th, 2007 at 8:08 pmThat LSD crap is on most of the threads.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:10 pmWho could that be?
You mean to tell me that the Moonie Times is a right wing propaganda rag? Founded by a Messianic cult leader who hates America and has vowed to destroy us? Who also says Jesus was a complete failure because he never married?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:11 pmWhat a shocker!
Why are the freepers so slow to learn that they are shilling for big corporations and not for themselves when they repeat the GOP garbage, why do they want to return to such a slum filled, low wage, polluted society?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pmThat LSD crap is on most of the threads.
Who could that be?
Comment by Zooey
Rachel with a new twist I would guess.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pmRachel with a new twist I would guess.
Comment by Jet Mech
Sadly, I agree.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pmJust a frustrated, pathetic Bush cultist lashing out. These days, the Bush cultist has very little in the way of cogent arguments — not much self-respect either.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pmYou mean to tell me that the Moonie Times is a right wing propaganda rag?
Yeh, it is, but the freepers would still claim its liberal media.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pmI emailed Lou Dobbs on this tonight. He’s been indignant and outraged at the so-called high-handed Pelosi and the plane.
But ever since the Dems came into power, he has been relentless on his criticism of the Dems, “powerless,” “doing nothing,” “more of the same,” etc. ad nauseum. He has been on this plane issue since last week and tonight he was riding that horse again.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pmHe is a Republican who likes to smooth the edges, but in the end, like Republicans in the Senate, he will stand by his party.
S,…?
[SQUEEK! SQUEEK!]
[SQUEEK! SQUEEK!]
February 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmNot that any of these facts will penetrate the brains of Bush ass-kissers.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:40 pmWhere`s the House Ethics Committee when you really need them? As opposed to the miniscule acts of Tom DeLay, Pelosi makes the office she holds look like an official mafioso serfdom.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:43 pm“Where`s the House Ethics Committee when you really need them? As opposed to the miniscule acts of Tom DeLay, Pelosi makes the office she holds look like an official mafioso serfdom. Comment by Guber Stew — February 5, 2007 @ 8:43 pm”
Another ‘nut’ off of the old rotten tree. A ‘con’ is never guilty, but those ‘libruls’ are guilty before they’ve done anything!
It’s clearly a prerequisite to be clinically insane to be a republican.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pmThe Ten Commandments
No. 8
February 5th, 2007 at 9:25 pmTHOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.
GOD, you for the qualifier for Conservatives. Didn’t you know we set aside the bible to fight our enemies? It’s what you told us to do - or at least how we ‘interpret’ your laws! Isn’t that convenient?
February 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pmTHAT’s news? I think it would be news if the Washington Times ever got something right…
February 5th, 2007 at 9:29 pm#21 - Jet Mech asked:
With today’s technology do these senators really need to be flown around so much?
Actually not. In the late 1960’s, I was in the middle of a development process that spanned the World for IBM. Never saw the face of countless colleagues, but was able to participate in a worldwide design concept. This was a bit before the internet.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:39 pmShe’s 3rd in line of succession if we should have Bush and Cheney declared incapacitated in some way (we should be so lucky!) The right-wing lie machine is in high gear with no end in sight… There seems to be no low they won’t sink to. Disgusting traitors.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmI like the idea of Pelosi in military aircraft. The plus side is we’ll never get a codpiece shot a la Shrub.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pmComment by Rebel In CA — February 5, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
If the story had been read, you’d see that further down on the page, the WA-Times
And, as others have pointed out, to accommodate her, her staff, etc., ad nauseum. Failing to point out that Hastert was in Illinois, Pelosi in California for the geographically disinclined in this country….California is a helluva of a ways from Illinois, let alone D.C. Trust me, I driven it several times.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pmIt’s not a big issue. Don’t let this non-story get bigger and deflect from the bigger issues like the miserable failure in Iraq, the failing mission in Afghanistan and the growing buildup to a military strike on Iran.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pmThe Speaker of the House has a special position being third in the heirarchy of power. The articles listed are just opportunistic smears. However I would like to know how much this arrangement costs for any Speaker compared to a commercial flight or to a chartered flight on an executive jet. Just how many staff need accompany the Speaker on a flight home? The Security detail? Once aboard a plane, any plane and especially a military plane who the hell reall needs to be with the Speaker? There’s surely security on the ground at the other end.
I guess I”ll have to do my own research to determine whether the services provided and the money spent is deserved or not.
These complaining articles are shallow and vindictive, but inadvertantly raise questions about how the US military is used in general by politicians and what the real costs are. As these articles are obviously gossip I’ll do my own damn investigation as best I can. The question really is that is procedure and facility necessary or not?
February 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pmHas Dennis Hastert made any public statement in Pelosi’s defense about this being SOP?
….
….
….
Didn’t think so.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:57 pmIt is obviously too late to save us from the horror Moon funded, molded and brought to power in 2000 but you want to cause a stir and educate your nation at the same time?
It is really your patriotic duty to do this….
Everyone should get behind an effort to make Moon, his organization and its media, including Insight and the Washington Times, register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The congressional investigation of his organization proposed this 30 years ago. There is NO DOUBT he is a foreign agent, bringing in billions of overseas dollars to manipulate our political system. He brags about doing that. His daughter in law said the money is laundered into the country by the bagful. The courts in Japan say he swindles huge sums from the citizens of Japan. Moon tells his members not to consider themselves citizens of the USA or Japan or wherever but that they are citizens of Cheon Il Guk which is his one world vision, a world under his group’s influence.
Why not push for the WT to register under FARA now?
You can see three conservative editors of Moon’s media in 1991 proposing and giving the reason why this should be done if you go to google videos and search “Cults and the media”.
watch it.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:06 pmTucker Carlson repeated this story today. So he never bothered to make sure if it was true or not. Too bad NBC doesn’t have any one to check out what goes on the air. Time to fill his mail box.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:12 pm#11 corpse is cool
Why are democrats so simple in mind and spirit? Is it all the years of Communist Lemming Doctrine that you all believe in doing it to you?
Care to take another shot at coherence?
February 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm48 Britisher
good points indeed,let us know what you discover
February 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pm“communist lemming doctrine?”
That’s not on the best selling list; I think the book running at #1 for the past couple of years is “Bush, America’s #1 DECIDER” He does all the thinking for you, and it’s OKAY! Because he’s the PRESIDENT!
His sequel is called “Fascist Sheep Culture”.
Bullshit, “corpse is cool,” bullshit.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmspudge and barfly
you sickos!
(sarcasm)
yes,some one has been name jacking all day
i think comment 6 and 7 are right on the nose: this is a gossipy tp posting, but i think britisher putit well: the core of this story is one of misuse of resources in travel in both parties, but certainly tp doesnt want us talking about that, shhhhhhhhhh!
February 6th, 2007 at 12:06 amS,…?
[SQUEEK! SQUEEK!]
[SQUEEK! SQUEEK!]
February 6th, 2007 at 1:09 amHere`s your candidate, served up on a stick with an apple in his mouth. Read the truth about Obama and weep creeps. Hey… I made a funny! Weep Creeps! Your new title.
What is a modern day bleeding heart liberal? A Weep Creep.
I smell burning bodies in the air tonight. Must be a big roasting going on in the Middle East tonight that would be for sure. When the wind is just right, I swear I can smell burning bodies, and that is no shit.
It makes me want to eat meat strangely enough whenever I smell that smell. Carnivore instinct I suppose.
Pass the gravy?
http://www.obamatruth.org/
The Truth About Obama - ObamaTruth.com
How Michelle Obama’s desire to get “some corporate experience†… Not only was Obama sworn in as a freshman U.S. senator, but he reaped big bucks from book …
February 6th, 2007 at 1:34 am@58
Down the rabbit hole, a bit?
February 6th, 2007 at 1:58 amJust wondering, how many people here clinked on the link to read the actual WT article. Frankly, the reporting sounded fair to me and did not imply that this Speaker was being unreasonable, only that she asked for more than the previous one because of her specific needs. What’s the fuss with all these comments?
February 6th, 2007 at 3:23 amHow is Pelosi’s safety endangered in a smaller plane? The military refuels on a military base. Are they saying our bases are not secure enough for the Speaker of the House? It sounds like its more of an inconvenience. Where does this larger plane come from?
February 6th, 2007 at 6:23 amIf it was true why didn’t Livingood say so right in the beginning. Why
February 6th, 2007 at 8:32 amdid it take him so long to say some thing unless he was lying. She probably took the news expressionless
61.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:39 amThis looks mostly like a technical thing. In this case they would want to use the AF version of a Gulfstream jet (G3 or G4), which are soeced out for transcon and trans ocean flying. The smaller guys like the Lears don’t always have the range to make it to CA in one hop, especally with a heading west against the wind. They also have to factor in minimums that require x minutes of reserve, so even if they can make it they sometimes have to land because they might get below a requirement of x munutes reserve. It is likely more efficient to do it in a Gulfstream vs a snaller jet since you have to factor in the cost of one extra landing, fueling time, taxiout, takeoff roll, and the consumption to get back to cruise altitude again.
Nice work, TP.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:33 amYou’re too hard on these guys. It’s not like the Times — or CNN’s Lou Dobbs, for that matter — have the staff and resources of, for example, a news organization for Finding Things Out.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:57 amSo, Pelosi did do what the article says she did, yet somehow, the article is now false.
What a wonderful, bizarro world you libs live in… where up is down, far is near and asking for military flights isn’t asking for military flights.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:07 amRaw Story had this yesterday, too.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:16 amSince the article didn’t include a statement from Pelosi’s office, I dismissed it as more Moonie Times crap.
Ah streaker, it’s you! Yes I remember how you were constantly coming here and complaining about Hastert flying on AF jets. The VP, too! Keep fighting the good fight. Don’t give up until all government officials, including the President, fly commercial. Coach class!
February 6th, 2007 at 11:27 amWell will somebody please tell Lou Dobbs. He is having a field day with this one.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:26 pmLook, people: it’s more of the old Machiavellian technique of divide & conquer. They get one half of the populace rooting for Puppet A, and get the other half of the populace rooting for Puppet B.
This makes us waste our energy & time bickering with each other while the elite crooks at the top of the power-pyramid keep doing what they’ve always done.
I consider myself a “liberal”, but c’mon, do you guys really think anything will change now that Dems control both Houses of Congress? No way. They are spineless, greedy puppets, even though they make themselves SOUND like they care. And even the Dems get a lot of money from Israeli groups like AIPAC, so don’t be surprised if they don’t speak out TOO much about these imperial wars in the Middle East.
I’ve come to the conclusion that America is going to reach full-scale, totalitarian police-state status. Hell, a firm foundation is already in place–this is already a fascist society. There will be all sorts of good “justifications” for more State power (another false-flag terror attack, a mysterious epidemic, etc.), but it will come, and things will get much worse before they get any better. I just hope humanity has enough gumption within itself to eventually revolt against these restrictive, intrusive practices, but who knows, not every species has what it takes to survive.
Everyone NEEDS to watch Alex Jones’s _Terrorstorm_ and Aaron Russo’s _America: Freedom to Fascism_. Watch those and tell me where I’m wrong.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmYour right we are just pawns.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:10 pmAs might be expected, Sean Hannity was busy spreading this lie far and wide yesterday on his radio show. We can expect this to be in the “spin points” for the next several weeks at least, despite the facts being wrong. And we can expect all the DodoHeads to lap it up like revealed divine wisdom.
Cheers,
February 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pmRecently Lou Dobbs had on Terry McAuliffe. He was really nice to Terry.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThe anti Iraq War groups and the people against Amensty are not happy with the Democrats either.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThat epicine, effete TUB OF LARD and diehard repugnant-repub Tony Blankley is the editorial page editor of that right-wing rag The Washington Times–why am I not surprised that they would print
February 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pmsuch lies and innuendo? Blankley compared Islamists to Nazis–he should look into the mirror sometime–Blankley would see a FAT NAZI like Hermann Goering, an unmitigated Fascist and Racist STARING BACK AT HIM!!!!! Blankley also called George Soros “a jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust.” Blankley survived the Holocaust by CAUSING IT LIKE THE NAZI FASCIST HE IS!!!!! Speaking of Fascists, that rag The Washington Times is owned by that Fascist Creep Sun Myung Moon and his News World Communications empire–the venerable Dean of the White House Press Corps, Helen Thomas knew she smelled a rat when Moon bought UPI, so she wisely departed UPI–Blankley is giving off a God-awful STENCH of Fascistic Demagoguery AS WELL!
Recently Lou Dobbs had on Terry McAuliffe. He was really nice to Terry.
Probably because he knows McAuliffe will not take his shit. Terry was on Hugh Hewitt and called him a “wingnut” and Hewitt just kept going, didn’t argue, he knew Terry was right.
February 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pmYou have a war in Iraq and against the middle class and your worried
February 6th, 2007 at 9:01 pmabout a stupid plane.
When Terry was on Lou Dobbs he said “He loves Hillary” Is he a rival
February 6th, 2007 at 9:04 pmto Bill Clinton? And Terry like Hillary goes where the winds blows or
whatever the popular stand is that day.
Let me understand. One, the threat of terrorism is so real and imminent that the Speaker is compelled to fly in a non-stop military aircraft to get to California from DC. I thought the Republicans were exaggerating the terrorist threat to stir hysteria into the masses. So in the end they are correct? Two, both public air transport and private charter transport security measures are so weak and vulnerable to the (supposedly non-existent) terrorist threat that the Speaker of the House cannot use them. So TSA (”You must federalize to professionalize”) is a complete and utter failure? Can someone explain this to me?
February 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pmNO!
Pelosi doesn’t merit 24/7, cart blanch, private charter service from the U.S. Air Force. (Neither did Hastert.)
And her friends, family and “colleagues” CERTAINLY DON’T either.
The military has more important things to worry about than pelosi’s whiney, foul ass.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:43 amMs Pelosi is 3rd in line after Bush and Cheney.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThat May be a security concern.
I’m sure the Repubs wanted to protect Denny and never dreamed they might be having to protect a Democrat!!!
The Sgt. at Arms says “Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.”
Such as how many family members and friends can I take on this bigger plane?
Talk about enlarging your carbon footprint. I would think Madame Pelosi would take the Jimmy Carter model and turn down the thermostat in the Capitol and take the smallest plane possible to set a good example for the rest of us.
But I’m not surprised. She’s writing rules for the rest of us while exempting herself.
Business as usual on Capitol Hill.
February 7th, 2007 at 5:03 pmQueen Pelosi refuses to refuel?
February 7th, 2007 at 7:11 pmThe issue (with me at least) is not that she wants a plane to fly coast to coast. I agree she needs a plane in the post 9-11 world. Why not? Hastert had one? I would even agree that she needs a plane that would hold enough fuel to fly her from coast to coast non-stop. My issue is which the amenities on this plane. Does she really need a enclosed meeting room and an entertainment center? Hastert’s plane had no amenities. It flew him to where he needed to go period! She is no better than Hastert - she shouldn’t get these additional amenities in her plane. Yes, give her a bigger plane but strip it down to the basics.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:31 pmConsider the following:
1. The open ended questions regarding 9/11 being an inside job,
2. Speaker Pelosi’s fearless assessment of and agenda for the Bush regime,
3. The Speaker’s necessary trips going coast to coast routinely and weekly.
If YOU were Madame Speaker, weilded the power she does, had the clear mind to recognize the facist agenda of the Bu$hevics and their unholy drive for unitary power and made an open point about it, and had to fly from Washington DC to San Francisco on a weekly basis, WOULDN’T YOU INSIST UPON military protection for yourself and your staff?
She is ENTIRELY ENTITLED to this plane and all of the protection provided therein, and all the whiners who are crying and objecting and stomping their feet and throwing their tantrums would do the exact same thing if they were in her position and were as fearlessly vocal about that position as she is.
THINK ABOUT IT! I don’t blame her a bit, and I hope she UPS the security wherever she goes, and for whatever length of time it takes her to do WHATEVER she decides to do. The woman has some very evil and very powerful enemies!
I AM TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE!
Impeach
Investigate
Indict
Imprison!
PELOSI IN ‘07!
siri
February 8th, 2007 at 12:10 amCortez, CO
FACT CHECK: ThinkProgress Claims A Larger Plane Was Requested Because The Plane Used By Speaker Hastert Was Too Small For Pelosi
Fact: The Air Force has a fleet of modified Gulfstream G4s, the C-37A, which are plenty large enough for Pelosi and her staff and they are quite capable of flying non-stop to California; after all, they have a range of 6,500 nautical miles without refueling. Instead, according to the Washington Post (which is anything but a right wing publication), Pelosi is wanting access to a C-32, the Air Force’s version of the Boeing 757-200, which is hardly a small step up from a G4.
Fact: Unlike the claim by Pelosi’s spokesperson that “The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,†no such determination was made by the Air Force. Instead, again according to the Washington Post, Navy Cmdr. Jefrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said Wednesday that Pelosi would be offered “shuttle service for no more than 10 passengers between Washington and San Francisco only based on aircraft availability.” “This does not guarantee nonstop transport,” Gordon said.
With all this talk coming from the Dumbocratic Party about how we need to do all we can to halt global warming, I guess their leaders are above such a need. It certainly doesn’t seem to bother them to want an aircraft that puts out more greenhouse gasses on a flight from DC to California than a smaller aircraft that’s also capable of a non-stop flight between the two locations. No big surprise there since Pelosi is all for labor unions…unless they try to unionize the workers at the restaurant owned by the Pelosi’s. Typical liberal BS that reminds me of a line James Woods’ character on Shark said, to wit, “We’re all liberals until someone blocks our view of the ocean.”
February 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am
For whatever reason, the URL for the Washington Post article didn’t get copied over…it’s http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 02/ 07/ AR2007020702065.html
February 8th, 2007 at 1:03 amThe following two items come from globalsecurity.org:
The C-32A (the aircraft Pelosi is demanding use of), configured for 45 passengers (does she have that many staffers???) and 16 crew, is designed for a 4,150 nautical mile mission, roughly the distance from Andrews [AFB] to Frankfurt, Germany.
The C-37A is a military version of the Gulfstream V business jet. The Gulfstream V can fly non-stop 6,500 nautical miles. On long flights, it can carry eight passengers and a crew of four at Mach 0.80 while cruising at 51,000 feet.
So, the one she’s wanting has a shorter range by nearly 2,400 miles than the smaller plane.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:14 amThe only Whiners are TWT, Lou Dobbs and “Jim”…
The jets are not for Mil use in the classic “Ready for combat” sense. They can’t even use drop tanks. They might as well have an “N” number painted on. They’re for transporting Generals and other VP’s. Pelosi is a VP and third in line to be president. If you don’t think she’s a VP, then your even dumber then your comment’s demonstrated idiocy.
The bottom line is she was not the originator of the request as the Right-wing “Liberal media” claims.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:33 amUn-named sources said Repug Fatty hASSert requested a C-5 initially… …for obvious reasons.
As for the C-37A vs C-40: The C-40 is powered by two GE engines while the C-37A is powered by Rolls-Royce/BMW. The C-40 is all-American and a plane for true patriots relying on the “Made in the USA” moniker. Why would Rightards want the speaker of the house to not support America’s working men and women? Why do you hate America?
February 8th, 2007 at 4:52 amWho said anything about a C-40? Pelosi is wanting a C-32A. Read the friggin’ Associated Press article! Again, Pelosi is wanting a larger aircraft and it’s definitely not because of any range limitations as they’re claiming.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:21 amLiberalism will destroy this nation faster than Republican ever could! Liberalism is the anti-Christ!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:21 amWAHHHH! WAHHHH! Its my party and I can cry if I want to. Give me Air Force 3 or I will direct my evil menopause powers on you. I’ll turn your water into blood, rain frogs on your pointless lives, choke your lungs with gnats, drive you mad with flies, afflict your livestock with diseases, torments your body with boils, rain hail on you, swarm your land with locusts, cast you into darkness, and then I come for your first born child. I’ll get you my pretties and your little dog too. MWAH HA HA Give me what I want and I’ll go away…for now…and then I’ll be back to demand more because I’m the queen of the ball and more important than any ever born.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:04 amThis story is full of inaccurate facts. Here are a few accurate ones. Much of this information was taken from the USAF web-site and other indistry data I have access to.
G-V (C-37A USAF designation)
Seats 12, burns 365 gals per flt hour or 30 gals per passenger per hour. The avarage cost to fly a non-stop 5 hr trip $9,175 or $765 per passenger.
Boeing 737-700 (Known as Boeing business Jet USAF designation C-40B)
Seats 32, burns 709 gals per flt hour or 22 gals per passenger per hour. The cost to fly a non-stop 5 hr trip is $11,160 or $349 per passenger.
Boeing 757-200 (USAF Designation C-43)
Seats 45, burns 1063 gals per flt hour or 24 gals per passenger per hour.
The average cost to fly a non-stop 5 hour trip is $21,180 or $471 per passenger.
The data for the 737 and 757 is taken from actual airline operating numbers and thus reflects crew costs insurance etc. but not any lease or debt service costs which the USAF would not have. The G-V numbers were taken from an industry web-site. Based on the data availble, it seems that if every seat in the 737 (C-40B) is full, it is the cheapest to use with the 757 (C-43) not to far behind.
If Pelosi can fill the aircraft up with California Members of Congress or staff who would otherwise pay for an airline seat, it is not a waste of taxpayer money to fly the larger USAF aircraft. All of the aircraft used by the USAF for VIP travel can fly transcon non-stop so I wonder where this stopping for fuel nonsense came from. You can find the operational and performance data for these USAF models at the following link below. Look on the right hand side of the page.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/
February 8th, 2007 at 11:56 amPelosi is for the unions of today for the illegals. Not for the real old unions for the American workers.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm[…] 11 o’clock news over the “military plane” controversy — which is based on a largely false story published by the Washington Times. Lou Dobbs has apparently taken up the cause, despite the […]
February 13th, 2007 at 12:32 am[…] so many $mears do, this one originated with the Reverend Moon’s Washington Times and was quickly spread across the right’s echo […]
February 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pmHmmmm, you don’t guess it might’ve come from here
do you?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amThe “stopping for fuel” thing is supposedly an issue when flying against a winter headwind. The C-20B that Hastert typically travelled in isn’t likely acceptable for a non-stop flight from D.C. to San Francisco due to headwinds and a required reserve for San Francisco International Airport. SFO has narrowly spaced (750 feet apart) parallel runways and is notorious for fog forcing planes to wait in a holding pattern. It’s an old runway design which would never be repeated if it were built today.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm