Hastert Used Military Aircraft To Fly Foley Page Scandal Figure To Washington
Hastert Used Military Aircraft To Fly Foley Page Scandal Figure To Washington
The media continues to pound a false Washington Times report accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of wasting government resources by “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”
In fact, Pelosi’s office has stated repeatedly, from the beginning, that “it is up to the Air Force to decide what type and size of plane will be required,” and that she “will not use the plane for political travel.”
Conservatives have tried to bolster their attack by claiming that former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) only used his military aircraft for official business. The Washington Times quoted an unnamed “former Hastert aide” saying Hastert “did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.” But Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynne Sweet says that isn’t true:
On Sunday, Oct. 1, Hastert’s team was scrambling to contain the escalating fallout from the Foley page scandal.
That day, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), then the chairman of the page board, had gotten an urgent phone call from Stokke. The Hastert team wanted Shimkus to return to Washington immediately from his home in southern Illinois in order to appear at a press conference on Monday with the Speaker, and they did not want to deal with commercial flight schedules.
So at 8 p.m. that day, Shimkus arrived at the military side of the Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to board the Speaker’s jet that had been dispatched for him.
The plane then headed to an airport near Aurora, Ill., to pick up Hastert, who had been weekending at his home in Plano, before flying on to Washington.
That Monday, Hastert and Shimkus headlined a press conference in the Capitol to talk about the Foley resignation.
For those who don’t remember, Shimkus is the former House Page Board chair who learned of Foley’s inappropriate emails and then refused to inform the Democrat on the board, Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI).
Pelosi said today she will fly commercial rather than use the aircraft offered by the Pentagon, which cannot reach her home district in California without stopping to refuel.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
The Foley affair was different, because, as the ad says, the Republicans stand behind our children.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:57 pmshitkus… my rep…
a real “nice guy”… folks here love him…
February 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pmApparently, Pelosi only wanted what Hastert got as Speaker: a plane that could reach the representative’s district without the need to re-fuel, which carries with it added security risks. Sounds entirely reasonable to me.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:03 pmActually, this story is good from the point of view of Republicans. It shows once again that they are hypocrites and liars. Not only are these behaviors chief hallmarks of the Republican mind, they are actually regarded as virtues to strive for.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pmHastert is a fat bastard, so why is he still in the Congress?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pmSnow isn’t defending anyone. It’s a case of good cop-bad cop. Hastert is guilty of exactly what he accuses the other party of and babbles to cover up the drone of his own lies. As has been the case all along: the corporate media is accomplice to this treasonous, corrupt and slowly-dying administration. I just hope to God its’ death throes are impending and, eventually, lethal.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pmWhite House Press Secretary Tony Snow defended Pelosi this morning. “As speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport. We think it’s appropriate. I think this is much ado about not a whole lot.â€
Hey Tony? Could you take a stroll on over to Rove’s office and repeat that? I don’t think he got that message. While you’re at it, I know you’ve got buddies at the Washington Times. You should give them a call. Thanks.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pmSooo…..anyone want to ask other California Reps whether or not they regularly fly nonstop?
It appears nonstop is the issue here…not the amenities of the plane.
If the GOP is so concerned about govt overspending they should have thought about that when they worked the fewest days in session EVER and voted raise their wages constantly and pour almost a TRILLION DOLLARS ON IRAQ.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pmIn a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
-George Orwell
February 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmC-21s. Take a look at these military transports. They are actually Lear Jet 35As which are in the Air Force inventory, specifically for the purpose of airlift of Distinguished Visitors. 90% of the time, that means a 3 or 4 star general and his staff. My question: why are they deserving of the perk, and the Speaker of the house is not?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmRepublican voters and Christian groups can be proud that the GOP and Hastert were PIMPING THE KIDS ON TAXPAYERS DIME for Fingers Foley and others. Talk about a child sex ring the US elected Officials have their own child abuse club.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI love the “master framers” once again. “much ado about not a whole lot” This way BushCo can still imply that there still was indeed something ( if “not a whole lot”) to this ABSURD story. This is in fact…..much ado ( ala much a-smear) about NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.
The lies keep coming and the attempts to plant evil little seeds in people’s minds by giving ground a little when a smear is challenged, but still maintainig a kernal of the bullshit is true.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThat is how they succeed in keeping their evil little smears alive.
Wasnt Jimmy Carter who flew Anastasio Somoza out NIcaragua in a Red Cross plane, thus commiting a war crime? I dont remember too well.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pmHastert is a fat bastard, so why is he still in the Congress?
Comment by Jay Randal
So is Teddy Kennedy. What’s your f*cking point? Weight has nothing to do with it. It’s what their constituents wanted in a representative.
Or is this a troll?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pmIsn’t wiping your fat ass with the U. S. constitution a federal crime?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pmBarfly………weight has nothing to do with it. Unless the right wing foamin fascists use it and every other smear they can think of . Right BF? Sorry, but your Con buds aren’t the only ones that can play that game. Get used to it.
Point: In addition to the reference to frivolous comment about his weight, there is the substance which is this: Hasert is a lying, immoral, cowardly individual that has done great harm to our counry. More harm, obviously, than Senator Kenndey. Get the point?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pmHastert isn’t fat… he’s just big-boned.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pmIf I were Pelosi, I’d do an Obama and freeze out the media outlets who’ve been presenting this story as a PR problem.
Seriously, it’s pretty darn obvious they’ve made no attempt to understand what’s the root issue here - no existing procedures for the Speaker’s use of military aircraft. In other words, another example of the GOP’s don’t-give-shit attitude towards good governance.
Personally, I’m not convinced the Speaker needs this service unless there’s some kind of emergency. But if they’re going to have it, do it properly, not Hastert-style.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pmYou can see the Pepubs making fools of themselves live on cspan now bitching about this. (I HATE patrick mchenry)
February 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pmActually Juan, the Carter administration pressured Somoza into stepping down, which he eventually did in 1979. Unfortunately, this opened the door to far greater oppression of the Nicarguan people and genocide of the Miskito Indians by the communist Sandinista government and greater death and destruction in neighboring El Salvador as the Sandinistas provided arms and aid to the communist rebels who were waging a terrorist campaign in that country.
Fortunately, the contras, with the help of the U.S., was able to restore freedom and democracy to Nicaragua.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pmDenny, Denny… you should know better than to mess with an Italian grandmother. She’ll give ya the evil-eye and you won’t even know what hit ya.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pmAll of these airplanes come from a VIP unit at Andrews AFB called the 89th Airlift Wing. They own all the VIP airplanes and fly AF-1. This unit deals with transportation of the President, Vice President, first and second families, Cabinet officials, CODELS, senior government officials, military generals, “special missions” and continuity of government.
The White House Office of Management and Administration authorizes who gets to use these planes. Requests and information may come from DOD, but the White House is the “decider” in the chain.
The 89th only has 4 C-32’s (military 757). Other than the 747’s used exclusively by the President, the C-32’s are the longest range aircraft that unit has.
But there are only 4. And they’re often used by President Bush for trips to smaller airports, by the VP for his travels, and by other Bush cabinet officers (SecState, SecDef and others). The VP and other cabinet officers could travel on any of the other smaller planes the 89th has — but they LOVE the size of the 757. In some cases it makes sense (Rice going to the Middle East, needs to take a delegation and needs distance), where in other cases it doesn’t (the VP going on a vacation in Wyoming to fish). Of those 4 airplanes, 1 or 2 can be down for maintenance at any time.
So what we have here is really a pissing match. Important people competing for limited resources. I suspect the leak came from the White House Office of Management and Aministration.
Tony Snow is only playing the “good cop” at the expense of DOD.
You can check out the “fleet” and the numbers of aircraft in the 89th here: http://www.andrews.af.mil and look for the 89th air wing.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThe Republicans are trying so hard to dig up some dirt when what they should really be focusing on it getting things accomplished. Let’s take the Millennium Development Goals for example: We agreed to them in 2000 and then we have put squat behind them. How are we supposed to accomplish or goals without financial backing? Get our Republicans to stop digging and start spening responsibly.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm#19 Chris
You can see the Pepubs making fools of themselves live on cspan now bitching about this. (I HATE patrick mchenry)
I should have known McHenry would be all over this. He serves no other purpose in Congress but to push smear jobs and lies about the Democratic leadership. He has no serious role in Congress. His constituents don’t seem to have noticed that, yet. But, take a look at him. Was he not the target of a swirly or an atomic wedgy every day when he was in high school?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pm#20,
And, of course, they (the “contras”) were able to restore order to the drug trade so that the cash and drugs could flow unimpeded.
Ah, the good ol’ days of when we were able to use the “war on drugs” as the excuse for rampant human rights violations and for the exploitation of the impoverished.
Gosh, now we have to use the “war on terror”, “spreading democracy”, and “delivering the wrath of god” excuses when explaining why we have to kill hundreds of thousands of people and oppress millions more. It’s all getting so cumbersome that it’s almost just not worth it any more. Almost.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pmBarfly lol > not a troll here. I just said Hastert is fat and a bastard. He represents nobody in his district. He is a corrupt overweight slob!
February 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pmIf Speaker Pelosi is as smart as some say,she would follow through with using the commercial air lines. The press is going to use every republican talking point against democrats. The best way to handle this problem with the “media” is to use private means of travel and keep personal and political events as separated as possible.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#13 juan, carefull
February 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pmEx is back with more of his war crime justifications
Like the last thread - Not all presidential staffers are equal - I guess that not all House Speaker are equal…when it comes to media coverage.
Hastert is a fat bastard, so why is he still in the Congress?
Comment by Jay Randal
‘Cause he’s a fat bastard?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pmAhh….Exley is here. His shift for the psyops Cabal ends at 3 PM. Never fails.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pmcould you just imagine if National Health care got as much coverage as Nancy Pelosi’s travel arrangements?
just keep the masses busy with consumable gossip
February 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmbut, remember, this whole fracus started with the moony times,
claiming that Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.â€
As with the Obama smear, the Times story is based entirely on quotes from unnamed sources.
aka - no facts
it’s nothing but a smear, another swift boating, more hypocrisy…
February 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pmimagine that…
Something is not right here.
Pelosi deserves an aircraft capable of flying from Washington DC to her home in San Francisco.
But what she was offered was the C-20 (the same aircraft that Hassert used).
What not clear however, is why the press is saying that aircraft is not capable of coast to coast flight.
The C-20 has a range of 4,250 miles.
Its true it does have the shortage range of any of the aircraft in the 89th airlift wing…Which means that ANY aircraft in the 89th airlift wing can make the trip without refueling.
Pelosi deserves an aircraft capable of making it San Francisco..and she was offered exactly that, yet she turned it down.
If she turned it down because of range reasons, that doesnt jive with the official range of the aircraft as stated by the airforce
http://www.af.mil/ factsheets/ factsheet.asp?id=87
February 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThis is another Clinton haircut on the runway moment: the media is looking for a way to “peg” Pelosi, with stories about her being imperious, now that she’s ascended to the Speakership.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThe aircraft that Pelosi was offered…A C-20..the same aircraft that hassert used is certainly capable of flying non-stop from DC to SF.
It has a range of 4,250 miles.
What is the issue here?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pmMy 13 year old daughter whines less than these Repubs.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThe pentagon offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.
But what did she want?
A luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate.
I am glad she is leading the Democrats to save the country and show us how to do things right. ROTFL
February 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThis is a lot of crap about what should be a non-issue. So, the Speaker needs a plane. Big deal. I think any SoTH deserves one. I do not like the security risk of the SoTH flying commercial.
But on the bright side, Pelosi will be saving the taxpayers THOUSANDS of dollars everytime she flies commercial.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pm#37 Happy Guy
But what did she want?
A luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner.
As it turns out, the bullshit you’ve just repeated has been shot down several times already. But, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pmComment by Happy Guy
Can you give a link to show that this is what PElosi requested?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm“the pentagon offered”… “pelosi turned down”…
great parroting of the talking, LYING, points…
FACT: Pelosi’s use of a military aircraft is about security, not “personal accomodation.†It was House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood who initiated inquiries into the aircraft. “I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert†following 9/11, Livingood wrote, and “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].â€
February 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 02/ 05/ pelosi-military-aircraft/
.
#33 DC
What not clear however, is why the press is saying that aircraft is not capable of coast to coast flight.
The C-20 has a range of 4,250 miles.
From ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2858225
February 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pmCapt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, said the C-20 is sometimes “able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter.”
#35,
Your assertions are incorrect. Now, understand that I can explain this to you in pain staking detail as I am a pilot and have considerable aviation business and operational experience.
There are many factors that come into play regarding aircraft load/range calculations, fuel reserve requirements, and the physics of flight planning.
What is at issue, though, is that the mission parameters for the aircraft is that it be able to perform its flights to and fro (and yes, there is a difference when you are flying east to west versus when you are flying west to east) without requiring a fuel stop. According to the Air Force, the current aircraft cannot meet those mission parameters for a flight from DC to San Francisco. This is not a requirement of Ms. Pelosi, by the way, but is a security requirement developed for this post “9/11″ world.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pm*
February 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmSHE IS THIRD IN LINE TO THE PRESIDENCY.
…
What this comes down to is, the boys are still not happy about a nice lady being the speaker, so they are gonna whine and cry about everything they can. The boys will never be happy with Nancy slamming the gavel down. Go Nancy!
February 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pmYou’re damn right they scrambled everything imaginable to deflect the fallout of the Foley Pervert Scandal! These GOP hypocrites and GOP propaganda machine sychophantic media whores (Faux News, MSNBC) and their cadre of “airheads” continue to spin drivel in attempting to make something of Pelosi’s plane. They’re the joke!
It amazes me that they go to such great lengths in spending airtime on ridiculous and superfluous nonsense to divert time and attention from the killing going on in Iraq!! Amazing. However, the more they attempt to distract and divert attention, the greater the disgust people are finding with the mainstream media so they are signing their own warrant for demise by spending time on unimportant gossip rather than the biggest debacle (Iraq War) in the history of this country.
MSM Media Whores & Sycophants = Bush Propaganda Corps
February 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pmAND THANK GOD THAT FAT-ARSS, PERVERT ENABLING HASTERT IS NO LONGER THIRD IN LINE! IF THAT WOULD STILL BE THE CASE, IT’D BE TIME FOR CITIZENS TO MOVE TO CANADA.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm#45 You got it! It’s tough being so outclassed and emasculated by an intelligent, attractive woman. Go Nancy, Go!
February 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pmNancy Pelosi’s security is of upmost importance. I think most everyone will agree to that.
But let me get this straight:
She would not be safe flying in a military plane and refueling at a military base….THEREFORE..
Because of the risk of refueling at a military airbase, she will opt instead to fly commercial because commercial aircraft filled with people screened by TSA inside a commercial airport poses less of a risk than mingling with uniformed military inside a military base.
So THATS the story? uh huh. right.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pmWhen leftist MSNBC is running a story titled Air Pelosi you’ve lost the argument. The radical, hateful left should cut their losses and move on. But since you don’t, we are going to tear down Queen Nancy and send her unfavorables through the roof.
Invoking sexism and Rummy is about the dumbest thing she could possibly do. Americans hate victims in leadership (except for the pathetic people of NY).
Nancy missed on two points - 1.) An enviro-Nazi like herself should understand it looks a little hypocritical to ride around in a jet for her personal use while crying about emissions and 2.) Any way you cut it, Pelosi looks like she’s seeking privelege - her highness, if you will.
Invoking Hastert is ridiculous. He was already thrown out of office for the culture of corruption. Is that what Nancy wants for her party?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pmIf Shittkus can do it and he’s an absolute “nobody”, shouldn’t the third in line for the presidency be at least afforded the same protection?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:44 pmComment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Is this what passes as constructive debate in your world?
Sad.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pm#50 Get over it - your team lost - and lost badly. Now go cry in your corner - or in your beer as the case may be. To belabor such a ridiculous double-standard is not only inane and idiotic but you clearly need to take a cold shower.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pm#49.
You bring up some interesting points, however remember that N. Pelosi is not necessarily safer being inside a military base.
Pelosi and her righteous codemnation of the war in Iraq has made more than a few enemys in the military. (proably the reason she didnt get the jet she deserves).
Because of this, its proably a good idea to reduce her exposure to armed service men. I am quite certain that she would be much safer around members of the public, especially those from the surrounding areas of San Francisco and Washington Dc, than she would of regular soldiers.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pmBetween Hastert, The WaTimes and Shimkus it’s a damn good thing my LyingBastardometer just had its frammel re-fromped and oil changed…
February 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pmSorry Liberals Heart Terrorists,
If she was a Republican man, wouldn’t be an issue. It’s all about having a woman in her position, and fat sweaty pigs like Hastert don’t like it. We can complicate the issue all we want with “adult” overlays about this and that. The fact is, she’s a woman, in this position, never before. You don’t like it either. It’s obvious.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pm#52 - the debate was set by you morons last year. You skewed the facts in the Abramoff debate and overlooked all the money he was able to funnel to Democrats like Harry Reid.
AND now we hit back. It only gets worse from. Queen Nancy’s honeymoon is over.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm#50 Liberals Heart Terrorists
Any way you cut it, Pelosi looks like she’s seeking privelege - her highness, if you will.
Only if you’re buying the right-wing spin. Or trying to peddle it yourself.
I’ll bet the truth wins out and you’ll have to move on to something else after failing to get anywhere with this one.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThis is just a diversionary tactic by this administration to shift the dialogue away from this abominable war which is bankrupting this country…..and Dubya’s abysmal failure on all fronts - domestic as well as foreign policy. Let’s face it: The GOP is distilling down to a cadre of ‘crybabies’ who feel their power slowly but surely slipping away and, for some of them, this means a total loss of identity and ego destruction since their entire persona is made up of sheer ego. They’ll soon turn into the empty airbags which they are, dry up, and blow away. I suspect that with only about 30% of the GOP still supporting the part, the Rethugs will become extinct in our lifetime.
The longer this heinous, criminal, amoral war continues the more damage it is doing to any Rethug candidate who has aspirations for any office - let it continue - let them filibuster all they want - the longer they show their butts (er, their brains), the more the people will repudiate them. No Republican candidate will have a chance in hell in 08 if they continue to “stay their course”.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pmIf I were Pelosi, I wouldn’t trust being a woman on a military base either - especially with thugs ringing for her as they so obviously are!
February 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm#53 - thankfully, we won in 2004 and have the White House (and John Roberts and Sam Alito). But now that we are in the minority, we should behave like Democrats have since 2000. AND so far, we’re doing pretty well - we filibustered the cut and run prop and we are starting our campaign to expose Nancy Pelosi as the hateful hypocrite she is.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pmPelosi and her righteous codemnation of the war in Iraq has made more than a few enemys in the military. (proably the reason she didnt get the jet she deserves). Comment by indianagreen — February 8, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
It must be sad to be you. May I also suggest a spell checker. Many might read your rant, and think the Kerry ‘joke’ is true!
Luckily for this country, the men and women in the military aren’t as stupid as you believe them to be. Unfortunately, the 20%ers are as clueless as always. Thanks for playing. Oh, and you lost in November, and with your post.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#56 - Please use that talking point. It won’t work.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#52 - the debate was set by you morons last year. You skewed the facts in the Abramoff debate and overlooked all the money he was able to funnel to Democrats like Harry Reid.
AND now we hit back. It only gets worse from. Queen Nancy’s honeymoon is over.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists
That doesn’t make any sense. Abramoff was guilty after you said he wasn’t, he went to jail, and some other Republicans went with him. It’s over and you lost that one too. You call THIS hitting back.
I wouldn’t trust you to hit a ball with a bat.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm“skewed the facts” - good one.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#62 - you lost in 2000, 2002 and 2004. AND you lost when Bush appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. IF you couldn’t win in 2006, the Dems would not exist as a party.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pm#52 - the debate was set by you morons last year. You skewed the facts in the Abramoff debate and overlooked all the money he was able to funnel to Democrats like Harry Reid. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
You can’t win something, you refuse to participate in. A smear, isn’t a debate. And a lie, isn’t a fact. Rendering your entire paragraph as irrelevant as your opinion.
AND now we hit back. It only gets worse from. Queen Nancy’s honeymoon is over. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Coming from the party of date rapes, why would you assume you would ever allow anyone a honeymoon?
You’re too funny. Tell me, why do you heart the terrorists in Saudi Arabia that keep shooting down our helicopters? Don’t you have a recruiting office to get to, your leader desperately needs unquestioning fodder in eyeraq!
February 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm#57
the debate was set by you morons last year. You skewed the facts in the Abramoff debate and overlooked all the money he was able to funnel to Democrats like Harry Reid.
Yeah, we sure were fibbin’ about Abramoff, weren’t we. By the way, how many times did the White House say he had visited there? And how many times did it turn out later that he had really visited? And that was in spite of the administration trying to hide the visitor logs by getting the Secret Service to turn them over to them. You don’t really want to bring up Abramoff, do you?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm#53 - thankfully, we won in 2004 and have the White House (and John Roberts and Sam Alito). But now that we are in the minority, we should behave like Democrats have since 2000. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
You mean allowing you to pass whatever legislation you want, and give you enough rope to hang yourselves? That would be nice. But we all know your party is to whiny to allow that!
AND so far, we’re doing pretty well - we filibustered the cut and run prop and we are starting our campaign to expose Nancy Pelosi as the hateful hypocrite she is. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Actually you filibustered the ‘debate’ on the Iraq accountability proposal. Nothing new there. Your side always refuses to debate, or be accountable.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#62 - you lost in 2000, 2002 and 2004. AND you lost when Bush appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. IF you couldn’t win in 2006, the Dems would not exist as a party. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Then the Republicans must not exist, because you had about 50 years of failures.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#56 - Please use that talking point. It won’t work.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists
You went out of your way to respond, I think it does have a large bearing on your position. You may not even be consciously aware of it. A woman has never had this position before, and the Repubs aren’t about to allow one of their women to do it. It’s new and scary, no one knows how a woman will handle this. If a man was to seek what Nancy was seeking, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. The argument would be framed differently.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#56 - Please use that talking point. It won’t work. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Such a big rock, from such a little man, and thrown from such a fragile glass house!
When you graduate the 3rd grade, take a summer school debating class. Your childish antics are as tiresome as your talking points.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm#53 - thankfully, we won in 2004 and have the White House (and John Roberts and Sam Alito). But now that we are in the minority, we should behave like Democrats have since 2000. AND so far, we’re doing pretty well - we filibustered the cut and run prop and we are starting our campaign to expose Nancy Pelosi as the hateful hypocrite she is.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists
We also won WWII, what’s the point?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pmThe fact is that Nancy deserves an aircraft capable of traveling wherever she needs to go…non stop.
The risks of refueling anywhere in flyover country is just to great…even at military airbases. (all it takes is one disgruntled/crazy armed person)
The president is well protected. The Vice President is well Protected,…even SC judges are well protected.
Its time that the speaker and #3 to the presidency received the same protection.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm#61 Liberals Heart Terrorists
thankfully, we won in 2004 and have the White House (and John Roberts and Sam Alito).
Well, get ready to pucker up and kiss the White House good bye, too.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm#69 - party of date rapes. You must have us mixed up with Democrats. The spiritual leader of your party - Ted Kennedy - murdered a woman and your favorite modern day President was accused of rape and sexual harrassment. But in your defense, the only other Dem Prez modern day is jew hater Jimmy Carter.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm#49,
That’s not how it works. Would you like me to explain it to you or would you care to actually READ about something before claiming your “divine” expertise?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#73 - YOU didn’t win WWII. People with your ideology did not win WWII. You would have never invaded Germany because Hitler wasn’t a threat to us. SO don’t go invoking something that’s not true. You America haters would have cried about all the death and destruction in WWII.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm#78,
I thought all Americans “won” WWII. Hate much?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#66 Liberals Heart Terrorists
IF you couldn’t win in 2006, the Dems would not exist as a party.
Heh. And now you guys are on the ropes. Funny how quickly things can change. It’s got to really suck to be a Republican right now.
“Permanent Republican Majority.” It sounds so silly now.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIf I were Pelosi, I wouldn’t trust being a woman on a military base either - especially with thugs ringing for her as they so obviously are!
Comment by veritas
Would you please correct this statement, as it makes you sound as stupid as William Arkin.
1) There are women on every millitary base. And they are safe (with very few exceptions.)
2) We are not “thugs”
3) Nobody in the military that I am aware of is “ringing for her”
4) I may disagree with her politics, but I would lay down my life to protect her and her opinion. Not because of her position, but because she is a citizen of my Country.
Is there another group of 2.6 million people you would like to insult?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:07 pm#80 - things can change fast. AND with Hillary at the top of your ticket in 2008, I wouldn’t go measuring for drapes yet.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:07 pm#69 - party of date rapes. You must have us mixed up with Democrats. The spiritual leader of your party - Ted Kennedy - murdered a woman and your favorite modern day President was accused of rape and sexual harrassment. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Sure thing Mr. Foley. While you’re smearing men for acts that they were never charged or convicted of, your party marches on with its convictions.
But in your defense, the only other Dem Prez modern day is jew hater Jimmy Carter. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Jew hater, let me guess, you’re jewish? Another sick, perverted and twisted smear.
When you’ve got no real ammunition, can’t debate, and are intellectually powerless, you smear. Thanks for the self identification.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm#73 - YOU didn’t win WWII. People with your ideology did not win WWII. You would have never invaded Germany because Hitler wasn’t a threat to us. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
That’s right, and we didn’t invade Germany because they ‘posed a threat’, that’s what Germany did to Poland. We defended ourselves when Japan and Germany declared war on us.
See, the democrats were ideologically identical to us. Whereas you’re ideologically identical to Germany. Isn’t that a hoot? Did you say you were Jewish? How ironic!
SO don’t go invoking something that’s not true. You America haters would have cried about all the death and destruction in WWII.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Invoking something that’s not true! That’s your forte! How you see your sins in others, Mr. Haggard!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pm#78
I see we’ve hit the hypothetical history portion of the argument. Also, if you want to get technical, the Russians did the primary invasion of Germany.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pmJust because you say something has been disproven does not make it so. The Dems and their lemmings (you people) just try to change the subject, accuse others of something worse and flat out lie.
Here is a story from a paper that like Pelosi. But near the end you see how the try to intimidate the Republicans with their new found (and temporary) power.
http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/ c/ a/ 2007/ 02/ 08/ MNGN5O11UT1.DTL&type=printable
They never actually deny Pelosi’s people said she wanted “Air Force 3â€. But Flame on and keep yourselves in denial. The new government is the same as the old one.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#80 - things can change fast. AND with Hillary at the top of your ticket in 2008, I wouldn’t go measuring for drapes yet. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
They changes so fast, you went from the party of perpetual power, back to the sad, pathetic and whining minority you’re so comfortable being! I think measuring some jail cells for your party’s leadership is a more productive exercise!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#78 Liberals Heart Terrorists
People with your ideology did not win WWII. You would have never invaded Germany because Hitler wasn’t a threat to us. SO don’t go invoking something that’s not true. You America haters would have cried about all the death and destruction in WWII.
So, I guess you didn’t hear about Roosevelt? Franklin D. Roosevelt? How about Harry Truman? Ring a bell?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pmNext diversion: Complaints about the cost of Pelosi’s trips on commercial aircraft.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm4) I may disagree with her politics, but I would lay down my life to protect her and her opinion. Not because of her position, but because she is a citizen of my Country.
Is there another group of 2.6 million people you would like to insult?
Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
We ‘liberals’ are well aware of that. It’s why it’s so funny when these anti-military republicans claim we hate, and don’t understand the military! You want to defend our country, and our values. They think you just want to help them establish a new fascist order. It’s sad, they hold so little in common with you, and us.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pmJust because you say something has been disproven does not make it so. Comment by Happy Guy — February 8, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
How you would be served, if you could only take your own advice!
The Dems and their lemmings (you people) just try to change the subject, accuse others of something worse and flat out lie. Comment by Happy Guy — February 8, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Didn’t you get the memo, the reason you hate us is because we aren’t lemmings, or even ‘organized’ by your measure. It sounds more like you hate yourself!!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#82
things can change fast.
Yes, they certainly did.
AND with Hillary at the top of your ticket in 2008, I wouldn’t go measuring for drapes yet.
Who says she’s going to be at the top of the ticket? Please use that “measuring for drapes” gag as much as possible. I think it brought us good luck in ‘06.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pmNext diversion: Complaints about the cost of Pelosi’s trips on commercial aircraft. Comment by Briseadh na Faire — February 8, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
It’s easier for some whack militia guy to shoot down a commercial jet. Don’t be surprised if she’s ‘Wellstoned’.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThey never actually deny Pelosi’s people said she wanted “Air Force 3â€. But Flame on and keep yourselves in denial. The new government is the same as the old one. Comment by Happy Guy — February 8, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Because someone doesn’t respond to your whiney propaganda, you see it as an admission of guilt? How sad, and pathetic. And this is what passes for ‘debate’ among ‘intellectual’ republicans! No wonder that term is such an oxymoron!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSo, I guess you didn’t hear about Roosevelt? Franklin D. Roosevelt? How about Harry Truman? Ring a bell? Comment by chimpeach — February 8, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Yeah, those guys that gave us social security, and welfare assistance and waited until we were attacked to go to war have nothing in common with modern Democrats!!! Isn’t that just too funny?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#86 Happy Guy
They never actually deny Pelosi’s people said she wanted “Air Force 3â€.
You haven’t denied being a pedophile, yet. Therefore…
You could try some other sources, like this one:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2858225
February 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pmThis is all silly.
Get her a damn airplane appropriate for the #3 most powerful leader in the US and be done with it.
As Valiant suggests above, the last thing we need is some redneck with an assault rifle shooting down our speaker during what should be an unnecessary refueling stop.
Politics suck.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pmI brought up WWII and the troll got all uppity.
See, those NeoClowns still live in the WWII mentality.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pmthis story is one of the most sickening yet.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmNancy is going to be president very soon. I hope she remembers the criminals that have treated the people as fodder and sheep. I hope this proves to her that decorum is a quaint and detrimental custom that needs to be legislated against
You can imagine the uproar if Nancy Pelosi did anything like this. It’s always different rules for the RepubliCONs. You just reinforce my commitment NEVER to vote RepubliCON again, never, ever. They do not deserve to be in office for supporting the WORST President in our history.
IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY
February 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pmLooks like Happy Guy is tied to the RNC, instead of the whitehouse. Mr. Snow has debunked this smear - how ironic!!!!
So there Happy Guy, according to the whitehouse, you are spreading a ’silly story’, guess that confirms that you’re just a ’silly guy’!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:44 pmThese trolls keep getting knocked down daily, and keep comin’ back for more. Masochists.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pmWhat is so funny, yet also so telling, is that the perpetrators of this story and the “defenders” of it here, refuse to provide facts or address them.
I am a pilot, and even said so above. I have even “held the yoke” of a C-20, albeit in the civilian form of the Gulfstream III. I have aviation business and operations experience including being an executive at an aviation company that operated and serviced this very aircraft, as well as the various other civilian jet aircraft ranging from small jets all the way up to Boeing 727s and 737s. I’ve even been involved in providing charter aircraft and transportation services to government agencies.
So, here are the facts:
- An USAFC-20(b) does not have the range to complete a non-stop flight between DC and CA consistently and maintaining the necessary and required fuel reserves. A key word in the previous sentence is “consistently” in that the aircraft could, in certain circumstances, make the flight non-stop. However, the majority of the time it would not and therefore to base a plan upon a statistically possible but improbable “norm” would be professional incompetence.
- A fuel stop for a staged and planned flight is not just a land, pull up to the pump, and go situation. A flight such as this would require a security pre-check (even for military bases) of the facilities and personnel, then a secure path, facility, and perimeter would need to be established. Then the plane could land and the services be performed. This process represents a lot of planning, operations, and costs and is one of the reasons that on secure flights the number of stops should always be planned for an absolute minimum with (1) one being the default. Multi-stop secured flights are much more costly, resource consuming, and, most importantly, less secure.
- It is not the Speaker’s choice regarding the type and configuration of the aircraft. The USAF provides whatever equipment is deemed best suited for the mission parameters that are provided by the requesting security/military agency.
I will gladly go into further detail if necessary.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmLemme see if I got this straight. The folks who lied the US into an illegal war, which has now officially cost $1.78 gazillion and wasted about a million lives (that’d be 600,000 Iraqis and 3000+ Americans, whose lives are, as we know, worth at least 400,000 Iraqis), those people want us to get pissed with HS Nancy P ’cause she wants a big jet. OK, I’m down with that–THE BITCH!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pmThe repugnant-repubs(republicans) and right wingnut commentators immediately jump on Ms. Pelosi and all Democrats when they perceive what they consider to be “wrongdoing” and immediately soft-pedal all wrongdoing by their own repugnant-repubs and the commander-in-thief CHIMPya and Torticola Cheney–”Do as I Say, Not as I DO!” Smacks of unbridled HYPOCRISY, doesn’t it, repugnant-repubs? Why am I not surprised at anything repugnant-repubs do or say?
February 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pmComment by Tuber
Just a question, I do not know if you can answer this, but you are the “aviation expert”, not me.
Does the C-20 have in air refueling capability?
February 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pmThis issue would have gotten ZERO press if the Speaker of the House was MR Pelosi.
Who even bothered to look into the matter of the Speaker being entitled to a military aircraft for official travel when MR Hastert held the position?
This is pure and unadulterated sexism.
Go to work, Nancy! Don’t be distracted by these inconsequential people.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:21 pmDoes the C-20 have in air refueling capability? Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Isn’t that usually done as a high risk operation, and largely for combat purposes? If the intention is security, why would we want to subject them to a high risk operation? To me, this question seems silly.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm#106,
Not to my knowledge, no. I cannot see where it would be practical to outfit such an aircraft with that capability, but I would imagine it would be possible.
Keep in mind, though, that it is considerably more costly to re-fuel an aircraft in flight and also adds more operational planning and coordination. That would work contrary to the efficiency goal. I don’t think that you’d want to make each flight a full blown military operation.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:24 pm#103 Tuber
Thanks, Tuber. Gosh, reality sure is complicated. I guess that’s why the right-wingers keep avoiding it.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pmIsn’t that usually done as a high risk operation, and largely for combat purposes? If the intention is security, why would we want to subject them to a high risk operation? To me, this question seems silly.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
It was actually just a point of curiosity.It is somewhat risky, but we do it on cross country and trans Atlantic flights all the time.
Tuber,
I agree about the the cost and the inefficiency of turning it into a full blown military operation.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pmGo to work, Nancy! Don’t be distracted by these inconsequential people.Comment by HSans — February 8, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
She’s not distracted, that’s what’s funny. This entire incident is meant to distract the media from the GOP’s unwillingness to even debate the failure in Iraq. This event was negotiated entirely between the Sgt. at Arms and the Pentagon - that’s what’s so funny! It wasn’t about Nancy, it was about the GOP once again using the press to avoid their bad image of constant and brutal failure being displayed on the front page.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pmThe corporate media is not interested in fact, people. They are interested in a juicy story. Whether it’s true or false. In fact, they are interested in a narrative of mud-throwing at Democrats, and whatever facts do not fit that narrative are discarded out of hand. A similar thing happened back in 2002-2003, I believe, and that got us stuck in Iraq.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIt was actually just a point of curiosity.It is somewhat risky, but we do it on cross country and trans Atlantic flights all the time. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
The point is to reduce risk for her, not increase it. I’m glad you see the ridiculous nature of this GOP talking point. It’s sad that with the major problems within the GOP, the military and Iraq, this is the sort of petty drivel that the GOP feels is its top priority. It’s a great distraction though from the inability of the GOP to even debate the war. How sad that the party of Lincoln has become such an abysmal failure in every aspect of political life…
February 8th, 2007 at 4:41 pmHelp! My head is spinning! Do I believe the Washington Times, the neocon’s press, or do I believe Tony Snow, the President’s spokesliar?
…Oh, wait, the answer comes! This is another case of put the smearing lie out there, then retract it because it’s already done its damage. The Washington Times and Tony Snow are both corrupt, neocon shills. Whew, the world looks more stable now.
Pathetic!
February 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pmWell, Blitzer has devoted his entire show to A N Smith, so there won’t be any recanting of the smearing he did of Pelosi yesterday.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pmWill Lou Dobbs take back his words today - after having spent a portion of his broadcast for the last 6 days on this false topic .
Pelosi missed an opportunity to talk about “equal protection”
Most of us know that take-offs and landings are the most hazerdous point in air travel regardless the issue of personal convenience.
If Nancy would have argued the “safety” issue in the context of “equal protection” she might have scored better exposing gender bias at the Pentagon from under Rumsfeld’s perpetual desk.
HWS
February 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pmBush cultist: “You skewed the facts in the Abramoff debate and overlooked all the money he was able to funnel to Democrats like Harry Reid.”
The record shows that Jack Abramoff gave absolutely NO money to any democrat. Some of his clients may have given some money to some democrats, but not Jack Abramoff. Nothing. Get your facts straight, dumbass.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pmThe Speaker will travel by commercial airlines and if there is a similar situation as 9-11, the third in line to the presidency will possibly be stuck in an airport somewhere. It’s amazing how little republicans actually care about national security when there is political advantage to be gained. Remember, Bush cultists — she can give as good as she gets. Let’s not hear any whining when she brings the hammer down.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pmThe fact that anyone in this blog would invoke FDR or Truman shows how out of touch with reality you people are. FDR and Truman would have smacked you people upside the head and reminded you who the real enemy is. Here’s a hint: not your commander-in-chief.
The left’s hatred for Bush is sinful. There is a special place in hell for those who cheer American casualties in Iraq for political points.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pmGo Nancy, fly that Spruce Goose if you have to.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmBush cultist: “The left’s hatred for Bush is sinful. There is a special place in hell for those who cheer American casualties in Iraq for political points.”
Bibleboy, I think it’s time for you to go into a dark closet, get down on your knees and start talking to yourself. That’s what you dumbasses call “praying” isn’t it?
February 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pmIf this dumbass Bush cultist knew thing one about history, he/she would know that all throught the 30’s, conservatives argued AGAINST fighting the NAZI’s.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pmThe Bush cultist invokes Truman. Again, very poor understanding of history. Truman felt strongly that anyone profiting from war was a traitor to our country. If he were in charge today, Cheney would be standing trial for treason. Ever hear of the Truman Commission, dumbass?
February 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm#124 - how dare you call Cheney a war profiteer - you hatemonger. Halliburton has lost over 50 people helping re-build Iraq.
If the terrorists take charge, the liberals and those of their ilk would be the first to go. You’re too stupid to realize what Bush has actually done for this country. You hateful POS.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pmThe fact that anyone in this blog would invoke FDR or Truman shows how out of touch with reality you people are. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
The fact that you neocon Republicans would invoke FDR or Truman shows how out of touch with reality you are. The fact that you can’t recognize they are the source of much of the modern democratic party’s values, shows how illiterate you are.
FDR and Truman would have smacked you people upside the head and reminded you who the real enemy is. Here’s a hint: not your commander-in-chief. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
The enemy is a group of radical right wing religious extremists? Wow, how funny, that points right back at you!!! Can’t blame us for thinking you’re the enemy, when you share almost all of your values with them!
The left’s hatred for Bush is sinful. There is a special place in hell for those who cheer American casualties in Iraq for political points. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Spoken like a true right wing religious cultist that thinks criticism of the failures of their government is the work of the enemy! Where were you when your GOP leaders were criticizing Clinton for attacking Afghanistan? There’s a special place in a padded cell for people like you that keep making up (and believing) your own political smears.
You’re a sad, pathetic little man.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm#124 - how dare you call Cheney a war profiteer - you hatemonger. Halliburton has lost over 50 people helping re-build Iraq. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Yet their families will never see the BILLIONS in profit that Halliburton made. Who has the hate again? Oh right, that would be you.
If the terrorists take charge, the liberals and those of their ilk would be the first to go. You’re too stupid to realize what Bush has actually done for this country. You hateful POS. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
By terrorists, are you referring to the GOP that funded, trained and shipped weapons to Al Qaeda and Saddam? Because, that’s your side… And when you accuse others of hatred, the POS comment just validates your hypocrisy as well as the inadequacy of your propaganda.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:53 pmHere’s an update from the House Sergeant at Arms posted on TalkingPointsMemo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php
A new statement from the House Sergeant at Arms on the Pelosi-plane-ridiculousness …
For Immediate Release
February 8, 2007
As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.
In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pmYou’re too stupid to realize what Bush has actually done for this country. You hateful POS. Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Record debt, unending war, corruption, deceit, destruction of the military, elimination of the middle class, etc..
Nope I can see pretty clearly what Bush has actually done for this country.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm#120 Liberals Heart Terrorists
You must be getting dizzy from all the spin. You’re just spouting gibberish now.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pmBush cultist: “how dare you call Cheney a war profiteer - you hatemonger. Halliburton has lost over 50 people helping re-build Iraq.”
How dare I???!!! That’s just pathetic. I’m an American, you dumbass. It’s my right to complain about the government’s policies and/or leaders. If you don’t like it, move to Saudi Arabia, you stupid fascist. Let’s see, what has Bush done for this country? You tell me. My answer is that he has lied us into a shooting war, looted the treasury and turned us into the world’s largest debtor nation, ruined our standing in the world, provided a training ground and recruiting tool for terrorists, capitulated to Osama bin Laden’s demands that we get bases out of Saudi Arabia, failed to protect us from the biggest terrorist attack in history, failed to rebuild one of our greatest cities, broken countless American laws, some of which have constitutional ramifications, destroyed habeas corpus, illegally detained and tortured innocent men, etc. etc.
Cheney has made millions off this war. He is, by definition, a war profiteer. You care more about the 50 war profiteers from Haliburton than you do about the 3000 soldiers who have died. You defend the privatization of the military without even being aware of it, you stupid, biblethumbing cretin!
February 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pmRefueling a C-20 from a tanker aircraft would be equal to an elephant breast feeding an infant gerbil. Just pray that mommy doesn’t roll over.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pmThis non-story reeks of Republican projection.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pmThis non-story reeks of Republican projection.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 8, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Hastert is just afraid that ‘hers’ is bigger than ‘his’.
And he’d be right!!!
But mainly because someone as fat as he is ends up with an ‘innie’ instead of an ‘outie’.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:40 pmSomehow, and this thought is pretty disturbing, but finding the little man in the boat would be easier than finding the right Hastert fold.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:23 pmI just watched the Republican tapdancing on the House floor about this non-issue. Now, I have some problems:
First, the perks of a military jet, some say, are reserved for the President (Air Force One), the VP, and a few select cabinet members. Come again? Cabinet members? Excuse me but the ELECTED SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE deserves every perk that a non-elected member of the cabinet does.
Second, this is totally ludicrous to say that the Speaker can use it to go back and forth between her district and DC but not to travel to any political events. Why? Does she need any less security when she goes to a political event? Is she any less of a target when she goes to a political event? What gives here? Is the President forced to travel on passenger jets when he travels to political events? If I remember correctly, he travels to those events on Air Force One as well.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:03 am“Fortunately, the contras, with the help of the U.S., was able to restore freedom and democracy to Nicaragua.”
Nice revisionism, Ex. Are you a holocaust denier to boot?? You’ve got to stop assuming that everyone here is just 20 years old and not alive yet, or not politically conscious yet, in the ’80’s.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:43 pmLHT and Happy Guy - the who’s who of the bottom of the barrel….no clue that they’re in the deep end, and still trying to start dunking fights with people many times their own mass.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pm#69 - party of date rapes. You must have us mixed up with Democrats. The spiritual leader of your party - Ted Kennedy - murdered a woman and your favorite modern day President was accused of rape and sexual harrassment. But in your defense, the only other Dem Prez modern day is jew hater Jimmy Carter.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 8, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 7:59 pm—————————————————————————————–
Are you stupid, or what? Jeewiz, our country’s criminal in chief (the president) has committed so many crimes it isn’t even funny. And yet you overlook them all. For someone who is against abortion, he knocked up a women and had her get an abortion when abortions were still illegal (it just wouldn’t look good for a Bush to have an illigitimate kid). His wife killed someone while drunken driving while in highschool. He himself has had multiple drunken driving tickets and is known to have also abused cocaine. Remember not to throw rocks when you live in a glass house. If you crack his closet door open a little, run fast because a lot of skeletons will fall out.
Do you dummies not read? She was offered the EXACT same plane that Hastert used. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I forget, you guys are never concerned with the FACTS..unless of course you can twist them.
“Feb. 7, 2007 — A source close to the controversy over the request made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for use of a military plane that can fly to and from her home district in San Francisco without having to stop to refuel, told ABC News that the Pentagon has rebuffed Pelosi’s request.
The source said that Pentagon officials and the Bush administration have instead offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.”
February 14th, 2007 at 4:25 pm[…] done so. Keep feeding the hate of their base…those fundamental born again right wingers…. Think Progress » Hastert Used Military Aircraft To Fly Foley Page Scandal Figure To Washington Hastert used his military jet for other than political reasons…to cover up for the Foley sex […]
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:48 pm