« Wizbang Podcast #54 is up | Main | NCSU (led by new Coach Sidney Lowe) Upsets UNC »

Nancy Pelosi is Drunk with Power, Part II

On January 4th I described Nancy Pelosi as being drunk on power after I read her declaration that she is the most powerful woman in America. I also called her statement "let's hear it for the power!" obnoxious and said that if she keeps it up, her aides will have to grease the sides of her head to get her through the doors of the House. Pelosi's obnoxiousness hasn't abated. Now she wants a military airlift available at her beck and call:

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.


The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.

The defense source said Mr. Hastert requested a plane with good communications so he could conduct legislative business. The military flights increased to the point the speaker used a military plane for many, if not all, flights to his Illinois district, the former aide said.

Sources said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what Mr. Hastert received. The speaker's legal counsel is spearheading the talks.

So, does her demanding a military transport whenever she wants it support my original statement that Speaker Pelosi is drunk with power? Yep.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nancy Pelosi is Drunk with Power, Part II:

» A Cool Change linked with Ain't she just so speshul!

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

» Blog-o-Fascists linked with Think Progress Makes Unsupported Charge

Comments (60)

Be nice. The poor woman is... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Be nice. The poor woman is obviously the victim of Republican fear-mongering.

I think Speaker Pelosi, as ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

I think Speaker Pelosi, as much as I disagree with her, is entitled to military protection.

/my .02

snowball:Fo... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

snowball:

For Pelosi, military flight prvileges are not about military protection. It's about having the military kow tow to her. Hastert was an a** to abuse the privilege the way he did, no doubt. But to expand upon your predecessor's largesse? Sorry, that's about forcing the men and women who will shuttle cross country from Andrews AFB to SFO (don't kid yourself that she will be content todrive from Travis AFB 90 mins outside Oakland in Fairfield or McClellan AFB near Sacramento) to suck up to her while she offers her unbridled opinion about how the Itaq War is a "quagmire" and their mission is bulls**t.

And I won't hold my breath for the Greens and Environmentalists to condemn her coopting military aircraft for use as private aircraft, and how she should use more efficient coomercial flights . I don't expect them to voice their displeasure over how these flight contribute to greenhouse gases, etc etc. No, they'll be loving it because their girl is screwing the military!

For Pelosi, military fli... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

For Pelosi, military flight prvileges are not about military protection.

But for me, it is.

She's the 3rd in line for our leadership whether we like it or not.

I bet she'll get all the HC... (Below threshold)
epador:

I bet she'll get all the HC-130 flights she wants. Just better hope the Loadmaster doesn't web her to a pallet and kick her out the back whether its a low level or 10,000 feet...

'Course I know a few Cowboy... (Below threshold)
epador:

'Course I know a few Cowboys who might enjoy finding a turbulent ride in their C-21 for their VIP.

Kim, Where did everybody go... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Kim, Where did everybody go??? You had a rockin'comment section going, then I close it, go elsewhere, and return to find (2), no, (5) in the comments count! And don't tell me they were all sock puppets, PLEASE. (There were at least two Publicus-level newbies in the thread,at least) Of course, they were dissenters, but this isn't a circle jerk is it? Or is it? I mean, the comments above are BORING! 2 epadors in 2 minutes?

Yes, Pelosi is 2nd in line ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Yes, Pelosi is 2nd in line for the Presidency, but she is removed from the executive so that is she no more uniquely qualified than the 434 other members of Congress that can easily be voted in to replace her if necessary.

And she is asking for "not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation".

Obviously bryanD's got noth... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Obviously bryanD's got nothing.

No shit bryanD, what would ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

No shit bryanD, what would anyone do without you?

Good to know you're keeping 'score' with Kim's posts, or anyone's for that matter.

jpm100 at February 4, 2007 ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

jpm100 at February 4, 2007 01:04 AM,

I hear ya, but I tend to lean toward the paranoid side with our elected leaders. They are all important.

I'll admit, I've been reading comments from various jackasses in other blogs that our house members should fly around on Jet Blue in coach, or drive their own vehicles from Virginia to D.C. for example.

Bullshit - they are important and it'd be a horrible event should any one of them have something happen to them or their family that could have been prevented if not for the anti-establishment mentality telling them to take turf across the street.

jpm, "got nothing"? About t... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

jpm, "got nothing"? About the post? What post? Fatback did it, Pelosi's doing it. So? Boo-hoo. We had the (almost) last stand of Najaf portrayed as a victory and Kim gets catty with Pelosi. (Notice no Najaf victory posts? Too painful. Too topical.) I'm no big Pelosi fan, but I'd take her China policy over Ling Ting Bush's anyday. (And yeah, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what I'm talking about. That's why you're BORING!) And ESPECIALLY not funny. (Jpm, I'm looking at you.)

I mean, the comments abo... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

I mean, the comments above are BORING!

Hey dude, if they are so booring...

...there's a scrollbar ------over there---->

But she isn't doing what Ha... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

But she isn't doing what Hastert did. She's expanding it. Not only in when and where, but who.

And my original post was a clever backhand against the '06 election meme that the Republicans were fear-mongering everything from terrorism to bird flu. In fact, 'terrorism is no big deal' is still a Leftie meme. Yet, the leader of the Democrats in Congress feels the need to expand protections for herself (above what even Hastert had in place).

And my original post was... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

And my original post was a clever backhand against the '06 election meme that the Republicans were fear-mongering everything from terrorism to bird flu.

I thought about that too, and although the Dems say what they say, it's the people's responsibility to protect our leaders..

In fact, 'terrorism is no big deal' is still a Leftie meme

That's very, very true as well, but I'd say let them step on their own dicks - I'll vote to protect my leadership, thank you.

One thing about Nan and Hel... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

One thing about Nan and Hellary. They have skipped Socialim and went streight for a Dictatorship and Communism to the max.

I think i'll just sit back secure in my retirement and watch you young folks get the shock of your lives when you work your a** off and end up with nothing. Ask several million people that the team of Slick and Hellary allowed Worldcom and the other criminals to rip of for their life savings and retirement accounts. The dhimmi's did it once and they'll do it again. They're entire lives are driven by money and power and the he** with everyone and everything else.

Speaker Pelosi is drunk... (Below threshold)
marc:

Speaker Pelosi is drunk with power?

Knock-off the power in that statement and you have it about right Kim.

If she wants/desires what was available previously to Speakers of the House, fine go for it.

But if she wants to cram a plane full of relatives and members of the California delegation she's abusing the system and can pack sand up her butt.

Let her walk to Cali, it'll do the environment some good. Surely she couldn't complain about that.

Nancy Pelosi is seeking to ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Nancy Pelosi is seeking to be provided with this aircraft service for PERSONAL AND PRIVATE USE (she wants the service to include her "friends and family members") in addition to "official use," which is why this request from Pelosi (as is her behavior in this regard) is self-indulgent and, well, entirely non professional. It's as if she's assumed that Majority Whip equates with Queen of the Nation.

There's another article about this with a bit more details...HERE.

Nancy Pelosi is seeking ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Nancy Pelosi is seeking to be provided with this aircraft service for PERSONAL AND PRIVATE USE

I am, for some reason, ok with that Suzy. When she slides down the back of a brontosaurus when the whistle blows, she's still the Speaker of the House.

Kim:One more examp... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Kim:

One more example of your inanity and shallow writing which, of course, is loudly applauded by the usual cast of fringe characters with absolutely nothing to say about anything. The far right has reached the point of intellectual bankruptcy, been deserted by true conservatives, and laughed at by most of the country. What's left is the far far fringe like Kim who have nothing to offer except an obsession about Nancy Pelosi and failed attempts at using nasty adjectives. You folks are beyond pathetic.

Wow, look Hugh chose to lau... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Wow, look Hugh chose to launch a personal attack against the writer of the piece (and everyone else who doesn't believe exactly as he believes) rather than discuss the issue.

Apparently dissent, against his opinion, of any kind bothers him deeply.

As to the subject we are discussing .... The Democrats came into the last election claiming a razor thin majority in the Senate was a mandate to make sweeping changes. They promised, among other things, to bring ethics back to the government.

It's just into February and we've already seen Reid and now Pelosi abandon any pretense at improving ethical behavior in government.

In other words, government as usual.

Oh I don't know Hugh, it se... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oh I don't know Hugh, it seems to me someone who takes the opportunity to use terms such as "pathetic," "intellectual bankruptcy", "fringe characters" to describe people that are merely pointing out how someone in such a high position is attempting to defraud the U.S. taxpayers via co-opting gov property for personal use is pretty G-damn devoid of ANY mental capacity whatsoever.

I almost forgot, based on t... (Below threshold)
marc:

I almost forgot, based on the "promise" made in your Christmas time post here you're G-damn liar as well.

Marc:Afraid not ma... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Marc:

Afraid not marc. Legitimate criticism of tripe and obsessive fantasies about Pelosi. Try being just a tad honest and go read the comments and posts about Pelosi....most of which are mocking or factually inaccurate. As to intellectual bankruptcy of the far right and the abandonment by true conservatives there is no doubt.

All you have to do is put Priestep's piece in context with her previous posts about Pelosi in which Priestep takes snippets out of context or gives meaning to statements that are just plain false. This is what I criticize and it is legitimate. As to the "fringe characters," their comments speak for them....just spend some time reading their descriptions of her.

Finally, Priestep writes a piece with no source to anything to back it up except "sources said". Wow, that's impressive. What is it with the far right and your fear of women in places of power???? Hmmm.

Wow, that's impressive. ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Wow, that's impressive. What is it with the far right and your fear of women in places of power???? Hmmm.

Hugh, what is it with you and your personal dismissiveness of women who dare to not tow the liberal party line? Why are you so fearful of a differing opinion?

Kim linked to a Washington Times article. You certainly have the right to question the veracity of article to your heart's content, but characterizing Kim's post as "piece with no source" is blatantly false.

Ironically, I would even agree with you that the piece is not well sourced. I have made the same argument when members of the left here have dragged out such unattributed, unsourced articles as their sole source of their claims as well.

So if Pelosi got this perk,... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So if Pelosi got this perk, what would they call her plane? My money is on "Air Farce One"

Hugh,
Marc caught you dead to rights. You had nothing to say about the content of Kim's post or the article that prompted it. Just the usual insults and attacks. Didn't you have some kind of resolution where you promised to behave and foster debate, or something to that effect? Anyway ...
It is an author at the Washington Times, not Kim, that is using an un-named source. If you want to say that such a source should not be used in reporting, fine. But be prepared to see a huge chunk of the NY Times, Washington Post and most other newspapers turn into blank pages as a result.

I had a boss the mirror of ... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

I had a boss the mirror of Pelosi. She was a bit more honest though. At least she admitted that what she liked the best about her position was the power over others. The people working for her allowed her very little credibility or respect.

Come on now, Hugh -- play f... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Come on now, Hugh -- play fair. If you get Kim upset she might burn the next batch of cookies.

It's obvious Kim hates women in power who assert themselves and take what is rightfully theirs. The Washington Times couldn't cite proof that Pelosi is doing anything against the rules, and therefore could only imply that might be the case according to an unnamed source -- but that's enough for Kim.

Kim probably googles "Pelosi scandal" every 15 minutes hoping for new material to feed her hatred of women in power, In a day or two this story will be shown to be yet another overblown lie from the right, like Lorie's Pelosi/Somalia Minimum Wage story last month.

In the conservative right, any woman who isn't wearing an apron is fair game for snarks from the right-thinking women folk -- and it's okay -- really -- their men gave them permission to do it.

The Washington Times cites ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

The Washington Times cites "unnamed sources". Wow that's a hell of citation to support ones post. There is nothing to say about the content, that's the point. There is no content. Context...Priestep and the far right are obsessed about her and look for any opportunity to write this kind of tripe. Look at the silly statement by Buckeye above. He/she knows nothing about in what context
she said those words.

I'm not fearful of different opinions that have some basis other than "unnamed sources" in the Washington Times. As for dissuasiveness of women, that's pretty funny since it is the far right who dismiss Hillary and Pelosi and frequently mock some of their feminine characteristics. So don't give me that. I don 't know if Kim is a man or a woman. What i do know is he/she is obsessed with Pelosi.

Her piece has as much credibilty as if I said "unamed soiurces" said Bush still drinks and ocassionally uses cocaine."

Come on now, Hugh -- pla... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Come on now, Hugh -- play fair. If you get Kim upset she might burn the next batch of cookies.

In the conservative right, any woman who isn't wearing an apron is fair game for snarks from the right-thinking women folk -- and it's okay -- really -- their men gave them permission to do it.

Lee, thank you for making my point for me. It wasn't really necessary for you to admit your bias - it was pretty obvious to anyone who had read your responses to either Kim or Lorie.

However, now that you have snarked on Kim and baking cookies - not a particularly funny sexist remark, but a pretty telling one - and made the assumption that any woman who disagrees with your viewpoint must not be thinking for herself, you have removed all doubt about your actual views on women.

You're right, OhioVoter -- ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

You're right, OhioVoter -- one needs only look at the strong, persuasive argument put forth by Kim to see that she really is concerned about the Speaker's possible abuse of power.

So, does her demanding a military transport whenever she wants it support my original statement that Speaker Pelosi is drunk with power? Yep.

There -- that pretty much sums it all up -- in one three-letter word no less.

I'm not fearful of diffe... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I'm not fearful of different opinions that have some basis other than "unnamed sources" in the Washington Times.

Quick backpedal there, Hugh.

Get a little nervous when we pointed out how many times the NYT, Washington Post, etc, etc, use "unnamed sources" as well? So, it's only when it is the Washington Times that you mistrust "unnamed sources" then?

As for dissuasiveness of women, that's pretty funny since it is the far right who dismiss Hillary and Pelosi and frequently mock some of their feminine characteristics. So don't give me that. I don 't know if Kim is a man or a woman. What i do know is he/she is obsessed with Pelosi.

Now that's funny!

You claim that you "know" that Kim is obsessed with Nancy Pelosi, but you also claim you have never have seen a single reference from that would indicate Kim's gender? Since you apparently have been pretty selective about which posts of Kim's you read, why should we believe you when you claim Kim is "obsessed" with Pelosi?

There -- that pretty muc... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

There -- that pretty much sums it all up -- in one three-letter word no less.

You aren't a very quick study are you, Lee? :-D

Believe it or not, women are allowed to speak in 3, 4, 5, etc letter words if they like. They don't need your approval to do so.

"Believe it or not, wome... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Believe it or not, women are allowed to speak in 3, 4, 5, etc letter words if they like. They don't need your approval to do so."

You're absolutely right, OhioVoter, they do -- and I agree that they don't need my approval. I'm sure these right-thinking, southern conservative Christian women have already received permission from their male "head of households" or they wouldn't be here blogging.

Here's another of Kim's stinging pushbacks against women in power. Marvel at the way in which Kim puts Hillary in her place.

And just how will having a dialogue with Iran and Syria accomplish the goals of reining in terrorism, preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and quelling the influence of Hezbollah and Hamas? In a couple of words: it won't.

"It won't." She's up to four letters now.

Uhm, wow. Persuasive. Do I smell chocolate chip?

In all fairness to Kim she did add a few more sentences to the quoted stinging rebuttal to Hillary's (note trend) suggestion that it's time for diplomacy, but she added nothing in the way of argument that diplomacy wouldn't work.

What's behind it? Jealousy? Envy? Liberals have the honor of having first woman in the position of Speaker of the House and the first woman running for the office of President. The conservatives have snarky bloggers who can't stand to see women in those positions, and who react with baseless, argument-less attacks and lies like those cited.

Perhaps someone else can explain the reason behind this trend in conservative blogging?

So lee and hugh imply that ... (Below threshold)

So lee and hugh imply that the story is baloney because it appears in the WashTimes. The story quotes unnamed sources in Pelosi's office itself: "An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that discussions are ongoing with the administration....

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request. Asked if the speaker was seeking increased access to military planes, the aide took the question, but did not call back....

So you boneheads really think the story is false? You think the comments from the aide are fictitious?

By the way, on the subject of "ethics," it is a bedrock rule that one does not use one's position in order to secure "unwarranted privileges." I might be able to buy the need for her to travel, and even to invite her Californians along, since the plane is going that way anyway -- but family members and friends??

Do you support such a privilege, lee and hugh? Would you for a Republican leader? Answer the questions directly.

"So you boneheads really... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"So you boneheads really think the story is false? You think the comments from the aide are fictitious?"

Our complaints have nothing to do with the unnamed aide. What a lying jackass. Here's the problem: "A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

The Times doesn't even state the qualifications of the source, other than their contention that the source is "knowledgeable". They also don't cite any rule violation - they only state an named, undefined source's opinion without further definition or qualification.

It's laughable, as is your attempt to redirect attention away from our criticism with your suggestion that the focus is on the unnamed aide.

"...but family members and friends??"

"Do you support such a privilege, lee and hugh? Would you for a Republican leader? Answer the questions directly."

The article says nothing about Pelosi's friends being included on this, dirtbag -- so quit your lying -- but yes, I support it for her family provided it's permitted under the rules. Did you note that nowhere in the article was it suggested that Pelosi's request violated the rules? Naw -- you probably didn't even read the article -- but it doesn't, say that wavemaker - but then you didn't suggest it was against the rules either, did you? You just included the lie that it included Pelosi's friends.

From the Times article (emphasis mine):

Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.

So Hastert did transport family members, just didn't do so "regularly" -- well, until Pelosi begins to "irregularly" transport family members there really isn't any basis for criticism with regards to her actual use, now is there? Just that nagging contention from an unnamed, as yet unqualified source who says she's asking for the as yet undefined "carte blanche" -- and the lies, such as your that she wants to include friends.

Yes, Wavemaker, I support Republican and Democratic Congressional use of this nature, within the limits of the law and rules... as it appears is the case here -- now can you tell me why conservative women bloggers don't?

Let the dhims throw out mos... (Below threshold)
Kevin:

Let the dhims throw out most of the systems that have kept us from having another attack. Then force the entire Congress & Senate (both repub's & dhims) fly Civilian.

Pelosi is obviously an idiot, but so was Hastergut.

I'd love to have an election where anybody who has been in power more that eight years gets the toss, this includes those who have had Family power, Gore, McCain, Ford, (wait a minute, Ford was tossed out by the good people of Tennessee).

Power corrupts, and the entire Washington establishment is living proof.

Nancy may want to rethink h... (Below threshold)
John S:

Nancy may want to rethink her idea given the safety record of military flight operations. Just ask Ron Brown.

See old "pucker puss" (lee ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

See old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (resident turd polisher) and "hughie" (resident liar) are out early today. p'p' still has his "ditto" key and his linkies. "hughie still has his usual BS. Tick, tick, tic. tic.. t.....

Oh and I forgot to mention ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Oh and I forgot to mention that with a face like Pee-losers, I would want protection also.

You're absolutely right,... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

You're absolutely right, OhioVoter, they do -- and I agree that they don't need my approval. I'm sure these right-thinking, southern conservative Christian women have already received permission from their male "head of households" or they wouldn't be here blogging.

Uhm, wow. Persuasive. Do I smell chocolate chip?

My, my ... there's slow - and then there's you, Lee.

Given how defensive you get about women who dare to disagree with you here, I can only imagine what fun you are to be around in real life.

Since you have repeatedly mentioned that conservative women - who dare to disagree with you - can't be thinking for themselves, my guess is that your response is based on jealously. You are frustrated that you can't control them like you (erroneously) imagine other do.

What's behind it? Jealousy? Envy?

Independent thought? Courage to not follow the script handed down to them by those who think (and say) that women can't think for themselves or need permission to be able to speak for themselves?

Liberals have the honor of having first woman in the position of Speaker of the House and the first woman running for the office of President. The conservatives have snarky bloggers who can't stand to see women in those positions, and who react with baseless, argument-less attacks and lies like those cited.

Umm ... you might want to check the history books there, Lee.

Does this mean it was wrong... (Below threshold)

Does this mean it was wrong for Bush 43 to use Air Force One to attend republican fund raisers?

Liberals have the ... (Below threshold)
Liberals have the honor of having first woman in the position of Speaker of the House and the first woman running for the office of President. The conservatives have snarky bloggers who can't stand to see women in those positions, and who react with baseless, argument-less attacks and lies like those cited.

Ever think that maybe, just maybe, us women might be trying to hold women in power to a higher standard?

I have no problem with military transport for our leaders in the line of duty. I DO have a problem with their demanding that for their family members and for personal use.

What would be the reaction of the left if Bush decided to let the twins cavort around the country in military transport?

Yeah, thought so ...

If this constitutes being "... (Below threshold)
groucho:

If this constitutes being "drunk" on power then I guess that would make Delay, the Dukester and company in the end stages of alcoholism, in liver failure, with a permanent BAC of .35 or so. Sounds more like a little cocktail socializing to me. I have no doubt though, that Ms Priestap and the rest of the intrepid 20 percenters will keep us well informed on every devious misstep of the Speaker (who has yet to complete a month on the job).

The Washington Times also cited "sources" in a story alleging that Pelosi's office instructed Capitol Police not to arrest protesters who were spray painting on the Capitol during last week's protest. Funny, but law enforcement absolutely denies anything like that took place. Where are the sources now? The Wash. Times, NewsMax, Insider, righty talk radio, etc., provide twisted, partially sourced, and often just plain false swill by the trough-full so the "great Americans" can waddle up for their daily ration.

Nancy Lugosi is drunk on a ... (Below threshold)
914:

Nancy Lugosi is drunk on a case of the uglies!

Wait if there's no threat a... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Wait if there's no threat and it's all Republican 'fear mongering' as several of the commenters here have claimed, why doesn't Her Highness Nancy ride on commercial airlines like the rest of us serfs ?

"I'm making a New Years res... (Below threshold)
Hugh is full of shit, as usual:

"I'm making a New Years resolution. I will only engage in debate from now on. I will not call any one name(s), nor will I be sarcastic or caustic."

-Hugh, December 2006 on Wizbang

You know, if the American C... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You know, if the American Congress isn't successful this year, the fault will lie not with the Democratic majority, but with the right-wing blogs. They, infected with PDS, attack Pelosi's every move non-stop. Like it or not, she is Speaker of the House, and she deserves our respect. If you disagree with her, you should keep it to yourselves. If only the blogs would stop criticizing her, she would be able to bring our Congress to a successful term. Public attacks like this serve only to let the terrorists know that the country is divided and doesn't have the will to support our leaders.

Coming from a district who ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Coming from a district who LOATHES the military and has voted to have no military recruiting in schools, this is quite ironic.

Does Nancy know that the San Fran City Councilman Sandovar has said that he thinks the U.S. should have NO military? Then what would Nancy do?

Liberals loathe the military. You know, until they need them. No wonder the country laughs at the left.

Brian, sarcasm is a great w... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Brian, sarcasm is a great way of making a point, but you do have to display a basic knowledge of civics in order to make it work. You didn't.

" No wonder the country ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

" No wonder the country laughs at the left."

THAT woujd explain the election results last November,

Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing uncontrollably for several minutes -- you conservative morons say the funniest stuff.

"THAT woujd explain the e... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"THAT woujd explain the election results last November,"

That would explain why the Democrat Media was all set to air two shows crying about election fraud , rigged machines etc. until they realized , hey! we won! No one was more surprised than the democrats as they quickly canceled there traditional after election lawsuits and outrage over election fraud that they themselves are the ones falsely claiming.Then there is the other type of democrat election fraud like Maccaca , Michael J Fox , McCaskill /acorn , Foley , Bush Lied and the list goes on.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/
Vote_Fraud_Intimidation_Suppression_2004_Pres_
Election_v2.pdf

Choke hard Lee , Hugh , Pukeface and the rest of you bedwetters , you know who you are.

The Washington Times is as ... (Below threshold)
markg8:

The Washington Times is as reliable as Fox News. Why would anyone believe anything they have to say?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-aircraft

STATEMENT BY SERGEANT A... (Below threshold)
alison:

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.

god you people will believe... (Below threshold)
alison:

god you people will believe anything

Looking forward to the retr... (Below threshold)

Looking forward to the retraction.

This never happened. Pelos... (Below threshold)
Honest Republican:

This never happened. Pelosi has yet to request use of a military aircraft.

The Sergeant At Arms of the House made a request on her behalf, since Hastert had regularly used military aircraft to go back to his district.

Pelosi has accumulated enough frequent flier miles to go back to her district in first class for free for the rest of her life. She's yet to have flown a non-commercial flight since becoming Speaker.

You know, if the America... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

You know, if the American Congress isn't successful this year, the fault will lie not with the Democratic majority, but with the right-wing blogs.

If that's not the funniest goddamn thing I've ever read, I don't know what is.

/wipes tears

Ah, thanks Brian - I never liked reading your comments until that one.

F'n LOL! (I'm really not sarcastic either = still laughing).

1) The House Sergeant at... (Below threshold)

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.

If this is the case and Pelosi needs a non-stop according to the Air Force, wouldn't it be nice if every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, who flies home to California every weekend on the taxpayer's dime, had access to the flight. It would save a lot of money wouldn't it?
I hope Speaker Pelosi invites members of Congress to save taxpayer money. It sure would shut people up on yet another non-issue.

This Pelosi-Air Force is a... (Below threshold)
pmse57:

This Pelosi-Air Force is a bad wing-nut joke. The original Washington Times story was an obvious smear job (as evidenced in statement by House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood) and this post, other posts, and their commenters have expanded the high school rip job. Why not wait until Pelosi actually does something wrong before you contort your faces into ugly shapes.

And by the way, for the most part liberal bloggers and commenters will not put up with shoddy misinformation tricks like this one. It happens, but for the most part the blogger of obvious lies will be criticized and left alone. Lord, I would get bored and demoralized if I had to read and partake of ugly and untruthful propaganda, lie this, on a regular basis. My sympathies are with you.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/07/51817.aspx




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy