Bumped and Updated: The Washington Times updates its report.
On February 4th, the Washington Times published a story asserting that Speaker Nancy Pelosi requested a military aircraft larger than the one Dennis Haster used in order to accommodate not just her and her staff, but her family as well as the California delegation. The article also said that Speaker Pelosi wanted to use the military plane for both personal and professional activities. I read that story and wrote a post that was critical of the speaker's request.
Today the liberal blog Think Progress responded to the Washington Times article and to the many conservative bloggers, including me, who linked to the piece and said that we were all completely wrong, using this statement from the Sergeant at Arms as proof:
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.
Liberal commenters here at Wizbang read Think Progress' post and the Sergeant at Arms' statement and seemed to think that was indisputable proof that Speaker Pelosi did not make the military aircraft request that the Washington Times story said she did. These liberal commenters then demanded that I retract my post and correct it to reflect the statement:
Kim
Why don't you address your BS story about Pelosi and the military aircraft?Where is your retraction?
Posted by: aRepukelican at February 6, 2007 07:40 PM
Congratulations, Kim!
Your debunked BS story "Nancy Pelosi is Drunk with Power" even got a link back to Wizbang...Didn't you do two on the topic?
No update? No correction?
Posted by: John at February 6, 2007 08:45 PM
Kim
Cat got your tongue, Kim.We're eagerly awaiting your takeback on "Drunk with Power."
Maybe you should sign your posts: "DRUNK W/ DECEIT."
Posted by: aRepukelican at February 6, 2007 09:08 PM
I'd hate to pop their bubble, but there are a few problems with Think Progress' argument that the Sergeant at Arms' statement refutes the Washington Times' claims.
The fact that the Sergeant at Arms advised Speaker Pelosi that former Speaker Hastert was given a military plane for travel back and forth to his district and she would get one as well is no bombshell. Of course Speaker Pelosi knew that the Speaker of the House got a military plane after 9/11, and I'm sure Mrs. Pelosi was very excited about using it. I know I'd be.
It's also no big deal that the Sergeant at Arms offered to set up a meeting between the Speaker's staff and the Air Force. That's the Sergeant at Arms' job - to, essentially, serve the Speaker.
I, however, found this sentence kind of interesting:
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.
Something besides the glaring comma splice stood out at me. Why would he tell the Speaker that he didn't know certain details unless he did so in response to a request for information?
This leads me to the bigger issue: who requested the larger military aircraft and the additional uses for that aircraft?. Unfortunately, the Sergeant at Arms' statement doesn't give us any indications who made the request. Take a look at the last sentence of the statement:
Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.
Several questions were posed by whom? And what were those questions? We don't know because the Sergeant at Arms doesn't tell us, which leads me to believe that it was Speaker Pelosi's staff. After all, if the Sergeant at Arms had asked all the questions about the size and usage of the plane, why not just come out and say so?
Therefore, in my opinion, the Sergeant at Arms' statement does not refute the Washington Times' piece on Nancy Pelosi's military aircraft request, so my post stays as is.
Update: Dan Riehl isn't buying what Think Progress is selling either.
Update II: The Washington Times has more on Pelosi's request for a larger military aircraft:
The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources.
A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants.
The congressional source said Pentagon officials complained that Mr. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, is accusing them of sexism for not immediately heeding her request.
Megan E. Grote, Mr. Murtha's press secretary, said, "Mr. Murtha absolutely never said anything about being 'sexist.' We have no further comment."[...]
Mrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff.
The speaker's request is being handled by her chief counsel, Bernard Raimo, a veteran Democratic lawyer on Capitol Hill.
"Who she can take is being worked out, outside the Air Force," said Ed Gulick, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon.
He said the Air Force is studying what types of planes are available for long, cross-country flights. Currently, three planes assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base can make such nonstop flights year-round -- the C-32, C-40B and C-37.
Such VIP planes are in high demand.
"She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source. "It will most directly impact the House, because they're the heavy users of the large aircraft. Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."
The congressional source said the speaker's office requested an Air Force plane to take her to a weekend Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, but the Pentagon declined.
The source said Mr. Hastert on one occasion used an Air Force plane for such an event. The Air Force later determined it was a mistake, and such flights were not repeated.
The source said the Pentagon will likely give in to Mrs. Pelosi's requests for a large plane and travel entourage, given her and Mr. Murtha's power over defense spending.
It looks like it's in the Pentagon's best interest to give Speaker Pelosi what she wants.
Update III: According to ABC News, the Pentagon has declined Pelosi's request for a larger military aircraft, a C-32 from what Republicans officials are saying. Here's what the Pentagon's usage rules are for Speaker Pelosi, as outlined by ABC News:
Pentagon spokesman Cmdr J.D. Gordon outlined the rules and restrictions governing Speaker Pelosi's use of the C-20:
No more than 10 passengers (C-20's only seat 12 passengers, not including up to 5 crew members);No travel to political events;
Members of the Speaker's family cannot fly unless the Speaker puts a request in writing. The Pelosi family has to reimburse the US Treasury for the cost of a coach ticket per person for the travel, as well as for any food;
Members of Congress cannot fly on the plane unless their travel has been cleared with the House Committee on Standards (the Ethics committee);
Pelosi's husband can travel for free, but only for official protocol purposes.
In response to the Pentagon offer, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells ABC News, "We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the Speaker's security. We are reviewing their letter."
Greg Tinti notes that there could be a solution to all this:
There's something called...a C-37A. And as far as I can tell from this, it's a C-20 with a big enough fuel tank to make it to and from San Fran.
So, for the love of Pete, give one to Pelosi so she can make it across the country without having to stop to refuel and let's move on.
Yes, I agree.
Update IV: ABC News is also reporting that the plane Pelosi requested was a C-32, which has these amenities:
Various Republican officials in recent days have claimed that Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels -- 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. It's normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Nancy Pelosi
Comments (84)
Hang in there Kim. Anyone s... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Scrapiron | February 7, 2007 1:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hang in there Kim. Anyone should know the Sergeant at Arms did not request a large aircraft (on his own) to haul Peeeloshi's family and friends around the world on vacation. Next they'll have to change all the doors in the house to double wide to get Nan's head through them.
1. Posted by Scrapiron | February 7, 2007 1:55 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 01:55
2. Posted by Jim Addison | February 7, 2007 2:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Whenever you get the moonbats agitated, you can be sure you are on the right track.
Just be careful to stay a safe distance clear of their cages - they tend to throw their poop a lot.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | February 7, 2007 2:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 02:03
3. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 3:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's amazing how many of these asshats have squirmed out of the woodwork since Nov 7th.
Wizbang had it's normal share previous to that but since then the number of haters and bile flingers has risen to nearly an intolerable level.
It's good entertainment though, in a William Hung kinda way.
Yea puke and company, I'm looking at you.
The sad fact is while demanding a retraction on this story due to the Washington Times being the original source they use Media Matters (Media Splatters as in diarrhea) as a source that has about as much creditability as al-Reuters, the AP or OlberFool on MSNBC.
3. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 3:37 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 03:37
4. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 3:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jim Addison: you stayed up all night to say THAT??Civilians would catagorize that as "Kiss-ass" , Marines would shelve it under "Smack-dick".
4. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 3:37 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 03:37
5. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 3:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And I should have added Think Progress that has about the same credibility.
5. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 3:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 03:39
6. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 3:42 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jim Addison: you stayed up all night to say THAT??Civilians would catagorize that as "Kiss-ass" , Marines would shelve it under "Smack-dick".
Posted by: bryanD at February 7, 2007 03:37 AM
Nice way to smack yourself in the face bryanD, you're loseing just as much sleep and add even less than Jim did.
What a moroon!
6. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 3:42 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 03:42
7. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 3:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
marc: I make $30/ hour at home (avg./at night!). I'm effectively being paid right NOW!
7. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 3:55 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 03:55
8. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 4:12 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
oooooH, I'm soooo [not]impressed.
And I bet your pee-pee got a centimeter bigger as you typed that.
NOW, do you want to comment on the post or continue to post garbage?
8. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 4:12 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 04:12
9. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 4:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
marc, jus' sayin': "Why am I up? " Now you know! God loves you , too!
9. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 4:37 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 04:37
10. Posted by Jay Tea | February 7, 2007 4:38 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Amazing, BryanD. Do those people paying you to work at home realize that you're posting your inane, occasionally racist comments here on THEIR DIME?
I guess I can add "thieving" to the list of your attributes...
J.
10. Posted by Jay Tea | February 7, 2007 4:38 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 04:38
11. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 4:44 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
marc, re: the Wizbang posts: THEY REALLY SUCK! Donkey Balls! Libby? Najaf? No! It's Kim citing herself! Nothin' from nothin' leaves NOTHIN'!
11. Posted by bryanD | February 7, 2007 4:44 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 04:44
12. Posted by jpm100 | February 7, 2007 5:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Amazing, BryanD. Do those people paying you to work at home realize that you're posting your inane, occasionally racist comments here on THEIR DIME?
If he's doing work for some Politician or Activist group, this could be one of his job responsibilities.
12. Posted by jpm100 | February 7, 2007 5:55 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 05:55
13. Posted by wavemaker | February 7, 2007 6:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think Bryan is Jim Lampley in disguise.
As for the post -- not only does the Sgt-at-Arms statement not contradict the WashTimes report, it actually confirms it. The Sgt-at-Arms performs his duties at the direction of the Speaker, and I would agree that he would not be making inquiries of the DOD on this subject that he was not instructed to make. This assumption is confirmed to me by the former Secretary of the Senate under Howard Baker.
13. Posted by wavemaker | February 7, 2007 6:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 06:49
14. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 6:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In ref to BryanD[lusional]
I guess I can add "thieving" to the list of your attributes... Posted by: Jay Tea at February 7, 2007 04:38 AM
That would be called petty "thieving," J.
50K a year isn't all that much to crow about.
14. Posted by marc | February 7, 2007 6:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 06:54
15. Posted by aRepukelican | February 7, 2007 7:20 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Kim
There are some problems w/ what you say, as you aver that you stand by your story.
In your original post you quoted the Wash Times in bold, "A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."
That "knowledgeable source" is not much different from the similar type of unidentified source used by Insight, another Wash Times organ, that smeared Obama w/ the Madrassa story. Both pubs are fast & loose w/ generalized sourcing, including the latter's use of such sourcing to lay the claim that the Clinton campaign had put out the Obama attack.
This type of "sourcing" is a favorite method of scurilous pubs like the Wash Times and others to give currency to something for which they want an excuse to get into the public realm.
Why hadn't the Wash Times used the Capitol Sergeant-at-Arms as part of their sourcing? Probably because the resulting story would have been more contexted & less inflammable, less useful for the kind of political sliming that the Wash Times is wont to do.
A 2nd problem w/ your non mea culpa is your fsilure to address the "larger aircraft" issue which Think Progress did. The likely explanation for that is the non-stop vs. refueling issue that Think Progress discussed.
With that in mind, some of the sneering that you continue with today about further questions etc might have more of a context because Pelosi' use of a larger plane would necessitate further discussions w/ the DoD about a different aircraft and whatever issues that might ensue from such a switch in aircraft.
In turn, that could explain some of the snarky questions you attempted to leave open w/ snide inference hanging on commas as you did.
At the very least, the additional info provided by Think Progress & the S-a-A's statement should have given any fair-minded person pause rather than the stick-it-in-your-eye attitude w/ which you concluded your non mea culpa.
Your attitude in both your pieces is: I am going to prove that "Pelosi is drunk / Power," and I am going to have it MY WAY. notwithstanding that there may be less to your original story than meets the eye.
Someone should do a piece on you entitled: Drunk w/ unremitting hate over the '06 election loss.
15. Posted by aRepukelican | February 7, 2007 7:20 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 07:20
16. Posted by Hugh | February 7, 2007 7:31 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
An unnamed, but reliable, source said today that George Bush has relapsed and drinks nightly in the hall closet.
16. Posted by Hugh | February 7, 2007 7:31 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 07:31
17. Posted by Ken | February 7, 2007 7:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh the irony..........lefties are complaining about "unidentified sources"? It never seems to bother you when the NYT or Washington Post uses them, now does it?
17. Posted by Ken | February 7, 2007 7:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 07:49
18. Posted by OhioVoter | February 7, 2007 7:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I see - aRepukelican's POV is the ONLY correct one and Kim - as a woman - is not permitted to not instantly capitulate to it on command.
A problem with your entire line of reasoning, aRepukelican ...
This type of "sourcing" is a favorite method of scurilous pubs like the Wash Times and others to give currency to something for which they want an excuse to get into the public realm.
It's also the same type of sourcing that is used by the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, etc, etc, in many of the stories that they report.
If you want to make your case based on the point that the story is poorly sourced, I will even agree with you. However, it is also true for most of the stories reported by the left in opposition to the Bush Administration. In using that line of reasoning, you just undercut the credibility of the majority of sources that are used by the left here as well.
And thanks to Hugh, we have a perfect example:
An unnamed, but reliable, source said today that George Bush has relapsed and drinks nightly in the hall closet.
I'm sure that he will be quick to claim that it is a joke, but unfortunately it's most often the left that takes that drivel seriously.
18. Posted by OhioVoter | February 7, 2007 7:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 07:49
19. Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 7:53 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When you find yourself in a hole, Kim, stop digging!
"Of course Speaker Pelosi knew that the Speaker of the House got a military plane after 9/11, and I'm sure Mrs. Pelosi was very excited about using it. I know I'd be."
Of course? You are going to continue your baseless, fact-less smear of Pelosi by assuming that (a) Pelosi knew Hastert got a a military plane and (b) using your words "I'm sure Mrs. Pelosi was very excited about using it." -- and you know this because "I know I'd be."
If you'd stopped there you could have just been accused of basic conservative blogger asshattery -- but you couldn't stop digging that hole.
"Why would he tell the Speaker that he didn't know certain details unless he did so in response to a request for information?"
Uhm, any number of reasons, It's even possible that when he told the speaker's staff the staffer responded with a question or two along those lines. There is no basis for your asshhatted assumption that the Speaker requested the information.
This attempt of yours doesn't come anywhere close to admitting that the previous smear post was factually incorrect. All you've done here is attempt to dig yourself out of this hole by throwing more baseless fact-less claims about Pelosi thought and Pelosi asked.
You are pulling facts out of the fog between your ears, Kim. You're making this stuff up! Quit digging yourself deeper into this hole of deceit.
19. Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 7:53 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 07:53
20. Posted by Steve of Norway | February 7, 2007 7:57 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Greg Gutfeld is right, anyone who says "Just sayin" should be punched in the face.
And repukistan, the only comes from you guys these days. You guys HATE everything.
20. Posted by Steve of Norway | February 7, 2007 7:57 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 07:57
21. Posted by Hugh | February 7, 2007 8:42 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I love puppies.
H
21. Posted by Hugh | February 7, 2007 8:42 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 08:42
22. Posted by wavemaker | February 7, 2007 9:30 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Really Kim, Lee is right -- it is perfectly reasonable to assume that, rather than being instructed by Pelosi's office, the current Sgt-at-Arms (elected by Repub-majority Congress in January '95) took it upon himself to inquire about expanding Speaker Pelosi's access to military flights beyond those previously enjoyed by Hastert.
22. Posted by wavemaker | February 7, 2007 9:30 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 09:30
23. Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 10:28 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What the Seargent-at-arms said:
Not "I responded to a request from the Speaker with information", they said they advised the speaker. It would be their job to do that, and while the wavemaker naturally assumes that a sergeant-at-arms chosen by Republicans would be partisan, and petty -- and decide to be derelict in their duties and not advise the Speaker's office of this -- their statement that they did advise the Speaker -- uhm -kinda -- you know -- indicates that they -- uhm, you know - they they -- uhm, did.
23. Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 10:28 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 10:28
24. Posted by spurwing plover | February 7, 2007 10:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The USAF is not a personal transportion facility for any over bloated liberal politician with a over inflated ego
24. Posted by spurwing plover | February 7, 2007 10:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 10:39
25. Posted by J.R. | February 7, 2007 10:42 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It seems the Times is sticking to their original story as to the request by Ms. Pelosi to ferry her staff, family, and other delegates on "her" plane.
So it would also seem that Kim's original blog post is quite on point. It's highly doubtful that the screeching trolls would offer any rebuttal or apology though.
25. Posted by J.R. | February 7, 2007 10:42 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 10:42
26. Posted by aRepukelican | February 7, 2007 11:04 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
spurwing plover
I assume, OTH, that it was ok for fat-assed Hastert and his aides to have weekly personal USAF transport.
At the very least, Hastert should have had to pay a fuel surcharge for the extra fuel required to transport his over-ample and over-weight ass.
Why should the taxpayer have had to pay excess fuel costs because Hastert is grossly fat?
26. Posted by aRepukelican | February 7, 2007 11:04 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 11:04
27. Posted by Feroz | February 7, 2007 11:46 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
nice blog! really liked it N i really like to read your blog n i would like to do link exchange with ya blog . mine blog link below plz check out if you thinks its suits for ur blog let me know by email ...
Please Care to reply
My Blog is Something Very Beautiful
http://somethingbeautifull.blogspot.com
Thx in Advance
27. Posted by Feroz | February 7, 2007 11:46 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 11:46
28. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 7, 2007 11:47 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Puke and Lee are still trying to defend the corrupt Pelosi. She is not satisfied with the plane Hastert used and wanted a bigger one. She passed minimum wage legislation but give a company connected to her an exemption. She is a joke and the liberals in the MSM and on this thread are trying to cover up or make excuse for the sewage.
Puke and Lee are prime examples of what would come out of the liberal sewage.
28. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 7, 2007 11:47 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 11:47
29. Posted by jpm100 | February 7, 2007 12:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Considering the Sergeant at Arms version of events is not really in conflict with the Washington Times story and there was no reason to believe he was exposed to the full details of all that transpired (which didn't stop TP from reported that as the full story).
And considering Kim's update with a fleshed out Washington Times' account. I wonder if Puke will retract his call for a retraction or even go over Think Progress and call for them, in boldface, to retract the assertions in their story.
29. Posted by jpm100 | February 7, 2007 12:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 12:01
30. Posted by jhow66 | February 7, 2007 12:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hughie shouldn't that be "hot dogs" instead of puppies? lol
The "ditto" key is getting worked overtime today by you know who.
30. Posted by jhow66 | February 7, 2007 12:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 12:05
31. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 7, 2007 12:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pelosi is a prime example of what liberals claim to hate: incompetence, arrogance, elitist, corrupt, hypocritical ... Yet they fully embrace her. Just typical liberal behavior.
31. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 7, 2007 12:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 12:07
32. Posted by mantis | February 7, 2007 12:08 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
On February 4th, the Washington Times published a story asserting that Speaker Nancy Pelosi requested a military aircraft larger than the one Dennis Haster used in order to accommodate not just her and her staff...
His name is Hastert. I demand a retraction of this misspelling immediately! ;)
32. Posted by mantis | February 7, 2007 12:08 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 12:08
33. Posted by mantis | February 7, 2007 12:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Kim, why haven't you retracted your BS misspelling yet!
33. Posted by mantis | February 7, 2007 12:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 12:10
34. Posted by 914 | Februar