« "He made his blazing saddle a torch to light the way" | Main | State Climatologist Might Lose Title For Voicing His Opinion on Global Warming »

The Speaker, the Air Force, and the Sergeant at Arms

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.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Speaker, the Air Force, and the Sergeant at Arms:

» The Political Pit Bull linked with "Pelosi One"

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with GOP bristles at Pelosi plane request

Comments (84)

Hang in there Kim. Anyone s... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

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.

Whenever you get the moonba... (Below threshold)

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.

It's amazing how many of th... (Below threshold)
marc:

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.

Jim Addison: you stayed up ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Jim Addison: you stayed up all night to say THAT??Civilians would catagorize that as "Kiss-ass" , Marines would shelve it under "Smack-dick".

And I should have added Thi... (Below threshold)
marc:

And I should have added Think Progress that has about the same credibility.

Jim Addison: you stayed... (Below threshold)
marc:

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!

marc: I make $30/ hour at h... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc: I make $30/ hour at home (avg./at night!). I'm effectively being paid right NOW!

oooooH, I'm soooo [not]impr... (Below threshold)
marc:

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?

marc, jus' sayin': "Why am ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc, jus' sayin': "Why am I up? " Now you know! God loves you , too!

Amazing, BryanD. Do those p... (Below threshold)

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.

marc, re: the Wizbang posts... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc, re: the Wizbang posts: THEY REALLY SUCK! Donkey Balls! Libby? Najaf? No! It's Kim citing herself! Nothin' from nothin' leaves NOTHIN'!

Amazing, BryanD. Do thos... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

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.

I think Bryan is Jim Lample... (Below threshold)

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.

In ref to BryanD[lusional]<... (Below threshold)
marc:

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.

KimThere are some ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

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.

An unnamed, but reliable, s... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

An unnamed, but reliable, source said today that George Bush has relapsed and drinks nightly in the hall closet.

Oh the irony..........lefti... (Below threshold)
Ken:

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?

I see - aRepukelican's POV ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

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.

When you find yourself in a... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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.

marc, jus' say... (Below threshold)
marc, jus' sayin': "Why am I up? " Now you know! God loves you , too!

Posted by: bryanD at February 7, 2007 04:37 AM

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.

I love puppies.H</... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I love puppies.

H

Really Kim, Lee is right --... (Below threshold)

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.

What the Seargent-at-arms s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

What the Seargent-at-arms said:

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.

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.

The USAF is not a personal ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

The USAF is not a personal transportion facility for any over bloated liberal politician with a over inflated ego

It seems <a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

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.

spurwing ploverI a... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

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?

nice blog! really liked it ... (Below threshold)

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

Puke and Lee are still tryi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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.

Considering the Sergeant at... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

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.

Hughie shouldn't that be "h... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hughie shouldn't that be "hot dogs" instead of puppies? lol

The "ditto" key is getting worked overtime today by you know who.

Pelosi is a prime example o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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.

On February 4th, the Was... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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! ;)

Kim, why haven't you retrac... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Kim, why haven't you retracted your BS misspelling yet!

Hugh"An unnamed, b... (Below threshold)
914:

Hugh

"An unnamed, but reliable source said today that George Bush has relapsed and drinks nightly in the hall closet."

and Your point is what? JacAss.

The Speaker of the House ha... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The Speaker of the House has to use a Government plane paid by tax payers??? The OUTRAGE!!

Bush looses 12-billion dollars in tax payer money in Iraq ? Cue the crickets.

KimThanx for the R... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

Thanx for the Riehl link. Did you happen to read the "comments?"

Riehl's commenters are ripping him a new hole over his selective discussion of the topic at hand. Not a very good citation from your point of view.

Another typical liberal hyp... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Another typical liberal hypocrisy: reduce energy consumption for everyone else but liberals. Pelosi and other dems have been making a big deal about energy consumption. Yet she is asking for bigger plane for herself.

Do you hear any condemnation from liberals? No this is the typical behavior from the liberal left. The words of liberals don't mean anything. They will say whatever fits their agenda of the moment to fool people and to gain power.

Liberals will continue to defend their liberal sewage.

Screw that, make her fly co... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Screw that, make her fly commercial cattle class and pay for it out of her own pocket.
Come to think of it make everyone in the House and Senate fly cattle class. What the hell makes them more 'special' than any other citizen?
Before any of you smart asses say's that its because they're goverment employee's stfu, they work for *us*, we don't work for them and if I can't hook a free ride on a fedco plane any time I want why the hell should they?

All hail our new Queen.... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

All hail our new Queen.

Hail to her Majesty Queen Pelosi.

Will someone please be sure to inform me of when we have to start bowing down six times a day to her, as well as which direction to face.

I would not want to be guilty of heresy or anything like that.

Steve of Norway, Anyone wit... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Steve of Norway, Anyone with the tag "Steve of Norway" must be a motion lotion connoisseur... Jay Tea, I get paid by the piece. No piece, no pay...

Come to think of it make... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Come to think of it make everyone in the House and Senate fly cattle class. What the hell makes them more 'special' than any other citizen?

Agreed, let's get rid of Air Force One and Two while we're at it.

Seeing arepuke and the othe... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Seeing arepuke and the others EAT CROW on this one?

PRICELESS


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahah

Jo, but they thought they w... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Jo, but they thought they were eating Jackass. When challenged their answer is always, but, but, but, so and so. I guess if your neighbor robs a bank it's ok for you to rob a bank. I thought the lefties were proud of getting rid of Hastert as speaker, now they use him as a excuse for Peeeeloshi to be 100 times as inept and criminal. Go figure.

Lee, are you actually sayin... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Lee, are you actually saying, with a straight face, that the Sergeant at Arms went up to Pelosi and just randomly started advising her about military aircraft?

Don't you see how stupid you sound trying to bust Kim on that point? OF COURSE PELOSI ASKED. The advice was obviously given in response to a frigging question.

Seems by every single reported account available *anywhere* Kim represented this story accurately. The conclusions she chooses to draw are of no matter to the factual representation of the story itself - those are merely commentary and may be dissected as such. You are taking issue with the factual representation of the story, and by every account she got it right.

When will you display the kind of character you demand from others and apologize for what you've said here today? Are you a decent enough human being to say, without reservation or a tacked-on insult, that you were wrong?

(sound of crickets chirping... (Below threshold)
Lindy R. Dole:

(sound of crickets chirping)

"Lee, are you actually s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, are you actually saying, with a straight face, that the Sergeant at Arms went up to Pelosi and just randomly started advising her about military aircraft?"

No, I would say with a straight face that the Sergeant-At-Arms proactively schedules an appointment to discuss the matter with someone on incoming speaker's staff as matter of standard protocol following every "regime change" in Congress.

Do you imagine that the Sergeant-At-Arms sits on their hands in his or her office and does nothing unless requested? That's pretty stupid.

No, no apology from me needed as of yet, but if and when there is I'm not above correcting myself. Kim, apparently, feels she is - but then I'm a Democrat and she's a Republican, so you have to expect these differences.

Whenever you get the moo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Whenever you get the moonbats agitated, you can be sure you are on the right track.

Yeah, and you recently agitated them so much, they kicked your ass out of Congress. I agree with you that that's the right track. So keep it up! Stay the course!

It sure is amazing how the ... (Below threshold)
bones47:

It sure is amazing how the libs are trying to spin this every which way but the TRUTH. I think she should get her ride but not for her whole delagtion or family travel period. Why is that so hard to compute??? She sure isn't making headway in cleaning the so called " swamp" she is the one enlarging it. Typical SF liberal BS.

Lee, your position is absol... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Lee, your position is absolutely preposterous. It makes no sense at all. You have to contort and twist common sense to arrive at that conclusion. It;s blatantly obvious to ANYONE not trying to turn this into a political score-keeping game that the Sergeant's comments were in reply to an inquiry.

Shame on you for not displaying the character you demand in others. You can posture all you want here in public, but you and I both know you are flat-out wrong in this case and you're too embarrassed to admit it, or afraid it will be used against you later the way you use everything against others.

Man up and be the person you want others to be. Maybe if you lead by example, others will follow.

Difference between Republican and Democrat? None. Quibbling over particular pet issues doth not a difference make. The sooner you learn that the better.

Just the facts (here):... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Just the facts (here):

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

But don't let the facts get in the way of right-wing single (un-named) sourced truthiness.

Lee, your position is ab... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lee, your position is absolutely preposterous. It makes no sense at all. You have to contort and twist common sense to arrive at that conclusion.

Actually, his response to you makes perfect sense, and was one I was going to suggest myself, until I saw he did it. Please explain why it is "preposterous" to think that the support staff would schedule orientation briefings with officials coming into new positions. Or, more specifically, that the security staff would proactively inform new leaders of the secure travel arrangements that are available to them. (I don't know how true-to-life it is, but when Santos won on The West Wing, everyone from the White House chef to the head of the Secret Service asked to have a meeting with him.)

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that he proactively advised her that a plane was available, she asked for a larger one that could make it to San Francisco without being refueled, and he said he'd ask and get back to her. That fits perfectly with what's being reported.

Did she then say, "and make it big enough that I can include my family, and any passengers I want to invite"? Perhaps. To which the SAA can come back and say "no".

The reason for the cri... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

The reason for the criminal democrats perpetual fraud becomes clearer with every passing day. Incompetant criminals spent alot of time in the Minority crying , lying and plotting their revenge. Pelosi , the Queen of Hypocrisy and now the Queen of the Criminal Party as well.

Pelosi's behavior from day one should leave no doubt as to what she and her Party is all about. It not about the "CHILDREN" , "THE POOR" , "MIDDLE CLASS" and most definitely not about "LOVE OF COUNTRY".

IT IS ALL ABOUT THEM.

Democrats are incompetant and too corrupt to run this Country however they are criminally competant enough to decieve their way into positions in charge of running our Country. Pelosi shows us what happens after years of coveting the Speaker Position. Democrats has no desire to change anything , they just wanted to take someone's job for themselves. The "democratic" party is a farce , a collective scam by criminal frauds. Look at them now demanding their ill gotten gains.

Rob: "Incompetant crimin... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Rob: "Incompetant criminals spent alot of time in the Minority crying , lying and plotting their revenge."

Nice hat, Rob - that tin-foil look is very chic.

JimK - What I described is a standard operating procedure for service teams. You don't wait for them to come to you, principally because they often don't even know what questions to ask. You prepare a presentation, and then contact them to schedule an orientation where you brief them, and even go so far so far as to help them ask the questions they don't know to ask. It's SOP. "Here's what you need to know" kind of stuff.

I realize that it may not be the way your work team at Burger King #2381 out on route 89 operates, but it is the way that high-level service organizations operate.

Lee, do you only read hea... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Lee, do you only read headlines or the whole post?


"Democrats are incompetant and too corrupt to run this Country however they are criminally competant enough to decieve their way into positions in charge of running our Country."

Sorry, Rob - I was busy cry... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Sorry, Rob - I was busy crying, lying and sighing, while plotting my revenge. Your point was...?

Rob LA CaYour absu... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Rob LA Ca

Your absurd rant proves that your IQ doesn't even amount to room temp.

Some rightie w/ advanced Alzheimers could make a more literate, not to mention logical, post. Republicans really seem to draw the super-idiots.

More standard bloviating fr... (Below threshold)

More standard bloviating from repuke...rarely refutes anything, just spouts ad hominem attacks on everyone.

So that why you wait by the... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

So that why you wait by the mailbox for your welfare check each month "bryanDumbass"?

Hammer time!... (Below threshold)

Hammer time!

Congratulations, cons. Ano... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Congratulations, cons. Another "expose" from the 28% crowd. Keep this up, one day soon you'll be relegated again to those shadowy conspiracy publications passed among old impotent conservative men like a bong.

And you thought this would be the story that would make the 72% majority of Americans rise up and cast out the "libs".

Just like the Jamil Hussein non-story
Or the Edwards blogger non-story
Or the Miami port non-story

Just a clue guys, when people you are talking to nod their heads, smile politely and quickly walk away when you're telling them about your insane conspiracy theories, they're not agreeing with you.

The constant drip of sheer ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The constant drip of sheer arrogance and corruption from the left belies what they campaigned on.

The left cannot bash Bush for being a "divider" while criticizing Edwards for allegedly firing two bloggers who are absolutely laden with hate for vast swaths of America. They can't criticize the GOP's abuse of power when they have done just as much power abusing.

The GOP didn't learn any lessons from 2006. The Dems learned all of the wrong ones. We'll see which one hurts more.
-=Mike

Just hope you cons understa... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Just hope you cons understand that your unhinged comments here disqualify you from ever working on a political campaign, according to your goalposts. Just looking for consistency, that's all. Not that anyone who wants to win would allow you within 10 miles of their campaign.

The GOP hasn't tried to hir... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The GOP hasn't tried to hire bloggers to any great extent. Yeah, McCain has hired Henke and Hynes, but they have nothing in their closets, unlike Edwards' two.

Hey, the left made this fair game when they decided to go after whomever wrote for Redstate that was hired by the Washington Post briefly.

But the crew here has FAR fewer skeletons than the ones Edwards has allegedly --- it's still not official --- fired.

The major conservative blogs toned down the rage years ago.
-=Mike

So I gather that you are ex... (Below threshold)
Reality:

So I gather that you are excluded from working for a politician if you have a blog (move those goalposts) that criticizes the other party in harsh terms?

I guess you'll be demanding Tony Snow's resignation, right?

(Preparing for further goalpost moving from cons)

"Hey, the left made this fa... (Below threshold)
Reality:

"Hey, the left made this fair game when they decided to go after whomever wrote for Redstate that was hired by the Washington Post briefly."

So plagiarism is ok if you're a Republican, is that it now?

"The major conservative blogs toned down the rage years ago"

That statement is so false it's hilarious. Ever been to Little Green Football's lately? Like for example today?

After 9/11, it was determin... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

After 9/11, it was determined for security reasons that the Speaker should have access to a government jet, since he or she is third in line of succession. I know it's hard for you righties to think of Pelosi as being third in line, but this is perfectly reasonable.

The Sergeant at Arms is a former Secret Service agent. I suppose you idiots think the Secret Service is also trained to sit around, and only make plans when specifically asked to? JimK, I don't know if you've ever reported to a senior executive, but believe me, you do not only speak when spoken to. You try to proactively think of every contingency, and have an answer to questions before they're asked. It's can-do attitudes like your that made this country great. Do you really think transitions consist of the incoming administration being responsible for thinking of everything that needs to be done, and the support staff only addresses issues that they've specifically been asked about? Either you're too obstinate to admit you're wrong, or you're an idiot.

While all kinds of media use unnamed sources, it's the named sources in this story that are telling. The Republican congressional dellgation seems to be providing the most inflammatory pieces to this story. Roy Blunt says he "heard" that Pelosi wants a plane with a bedroom. He "heard"? That's a source? Please. People can make what they want out of Pelosi's alleged requests for perks. But the facts are, the plane Hastert used is insufficient for Pelosi's use, because it would require stops to refuel. I think when most people travel they try to book a non-stop. Why is it so outrageous for the Speaker to ask the same?

You'll also notice that the story that she wants to be able to fly "supporters" comes from congressional and administration sources. Gee, why would congressional Republicans spread baseless stories about Pelosi? I can't imagine.

According to Pelosi's office, they asked the Pentagon for guidelines on who can travel on the plane. If they presented a list of people, including family members, other Congressmen, and political supporters, why can't it be that they want to make sure they don't carry any unauthorized people? Of course, it's easier to report that Pelosi "wants to carry political supporters." By the way, Pelosi's office says they're still waiting for a response from the Pentagon.

ABC News reports that "Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col Cathy Reardon tells ABC News that when Hastert used the plane, "it was himself, and he usually had one to three staff members and two security staff -- members of the Capitol police force. His wife would sometimes fly, and he reimbursed the government for everyone." So, I guess Hastert was on the up and up, and only used the plane for a limited number of people.

But here's an interesrting quote from the Oct. 9th Chicago Sun-Tines: "A week ago Sunday, about 8 p.m., (Republican Congressman)Shimkus arrived at Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to pick up his ride back to Washington. As speaker, Hastert flies on U.S. aircraft. The government plane picked up Shimkus and then headed to Aurora to board Hastert, who spent the weekend at his Plano home."

Wait a minute. You mean Hastert gave a ride to a Congessman? Not only that, but the plane picked him up at a different airport than Hastert's? But I thought Hastert never did that. And it was Shimkus, at a time they were trying to control the Foley scandal. I can see why it was in the government's interest to see that Shimkus got back to D.C. as quickly as possible. No partisan interest there.

<a href="http... (Below threshold)
Lee:

White House defends Pelosi plane request

WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Some Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi has requested. Pelosi, a Democrat, asked for access to a C-32, a military version of the Boeing 757-200, that could fly to her hometown of San Francisco without refueling.

"It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi said Wednesday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."

The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee nonstop service.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips back home.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.

Rep. Adam Putnam (news, bio, voting record) of Florida, the No. 3 Republican leader, called Pelosi's desire for a large transport plane "an extravagance of power that the taxpayers won't swallow."

"It's important we see what the specific request was," Putnam said.

But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office -- or the White House.

The guidelines provided by the Pentagon say Pelosi could be accompanied by family members, provided they pay the government coach fare. The plane could not be used for travel to political events. Members of Congress could accompany her on the plane if the travel is cleared by the House ethics committee.

Now, do the bloggers and commenters at this site have as much integrity as the White House is now showing in debunking this smear?

Wavemaker? LoveAmerica? JimK? The rest of you knuckleheads? What say you now?

Meanwhile, the lies and smears have done their damage to Pelosi's repution, and it is only several days later that the truth comes out.

Gald you guys are helping out the terrorists with their quest to (divide and) conquer the U.S. -- I just wish you weren't on their side so often....

Hilarious Lee! Even their ... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Hilarious Lee! Even their own President's White House is debunking their unhinged claims! I guess Tony Snow is just a tool for the "liberal media".

Cons, when are you going to get tired of being wrong EVERY time?

Hello? Anyone there? Any ... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Hello? Anyone there? Any of the wingnuts want to comment on your White House making you look (again) like a fool?

As they say, cue the cricke... (Below threshold)
mantis:

As they say, cue the crickets.

It's also interesting to no... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

It's also interesting to note that the right-wing losers here are more interested in this than they are in a $16 BILLION contract Dick Cheney's Halliburton has in Iraq. That's $16 BILLION!!! Can anyone say "conflict of interest"? Can anyone say "favoritism"? Can anyone say "disgusting use of taxpayer money to personally enrich the vice president"?

Clearly, the hypocritical right-wing in this country has NO shame.

What are the odds that Kim ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

What are the odds that Kim will "update and bump" this story again?

Setting the record straight? Integrity? Truth? Honor? Do these words mean anything to conservatives?

Naw - it's just smear, and then move on to the next lie and smear. It'll take a couple of days for the truth to surface, and meanwhile the damage is done.

America is under attack, from within. This has to stop.

Yea, maggy but can we REALL... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Yea, maggy but can we REALLY say anything about the Halliburton heist when a Democrat somewhere had an extra margarita with dinner on the public expense? I mean, it's REALLY the same thing. No wonder the voters rejected them last November.

Gee, what happened to the c... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Gee, what happened to the con commenters? Cat got their tongue?

KimSo when are you... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

So when are you going to acknowledge the WH statement & stop clinging to the Putnam/McHenry sliming tactics?

Cat got your tongue?

The 'supposedly' empty desk... (Below threshold)
Liisen:

The 'supposedly' empty desk at the pentagon is still working hard at discrediting Nancy Polosi for her stance on Iraq.

Looks like Tony Snow isn't ... (Below threshold)
John:

Looks like Tony Snow isn't promoting the Nancy "Drunk with Power" Pelosi meme, eiether.

Kim, ready for your next update?

Yet again, the left uses Bu... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yet again, the left uses Bush being classy to cover up their sheer sleaze.
-=Mike

"She's effectively taking a... (Below threshold)
Pat:

"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 above is the comment made by the Air Force spokesman talking about the 3 planes capable of making the non-stop flight from D.C. to Calif.

Note, he does not say the Republicans or the Democrats are big users of the planes. He says,
"Congress looks at that fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."

Maybe Pelosi was only asking for something she thought was pretty common to the rest of members of Congress. Maybe instead of bashing one person or one party, we ought to be looking into exactly how all the the Congressional members are travelling, who's travelling with them, and how much are we taxpayers spending for them to do the running around in their "Hertz" jets.

Yet again, the left uses... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yet again, the left uses Bush being classy to cover up their sheer sleaze.

LOL! And just what is the "classy" act that you are attributing to Bush? That he spoke out in defense of someone on the left who was being fraudulently smeared by right-wing sleaze mongers such as... yourself?

KimOkay, <a href="... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

Okay, you have parlayed this BS Pelosi plane crap about as far as you can.

Are you so "Drunk w/ Hatred Over the '06 Election Loss" that you are going to hang on every comma and every supposition that you can drag out from the Wash Times and the frothing RWB sites and continue to make a colossal fool of yourself.

You show that, to paraphrase the Great Limbarf, that you are just a part of the "drive by rightie bloggers" who will take any thin thread of an allegation and use it to slime your opponents, the hell w/ the facts.

You made such a point of analyzing what a Sergaent-at-Arms might do as opposed to likely Pelosi input to garner her AF 1, that you failed to take into account that the S-a-A is also part of the Secret Service, responsible for the security of House members.

All this was orchestrated by a few contemptible GOP House members like girlie-man McHenry, Blunt w/ his sleazy private background and the wet-behind-the-ears Adam Putnam.

You're in such fine company, Kim. Do you shower after your posts to get the muck off of yourself fafter sliming w/ your fellow-travelers.

At long last, Kim, have you no journalistic decency?

My only question is this; h... (Below threshold)
Rich:

My only question is this; how exactly is Hastert loaded on and off planes? I mean, the man is a planet! My guess is that Nancy Pelosi and 10 of her friends could all stand on Hastert's belly. Isn't gluttony a sin?

LOL! And just what is th... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

LOL! And just what is the "classy" act that you are attributing to Bush? That he spoke out in defense of someone on the left who was being fraudulently smeared by right-wing sleaze mongers such as... yourself?

YES.

I've not seen ONE Democrat apologize for accusing Karl Rove of leaking Plame's name. Never seen one apology over the Gannon fiasco. Not one apology for claiming that Bush helped Enron.

Nothing. I've not seen a Dem apologize for ANYTHING.

It's just smear, smear, smear. Bush actually defended his enemies when he should have twisted the knife.
-=Mike

<a href="http://www.talking... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Man, you suck:

Putnam now acknowledges he had no personal knowledge of any Pelosi request. He said he was commenting on an anonymously-sourced story in The Washington Times and additional coverage from CNN.

"This was a classic case where the media got out in front of us," Putnam said. "Did we jump on it? Yes."

And he is unapologetic about that. He calls the Pelosi plane story, whatever its legitimacy, "the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke."




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