Posted on 02/08/2007 10:58:40 AM PST by presidio9
ROFL!!!
bump!
Just possibly Pelosi doesn't relilsh the idea of a layover in an airport in "flyover country" where she is most likely very unpopluar. Also, don't you know how extremely valuable her time is! God, I hope if anyone is reading this who actually stayed home from voting in November that that person is sufficiently pleased with the result of his action.
Liberals are being victimized by the military?
There's your MSM line....
It takes a big plane to get throught that marble ceiling.
As "Bella Pelosi" can't she just use her bat wings?
1) She wants to get home ASAP. Not waste an hour landing - refueling- taking off
2) Non stop means you are a big shot
For the democrat party, this IS an ethics change. This time they didn't send in the stealth goons forthwith to murder anyone. That we know of, that is.
She could get a flight on a C-130 and do an in-flight refuel from a C-17.
Problem solved bitch.
So why the threat from murtha???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781441/posts
THE INITIAL THREAT
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Pelosi ally who chairs the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he has spoken to Pentagon officials about the need to provide Pelosi with a bigger plane that can fly passengers coast to coast in comfort.... "I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do." Murtha said.
(San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIRMAN THREATENS TO CUT DEFENSE FUNDING AFTER AMERICA LEARNS OF PELOSI PLANE DEMAND
"Late Wednesday afternoon, one of Pelosi's closest allies in the House, Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the key Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense, told CNN that the Pentagon was making 'a mistake' by leaking information unfavorable to the speaker 'since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense.'"
(CNN, ABC News, 2/8/2007)
(San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)
Is this one of those 100 first hours things? ;-D
"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
What crap!
Murtha was calling the millitary and griping that it was "Sexist" to refuse her.
Well we all know Who has Murtha's Marbles in a silk pouch.
Let Her ride in a Big Baloon and call it "Gas-Bag one"
IF she flys on an Air Force plane wouldn't this plane stop at an Air Force base to refuel? What is more secure than an Air Force base?
We need to get a sign for the plane "BIT** ON BOARD!"
Notice how often this phrase creeps into the reportage concerning San Fran Nan? Remember how the Media implying that Newt was 'too big for his britches' during the fiasco over Air Force 1? The contrast is interesting isn't it?
Whats going on here?
Pelosi was offered a C-20, the same aircraft that hassert uses.
Her complaint is that its non coast to coast capable.
However, the C-20 has a range of 4,250 miles. (see http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=87 )
I know california is far left, but it hasnt moved THAT far left.
Her complaints of aircraft range are simply false.
She needs to be told "why don't you do that ---bitch"
I don't think there's any dispute that the Speaker of the House should have access to secure transportation, whoever that Speaker may be. Pelosi has been caught trying to force a guaranteed upgrade in size and accommodate her retinue, also FALSELY claiming that every having to refuel enroute would be a SECURITY issue (bogus) rather than a convenience issue.
The three issues going forward which are quite significant, IMHO, are:
(1) It is simply a LIE to claim that being in a military C-20 which might sometimes have to land to refuel* is a security problem for the Speaker;
(2) The Speaker (apparently) tryinig to ensure accommodation for her friends and family;
(3) BIGGEST issue now: Rep. Murtha threatening the funding of the US military in time of war over this issue.
Pelosi and Murtha deserve to be fried on this..... jmho.
*Although it appears that the C-20s in question should not have a refueling issue, at least not very often, only that the AF said it could not "guarantee" that there would never be a refueling stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.