Posted on 02/08/2007 10:58:40 AM PST by presidio9
Addressing a swarm of reporters on Capitol Hill on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the controversy over her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane by saying that she would have no problem flying commercially if a secure military plane is not offered.
"I have told them that I will travel cross-country, non-stop commercially as I have done and always done probably — how many times — a thousand times since I've been in Congress, so this will be nothing new to me," Pelosi said.
The White House defended the Democratic leader of the House 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.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Defense Department 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.
Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown across the country in California without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.
In an interview with Fox News television Thursday, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.
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.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from the Midwest, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.
Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert's practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.
"I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial," she told Fox News. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family" in San Francisco.
Rep. Adam Putnam, 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.
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.