Posted on 02/09/2007 7:50:29 AM PST by presidio9
Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday.
Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons.
"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.
"I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue," the statement said.
Pelosi is striking back against accusations she asked for a plane larger and more expensive than the one used by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a claim published last week in The Washington Times.(Watch Pelosi call the GOP charges "a myth" )
The Times article, headlined "Pelosi's Power Trip -- Non-stop Nancy Seeks Flight of Fancy," led the Republican National Committee to send out a research briefing and blast Pelosi on the House floor.
The article said Pelosi asked the Pentagon for "routine access" to a military plane "not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation," quoting sources "familiar with the discussions."
"I have never asked for a larger plane," Pelosi said. "This is a myth that they are talking about on the floor."
The White House also stood behind Pelosi.
"As speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport and ... the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms Office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
oh, then maybe bill didn't get lewinskied, and ms. petrolisky isn't being flown for a livingood. jmho
That nonstop Nancy term kinda made me chuckle...hadn't heard that one yet...and Botox One.
Yeah right! Ol' Stretch is pushing him out to take the heat for her and to try to defuse the story.
Before this is over the masses will be convinced that the real situation is that by asking for a larger plane rainforests will be saved, endangered species will proliferate and no children will go hungry in America.
In other words, when all is said and done, Nuancy will turn this into a positive for her and all Dems everywhere.
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
I no longer have a brain
And yes, I've paid the price
My face's been lifted thrice
But look at how much I have gained
I demand a big jet plane
I am strong (strong)
I am insufferable (insufferable)
I am Nancy ....
"oh, then maybe bill didn't get lewinskied, and ms. petrolisky isn't being flown for a livingood. jmho"
Too early for drinking, isn't it?
JMHO
Someone at the Pentagon saw this, said no friggin' way, and leaked the story to the conservative blogs in order to cut her off at the knees the only way they were able to do. Now she's forced to spin and backtrack and take essentially the same deal that Dennis Hasteret had.
Like someone else up-thread, said, this was a power play gone bad. And as mean and vindictive and vicious as these democrats are, you'd better believe many someones will pay dearly for destroying it.
You have never been lied to, eh? LOL
The White House extends grace and professional courtesy. The Dem Congress extends libel, slander and professional assasination.
Upon further reflection, I will be going with "Palominogate"
Security has nothing to do with this issue. The government uses it to increase their princedom.
It has backfired, which is why the WH backed away and allowed her to keep at it. I think they knew she would blame anyone who did not let her have her way. They stayed out of the fray and in the meantime, dems have looked for people and institutions to blame so that they can rant "it wasn't us" for a failed plan.
I think this is a non-story. That being said, the Speaker should not be entitled to military transport for the simple reason that it is unconstitutional for the Speaker, the President Pro Tem of the Senate or anyone else who is not an officer of the Executive Branch to be in the presidential line of succession. Article II, section 1, clause 6 provides that Congress may legislate to provide which "Officer" shall act as president in cases of vacancy or inability in the presidency and vice presidency. I believe that Congress may only choose an "Officer" of the Executive Branch to be in the line of succession, since (i) the power is included in Article II, which refers to the Executive Branch, and (ii) naming an "Officer" of the Legislative or Judicial Branches (or of a state government, for that matter) create conflicts of interest and possible violations of separation of power, and would result in untenable situations (such as the Pres. and VP being temporarily unable to serve due to a concussion, the Speaker having to resign from the House to act as president, and then the Pres. or VP recovering the next day, meaning that the Speaker is no longer acting as either president or a member of the House).
Even better. Next time you see him ask him when he ever had to comment on a non-story before.
Hey Livingood, Shut up!
Wasn't Hastert given a Gulfstream for his use? The Queen and her jester Murtha need to get over it. Her first hundred hours is a joke, but thank God she stamped out smoking in the boys room at the Capitol.
You're very naive about the way things work on the Hill.
Career staffers do not offer cover to elected officials. However they do tell the truth when called to do so.
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.