ADDED: Scott Lemieux -- who has a bizarre case of Althouse Derangement Syndrome -- links to this post and rants obtusely about how it's a post-9/11 security requirement that the Speaker of the House fly in a military plane as opposed to a commercial plane. But this post is about a controversy over the size of the military plane she should have, not about whether or not she should have a military plane. He points out that Hastert got a military plane. Well, duh, Scott, that's in the article I linked to:
[A]fter the Sept. 11 attacks, it was deemed that anyone two heartbeats away from the presidency warranted a military jet.And then read the text of my post, which doesn't criticize Pelosi for wanting a military plane by for "her desire to avoid having her plane stop to refuel." You know, words have meaning. Two words you might want to learn are "never" and "mind." And then maybe "I'm" and "sorry." You twit.
Until now, the only speaker affected was Republican J. Dennis Hastert, who commuted to his Illinois district in small executive-style military jets.
But those aircraft require ideal weather conditions to make the cross-country trip without stopping to refuel....
The Defense Department delivered a letter to Pelosi late Wednesday that "offers her, as a courtesy, the same provisions to travel that Speaker Hastert had," said a senior Defense official.
Lemieux['s blog] had to withdraw a rant about me on Thursday because his own commenters explained how he was being an idiot and got it wrong. Let's see if he figures out his boo-boo this time and corrects it. I don't normally link to my haters, but I'm going to make an exception just to say that Scott's bumbling is especially ridiculous. [NOTE: I see now that it was a co-blogger with the near-invisible moniker "d" that wrote the post that was regretted. Lemieux writes about me constantly over there, and I was wrong to assume that post was another one of his droppings. Apparently, the ADS over there is contagious, but d hasn't got it as bad.]
I thought Scott was a lawyer, because his blog is called "Lawyers, Guns, and Money," and I was going to say I feel for his clients, but it turns out he's a political science professor, and I don't think there's a law school to blame for his consistently poor reading, wildly flailing attacks, and obsession with a certain female law professor. Get well soon, loser. ADS is a ravaging disease for pathetic little men.
पोस्ट्स
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
Because Hastert's plane might just make it, or might not, depending on stuff like prevailing winds, and cargo. She has never requested any particular plane, of any size. Only that it doesn't drop out of the sky. What is so hard to understand about this?
"It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi said Wednesday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."
"I have told them," Pelosi said, "I would travel cross-country, nonstop, commercially, as I have done and always done, probably... how many times? A thousand times since I've been in Congress. This would be nothing new for me."
If you don't like the plance the DoD ends up giving her, isn't that something you need to take up with them?
Full Disclosure:
I ask respectfully that is, looking back I do come off caustic sometimes. Also I don't have a "thing" for anybody here, let alone Ann, I don't have a blog, and I've never bad-mouthed Ann or commentors on any other blog. I fall into a bad habit of swinging back as hard as I feel them, so to speak. So I'll run along if told. Probably anyways.
"This is a silly story." - Tony Snow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
We know who the real Haters are around here.
Some of Ann's students who secretly record her law lectures, and then put the videos up on YouTube.
Strangely, Ann doesn't mind, nor does she feel it's a violation of her privacy.
Peace, Maxine
Naked Lunch said...
"I do come off caustic sometimes. Also I don't have a "thing" for anybody here, let alone Ann, I don't have a blog"
FWIW, I'd read it if you started one.
Maxine, I must have missed that. Links please! ;)
I disagree, I think it is about safety.
Would you want to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi waiting on the tarmack at some military base in some awful fly-over/Red State while her plane is being refueled?
Those yahoos not only have guns, but they know how to use them.
I'm perfectly OK with her doing everything possible to avoid ever setting foot into a Red State while she serves in office.
As far as appearances go, the reason Hastert wasn't taken to task for this is partly cause he was only going to Ohio, so shorter distances, but also cause the Republicans didn't run against a "Culture of Corruption" and promised loudly and often about how they'd clean up DC.
On top of that, someone who claims to take the 'mortal threat' posed by 'global warming' seriously should find alternative methods to travelling than a specially scheduled private jet that burns over 10,000lbs of carbon per hour and demand it be disposed of at the whims of a single person (and their extensive retinue).
The argument that 'the president and vice-president' get one is lame, I'm pretty sure Tip O'Neill managed fine with commercial shuttles and or the train.
She may be 3rd in line as far as the Constitution is concerned, but she's also one of hundreds of Representatives elected to do a job, and any other Democratic House Member can step up in the unlikely event something happens to her (which would be horrible, but wouldn't shake the nation like the death of a president or vice-president (even unpopular ones)).
I say a Willie Nelson like Biodiesel tour-bus would be the way to go.
With rotating drivers (and functioning toilets) you can get across this great nation in 3-4 days easily. She might even find that there are some good folks in 'fly-over country'.
Molon, Simon,
Thanks.
Maxine, I'm not a hater, or an ex student. And I'm sure I've broken some blog-host etiquette by my direct and confrontational style. But that's it.
Naked Lunch said...
"I'm sure I've broken some blog-host etiquette by my direct and confrontational style. But that's it."
Three of the people I like and admire most are former Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed and Justices Black and Scalia. You can infer from this that I have no problem with people who are direct, confrontational, or even caustic. ;)
"Hastert was going to Illinois, not Ohio."
Doh! (should have checked my facts, first)
What can I say, I get my fly-over states mixed up, as well.
(Though I think some in Illinois might consider themselves somewhat more 'coastal' than their neighbors)
Tip for future SotH who want their own jet, as driven by the USAF:
1. Don't lead off your justification by saying, "As a woman..."
2. Don't allow John Murtha to point out that you control allocations to the Pentagon.
How does it meet the security requirements? Say Pelosi is in her district and an emergency comes up requiring her presence in the Capitol. Perhaps its because Saddam Hussein has gotten his terrorists to attack the White House and succeeded in assassinating Bush and Cheney. Perhaps its Bin Laden, who after all escaped from Bush at Tora Bora. Perhaps Cheney has shot Bush in the face.
She has the Gulfstream that doesn't have the communications equipment to stay in contact, nor can it make the trip in any weather, or non-stop.
Her return to communications with the Capitol is delayed from three hours to a day or more.
What could have happened in that time?
Her are the facts:
1. Pelosi has volunteered to travel by commercial jet which would be cheaper and faster.
2. The Air Force offers her a jet that is inadequate, it is expensive, and it requires refuelings.
3. The Pretzeldent agrees after 9/11 that the Speaker requires this security. The Pretzeldent agrees even now that Pelosi requires this security.
4. Pelosi asks the Air Force for a jet that meets the requirements.
5. The Air Force says that 21 people can request that jet, but refuse to allow the third in secession to the Pretzeldent access.
6. DINOs like Ann Althouse continue to flog a discredited story at the same time they ask people to believe they are both moderates and conservative blog divas.
Tiresome Ann, just like your act.
"reality check"
Now that's an act..
Can someone explain how Nancy Pelosi has the nerve to tell a group of veterans that her desire to avoid having her plane stop to refuel is all about security?
Because the security experts in our government told her stopping to refuel would be a breach of security?
This has been another edition of "Simple Answers to Questions From Bought-And-Paid-For Moronic Brownshirt Fucks"...
I don't give a shit if you post it or not - just as long as you read it.
"security experts in our government"
Oh those guys, having worked with some, I can understand the confusion (eyes roll)
Nice to have you around Dave, Doyle and his little bro Reality Check aren't nearly as smart as you.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php
For Immediate Release
February 8, 2007
As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.
In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. 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. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.
Ann, do you plan on updating your post to account for the Sergeant at Arms' statement?
OMG! After years of fighting the good fight alongside Ann against the Dhimmicraps, Cedarford has contracted BDS!
Federal Express one day ship to residence less than $800 for weight 120 lbs. Better than the estimated $22,000 an hour.
Think she'll go for it?
Fuck the Ruling Elites - Republican, Democratic, Corporate - I'm sick of it.
Exactly....
realitycheck, you *do* realize, I presume, that the AF has smaller planes (the C37A, I believe) that can fly non-stop to San Fran, do you not?
Clear this up. Did the Speaker (or one of her representatives/flunkies) ask for the *bigger* of the two planes capable of non-stop flight to San Fran or did she not. How much of an 'entourage' should she get to take with her?
Looks to me like you're trying extremely hard to muddy the waters. Why?
reality check
I find it interesting that one of the "facts" that you cite is the cost of the smaller plane. Do you have any idea of the cost of flying a Boing 757-200 coast to coast instead of the much smaller plane? Probably about half the cost of AF-1, a 747. One estimate I heard today was $300k or so each way, or over a half a million dollars every time she goes home. Paid for by the American taxpayers.
Some minor facts about that aircraft. It flies over 100 in comfort, and, of course a lot more when packed in by the airlines. The terrorists on 9/11 hijacked a combination of 757s and 767s and it was the amount of fuel onboard these aircraft that brought down the WTC and caused so much damage to the Pentagon. (The WTC towers were designed to withstand a direct hit by a 707, but not these much larger aircraft). This is not a small aircraft. And, indeed, they are almost never used in the civilian sector even by the richest men in this country. I believe Paul Allen has one, and Warren Buffet occasionally uses one. Maybe a Saudi prince or two?
And security - regardless of what she gets, it will be an Air Force jet, and thus most likely not refueled at municipal airports, but rather at an Air Force base. That is not a place where terrorist attacks are all that likely. Of course, that would be inconvenient, but it would still cut hours and hours off of a commercial flight.
What part of "Pelosi has volunteered to travel by commercial jet which would be cheaper and faster" do you guys find so hard to understand?
What part of "it was the Sergeant at Arms that asked for this plane" are you folks stumbling over.
What part of the air force agrees the small plane they are offering to her can't make the trip in any sort of weather?
Do you guys just hate Pelosi because she is a Dem, because she is a woman, or both?
Face it, you guys just have bush derangement syndrome and you are willing to tear the country apart over it. Pretty disgusting for me to have to come here and participate with a bunch of idjits that are trying to finish the job Bin Laden started.
Sigh.
The C-37 is the military version of the Gulfstream V, while the C-40 is based on the 737-300.
The Gulfstream has nearly twice the range of the 737-300 - 5800 nm vs. 3000 nm. So if range is the issue, then you're better off with the C-37. In fact, the only thing in the military VIP transport fleet with a longer unrefueled range is the VC-25A - otherwise known as Air Force One.
Debate who said and/or demanded what, but don't debate the aircraft specs - the Gulfstream actually has enough range to fly nonstop from Washington to Hawaii and circle around for awhile. Check out this
nifty aircraft range graphic for the G500 (Gulfstream V).
Note that on the link I posted, you must select the "range maps" tab to bring up the range graphic.
Also, the 757-200 has been tossed around as the aircraft that was asked for. This is the Air Force C-32. This aircraft has a range of about 4000 nm - still less than the C-37/Gulfstream V, the plane Hastert "made do" with.
One of the birds that Hastert used that Nancy appears to have rejected looks like it would be perfect: a C-20 (aka Gulfstream III) with a unrefueled endurance of 4200-4850 Miles. Of course it only carries 12 at 576 MPH and a crew of 5.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87
she is holding out apparently for a C-40 (aka 737-700), it has a range of 4500-5000 miles at a slower 520 MPH but carries 26-111 minions and a crew of 10.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=189
Worldwide secure and non-secure passenger communication capability exists on both aircraft.
You're very knowledgeable! More knowledgeable than the Air Force since they agree that the planes they offer can't make it across the country unrefueled in adverse weather.
Perhaps its because they aren't offering her a C-37 but a C-20? But if you can get her into a C-37, I think you should definitely make the calls to do that.
"The source said that Pentagon officials and the Bush administration have instead offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.
A C-20 can make the 700-mile flight to Hastert's Aurora, Ill., district easily but would generally have to stop to refuel to complete the 2,800-mile trip from Washington, D.C. to the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on the headwinds."
C-20, C-32, C-37, C-40 you guys are just making me wet with all your numbers!
Sadly, none of you have any sources that say things like "she is holding out", or "she requested", or "Hastert used a", and none of you have confronted information like "The Sergeant at Arms says he asked", or "Tony Snow says this is silly and hte White House thinks she should get the jet she needs", all of which together makes me all tense and dries me up.
Do you guys just hate Pelosi because she is a Dem, because she is a woman, or both?
I dislike her because she represents the hypocrisy of the left. The "do as I say but not as I do" elites who wish to control every aspect of our lives. The want us to cut back on lighting, gasoline and tell us just how we should sacrifice to save the planet from "global warming". They do none of the sacrificing themselves and in fact are the biggest per capita users of resources.
Until the Streisands, John Edwards, Kennedy, Pelosis, Baldwins and all the rest give up their luxuries cars, limit themselves to just ONE McMansion, install drought tolerant landscaping, cease heating their pools and quit jetting all over the place in private jets or those provided by my tax dollars......all I see are hypocritical tyrants. When they start sacrificing...I might consider it myself, but not until then.
What Nancy has done by requesting a monstrously large plane while telling the rest of us that we must cut down on heating and drive less, is to expose the lies that they are trying to cram down the throats of the public.
At least Hillary is up front about her intention to take away things from us for our "own good". Dear God! spare us from the do good tyrants!!
I'm just amused that the resident "liberals" are defending a rich white woman who is demanding that a huge plane be provided by the taxpayers to fly her and 100 of her closest friends back and forth on personal business. What happened to "speak truth to power"? Or does that not apply when the truth is uncomfortable and the power is your political ally?
I don't understand why we're paying any of these people, frankly.
Reality Check:
Sorry, but this is pathetic and I don't know if you don't get it, or are being deliberately obtuse.
IT'S THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID!
If Speaker Pelosi was that "comfortable" with flying commercial, isn't there anyone in the Speaker's Office capable of picking up a phone and booking a ticket? God knows hundreds of thousands of mere mortals all over the planet manage this onerous task every day of the week.
It's also less than comforting that the SaA, apparently doesn't consider the nation's airports are safe for Congressmen. And shall we mention the Democrat's own campaign rhetoric about being fiscally and environmentally responsible - only for the hoi polloi, I suppose.
If Pelosi had any balls she would say, "Screw it, I'm not a partisan controlled pork monkey like those in the Republican party, I'm going to fly commercial and you can't stop me!"
Oh, Divine One: When you get off that High Horse of yours, I trust you will acknowledge that YOU made this political. And YOU jumped to all kinds of revealing and inaccurate conclusions at the same time. See update.
Bravo, bozo!
NBC News and news services
Updated: 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Air Force transport plane decried by Republicans as an extravagance for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was requested by the House sergeant-at-arms as a matter of security, he said Thursday.
“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue,” Bill Livingood said in a news release. He said because Pelosi lives in California he was compelled “to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.”
This story has been fed by the murderously inaccurate and over-reaching right wing in this country..it was literally shouted from the rooftops and then THEN when it is found to be a strawdog, spun from the typically hysterical jackels on the right - what happens...they just shut up...but they never apologize.
These gutless whimpering turds are purely evil types and if you wonder why the country is sick to deeth of this ilk...from Rush to Bush...you have only to examine the sorry comments on this thread.
You were told a lie and you swallowed it hook link and sinker.
You people are galling. You really are.
hdhouse & ajd:
For people who hate the 'right-wing' so much, you're displaying all the psychotic Tourette's symptoms of Republican hacks at their worse. Sorry darlings - I actually think politicians of all stripes should be held accountable for living up their campaign rhetoric. I think low election turnouts prove that what a majority of Americans are truly sick of are politi-crits and their slobering attack dogs.
She has never requested any particular plane, of any size.
Actually, that is very much incorrect. She specifically requested a specific plane.
And in what universe is refueling at an Air Force Base a risk to anybody's security?
She wants us to limit carbon consumption, and then demands a plane the spews more carbon in an hour than I do in a year.
I guess the left just wants people to be more equal than others.
-=Mike
"I have never asked for any larger plane," Pelosi said. "I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_co/pelosi_plane
Yup - the politics of personal destruction are back again. Nevermind what the truth is. Nobody complained when Hastert had his own private plane. Is anyone surprised?
Not sure if anybody else noticed this quote from the original post article:
"Pelosi suggested that the Bush administration was trying to sabotage her. "The … misrepresentation could [only] be coming from the administration, and one would only have to wonder why," she said."
Sounds like both sides are guilty of politicizing this little issue. Which is odd, because it's the DoD, and not the White House or Congress, that assigns these transport planes, and the Sgt. at Arms that put in the request.
dear craig and mike:
i'll try and keep this simple so you idiots can follow:
1. she didn't request the plane or a larger plane. the request to the pentagon came from sergeat at arms who is charged with the responsibility.
2. the leak came from the pentagon
3. EVERYTHING that has been spun to you is a lie. GOT IT? You were lied to.
The most impressively ignorant thing you have done here is that someone presents you with a link to a story that goes into it and explains these and other points and you post immediately the same bullcrap that Drug Limbaugh types have been spewing all day.
It scares me that the republican base is this stupid.
hdhouse:
Thanks for proving my point. I think my record of being critical of Republicans when I think criticism is due speaks for itself, so (as the saying goes) keep telling lies about me, because I won't stop telling the truth about you. I'm quite capable of following links, but that doesn't mean I will swallow partisan hackery of any stripe.
And I'm certainly not getting down into your sewer and trading childish insults with you.
well craig...then don't be a child. think for yourself. you got caught redhanded dipping in the limbaugh pot and there you go.
drudge set you up a few weeks ago and the dutiful rightwing fell for it with ease. the pentagon sets you up through leaks, hannity and the other mooses leap to the bait and you guys stick to it like tarbaby.
it is a pathetic exhibition of being told what to say and saying it.
This iteration of mud-slinging is positive in that it may rouse tax-payers from their stupor to demand itemized accounting of the political welfare subsidized these elites: perhaps the establishment of a tax-payer oversight committee. Will demand for genuine reform finally take root and along with it a national revolt for term limits?
It's "amusing" to watch as even you dumbsh*ts that backed Bush's atrocities for years become disillusioned in your pretzeldent.
Can you admit your own responsibility? No, it's not your fault, it's the fault of all politicians, including we find out here, Clinton and the Democrats.
Couldn't be you guys eagerly sucked down and swallowed a bill of goods.
Luckily we still have Ann, who has more balls than you guys and will stay to the end and never in any manner admit her mistakes.
Eric said...
"It seems she's been told she cannot take a commercial flight. What is she supposed to do?"
I want her to either stand up to her staff and take a commercial flight or can the environmental talk and admit that the demands of her job prove that her policy view is wrong: important people need to use private air travel. And frankly, I don't care which. I don't really care whether she has her cake or eats it, but she can't do both.
I think it's fairly clear, now that the facts are out, that most people's knee-jerk reaction was way off the mark. Pelosi has said she would be happy to take a commercial flight and has taken probably 1000 back and forth commercial flights since being in congress.
The Sergeant-at-Arms has confirmed that it was his request, not Pelosi's.
My guess is that Republican hacks are lining up a string of these so-called "scandals" so that come Summer of '08 they can run adds about the "elite democrats" who "must" have their own 757 to ferry them back and forth. I can just hear the Ad now: "Nancy Pelosi and the democrats are so out of touch with middle America that they refuse to land there."
At that point, most voters wont even remember the actual facts of the issue. They'll just have an impression. Anne, you should be embarrassed for falling for this one.
ModNewt - I don't understand why you think it matters whether Pelosi requested it, whether the SaA requested it, or whether the SaA requested it under instruction from Pelosi. The story is the hypocrisy of Pelosi's do as I say not as I do position: the only thing that vitiates that story is if she refuses the plane or drops her pretense of environmentalism.
hdhouse:
Whatever. I guess I should merely be amused by partisan hacks who loudly accuse others of their own sins, but I don't. As others have said, Pelosi can live up to her own campaign rhetoric or not (does the phrase "most ethical Congress ever" ring any bells?), take ownership of her own actions or not, and stop using her gender as a get of jail free card every time she faces criticism or not. Just don't try and have it both ways.
And with all due disrespect to modnewt, it's a little rich of Democrats to say Beltway hypocrisy and fiscal irresponsibility is now a non-issue. Not after the mid-term campaign you folks ran.
Um, when you're engaging in accusations about "bad readings" it would probably be useful to check and see who wrote the withdrawn post in question...
Huh. Mickey Kaus was always a much better sport, and he could also correctly identify the authorship of LGM posts. Moreover, his replies were substantive, and didn't rely on attacks on our education or personal character.
Who knew that Professor Althouse would manage to be a) denser, and b) more touchy than Mickey?
You're very knowledgeable! More knowledgeable than the Air Force since they agree that the planes they offer can't make it across the country unrefueled in adverse weather.
The C-20B has a range of 4250 miles. The C-20H has more efficient engines and a longer range of 4850 miles. The C-37a has a range of 6300 miles. Worldwide secure and non-secure passenger communication capability is present on these aircraft, which have full comm suites and dedicated comm officers.
Air mileage from DC to SF is 2449 miles. Any of those planes is quite capable of making the trip without refueling (and with considerable safety margin) under almost all conditions that permit flying at all. Even bucking a 200mph jetstream they have sufficient range and safety margin to fly from DC to SF.
Hastert was most often tasked the smaller C-21 (Lear 35A) which has a range of only 2300 miles, and would indeed need to refuel to reach SF. Some of them also lack full comm suites, and they generally carry only a crew of two, and a flight attendant for VIP flights. Nancy wants a Gulfstream (or better, maybe MUCH better) rather than a Lear, which would have to stop to refuel.
What the Air Force cannot guarantee to Pelosi is that one of those bigger planes will be at her beck and call. They really do have other uses than flying Nancy and entourage around, and could be otherwise tasked at any given moment. The military has seven C-20's, nine C-37a's, and seventy-six C-21's. The C-20's and C-37a's are often tasked out for moving wounded service members out of combat areas to hospitals in Germany. One can see why a Lear is a wee bit easier to arrange than a Gulfstream.
The Gulfstreams burn about four times as much fuel/mile as the Lear does, and are, of course, much roomier.
Well, Scott, I see a tiny little image that looks like this: d. I was under the impression that that was a picture of a tiny little prick, and I thought it was you. I'll take your word for it that I was wrong and that despite your loathsomeness, you've managed to find other little pricks who are willing to associate with you. I have corrected my post to indicate that it was not you. Now, have you corrected your vicious stupidity, you pathetic little man?
The C-20B has a range of 4250 miles...
Dropping to the floor and doing a sit down cry because the White House offered Pelosi a plane you don't like -- then spending days googling different types of planes, their mileage, and accomodations etc.
Now THAT will get you back in the majority!
Ooooh, temper temper, Professor Althouse!
That last comment is a keeper. Thanks!
Ooh! He has a small penis!
To hear Larry David tell it, it's not that he has a small penis, but that you have a HUGE vagina.
I mean HUGE VAGINA
\___/
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much,
I'm a far right wing wacko and strong supporter of the President.
Still, I think the speaker of the house rates government transportation to and from her district.
I'm also a pilot and former USAF navigator.
The 'risk' of a refueling stop on a military base is bogus, and a fuel stop only takes half an hour or so.
It sounds to me like the Air Force at first offered her a C-21, the military version of the Learjet 35.
This airplane is fast, but pretty cramped inside, and it would not be able to fly Washington to California reliability without a stop, but it could usually make it west to east. You wouldn't want to though, its small and cramped inside, you're ready to get out after a couple of hours.
Worst of all, this model of Learjet doesn't have a real enclosed toilet, just a curtained off potty.
I can see why she might not have enjoyed this plane on a long flight.
The right plane for the Speaker would be the VC-20, the military version of the classic Gulfstream III. This airplane can easily and quickly fly non-stop from anywhere to anywhere in the continental united States. I carries a flight attendant, first class seats for about 8 people, and best of all a fully enclosed airline style lav. The Gulfstream has one of the very best safety records of any business jet. John Travolta has one. The cost is expensive, but not outrageous.
It would be outrageous if she routinely took a military Boeing 737 or Boeing 757.
Those are just too much airplane for one of 435 congresspeople.
You know what I don't see in the LGM post? A citation to this law that they're relying on. Saying that it's mandated "under legislation passed after 9/11" doesn't really have much credibility in this day and age. Which legislation? Citation, chapter and verse, please.
I'm not saying they're wrong, but the burden of proof to do the research rests on them.
What part of the Sergeant of Arms' statement are you failing to understand Simon? What part of Pelosi's statement are you ignoring.
Can you prove that what she is saying her is false?
Pelosi. Well first of all, let me say that all of this springs from the Sergeant at Arms office, which is in charge of security for Members of Congress and the Speaker of the House. For matters of security, the Sergeant at Arms has said that he wanted the practice to continue, that what was applied to Mr. Hastert, the Speaker of the House since 9/11, to have transportation to and from home to be provided.
I have never asked for any larger plane. I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast. I'm happy to ride commercial coast to coast that way. We've never asked for a larger plane - this is a myth that [the Republicans] are talking about on the floor. They have nothing to say to the American people about the war, the economy, global warming, and the rest. So they have this game they're playing.
The question that you ask though, springs to mind concern: why would the Department of Defense be putting forth any of this information, which is misinformation and mischaracterization of a request by the Sergeant at Arms for security? I know that it is not coming from the President of the United States, because he has really been insistent that I have the security that I need. I myself would rather not have security.
But no, A, we have not asked them for a larger plane; B, this is not my request, this is a request of the Sergeant at Arms; and C, I don't know why they would say that this was necessary for the previous Speaker, but it's not necessary for you - and that's what the Department of Defense seems to be saying, so if you want to take it to place.
I'm not saying that I am being discriminated against because I am a woman, I'm just saying as the first woman Speaker, I have no intention of having less respect for the office I hold than all of the other Speakers that have come before me.
Q. So it sounds like what you're saying is you don't think its right for you to refuel when you are traveling.
Pelosi. No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I don't have to go on that plane. I can go commercial. The security wants me to go on that plane and they are saying we should be able to have a plane that goes coast to coast. I live in California. Mr. Hastert lives in Illinois. For the same security reasons that were necessary in the first place, they don't want to have to stop, they want to go coast to coast. But its not about a larger plane, we're talking about a small plane that is capable of going coast to coast. So what they're talking about on the floor has nothing to do with reality
Burden of proof?
Can any of you wingnuts provide any actual evidence that Pelosi asked for a 737 or 757?
I certainly think I'm allowed to rely on an L.A. Times article that begins: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aides say she just wants to get home to California now and then and would like to do it in a plane that can make it all the way without stopping to refuel."
I certainly think I'm allowed to rely on an L.A. Times article that begins: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aides say she just wants to get home to California now and then and would like to do it in a plane that can make it all the way without stopping to refuel."
Yes, and that is exactly what she has said:
But its not about a larger plane, we're talking about a small plane that is capable of going coast to coast.
The LA Times then goes on to claim the only plane that can do that is the C-40, but as folks here note, there is also the C-37, a smaller plane capable of flying coast to coast. And the LA Times never says she is asking for a C-40.
You are allowed to rely on that article, but you are not allowed to make that article say things it doesn't say. And when others point out statements and facts that contradict that article, you are not allowed to ignore those statements and facts.
Pound the table Ann.
\__/
Further, if you bothered to read the LA Times article, it says "The House sergeant at arms originally advised Pelosi that Hastert had used a military plane and recommended that she use one that didn't need to refuel. " What kind of law professor must you be Ann, who does not even read the material she is citing? I shudder to think.
Reality Check,
I asked for a citation of the law that allegedly mandates the Speaker's conveyance by military plane. In response, you quoted a statement by Pelosi that the House SaA wanted the practise of the speaker having a private plane to continue, and allude to a statement by the SaA upthread, in which he asserts that "it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district," and that the "practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi." I don't need to prove that either of these statements are false, because they're irrelevant to the question I asked. Read closely: what's missing from those statements? That's right, a citation of the provision of law that mandates the Speaker's conveyance by military plane (or for that matter, even a suggestion that it is mandated by law, rather than being a "practise" that began while Hastert was Speaker and that is "reasonable and prudent"). So your reply provdes no answer to my question.
And as to the kind of plane Pelosi requested, that may get you some mileage with some of the people commenting on this story, because different commenters have taken issue with this story for different reasons, but it gets you nowhere with me. For me, the issue is that if Pelosi starts using regular private planes, -- of any kind, provided by anyone, for any reason -- and doesn't drop her environmentalist schtick, she's a hypocrit. Her job has proved that her political view against private air transport is wrong. I can't put it in any plane-er language than that. ;)
I don't care what the sergeant at arms recommended. I was disgusted by the claim that the preference not to have to refuel was characterized as a security matter and also that a huge plane would be used to serve this preference with no consideration for how wasteful that was. We are asked to criticize ordinary families that drive SUVs, yet here is a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour. I thought that was really bad. No one taking Pelosi's side has explained why it isn't. People in power think they are entitled to privilege and deference. I don't like it. Is that right wing???
I thought that was really bad. No one taking Pelosi's side has explained why it isn't.
Yes they have. But you tend to respond like this:
I don't care what the sergeant at arms recommended.
"People in power think they are entitled to privilege and deference. I don't like it. Is that right wing???"
At least arguably, yes. When you look at how socialist countries have operated in practice, they have meant opulent privelege for the ruling class and powerless drudgery for everyone else. "We're going to take things away from you for the common good."
Yes Simon, we all understand that you think you have set a trap for Pelosi by setting a bar so high there is no way she can meet it. So there's no point in anyone arguing with you over your strawman and no one is. Your argument has no basis in reality and no one apart from you is aware it even exists.
Nevertheless, the facts are:
After 9/11 the Gov't gave the speaker the ability to travel on military planes nonstop.
We are still in the war started after 9/11.
Pelosi and others including your Pretzeldent think it is prudent she has a plane that meets her needs and the gov't security requirements.
She has requested a small plane that can carry her across country without refueling. She has never asked for a 737 or 757.
Because the Air Force has refused, she is flying commercial.
LGM, in reading Howard Kurtz, somehow got the notion there is legislation that mandates this. They got this from reading Howard Kurtz and I haven't seen anyone else say there must be specific legislation that mandates this.
Regardless, everyone agrees, everyone agrees she is entitled to this due to security needs put in place after 9/11.
If you don't think the security situation warrants that, you should take it up with your legislators and with your Pretzeldent, because he agrees she should get the aircraft she needs.
Righteous Bubba - no, actually, they haven't explained why it isn't really bad for a supposed environmentalist to be flown around in "a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour." Instead, they've attempted to substitute an answer for a different question: they've asserted that the plane was requested by someone other than Pelosi. That's irrelevant - the question is whether Pelosi uses the plane, not whether she asked for it, someone else asked for it, or if the House SaA (who works for Pelosi) asked for it.
Ann, you're shifting the goal posts again.
Here is what you say at the top of the post:
this post is about a controversy over the size of the military plane she should have, not about whether or not she should have a military plane.
Here is what you say now:
People in power think they are entitled to privilege and deference. I don't like it. Is that right wing???
Which is it Ann, is it a question of privilege or is it that for other reasons, size matters to you?
reality check said...
"Yes Simon, we all understand that you think you have set a trap for Pelosi by setting a bar so high there is no way she can meet it."
Bullshit. First, it's a trap that she set for herself, and second, she can easily escape it. She in fact has two different ways that she can escape it, either of which is fine by me. Three different ways, come to think of it, if she has the nerve to say in as many words what she is presently saying implicitly: "yes, it's a double standard. Fuck you, I'm the Speaker of the House, and I'm more important than you."
Hilariously, you concede your strongest argument! Especially since it isn't unversally-agreed that the Speaker (or still less her entourage) "needs" a private military jet (or even that he or she should be entitled to one), Kurtz's assertion is the absolute best case you could put forward: if the Speaker is mandated, by Federal law, to be flown around, that might be good enough to satisfy some people. Pelosi could just say "look, I don't like it, but this is what the law says, and until we repeal that law, I'm going to follow it." That has a certain amount of credibility.
Althouse wrote:
I was under the impression that that was a picture of a tiny little prick, and I thought it was you.
Yeah, you're probably going to regret that one tomorrow, when you're sober.
I was disgusted by the claim that the preference not to have to refuel was characterized as a security matter and also that a huge plane would be used to serve this preference with no consideration for how wasteful that was. We are asked to criticize ordinary families that drive SUVs, yet here is a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour. I thought that was really bad.
I think it's completely reasonable for you to be disgusted by that claim. But your fight is not with Nancy Pelosi, who agrees with you and is currently taking commercial flights, your fight is with the Sergeant at Arms, and with your Pretzeldent who all agree that this is a real security requirement and that Pelosi should have a plane that meets that requirement.
Again:
Althouse claims: Pelosi asks for large plane. Truth: Pelosi didn't ask for any plane, but when told to take one, asks for a small plane that can make it across the country per the security requirements she is told to follow.
Althouse claims: this is not a matter of priviledge, but a question of size. truth: Pelosi asks for a small plane not a large plane.
Althouse claims: this is about priviledge and deference: truth: Pelosi is taking commercial flights.
Althouse claims: saying this is all over security needs is an insult to the troops. Truth: Sergeant at Arms and Pretzeldent agree this is a matter of security. Truth: Pelosi is second in line of secession and most likely the troops can understand that.
Althouse claims: LGM has a small penis. Truth: \__/
Righteous Bubba - no, actually, they haven't explained why it isn't really bad for a supposed environmentalist to be flown around in "a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour."
Sure they have. Try over here.
Bubba - you're going to have to help me out here, because I don't see anything in that post (which is the exact same one Ann linked above) "explain[ing] why it isn't really bad for a supposed environmentalist to be flown around in 'a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour.'"
Simon (and Ann) is right of course about Pelosi's hypocrisy wrt environmentalism.
Environmentalists, if they are not to be called hypocrites, must only walk, or use completely green modes of transportation.
To run for office, they must not put up posters, create bumper stickers, fly in aircraft around a state or country.
If elected to office, they must govern from either their homes, or create an apartment to move into within their office.
If the mandates of their office are such that they need a private aircraft, say because that is the stated security policy, than they must refuse.
I will grudgingly allow that maybe just perhaps, if an environmentalist is elected to office than they can fly coach class, but only on flights that are booked full.
Let us remember, Nancy Pelosi is first and foremost an environmentalist. Secondary is any responsibility she has to the nation as Speaker of the House second in line to succeed the President. Tertiary is any responsibility she has to her constituents, her party, or the rest of the world vis a vis her other stances on health care, the war, minimum wage, corruption.
If Pelosi and anyone wants to call themselves an environmentalist, they must fit my arbitrary rules and make that the first, last, and only thing they think about each morning. They must work from their offices, an office made only of recycled material, and one that uses only natural forms of air condition and heating.
On a similar note, anyone that calls themself a feminist must play by my rules and only my rules, where my rules are whatever Ann Althouse says they are, including not looking young and attractive or having sex positive viewpoints.
In the meantime, though I vote the straight fascist party ticket, I am allowed to tell everyone that I am a Republican have always been a republican and I am not letting their arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a republican bind me to any point of view.
Pelosi and all environmentalists are hypocrites.
Slim Tyranny said...
"This fake outrage would be a lot more believable if it was ever directed at the Republican travel arrangements post-9/11. But, of course, it wasn't, because it was a non-story then just like it's a non-story now."
Why would outrage about the discontinuity between a politician's enviornmentalist policy views and they anti-environmentalist transportation plans apply to a Republican speaker? I thought that liberals took the view that Republicans didn't give two hoots about the environment? What was the last anti-carbon emission bil that Denny Hastert pushed?
Hey, uh, Reality Check - I know you're losing the argument, but it looks like you've picked up a boy toy, to judge from "Slim"'s comment. ;)
Well, Scott, I see a tiny little image that looks like this: d. I was under the impression that that was a picture of a tiny little prick, and I thought it was you.
How wonderfully non-partisan!
simon you need to stop typing.
Gawker - for better or worse, I never did know when to quit.
Simon, winners never quit!
P.S. they're just jealous of your domination in the Althouse NPR phone-in.
P.P.S. "reality check" simply has to be the best example of an oxymoron ever.
P.P.S. "Slim Tranny", if you just keep telling yourself it's a non-story, you'll believe it soon enough and sleep like a baby, even if it's bullshit. Sweet dreams, ya twit, 'cause you'll believe anything Botox Betty tells ya to.
ST - you're entitled to think it's a phony story, and to be candid, I don't entirely share Ann's perspective on this, insofar as I don't care what size the plane is. But you don't get to tell me what I do and don't get to count as hypocrisy on Pelosi's part. Like it or not, this counts.
Pogo - anyone can call NPR. ;) They'd probably do a better job of it than me, too. :)
The bottom line is: Now that Nancy Pelosi has admitted there's absolutely no reason she can't fly commercial under normal circumstances, if she does not then she is a phoney when she claims that global warming is an urgent threat to civilization.
``I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast,Title'' said Nancy Pelosi.
My original post on this topic said I don't think she is obligated to fly commercial given what other commenters were saying about security risks (which I didn't understand, but was willing to take their word on). I simply that thought it would be cool if she did fly commercial.
Now that she concedes there's no reason whatsoever - under normal circumstances - for her not to fly commercial, I beleve she is obligated to do so.
If she doesn't, she can't possibly believe global warming is an urgent threat to civilization.
Sorry, that link got screwed up. Here: http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2373.php
Bubba - you're going to have to help me out here, because I don't see anything in that post (which is the exact same one Ann linked above) "explain[ing] why it isn't really bad for a supposed environmentalist to be flown around in 'a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour.'"
Sorry about that. Try this link. It should answer all your questions.
"Fake outrage. Fake. No one (not even Democrats) complained about Hastert's flight plans. Why? Because it is a NON-STORY."
Well, if you're talking about me, my problem was always with using a large jet, and since Hastert didn't use one, your argument either represents a pathetic misreading of the post your purport to have a comment on or you are deliberately lying in an effort to smear me.
So Slim Tyranny, which is it? You need to apologize right now. Otherwise, you reputation is shot as a commenter here.
(ABC)
Sergeant at Arms Speaks
February 08, 2007
The House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingwood released the following statement today about his role in the controversy over an airplane for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's travel to her home district:
"As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.
"In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. 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. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue."
THE HOUSE SARGEANT AT ARMS REQUESTED THE PLANE, NOT PELOSI: "
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."
End of story. Ann Althouse should stop spewing disinformation, when it is so easily debunked. And that woman is a law professor? God helps her students!
How does one get from being a respected law school professor to being a mindless mirror for absurd partisan hack jobs? Beyond the simple foolishness of the whole mocked-up brouhaha, isn't there a risk Ms. Althouse will squander any remaining respect for her professional life by her actions in her blogging life? Had I such an outside-the-classroom blatant fool for a professor when I was in law school, I would have very little interest in what she had to say inside it, and would search for professors with two brain cells to rub together as an alternative. If any student attempted to support a response during law school's socratic method with something as flawed and refuted as this tale, they would be laughed from the classroom.
This post is about something Pelosi said on Wednesday. It's interesting that the Sergeant at Arms backed her up on Thursday. This story about her need for a huge, wasteful, global-warming jet goes back even further.
All you Pelosi-defenders, tell me: is global warming a trumped up fake controversy or not? My original post on this subject was about how privileged people make demands on us but seem to think nothing of much more extreme things they do.
Anyway, you commenters who are attacking me were attacking me for criticizing Pelosi for something I didn't criticize Hastert for. That made no sense, and the Sergeant at Arm's statement doesn't relate to that. To go back to the original post, I mocked the idea that not stopping to refuel is a security matter as opposed to a matter of personal comfort and convenience. I stand by that position whether the Sergeant at Arms agrees with me or not. I assume he's interested in catering to the interests of the powerful, why aren't you? And why don't you care about global warming?
Ann Althouse = cunt. Is that off topic?
Once again. Ms. Althouse, the Sergeant at Arms requested the plane, not Speaker Pelosi. Your characterization of his statement as "backing her up" insinuates that, somehow, there is something nefarious going on.
Since your ideological blinders are hampering your reading comprehension, I'll quote again from the Sergeant at Arms' statement: "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi." "I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue."
Now of course, you are free to cross into the realm of slander and conspiracy theory and assume that the Sergeant atArms is a liar and a stooge paid by the Democrats... In fact, I would not be surprised if you did that.
The fact is, Ms. Althouse, is that it is indeed a NON-STORY, one purely fabricated by Republicans spiteful that they have lost their power in the House, and, in the absence of anything substantial to show for, have to resort to smears, lies, and fabrications.
You are totally discredited, Ms. Althouse, no matter how many times you protest, or change the arguments, or try to erect strawmen to avoid admitting that you did nothing else but spread false information out of utter ideological bias.
Devil's Advocate: "Since your ideological blinders are hampering your reading comprehension, I'll quote again from the Sergeant at Arms' statement: "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi." "I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue."
You really don't see the huge gaping hole in your argument? Thanks for the quote, but it contains nothing about how dangerous it would be to stop and refuel. My post is about the size of the plane. Your response is about the size of your brain.
"You are totally discredited, Ms. Althouse, no matter how many times you protest, or change the arguments, or try to erect strawmen..."
I know all about your erect strawmen. Tell us more about your Althouse Derangement Syndrome and the problems you have with strong women.
I have not attacked you for not complaining about Hastert's jet. I have explained the security nature of a non-stop flight. And I have agreed with you you are right to be upset with privilege.
This is probably why you have ignored my posts.
And then I have attacked you for ignoring the facts stated in the original article, ignoring new facts as they come to light, and for shifting the goalposts when you are losing.
The first two problems are especially egregious -- is that really what you want to be teaching your law students?
So now you are saying the issue is the global warming/size of plane/privilege/security. The whole nine yards, the whole enchilada, the whole kielbasa.
Let me ask you Ann, are you a pilot?
What is the most dangerous portions of flying, the takeoff, the landing, or the inflight regime?
If there is a national emergency, whether that is severe weather, and ice storm, or a hurricane, or a nuclear attack, or terrorists attacking cities or the military with NBC weapons, do you think it prudent to require the second in line to the president to be hopscotching her way across the country?
Say she had to land in Denver. Oh Denver is closed due to the snow? Well there's Chicago. Oh the snow has shutdown the entire midwest?
Okay, well let's just push on, we can probably get to DC if the winds are right.
What is your experience in flying and in the needs of national security Professor Althouse such that the statements of the President and the Sergeant at Arms about this being a security requirement can be overruled?
I have addressed each of your points: the size, the privilege, the safety, the security needs, whether global warming is important.
You haven't bothered to address why my points are wrong.
And now, in your response to Devil's Advocate you hide behind your skirt, and playing the gender card. "You don't like me because I am a strong woman."
You need to do better than that.
Bubba, just posting the same link over and over again isn't going to make it any more on-point.
Bubba, just posting the same link over and over again isn't going to make it any more on-point.
Ms. Althouse, not only do you do have a reading comprehension problem, you seem totally devoid of deductive abilities. For a law professor, that is rather frightening.
Let us once again examine what the sergeant at Arms stated: "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."
Now, Ms. Althouse, "an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights" from Washington to San Ffrancisco is, by definition, an aircraft that is larger, hence is able to stock larger amounts of fuel, etc...
Note that the Sergeant at Arms also notes the importance of "non-stop flights for security reasons". It is unfortunate that the Sergeant at Arms did not spell out for you, in excruciating details, what the security reasons are; however, since he is clearly in charge of assuring the security of the Speaker of the House, it is not unreasonable to assume that he knows a lot more about the best means to insure security of the Speaker of the House in a post 9/11 world than you are. Perhaps, you should write him a letter and ask him to explain his reasoning.
Your comment about the size of my brain is nothing short of puerile. It is painfully obvious that when you are confronted with the inanity of your positions, you are at a loss for arguments, and must resort to name calling.
As for the Althouse Derangement Syndrome, I think you have correctly named the mental impairment that is afflicting you. The medical profession will be grateful to you for the discovery of yet another form of ideologically - induced dementia, characterized by an inordinate willingness to uncritically and robotically repeat Republican talking points.
Finally, your insecurities show when you lament my alleged problems with "strong women". If you really thought of yourself as strong, you would not need to claim that you are strong. This accusation is again puerile, immature, and the very proof that you have zero confidence in yourself in the face of well-deserved criticism.
You took a non-story, blew it out of proportions, got faced with the evidence of youur mendacity and bias, so now you are whining about people's problems with "strong women"? This is preposterous. You are not strong. In fact, you are a whiner.
One last question, do you make disparaging comments to your students when they question your teaching? Why a university of any repute would keep on staff someone with so little thinking and deductive abilities is beyond me.
Tell us more about your Althouse Derangement Syndrome and the problems you have with strong women.
You think islamist is to christianist as BDS is to ADS? Just wondering.
Bubba, just posting the same link over and over again isn't going to make it any more on-point.
You know how someone doesn't get the point and you keep repeating it and it gets funnier as they remain clueless? It's just a mean joke at your expense. You can move on if you like.
Bubba - doesn't seem to so much be at my expense when you're the one demonstrating that you've got nothing to back your argument up with. You're essentially conceding the point, admitting that you don't have a link that does support your assertion. Carry on.
Bubba - doesn't seem to so much be at my expense when you're the one demonstrating that you've got nothing to back your argument up with. You're essentially conceding the point, admitting that you don't have a link that does support your assertion. Carry on.
Oh no, I've got the link to back up my assertions. It's right here.
Where does Ann ALthouse get off telling the Speaker of the House that it's out of line to want to travel non-stop, as she did when she was able to travel commercial?
So she would need to use a different plane. So what! That makes no difference to anyone else and probably saves money over landing and takeoffs for refueling stops.
Also, it's a matter of wasting a busy person's time. Ann Althouse, like most Republicans, is resentful of Democrats, let along Democrats being respected.
The story is completely manufactured by the right wing noise machine. And Althouse falls for it, hook, line and sinker.
You know, I just find it hard to believe that Ann Althouse cannot figure out for herself why refueling stops are a bad idea:
- They waste time,
- They waste fuel.
- They require travelling through weather instead of flying over it.
- They can lead to being grounded at a refueling stop overnight or for several hours.
Why do Ann Althouse and the Republican minority want to force Pelosi to waste her time? Hmmmm......
Pathetic!
Notice that Ann-Know-It-All has dropped off her own blog. Did she have to take some time off to worship at the Bush altar?
Anyway, has anyone bothered to check Dear Ann's credentials?
I am off an a search and shall report soon.
Ann, I take your continued apparent refusal to address my point by point refutation of the points you yourself raised as your concession that your argument is weak. Vacuous.
Alpha: You think flying a huge plane instead of a small plane wastes fuel by needing a refueling stop? Want to bet?
I certainly agree that this a miniscule story. To me, it was a little point about caring about global warming. I stand by that point. I'm commenting on a story in the LA Times. It's pretty ordinary. Why all you guys are freaking out is beyond me? Just can't stand to see the powerful criticized... that's the left position these days, now that Democrats control Congress. That's so lame.
Here is a letter from the DoD to Pelosi:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/02/08/dod_pelosi_letter.pdf
Basically, they said they will provide a plane which will go nonstop if such a plane is available, which is consistent with law and Congressional protocol. They will not, however, provide her with a jumbo jet (see the note about no more than 10 people).
HOWEVER, Pelosi is insisting on always having a plane which is capable of nonstop flight, which at times might require the use of very large and expensive aircraft. She is threatening to fly commercial if it's not provided. Those are the facts. Feel free to spiral further down the well of denial.
Am I going to do a "point by point refutation" of whatever? No. You had your chance. Now you've boredddddddddddddddddddddd sorry I fell asleep on the keyboard and dropped off my bloggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
Here is that link, which was truncated by blogger:
http://tinyurl.com/2rk7lr
I didn't ask YOU to do a point by point refutation. I had said I had done a point by point refutation of every issue you raised, as you raised them (since you keep adding new issues to this.)
Regardless, while it wasn't very gracious on your part, I accept your concession.
Thank you.
Here is the Ann Althouse's inteligent refutaion if her
critics:"Am I going to do a "point by point refutation" of whatever? No. You had your chance. Now you've boredddddddddddddddddddddd sorry I fell asleep on the keyboard and dropped off my bloggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
-----------------------------------
Really, this woman has a law degree and is actually employed by the University of Wisconsin...
This inarticulate idiot is actually teaching at a public university. The voters and taxpayers in Wisconsin need to be informed about this pathetic fraud of an alleged professor.Let's e-mail and fax the imbecilities that she promotes on her blog.
By the way, check out her picture on the University of Wisconsin web site: she is an Ann Ccoulter clone.
Ann Althouse said...
Am I going to do a "point by point refutation" of whatever? No. You had your chance. Now you've boredddddddddddddddddddddd sorry I fell asleep on the keyboard and dropped off my bloggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
2:37 PM
Ha! Here is the last refuge of the imbecile. The twit has no clue howw to respond to her critics. So she just fades away... Moron!
"Ann Althouse said...
Alpha: You think flying a huge plane instead of a small plane wastes fuel by needing a refueling stop? Want to bet?
I certainly agree that this a miniscule story. To me, it was a little point about caring about global warming. I stand by that point. I'm commenting on a story in the LA Times. It's pretty ordinary. Why all you guys are freaking out is beyond me? Just can't stand to see the powerful criticized... that's the left position these days, now that Democrats control Congress. That's so lame.
2:34 PM
The idiot is again erecting strawmen and tying to get people aroused. Fuck them all!
She has, one after another, shifted the goal posts throughout this post by claiming the post was about:
1. Elitism
2. Size of the aircraft
3. Security requirements
4. Insult to the troop
5. Global Warming
Nevertheless, each one of these points has been refuted.
The last commenter usurped my identity. As far as I am concerned, Althouse is an imbecile.
Where does Ann ALthouse get off telling the Speaker of the House that it's out of line to want to travel non-stop, as she did when she was able to travel commercial?
-----------------------------
The idiot does not have a clue nor is she looking for serious coverage. She parrots talking points from Fox news talking points memos.
...for wanting a military plane by for "her desire to avoid having her plane stop to refuel." You know, words have meaning.
So, Ann, what is the meaning of "wanting something by for" a desire? Hey, if you're going to get all "words have meaning", I'll nitpick your grammar. Those words don't have meaning together. There seems to be a trend here.
when we've spent 300+ billion dollars on the Iraq war, you really think its worthwhile to harrass the speaker of the house over a larger plane?
you really think its "elitist" to want a non stop flight? really? non stop is elitist? what planet are you from?
not to mention, given that the speaker of the house is a somewhat important job, i'd think you would WANT her to be at the top of her game. how many corporations, when flying top employees/management around, dicker around on this type of nonsense?
Some clown is using my name. F... him/her.
I think we have finally gotten to the end of this perfectly idiotic story. Of course, our Dear Ann, ever eager to outshine Ann Coulter, keeps on blabbering like an automaton, totally unaware that she is the laughing stock of her own students, the blogosphere, and the mainstream media. Hello, twit? Don't you know when to quit?
And who on earth would apply to the University of Wisconsin if it harbors such an imbecile moron as La Altouse? Very sick.
Note to the assholes who are using my blog name to post their tripe, I found your IP addresses...
"Note to the assholes who are using my blog name to post their tripe, I found your IP addresses... "
?? So are you, like, famous or something? And here I really thought I got the blogosphere!
Ann Althouse said...
I don't care what the sergeant at arms recommended. I was disgusted by the claim that the preference not to have to refuel was characterized as a security matter and also that a huge plane would be used to serve this preference with no consideration for how wasteful that was. We are asked to criticize ordinary families that drive SUVs, yet here is a plane that consumes over $1000 worth of fuel a hour. I thought that was really bad. No one taking Pelosi's side has explained why it isn't. People in power think they are entitled to privilege and deference. I don't like it. Is that right wing???
criticize people who drive SUVs? i've said it before, i'll say it again: a major source of your obtuse dislike for democrats is your location in madison, WI. only silly college students rant and rave about SUVs, not 95% of your democratic voters or politicos. those people wearing dreadlocks and tie dye shirts skipping class and smoking on the college green? there are college kids, not ordinary voters or politicians. smarten up.
and, again, do you realize how much $$ the bush administration has squandered? do you realize that the iraq war has cost over $300 billion? do you remember that at the outset these clowns somehow lost track of $8 billion? and yet you want whine and cry about pelosi using a bigger plane. how wonderfully nonpartisan.
Cross posted from Scott's blog comments:
The SaA letter didn't make much sense from what I remembered Pelosi saying about the scandal. It turns out my memory served me correctly; Pelosi's claims are at odds with the "it was only the SaA's request, Pelosi had nothing to do with it" defense. To the contrary, Pelosi has on and off camera confirmed on numerous occasions that her desire for a nonstop flight has nothing to do with security--it has to do with "getting home to her family" faster. Well, at least that is what her official public story is. Still, let's take her at her word, she wants the jet so she can save an hour or hour and half off each flight. We're talking about millions of dollars in taxpayer's money so that she can get home a little sooner. Once more, I'm not making this up. That's the truth according to Pelosi.
I don't have to prove the SaA's claims are false. For one, his statement is probably technically true: HIS recommendation probably was based exclusively off of security concerns. But, remember, his recommendation only provided that nonstop travel should be provided "when available." DoD concluded that it would provide such travel when available, but not utilize the larger, more ridiculous options (we are talking about jets that seat over 100 people, DoD said it would provide aircraft capable of no more than 10 passengers). DoD seemed to be perfectly willing to accept the SaA's terms, provided no especially large jets were utilized. However, DoD, like the SaA's recommendation, could not GUARANTEE that the travel would be nonstop.
This is where Pelosi seems to have gone into Diva mode. She seems to be demanding that nonstop travel be provided ALWAYS or she will utilize commercial transportation when it is not, something which IS against the law. In a word, Pelosi is threating to break security protocol because she can't be inconvenienced by a nonstop flight.
It seems, based off of Pelosi's own public statements, that security is the LAST thing on her mind. So, yes, I take issue with the "it's security, stupid" defense of the Speaker. I arrived at these conclusions not because I am a crazy conservative or Althouse groupie, but simply because her statements necessarily lead to that conclusion.
Pelosi in her own words:
http://tinyurl.com/ynm47f
http://tinyurl.com/2y98pr (2:17, comments that it's about getting home to her family faster)
Keep defending the rich, privileged and powerful, O Liberals, while they rape the environment on your dime. Hey, as long as they're arrogant and corrupt for the left.
My favorite part is when Nanci said it wasn't a "plane", it was a "ride". LOL. On a magic carpet, I'm sure!
See, we leftists have swallowed winger insults for so long that we have a lot of catching up to do in the way of letting them have it.
So let me get this straight: Ann writes a lengthy post based entirely on a false premise -- i.e. that Nancy Pelosi made a request she never actually made -- and when called on it, she flies off the handle with comments about dicks and pricks and other such nonsense.
Yet the person who corrected her blatant, careless misinformation is the one with some kind of "Derangement Syndrome"?
Good Lord. This is beyond bizarre. We are through the rabbit hole here, folks.
Doug, my post says nothing about Pelosi making the initial request, so you need to correct yourself and apologize to me. As to what made me lash out with my razor sharp satire, it was the attacks on that other blog, where they regularly attack me in a ridiculous, stupid, and low way. Your comment is totally off. I should delete it for sheer hackery, but I won't, lest you think I have no argument. I mean really, you are an idiot to say that I started with a lengthy post. It was a ONE SENTENCE post! I see that you little men do have some distorted ideas about length. Obviously, Pelosi was out asserting that she needed a nonstop flight for her safety. I called bullshit on that, and I was quite right. Deal with it. And apologize, you nitwit.
Ann, it's the famous reasoning of Madison such as this that keeps the Marquette Law School of Milwaukee Admissions Office busy.
my post says nothing about Pelosi making the initial request
So if you concede that Pelosi didn't make the initial request, seriously, what are you yammering on about? That she didn't turn down a plane that was never officially offered to her in the first place? All you're doing is conjuring up sinister, cynical motives for Pelosi that you haven't even come close to proving.
Your insistence that I "apologize" -- in the same breath as calling me a "nitwit" and trucking out more lame pee-pee jokes -- is as laughable as it is childish.
Go ahead and delete my comments if they bruised your delicate ego that much. Unlike yourself, I don't gauge my self-worth on arguments won or lost in the comments thread of a freakin' blog.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा