thinkprogress.org — The Washington Times published a story claiming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been "pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district." Just like the Obama "madrassa" myth, it's complete bunk.
Feb 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
jstohlerFeb 6, 2007
This is typical winger behavior: lies and more lies.
charlotte_webFeb 8, 2007
ThinkProgress is hardly an unbiased news site. It's absolutely ridiculous! Listen to this quote:"The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California."Wow, we can't have Pelosi spending an extra hour en route to stop and refuel, now, can we?Denny Hastert's old plane would cost $150,000, round-trip, for her to travel in (gas, crew, maintenance, etc.). The plane that Pelosi is requesting would cost $300,000 round-trip for the additional crew, fuel costs and other expenses.So yes, libs, let's spend that extra $150,000 PER TRIP so that Pelosi won't be inconvenienced by a 1 hour fuel stopover!Oh, and if you think that the fuel stop-over is the real reason here... remember, this is the military we are talking about. They do in-flight refueling all the time. In fact, they need opportunities to train pilots and practice in-flight refueling.
entropymanFeb 8, 2007
Charlotte_web,Right, let's just declare that California is only half as far as it really is. Let's rewrite the laws of time and space. Are you insane? It costs more because it's 3 times as far as Hastert had to go to get to his home state. Longer = more fuel and more hours in the air = more money. What's so hard to understand?And no, in-flight refueling is only done when it has to be done (assuming this plane can even do it). But it's not cheap and it adds a lot of risk (two planes burning fuel, plus other risk factors). So you'd only add to the total cost, dingbat.
charlotte_webFeb 8, 2007
Hey "dingbat," I used to be in Naval aviation. The cost of in-flight refueling is irrelevant, because pilots still need to train on it. It's called "military readiness". But hey, the in-flight refueling was just tossed out as a possibility. I personally don't have any problem with Pelosi landing to refuel. In fact, I would prefer it.This is a significantly larger plane that she's requesting, which requires a larger crew, and will require more fuel to move a larger mass. So yes, there is a significant increase in expenses.Plus, Hastert requested the plane in the wake of 9/11 for security reasons. He never used the plane for political trips or shuttling family around, as Ms. Pelosi is intending to do.Plus, there is the issue that Pelosi pushed through a bill requiring Congress members to pay full retail for commercial flights... and then she dodges that completely by comandeering a military Boeing 757 for her personal use.But it's just money, right? You've already got John Edwards already talking about raising taxes if he becomes president (Gee, there's a popular platform!). Here's a suggestion... instead of raising taxes, let's start trimming the fat from the government, including ridiculous expenses like pampering Nancy Pelosi.