February 1, 200719 yr Seems she's feeling her oats already. I have no problem with her but her staff and relatives? Way to be a steward of our money. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070201-122225-1157r.htm
February 1, 200719 yr Denny Hassert apparently had the same problem. I don't have a problem with the Speaker using a scheduled military flight to get home, or using military transportation for necessary trips to other places, which should be few and far between. However, these VIP flights need to stop. If she needs to get home for something, use the regular airlines. They're a heck of a lot cheaper than a VIP military flight, even if she flies first class.
February 1, 200719 yr Author Denny Hassert apparently had the same problem. I don't have a problem with the Speaker using a scheduled military flight to get home, or using military transportation for necessary trips to other places, which should be few and far between. However, these VIP flights need to stop. If she needs to get home for something, use the regular airlines. They're a heck of a lot cheaper than a VIP military flight, even if she flies first class. Hassert didn't use if for staff, family or political trips. That's where I have a problem. Because she's 3rd in line she should be able to use it for herself and staff that have to travel with her. After all, there are security concerns there.
February 1, 200719 yr Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family. Speaking as someone in the field, I'm going to guess that means Hastert DID fly his family on occasion. And I'm guessing the omission also means that staff were probably on board occasionally.
February 1, 200719 yr Author Lots of guessing going on there. Bottom line is that Pelosi wants more military flights for staff and family than has been allowed in the past. Not a good start to the fiscal responsibility she promised to bring in.
February 1, 200719 yr Lots of guessing going on there. Bottom line is that Pelosi wants more military flights for staff and family than has been allowed in the past. Not a good start to the fiscal responsibility she promised to bring in.You explain the wording to me, then. You don't have to read too deep between the lines to see it. There's no other reason for the word 'regularly' to be in there. Or for the aide not to mention staff.
February 1, 200719 yr I'm also going to urge everyone to consider the source, here. The WT is a hacket rag.
February 1, 200719 yr I'm also going to urge everyone to consider the source, here. The WT is a hacket rag. Absolutely. It was created to be a counter-voice to the liberal Washington Post. It loses money like a gambler on crack.
February 1, 200719 yr Absolutely. It was created to be a counter-voice to the liberal Washington Post. It loses money like a gambler on crack. Wow.:lol:
February 1, 200719 yr Just went back in the archives and supprisingly enough, I see no complaint from 75 when Hasterd did it....hmmmmmm.
February 1, 200719 yr Author I have no problem with what Hastert did. Just as I have no problem with Pelosi doing it. She's expanding to staff and family. I have a problem with that. What do YOU think about that DD? BTW, wasn't she supposed to clean up Washington and change the culture? Hmmmmm.
February 1, 200719 yr Author I'm also going to urge everyone to consider the source, here. The WT is a hacket rag. No one is disputing the report. Nice try at diversions. I'm sure you said the same thing when Drudge broke the Monica story.
February 1, 200719 yr Author You explain the wording to me, then. You don't have to read too deep between the lines to see it. There's no other reason for the word 'regularly' to be in there. Or for the aide not to mention staff. What do you think of her expanding the use? By all means between the lines or otherwise she wants a military plane at her disposal.
February 1, 200719 yr Hmmmm?? I have no problem with what Hastert did. Just as I have no problem with Pelosi doing it. She's expanding to staff and family. I have a problem with that. What do YOU think about that DD? Just wondering why you didn't bring it up back in 01.....what do I think? I don't think it is necessary for anyone but the prez and vp.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.