Our airports are not as secure as one might think. Plus with our borders being wide open it's hard to say what has been smuggled into this country that could bring down a plane.

Why would she need to land at a public airport? Her plane would be stored at Andrews AFB and if she needs fuel there are plenty of military bases between here and SF where she can refuel.

Why would she need to land at a public airport? Her plane would be stored at Andrews AFB and if she needs fuel there are plenty of military bases between here and SF where she can refuel.

I was just responding to the comment that our airports and airspace are among the most protected areas, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I was just responding to the comment that our airports and airspace are among the most protected areas, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Gotcha and you're right.

... She came out and cleared him so why can't you?

 

LBBC -

 

I went back to re-read the thread, trying to find out where anyone had accused Bush of starting the hickack.

 

I don't see it. Did I miss it in one of the earlier posts?

 

 

Frances

LBBC -

 

I went back to re-read the thread, trying to find out where anyone had accused Bush of starting the hickack.

 

I don't see it. Did I miss it in one of the earlier posts?

 

 

Frances

Didn't necessarily mean you but you know how these threads end up going. Somewhere around X post number it begins to get this is a Bush/Rove conspiracy to drag the Dems down and spoonfed us Bush supporters what we are supposed to be thinking.

 

I was doing a preemptive strike in that Pelosi, for whatever reason, cleared Bush of this little scandal/leak.

 

I don't know if that was a growing part of the story or what, but she was the one who brought Bush up and cleared him of being behind the charges. I hadn't heard any claims that Bush was behind it either, which made her comment that the President was NOT BEHIND it and actually supported her position even more intriguing.

Didn't necessarily mean you but you know how these threads end up going. Somewhere around X post number it begins to get this is a Bush/Rove conspiracy to drag the Dems down and spoonfed us Bush supporters what we are supposed to be thinking.

 

I was doing a preemptive strike in that Pelosi, for whatever reason, cleared Bush of this little scandal/leak.

 

I don't know if that was a growing part of the story or what, but she was the one who brought Bush up and cleared him of being behind the charges. I hadn't heard any claims that Bush was behind it either, which made her comment that the President was NOT BEHIND it and actually supported her position even more intriguing.

 

An Anticipation call ? You must have know that you would be caught again.

As it turns out, the Seargent of Arms in realiziing that Nancy had to travel a greater distance then the Hastard Man started this debate with the Pentagon and somehow it was leaked to Sun Young Moon's newspaper that the republic party holds in such high regard, and from there is snowballed. This was never a request from Nancy.

An Anticipation call ? You must have know that you would be caught again.

As it turns out, the Seargent of Arms in realiziing that Nancy had to travel a greater distance then the Hastard Man started this debate with the Pentagon and somehow it was leaked to Sun Young Moon's newspaper that the republic party holds in such high regard, and from there is snowballed. This was never a request from Nancy.

 

So Nancy never asked for a bigger jet?

No, it was the SA.

 

Anyone see Tony Snow calling this manufactured scandal 'ridiculous?'

 

Just wondering if anyone saw that.

No, it was the SA.

 

Anyone see Tony Snow calling this manufactured scandal 'ridiculous?'

 

Just wondering if anyone saw that.

 

Yes.

 

The White House realizes if they want to get anything done in the next two years that they have to have at least a working relationship with Pelosi. Whether Pelosi flys in a luxurious plane or riduculously luxurious plane isn't as important to them as numerous other issues so the WhiteHouse is trying buildup some political capital with her. The WhiteHouse also knows that Bush isn't going to be up for re-election so their interest in campaign-type rhetoric is minimal.

 

House Republicans on the other hand have already been completely shutout by Pelosi. They don't have to worry about what's not going to happen -- a working relationship with Pelosi. Given nothing to lose and the knowledge that they are up for re-election in two years it's the House Republicans who want this scandal front and center.

 

And it is a scandal. You can't campaign all year about "Republican corruption" and tout as one of your first tasks ethics legislation to limit House members flying on corporate jets for free all the while trying to finagle at tax payer expense an upgrade from a very nice corporate jet to an even more luxurious jumbo jet because you might, emphasis on might, have to re-fuel. The hypocrisy is obvious.

Yes.

 

The White House realizes if they want to get anything done in the next two years that they have to have at least a working relationship with Pelosi. Whether Pelosi flys in a luxurious plane or riduculously luxurious plane isn't as important to them as numerous other issues so the WhiteHouse is trying buildup some political capital with her. The WhiteHouse also knows that Bush isn't going to be up for re-election so their interest in campaign-type rhetoric is minimal.

 

House Republicans on the other hand have already been completely shutout by Pelosi. They don't have to worry about what's not going to happen -- a working relationship with Pelosi. Given nothing to lose and the knowledge that they are up for re-election in two years it's the House Republicans who want this scandal front and center.

 

And it is a scandal. You can't campaign all year about "Republican corruption" and tout as one of your first tasks ethics legislation to limit House members flying on corporate jets for free all the while trying to finagle at tax payer expense an upgrade from a very nice corporate jet to an even more luxurious jumbo jet because you might, emphasis on might, have to re-fuel. The hypocrisy is obvious.

 

If this really bothers you, I would think you would be ranting over the fork lift loads of your money misplaced in Iraq. Now that's a scandle.

If this really bothers you, I would think you would be ranting over the fork lift loads of your money misplaced in Iraq. Now that's a scandle.

Oh come on, Diamond Dandy! What's five or six billion dollars, compared to a chance to rail against a request that even the White House has said is a non-issue?

 

 

Frances

Old Shooter check your PM

If this really bothers you, I would think you would be ranting over the fork lift loads of your money misplaced in Iraq. Now that's a scandle.

 

I never said that their weren't bigger scandals. At least I admit this is a scandal.

Oh come on, Diamond Dandy! What's five or six billion dollars, compared to a chance to rail against a request that even the White House has said is a non-issue?

 

 

Frances

 

This is getting to be old hat Frances. You make a post and I refer you to the answer in a previous post of mine. See post #54 for why the White House does not call this a scandal.

This is getting to be old hat Frances. You make a post and I refer you to the answer in a previous post of mine. See post #54 for why the White House does not call this a scandal.

 

Nothing "old hat" about it. I reject your reasoning for the White House saying that it is being blown out of proportion. Saying that the White House has minimal interest in campaign type rhetoric is laughable.

 

 

 

Frances