|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I guess she doesn't have a penis then. I suppose that's comforting. Did you get your rebuttal from Kos? |
Actually no. Would it change the substance of my argument no matter where the source was derived from?
| quote: | | I believe this article clarifies some of the raging rabid comments from your reply with regard to Denny and such. |
Actually there's nothing in the article at all that clarifies Denny's political trips at all, especially the one regarding Rep. Shimcus (R-Ill). Let's review:
| quote: | On Sunday, Oct. 1, Hastert’s team was scrambling to contain the escalating fallout from the Foley page scandal.
That day, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), then the chairman of the page board, had gotten an urgent phone call from Stokke. The Hastert team wanted Shimkus to return to Washington immediately from his home in southern Illinois in order to appear at a press conference on Monday with the Speaker, and they did not want to deal with commercial flight schedules.
So at 8 p.m. that day, Shimkus arrived at the military side of the Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to board the Speaker’s jet that had been dispatched for him.
The plane then headed to an airport near Aurora, Ill., to pick up Hastert, who had been weekending at his home in Plano, before flying on to Washington.
That Monday, Hastert and Shimkus headlined a press conference in the Capitol to talk about the Foley resignation.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/T...eet/020807.html |
You remember Shimcus, right? He was the Republican Congressman who was the House Page Board chair that once he learned of Foley's lovely emails, he failed to tell the Democrat on the same board (Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mi):
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/...ws/15259-1.html
So let's drop the fucking charade that your fat-ass former Speaker didn't use his flights for political purposes. Anyway, I'd like to touch on a few cute little points this Moonie Times writer hits on:
| quote: | | The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the Department of Defense for an Air Force aircraft large enough to fly nonstop to San Francisco. |
Pure and complete bullshit. How could they continually get this wrong? Hmm, perhaps willful ignorance? What's that in the big fucking headlines? Why, that's a nice little debunk:
| quote: | House security chief: Pelosi didn't ask for plane; I did
House 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.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02...lane/index.html |
What was that headline again?:
| quote: | | House security chief: Pelosi didn't ask for plane |
Hmm, interesting. Moving on:
| quote: | The letter from the Pentagon yesterday cites specific U.S. Code that government policy does not include the routine use of military aircraft for the speaker of the House.
"Nonstop service is not guaranteed, meaning she's getting Hastert's plane and nothing bigger," the congressional source said, referring to the commuter jet Mr. Hastert began using for security reasons after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
But the administration official said Mrs. Pelosi "wanted to be able to fly between Washington and the West Coast nonstop." |
Uhh, no. As it was made perfectly clear time and again (like my link above), it wasn't Pelosi's decision on the matter, nor did she initiate it at all. Why is the Moonie Times and the Wingnutters NOT going after the House Security Chief?
As it was also made very clear, the rules changed quite a bit after 9/11, with the Speaker being second in line to the Presidency, the Pentagon fully acknowledged as such when they gave a plane to Hastert so he could fly nonstop back and forth from Illinois. Since this was a "security" issued NOT by Pelosi mind you to have a nonstop plane fly to the Speaker's home state and back, I'm really trying hard to understand the rationale by the Wingers here. That's an attempt in vain about 99% of the time, but I try nonetheless.
| quote: | | The letter leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Pelosi may get a larger plane that does not require refueling if one happens to be available in the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. But, generally, the larger military passenger jets are in high demand, especially due to the Iraq war. |
Understandable, which is why Pelosi will now be flying commercially NONSTOP instead:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
Which really begs the question, why would she care so much about luxurious flights if she opted to fly commercially nonstop?
| quote: | The Washington Times reported earlier this week that the Pentagon denied a request by Mrs. Pelosi to fly on a military aircraft to last weekend's Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, a two-hour drive from Washington.
"Non-governmental personnel, i.e. political supporters and contributors, may not fly," the congressional source said yesterday, paraphrasing the letter sent to Mrs. Pelosi. "The plane may not ferry her to any political events and other members may only accompany her after approval by the House ethics committee, which means Republicans would have to OK it." |
There's something kinda funny smelling about that little passage, so I dug a wee bit deeper and found a more reliable source, McClatchy Newspapers (formerly Knight Ridder). There I found a bit more to the story:
| quote: | | Pelosi requested a jet to fly to a Democratic retreat last week in Williamsburg, Va., saying she thought that Hastert had used a jet similarly, but her request was rejected |
And as it was clearly shown above, Hastert HAS used his fucking planes for political reasons, so she wasn't incorrect in believing that. Nevertheless, that last part about her believing Hastert used his plane for similar measures was conveniently left out of the Moonie Times piece. I wonder why?
Oh, this is where it gets cute by the writer:
| quote: | Mr. Daly said the negotiations with the Pentagon and the Air Force over using a larger plane is a matter of security based on her position as second in line to the presidency.
"The military is saying she needs this for her security," he said yesterday afternoon. "She's the speaker of the House."
[b]But the congressional source noted that no speaker of the House has ever succeeded to the presidency.
"Just because she's second in line to be president does not entitle her to a military taxi service around the United States," the source said. |
Wasn't that cute? Did everyone follow that straw man? I guess on a similar note, since the VP is first in line, that doesn't mean he is entitled to a "military taxi service" either, huh? Or for that matter, the plane that was requested on Pelosi's behalf is the same plane that charters Laura Bush. Since when did Laura, the First Lady who has no Constitutional power whatsoever, have the ability to have a "military taxi service"? Since when was it appropriate for Laura Bush to have a better plane than the person second in line to the Presidency during a "time of war"?
| quote: | But Mrs. Pelosi's requests for the larger jet still has drawn ridicule from Republicans, who have dubbed the requested plane "Pelosi One."
It's especially galling, they say, since Mrs. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats ran on campaigns to clear out many of the perks provided to lawmakers.
One of the first changes she made to the rules governing House members was to ban free air travel by members of Congress on corporate-owned or chartered planes.
The "jumbo request," as one Republican called it, also comes at a time when Democrats are trying to push through Congress a resolution that sending 21,500 reinforcement troops to Iraq "is not in the national interest of the United States."
"So let's get this straight," Republican Study Committee spokesman Brad Dayspring said in a statement yesterday that reproduced a picture of a transcontinental U.S. military jet. "During a week in which Democrats are pushing a resolution that states, 'it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq,' they believe that securing Speaker Pelosi the military plane pictured below for luxury flights is in the national interest?" |
Yes, you shitmonger. Is that really so hard for you to decifer to understand the difference between being against this asinine and highly ill-conceived "surge" fiasco versus the security and safety of the fucking person who's second in line to the Presidency, and who's request for this plane didn't EVEN FUCKING COME FROM HER IN THE FIRST PLACE? You fucking lying gasbags. This is funny:
| quote: | Republican leaders have also stated — with no tangible evidence — that Pelosi wants to use the plane to reward financial contributors.
"She was offered the same aircraft that the previous speaker had," Putnam said yesterday. "It sat 12 people, and she refused it, didn't think it was big enough for all of her friends and supporters. In fact, she specifically requested that supporters be able to travel."
Said Blunt, "If you can take your supporters in the air on a government plane, that is a pretty big perk to be able to offer, I would think, whether you are the speaker or anybody else."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2858225&page=1
|
What was that again?:
| quote: | | with no tangible evidence |
Well hell, when has something like no tangible evidence ever stopped you Wingnuts?
And as Occ pointed out, it's pretty clear where the White House stands on this:
I mean, Jesus, one fucking month out of the gate and you just can't help yourselves. Pathetic work. It's so pathetic that even some Republicans are mocking you crazy kids:
| quote: | “Some Republicans were put off by the flight fight. ‘This is a bunch of baloney,‘ said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois, who said he had flown on Mr. Hastert’s military plane. ‘Next week,’ Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said, ‘we are going to steal their mascot and short-sheet their beds.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/u...age&oref=slogin |
And speaking of Murtha, Q, I'm sure you've got plenty of fun to look forward to with your favorite veteran:
| quote: | Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft.
Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month.
Some House Republicans on Thursday were pressing for an amendment on the floor on Pelosi's use of a military plane, according to Murtha.
Murtha predicted that Pelosi would end up getting a plane that would be able to fly across country without stopping to refuel.
"I'm seldom wrong on these kinds of predictions," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02...lane/index.html
|
Payback's a bitch, ain't it? The trouble with you GOP kids nowadays is the Dems have a wee bit more power now. They won't be sitting idly by and watch you hand them their asses the way Kerry did with the Smear Boaters. Much was learned from that debacle.
Now, don't you guys wanna talk about the Edwards smear? Boy does Donahue have a colorful past of his own. Any takers?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
.
