Pelosi Made Repeated Requests for Military Aircraft, Documents Show

[WriteDown]

Source: Fox News

....In one e-mail, aide Kay King complained to the military that they had not made available any aircraft the House speaker wanted for Memorial Day recess.

"It is my understanding there are NO G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable ... The Speaker will want to know where the planes are," King wrote.

In another, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King wrote: "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset Speaker."
Pelosi's office has not yet responded to requests for comment.....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/10/study-pelosi... /

---

G5's? Is Pelosi starring in a rap video? Saw this on my igoogle page and just had to laugh.

I guess vacations are not off the table.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Good. Fucking politicians can start flying domestic.

Maybe after they experience the bullshit of flying nowadays, they'll re-fucking-regulate the airlines and re-goddamn-do the bullshit "security" nonsense.

Assholes. Stop flying on our dime.

Especially after they blasted the GM, Ford, and Chrysler guys for taking private jets. What's the actual cost to take a military flight? I bet it's a hell of a lot more than a private jet.

[No Elephants]

64. Um, she did fly commercial, but Speaker of the House gets a military aircraft

for security reasons, being third in line for the Presidency. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-air... /

Would you require Obama or Biden to fly commercial?

[babylonsister]

2. faux? I don't believe it.

Probably another one along the lines of this...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

[WriteDown]

6. Its from her staff emails...

Hard to deny. Check it out at www.judicialwatch.org

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Are you famliar with judicialwatch.org?

It's quite the smarmy organization. I wouldn't give it any credibility, especially knowing a bit about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

[WriteDown]

16. No...

But its from staff emails. Not much to argue with.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Alleged staff emails

Until those emails are verified in a court of law, I wouldn't touch anything from that outfit. Not even punctuation.

Learn about sources. That's really important.

[WriteDown]

23. Ookay...

We may as well shutdown DU then since everything is alleged until a court of law certifies it by your standards.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

35. Hardly

This is a place for sharing information and opinions. When the source of the information - in this case, a scumbag rightwingnut organization - is questionable, the tradition is to question the source.

Now, do you really find your ignorance all that funny? I don't. I'm thinking that this is a teachable moment for you. So, no need to be defensive. We all learn by our experiences.

[WriteDown]

43. Enjoy another 10 years in Iraq thanks to Pelosi...

I knew she had support from somewhere. I'm sure she'll be asked about this and discussion will be "off the table."

[No Elephants]

32. If a source is unreliable, you really have no way of knowing what the emails actually

said, or even whether there were any emails at all.

[WriteDown]

42. If you say so...

I haven't heard any denials coming out of the Pelosi camp though. I'm sure discussion of this is "off the table."

[babylonsister]

12. Do you know anything about Judicial Watch? Here: they have a definite

agenda. Also, when I googled, the primary links I got were to Sean Hannity. I've learned enough to discount this crap until a valid source tells me otherwise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Great minds do, indeed,

run in the same direction - only this time, one minute apart.

Way to go!

[babylonsister]

18. I'm happy to be in such good company!

[No Elephants]

41. IMO, Write Down (and few posters who are similar to Write Down) have

the same agenda. All I see from him/them are posts with RW positions.

[Shoelace]

51. exactly, Judicial Watch = conservative hangout of R. Mellon Scaife

the Standard Oil King who financed the Heritage Foundation, the mother of all right wing think tanks! Here's their funding from your Wiki link on Judicial Watch:

Funding
In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation<26> and a further $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Both foundations are managed by Richard Mellon Scaife. <26> The year before the Scaife Foundation gave $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000.<26>

In all, between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations – the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.<26> According to MediaTransparency, "Judicial Watch is essentially a tool of Richard Mellon Scaife, who provides almost all its funding."<26>



Nice try Fuxed News!!

[No Elephants]

20. Did you read the Snopes article? when Haestert was Speaker, he got a non-stop flight

on a military jet for security reasons. California requires a bigger plane for non-stop flights, especially when flying Washington to California (which takes about an hour longer than flying east, due to needing to buck the wind).

The RW never made an issue about it for Haestert (nor did the LW). Why does the RW make an issue about it for Pelosi? Aside from typical RW double standards and hypocrisy, of course. And why are posters on a Democratic board following the the lead of the RW?

[WriteDown]

22. So a G4 wouldn't do?

I'm just curious why she needs a G5. The request for a jet doesn't surprise me, just the type. I'm also curious why her and her entire family have to fly somewhere for memorial day. I won't be flying anywhere except for on business for a while. Seems like "off the table" Pelosi is just out of touch.

[babylonsister]

25. Find a legitimate e-mail, then get all hot and bothered. nt

[WriteDown]

30. Good luck....

Please confirm which are illegitimate, 137 pages.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/PelosiAircr...

[babylonsister]

36. See post #12 and review the link. Despite their name, they are

no friend to Democrats and never have been.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. My friend,

we're pushing rocks uphill with this one.

I just quit............

[babylonsister]

38. No kidding-me, too. Waste of our efforts. nt

[No Elephants]

26. Depends. How many hours/miles can a G4 fly without refueling? And wasn't she flying home? Again,

where was all the "concern" when Haestert got the same treatment?

[WriteDown]

29. That's the other thing....

How many hours does any politician need to fly right now to go on vacation? Besides the obvious pollution, the economic climate should curtail that. We made GM's CEO's drive to DC, but our politicians should be flying all over on their vacations. Guess the deficit has been solved.

[No Elephants]

45. Huh? It was recess from Congress. She had a right to go home. How about (a)

answering my questions before trying to scatter BB shot, and (b) coming up with a RELIABLE source for any of your assertions?

[WriteDown]

46. Pelosi/Reid 2012

Can't wait. I'm still trying to figure out why it has to be a G5. Like I said, I look forward to when she is asked about this.

[No Elephants]

50. Again, how many hours can a G4 fly without refueling? If you can figure that out, maybe

you can figure out why it has to be a G5. Haestert lived closer to Washington.

Have you read the Snopes article yet?

Why do you post on a board for Democrats when all your positions are RW?

[WriteDown]

61. Sure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G400

[burythehatchet]

3. Source: Fox News. Regardless of the veracity of this bit of news, why even post it?

The source is Fox. What possible value is it to source Fox? Bizarre.

[Turbineguy]

4. The link to Judicial Watch does not work

so it's hard to verify.

[WriteDown]

5. You have to install judicialwatch's viewer software sometimes

This is what I could copy. The links to the staff emails are there as well.


Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Detailing Pelosi's Repeated Requests for Military Travel
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- March 10, 2009
House Speaker Issued Unprecedented Demands for Military Aircraft and Wasted Taxpayer Resources with Last Minute Cancellations

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Department of Defense (DOD) detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's multiple requests for military air travel. The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's last minute cancellations and changes. The following are a few highlights from the documents, which are linked in full below:

* In response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, "Any chance of politely querying if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?...here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..." The email also notes that Pelosi's office had, "a history of canceling many of their past requests."
* One DOD official complained about the "hidden costs" associated with the speaker's last minute changes and cancellations. "We have...folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc."
* The documents include a discussion of House Ethics rules and Defense Department policies as they apply to the speaker's requests for staff, spouses and extended family to accompany her on military aircraft. In May 2008, for example, Pelosi requested that her husband join her on a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) into Iraq. The DOD explained to Pelosi that the agency has a written policy prohibiting spouses from joining CODEL's into combat zones.
* Documents obtained from the U.S. Army include correspondence from Speaker Pelosi's office requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport Pelosi and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral services of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Pelosi noted in her letter of August 22, 2008, that such a request, labeled "Operation Tribute" was an "exception to standard policy."
* The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. "It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable...The speaker will want to know where the planes are..." wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset peaker."
* During another email exchange DOD staff advised Kay King that one Pelosi military aircraft request could not be met because of "crew rest requirements" and offered to help secure commercial travel. Kay King responded: "We appreciate the efforts to help the codel fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that."

Speaker Pelosi came under fire in 2007 for requesting a 42-seat Air Force carrier to ferry the Speaker and her staff back and forth between San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was allowed access to a 12-seat commuter jet for security reasons after the events of 9/11.

"Taken together, these documents show that Speaker Pelosi treats the Air Force like her personal airline," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Not only does Speaker Pelosi issue unreasonable requests for military travel, but her office seems unconcerned about wasting taxpayer money with last minute cancellations and other demands."
Documents

* Pelosi staff emails
* Pelosi staff emails
* Pelosi staff emails
* Pelosi authorization letters
* DOD FOIA response letter
* Documents regarding travel on military aircraft in the custody of the US Air Force
* US Air Force Weekly Travel Reports
* Pelosi authorization letters and CODEL participants lists from the US Army
* Pelosi authorization letters and CODEL and Tribute documents from the US Navy

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. I wouldn't install anything

having to do with Judicial Watch.

Their big contributor is Richard Mellon Scaife.

Need I say more?

[WriteDown]

24. Ugh, 137 pages...

someone can have fun reading these.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/PelosiAircr...

[No Elephants]

49. The link does not work. What part of lousy source is escaping you? And again, where was all the

cern all the years that Haestert was getting the same treatment?

[Captain Hilts]

7. As 3rd in the line of succession, doesn't the speaker have rights to govt. aircraft? nt

[marshall]

9. For herself, yes, but not for an entourage of family and friends

Of course lots of people ask for the moon and the stars knowing they won't get it, but hoping they might get lucky and get a little something. Where's the harm in asking?

[Captain Hilts]

14. The prez and veep fly with family. Are the rules different for Speaker? I'm just curious.

Would she have to fly in an empty plane?

Or would she have to pay comparable fare for kin flying with her?

[WriteDown]

27. My issue is with the G5...

Luxury jet to the extreme. I think its important for the Speaker to fly with her immediate family when traveling on business, but I'm curious why anyone has to take a long distance vacation in this economic climate.

[marshall]

54. As far as I know the Speaker's spouse has no official duties

The spouse of the President has an office and staff and a full schedule of official duties. The spouse of the Vice President likewise has official hosting duties, an office, etc. My understanding is that the spouse of the Speaker of the House has no official duties or office.

[No Elephants]

66. So, your only issue here is that Pelosi should be the only passenger. BTW, the other

spouses officially have no offical duties either. They have no job description and don't get paid. Neither the Pres or the VP even has to have a spouse.

And, are you taking Fox's word for it that her spouse does fly with her? All the time? Once? What are the facts here and how do you know?

[Captain Hilts]

67. Right, so they don't pay. What if Pelosi paid comparable airfare for her husband/daughter, whoever.

That would be fine by me.

[No Elephants]

60. Better it should fly only one passenger? And are you taking Fox's word for it?

[Captain Hilts]

65. Not at all. Didn't say that made any sense. nt

[DURHAM D]

10. Yep - seems essential for security reasons.

Also, everyone needs to remember that Judicial Watch is a William M. Scaiffe funded bunch of fundie a-holes. They started up during the Clinton years to help with the Arkansas project and managed to waste time and run up legal fees for everyone who worked in the W.H.

[No Elephants]

53. Not only a right, but an obligation.

[SkyDaddy7]

8. Pelosi needs to stop this...

It only makes her look like she is above the rest when it comes to saving money! We need her to reframe so that we can get much needed legislation through without giving the Republicans fire power! PLEASE!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. No she doesn't

She doesn't even need to dignify this kind of ankle-biting with any kind of comment.

Consider the source, laugh about it, and ignore it. The rightwingnuts will eat it up, believing that it's true, whether it is or not, because they've got nothing else.

Remember?

We won.

[WriteDown]

21. If you're fine with this

then I'm fine with a CEO flying on a corporate jet. A G5 is the height of luxury. Seems odd that a G4 is unacceptable.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. There's a very big difference

The Speaker Of The House is third in line in the succession for the Presidency.

Now, would you care to rethink your conclusion? Because I'm sure it doesn't matter a whit to the Speaker that you're "fine with a CEO flying on a corporate jet."

Your comparison is specious. When did the Speaker get bailout money from taxpayers to keep the House of Representatives going? And, what is her salary?

Better to think before you conclude, I'd say.

[WriteDown]

40. Therefore what?

Treated like a queen. The government is running a huge deficit. What about that do you not understand? It is identical to a company that is in the red and they are both using govt money.

[DURHAM D]

34. Looks like arguing over a G4 or a G5 is all you are left with.

In the future you might want to give a thought to your source. There are too many old timers on DU to let this bad story bubble.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

39. Tangerine likes you

You have a nice, pithy way of summing up a scene.

Tangerine likes that.

Come, share a stogie with Tangerine.......................

[WriteDown]

44. Like I said above....

I'm glad people like Pelosi are defended so vehemently. Thanks to her, we're never going to really leave Iraq and Bushler will never see one single consequence for his actions. She'll be asked about this on one of the Sunday shows and discussion will be "off the table."

[DURHAM D]

47. Changing the subject I see...

Tangie was right - you need to see this as a teachable moment. Or maybe a "learnable" moment.

[WriteDown]

48. Subject has never changed.

Pelosi is worthless. Or at least she should be due to her past inaction. I was not prepared for her fan club though.

[DURHAM D]

52. You have not encountered her fan club necessarily.

Your problem is that this is a two year old story that has no legs. It came from the Karl Rove/Jeff Gannon school of "bogus and alarmist journalism" then, as well as now.

[No Elephants]

62. Sure it has. You started with the plane. You are not getting the Pelosi fan club, just people who

don't fall for crap from sources like Fox.

[No Elephants]

58. Any Sunday host who asks her will show his ignorance. This whole issue was

ventilated thoroughly when she first became speaker and Dummya refused to give her a nonstop flight home, even though Haestert had been getting a nonstop flight home. The RW made an issue of it then and it was responded to then. I have no idea why the RW is resurrecting it now.

[No Elephants]

56. Again, how many hours/ miles can a G4 go without refueling?

[Xenotime]

57. BULLSHIT Corporate CEOs need to learn their place. Things are going to change.

Pelosi has earned her right to fly how she and those around her see fit.

[Captain Hilts]

33. No, she doesn't. nt

[No Elephants]

55. Um, did you read the Snopes article linked upthread?

[LiberalFighter]

28. Most likely all bullcrap. This was brought up a year or two ago before and put down.

[maddezmom]

59. According to your own link Pelosi's office did comment

Pelosi's office disputed the claim, pointing to White House policy enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks allowing for the House speaker to travel to his or her congressional district via military aircraft whenever possible for security reasons. Her office said she typically uses the same kind of aircraft used by her predecessor, Dennis Hastert.

~snip~

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said the report seemed to be based on only "a few e-mails," and defended the requests for military aircraft for her colleagues as a "function of the speaker's office." Elshami said at least one of the requests in the above e-mails referenced requests made for other members.

Pelosi's office noted that the Department of Defense ultimately makes all decisions on use of military aircraft for travel, and that Pelosi is "extraordinarily appreciative" of the department's effort to accommodate Congress.

[WriteDown]

68. Cool....

I don't support the "But Repukes did it" defense though.

[maddezmom]

69. from what I remember reading about it 2 yrs ago if was Sgt at Arms that informed her that she

was entitled to use the planes. This seems to nothing more than a recycled hit piece that started with the Moonie Times, now with a bit of new info(but not complete info)from Judicial Watch(which is no friend of Democrats)Fox runs the story again.

[No Elephants]

63. Fox is resurrecting bull doo that was refuted two years ago. Here is just

one link from that time. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-air...

[maddezmom]

70. Locking

Considering the source, the Snopes article and the outfit making the claims we're going to lock this up now. If a reliable source on this topic becomes available please feel free to repost.