Welp...she's no Al Gore

[Spackling Compound]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070207-123706-5963r.htm

I thought the Dems were supposed to at least play at being sort of "green, eco-friendly".....

[Jack Zodiac]

Security reasons? Give her an armored truck with a fold out bed and a wet bar and call it the Pelosimobile.

[Puma]

FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft
On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled “Speaker pursues military flights,” which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been “pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.” Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”
The story was disseminated widely through right-wing talk radio and blogs, spurring posts like, “First Class Pelosi,” “Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air,” “Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power,” “The Imperial Speakership,” “Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy,” “Pelosi wants military airlift,” and “Nancy Pelosi’s Private Military Plane.”
In fact, the central claims of the Washington Times piece are both false.
1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”
2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. 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. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.

Read the full Sergeant at Arms statement:
STATEMENT BY SERGEANT AT ARMS
In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.
I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.
Subsequently, several members of the Speaker’s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-aircraft/

If I remember correctly, an airplane uses the most fuel during takeoff so having one that is capable of a one-way trip without the need to refuel might actually be more eco-friendly.

[Serik]

Thanks for that fact check. I wonder if the Post will clarify its original article...

Also remember that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is second in line for the presidency. That's probably why they wanted Speaker Hastert to use the plane in the first place.

[spoon_jenkins]

Thanks for that fact check. I wonder if the Post will clarify its original article...

Also remember that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is second in line for the presidency. That's probably why they wanted Speaker Hastert to use the plane in the first place.
It's not the Washington Post that ran the story. The Post is the legitimate paper in Washington. The story is from the Washington Times.

[Michael P]

The Moonie Times. Where responsible journalism is something that happens to other people.

[Sean Walsh]

I saw on TV last night (in passing) that the White House was defending Pelosi in this whole airplane mess thingy.

So this basically means Pelosi = Satan, right?

[Serik]

It's not the Washington Post that ran the story. The Post is the legitimate paper in Washington. The story is from the Washington Times.

ahhh...now it makes more sense.

[LtMarvel]

So we should change the title to..

Welp...it's no New York Times

[Iangould]

I saw on TV last night (in passing) that the White House was defending Pelosi in this whole airplane mess thingy.

So this basically means Pelosi = Satan, right?

No, it's just part of the recovery process as the Republican Party rejoins the reality-based community.

[phoenixrising]

Have you guys seen the GOP press conferences the past few days? A few reps are still running with this - and it gets more and more ridiculous every time its told. One said she wanted an equivalent to the 757. Another said she wanted a ballroom on board. Another said she planned to use it to fly her family and supporters around. It's just sad and ridiculous - and TV has no business running it.

And I can't believe a story from the Washington Times was ever used on this site, even by someone obviously trying to make a pro-GOP point. It makes me want to cry that this paper is even remotely considered credible.