
![]() | |
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 1, 2010 The Jet SetBy GreyhawkFor those aircraft aficionados out there, thought you might appreciate a look at part of Nancy Pelosi's fleet:
Okay, actually it's yours - she just gets to use it. To fly her family around. On official government business. Anyhow, the little one is a C37 (a Gulfstream V for you civilians) and the bigger one is a C40 - a military version of the Boeing 737-700. And time flies whether you do or not - witness this story is from three years ago today: The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time." And this one was from one week after:
To sort this out a bit, the Speaker's argument, as I understand it, is that there's a terrorist threat ("It has nothing to do with family and friends and everything to do with security," Pelosi said) if she is forced to travel in a smaller aircraft that would have to refuel at any of the red dots along the pink line on this map: ![]() ...but her political opponents claimed she was actually just trying to score a bigger aircraft so she could transport her family (and anyone else she wanted) free of charge. Pelosi countered that as far as family travel went, the only reason they had asked about that at all was to make sure they weren't breaking any rules if the Speaker brought her kids along for the ride. (You know, as long as they're using one of those great big airplanes anyway because of the security threat, and all that extra space was just going to waste...) In the end, Jack Murtha was able to resolve the issue by accusing the Air Force of being behind the "leaks" regarding Pelosi's "travel plans," and warning them they had best shut up if they knew what was good for them:
While apparently aimed at the military, Murtha's unsubtle reminder of just who held the purse strings controlling all that taxpayer money was heard loud and clear outside the Pentagon, too. But apparently over the intervening years someone either figured out that the rules did allow Pelosi's children and grandchildren to fly, or they (or she) simply re-wrote the rules. Rules can be changed, after all. For instance, at that time, military dependents were forbidden to travel on military aircraft (even if space was available) within the United States (unfair government competition with domestic airlines was the explanation I recall), but a late-2007 rule change allowed it if the military member was deployed. Update - ah, here's the rule: Members of the speaker's family cannot fly unless the speaker makes a request in writing. The Pelosi family has to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the cost of a coach ticket per person for the travel, as well as for any food. Sweet deal - hard to beat 180 bucks - most people pay that for luggage now. But at least Madame Speaker isn't breaking any rules. The question is: are taxpayers okay with that? Next: DoD re-writes Congressional Travel Rules Posted by Greyhawk / February 1, 2010 1:22 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackTrackBack URL: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/17293 No, you can not have a fee ride home. No, you can't bring the kids. While accepting their newly-acquired role as "shuttle service" for the Speaker of the House, the Department of Defense is attempting to draw a line in the sand regarding congressional ... Read More 11 CommentsLeave a comment |
July 19, 2010Dawn Patrol 07/19/2010 [Greyhawk]
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our ongoing roundup of information on war and other topics - from the MilBlogs and other sources around the world.
Always updating - refresh for updates.
AFGHANISTANProspects for stability in Musa Qala: challenges and possible solutions -- [Bill Ardolino /Long War Journal - in Afghanistan] Exploding Culverts -- [Kandahar Diary - in Afghanistan] Arbaki -- [Free Range International - in Afghanistan] Weather -- [A Major's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Fête Nationale -- [Field Notes: One Soldier's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Goodbye "FaST" Food (and good riddance) -- [FaST Surgeon - in Afghanistan] IRAQOn The Iran, Iraq Border -- [J.D. Johannes - in Iraq] WAR ON TERROR /TERRORISMSenators Look For Smoking Gun In BP-Lockerbie Link -- [AP] No Link Between BP And Lockerbie Release: UK Envoy -- [NPR news blog] UK's Cameron: Releasing Lockerbie Bomber Was Wrong -- [AP] U.S. AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLDAs Cameron and Obama Meet, BP Will Be Top Issue -- [NY Times] Afghanistan tops agenda for British PM's visit -- [Washington Times] WELCOME HOMEHomecoming -- [Rajiv Srinivasan - home from Afghanistan] STRATEGY & TACTICSISAF, SCR Address Military ROE and Tactical Directives -- [ISAF] SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYRaytheon's pain gun finally gets deployed in Afghanistan (update: recalled) -- [Engadget] Pain Ray Recalled From Afghanistan -- [Noah Shachtman/Danger Room] The Active Denial System: the weapon that's a hot topic -- [The Telegraph (UK)] World's Fastest Helicopter Boosts Battle Against Insurgents -- [ISAF]
POLITICSIs it time for a real GI Jane? -- [CNN] HUMOR/SATIRE(Need more? Dawn Patrols Archives are here.) Iraq, Afghanistan, War, Terrorism, Military, Politics, Media, MilBlogs, dawn patrol Mudville |
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2009 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() |
What a racket. One of the richest House members sucking on the public teet and changing rules to hide the theft of our taxpayer dollars.
No worse than the Mob or any other gangster....oh wait...it is much worse!
Alan Davidson
"unless the speaker makes a request in writing" - sounds like the Air Force knows this is bullshit, and wants to make sure there's no doubt who's responsible.
But you damn sure don't get to be as rich as the Pelosis are by spending your money when you could use someone else's instead.
Without a doubt, anyone in the presidential line of succession should have the proper security. Now, since I know her age, I wouldn't say that having her children fly with her would provoke the same answer from me as if they were yound children. I hope to see a woman president some day and I would expect the young children to fly with her. So, then it comes down to, if you were in that spot and going to some political function, and your family was expected to be there....as long as you are paying the going rate for their seat, would it be better for you to fly on a military flight and the taxpayer foot the bill for all the fuel. Or would it be better to have you pay the going rate for a ticket and they fly with you. Hmmmm.
But the question is purely one of security - not convenience. Pelosi reiterated that time and again. Only other people are making a big deal about the family travel thing (according to Pelosi).
Not sure why she believes the many USAF bases (and Naval Air Stations) in this country aren't secure, but that's the reason she cites for a Lear jet not being acceptable.
"...if you were in that spot and going to some political function and your family was expected to be there..."
Nope, against the rules: "No travel to political events." However, "Pelosi's husband can travel for free, but only for official protocol purposes."
That's why Pelosi's 'written' requests all specify the kids (who are all adults) and grandkids are traveling on official government business. (She doesn't provide additional details.)
Also: "Members of Congress cannot fly on the plane unless their travel has been cleared with the House Committee on Standards (the Ethics Committee)."
I recognize the security aspect, particularly immediately following 9/11, but isn't the speaker implying that commercial air travel is unsafe? Isn't that the biggest outrage? That it's fine for us schulbs to be flying around with pantybombers? Shouldn't we now at least have a system that the speaker can be confident of?
It's funny how idiots like Pelosi and her California constituents hate the military, and then she uses our military facilities for her convenience. The military should tell her and her family to take a hike!
chicopanther
Security and range my ass.
Gulfstream 5 has a range of 6300 miles @560mph ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_V
The 737 is 3500 miles, at 511mph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-40_Clipper
G-V is faster with longer legs, and has many more emergency divert options.
A sling seat in a C-130 would work for her travel...and plenty of room for baggage to boot!
I can't believe--and am not at all surprised--that a cheap, miserly multi-millionaire like Pelosi (with a family net worth of $12.5 million) would quibble at any time over writing a check for $180 to the US Treasury for any kind of transportation expenses.
She most distinctly has the Marie Antoniette syndrome. What a shame our once-fine country has leaders like this today.
I've seen that net worth quote before - it underestimates how much money the Pelosi's have. They paid that much for a football team.
Whether 24 million or 108 million or more, it's a crying shame we have to pay the airfare to bring the grandkids to DC.