Current Article

Punch/Counterpunch – Pelosi’s Planes

By LisaB on March 13, 2009 at 4:01 AM in Current Affairs

RRRA did a piece (Taxi!) about Pelosi and “Plane-gate” (heh) yesterday. If you didn’t get a chance to read it, go back and enjoy. In the meantime, here are a few extra details about the issue.

The U.S. military maintains a fleet of aircraft whose mission is to fly VIPs on occasion. But as judicialwatch notes, Speaker Pelosi’s behavior suggests she and her staff don’t seem to realize these planes and their personnel aren’t just there for her convenience.

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.

I doubt anyone would begrudge Pelosi a plane to get her to her home district from time to time. However, judging by specifics outlined at judicialwatch, Pelosi thinks nothing of blocking out “plane time” for every weekend, demanding specific planes rather than what is available and changing the itinerary at a moment’s notice.

In response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?…[T]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.”
———-
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 [s]peaker.”

Here’s an example from one of the pdf files judicialwatch made available

OSD has assigned aircraft for these upcoming Speaker shuttles:

email to Pelosi’s staff from February 26, 2007
1 Mar – C-37A (Andrews – SFO)
5 Mar – C-37A (SFO – ADW)
9 Mar – C-20 (ADW – SFO), 45 min refueling stop required
12 Mar – TBD (SFO – ADW)
16 Mar – C-20 (ADW – SFO), 45 min refueling stop required

Michelle Malkin has a column in the NYPost about this and it’s worth a read because of a couple points.

And, of course, it’s the hypocrisy. There’s the eco-hypocrisy of the Democratic leader who wags her finger at the rest of us for our too-big carbon footprints, and crusades for massive taxes and regulation to reduce global warming. Then there’s the Bay Area hypocrisy of the woman who represents one of the most anti-military areas of the country soaking up military resources to shuttle her (and her many family members) across the country almost every weekend.
———–

Three months ago, turmoil erupted over Pelosi’s demand for the military to reposition her plane to fly out of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, Calif., closer to where she had “business,” instead of San Francisco Airport/SFO (1.5 hours away). A special-air-missions official wrote: “We have never done this in the past. The deal is . . . that the speaker shuttle is from DC to SFO and back. We will not reposition. We do not reposition for convenience even for the SECDEF.”

Another official stated bluntly: “We can’t reposition the airplane such a short distance. It is not a judicial use of the asset. It is too expensive to operate the jet when there is truly no need to do so.”

A beleaguered colleague responded: “You know I understand and feel with you . . . but this is a battle we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker office. In the end, this is what will happen. . . . I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future.”

ABC news doesn’t agree with judicialwatch’s take on the topic.

The Judicial Watch release cites e-mails from the military complaining that Pelosi was frequently reserving military aircraft and then canceling, causing the Air Force to incur costs as crews prepped planes than (sic) never went anywhere. These e-mails, however, are from early in her tenure as speaker.

ABC also asserts that Pelosi travels less than her predecessor, Denny Hastert and reminds readers that the Speaker of the House is second in the line of succession to the white house and has had use of military planes since 9/11.

Still, a fact checking group and ABCnews disagrees on documents. Who is right? Back in the day, one would assume ABC was right. Today, not so much.

Fredster

I’m glad I had the trash can nearby so I could vomit in it as I read those docs/emails from judicial-watch.

Hell, cut down on the junkets/CODELs/”fact-finding” trips and you’ve saved a ton of money right there.

Hey! Does Amtrak run from DC to SFO? That’s an idea for her highness!
Honora

I think this ‘controversy’ says more about Judicial Watch and Michele Malkin and their agendas than it does about Pelosi. I really dislike Pelosi, but she is as entitled to AF transportation as is Obama. (And yes I meant to use the word ENTITLED. I am sure Judicial Watch is currently preparing the hit piece on how Hillary does not recycle paper clips.
FLDemFem

The military maintains fleets of planes all over the world for use as transports of various kinds. Back in the 60′s when I was a teenager, I used to hitch rides on MATS planes, Military Air Transport Service, all the time. If there was floor space on the cargo plane, we got to go along. The military is very nice to State Dept. kids overseas. Of course, they were prop planes and we sat on the floor or on benches along the side of the plane rather than real seats, but they got us where we were going. When one has school friends all over Asia and your parents are not about to fund your visits, you get creative. I see no reason why Nancy shouldn’t have the same privileges as we did. Of course, prop planes are slower, noisier, and sitting on the floor or on a bench isn’t the same as a cushy jet, but I don’t mind if Pelosi uses cargo planes to get back and forth. It would surely cut back on her requests if she were limited to cargo MATS instead of the fancy jets. Of course, the ones we rode in were already scheduled for military or embassy business, so we only got the space to park our behinds in for free. The plane was going anyway. Perhaps if Pelosi sticks to already scheduled flights and doesn’t require her own plane every time, people might not be so angry about the waste of it.
mountainaires

I just really cannot stomach Nancy Pelosi anymore. When I was a deluded Democrat, I was excited to see her become Speaker; now, I’m just disgusted by her.
Sassy

We already hear a lot of references to President Pelosi out here in our republican domain.
Suits me…the only difference between the two “embarrassments” is gender!
I’m a Linda too

Nice lady. Wasting taxpayers money and our military for as her personal Chauffer service.

Gee, I seem to remember when she first became Speaker and was denying the reports of her frequent requests. It seems she was full of it then and now.
SoCalDem

I was not happy when she got to be speaker, I live in California and San Francisco isn’t like any other part of California. She doesn’t speak for me or mine, and as a Catholic I find her speaking on religious issues that she has no clue about very disgusting. She went to visit with the Pope and her let her know that the church had not changed their position on abortion as she stated. Shes a f”"king joke.
SoCalDem

I was not happy when she got to be speaker, I live in California and San Francisco isn’t like any other part of California. She doesn’t speak for me or mine, and as a Catholic I find her speaking on religious issues that she has no clue about very disgusting. She went to visit with the Pope and he let her know that the church had not changed their position on abortion as she stated. Shes a f”"king joke.
Peggy Sue

I think it’s the waste of taxpayer money that’s so infuriating to a lot of people. And the imperious attitude of Pelosi and her staff–demanding flights, cancelling flights, acting as if every whim should be catered to. I think she does deserve transport back and forth. But when you act like Marie Antoinette, you’re not going to get much love from the public.

And frankly, as a Dem myself, I find her behavior embarrassing and deplorable. I was initially thrilled when she got the Speaker’s spot. What a huge disappointment!
Julia

But Marie Antoinette was slandered for her political enemies (till here as usual) using sexist points (not so correct here). That’s what is wrong!
Julia

But Marie Antoinette was slandered for her political enemies (till here as usual) using sexist points (not so correct here). That’s what is wrong! If you want to attack Pelosi, politically speaking, do it but not with sexism cause this is discrimination!!
Solara 7

Pelosi has been a disppointment to me.
Peggy Sue

Marie Antoinette and the French aristocrats as a whole made many serious errors in judgment. All you have to do is take a spin through Versailles, see the unbelievable opulance and remember how the French citizenry was faring [the ordinary folks] to realize how deluded they were.

And in the US, we don’t expect our leaders to act or demand privledge on the backs of the taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet. This has nothing to do with gender. Men or women acting like imperious asses are all the same in my book.
trixta

Last night (Thurs) Keith Olberman on his show discussed the issue and concluded that such criticism and scrutiny amounted to a “sexist campaign” against Pelosi, that critics were trying to make her out to be some kind of demanding “diva,” etc.
Give me a break! MSNBC’s misogynist King is complaining about sexism?!! Didn’t he advocate committing a violent act against HRC whereby she would be taken out to the back room and silenced once and for all?!!

Just as Obama and his media minions used false charges of racism to muzzle the opposition, they’re trying to do the same with so-called sexist charges against Pelosi.
trixta

Pelosi undermined HRC every step of the way during the primaries, strong-arming delegates and blackmailing them (i.e. threatening to defund them) to throw their support for Obama. She and the DNC sabotaged and connived to steal the nominiation from the first viable woman candidate for president.

Pelosi is lower than pond scum. She’s the puss that feeds the scum ….
cynic

Yep. Judicial Watch is bankrolled and controlled by conservative newspaper billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who previously funded The Arkansas Project as part of an orchestrated effort to terminate the presidency of Bill Clinton. Judicial Watch is hardly a non-partisan, public interest group.

When examined closely, the documentation Judicial Watch provides to back their assertions about Pelosi add up to nothing. They’ve also failed to include a number of highly relevant facts:

The DoD makes all decisions about proper utilization of military aircraft.

Useage by Pelosi is governed by the same post-9/11 security protocols that applied to her predecessor. High levels of security are considered essential, because she is third in line to assume presidential powers in the event the President and VP were incapacitated. In the event of attack, all three would be likely targets.

Pelosi sometimes uses a larger aircraft than her predecessor because her home state is at a greater distance, which would require the smaller aircraft to make a refueling stop. The DoD considers such a stop an unacceptable security risk.

Pelosi has used military aircraft less frequently than her predecessor.

Inquiries to the DoD regarding Pelosi’s expanded military aircraft useage were not made by Pelosi but by Wilson Livingood, House Sergeant at Arms since 1995. He did this because House security is his responsibility.

The number of early-on requests for military aircraft transport exceeded actual useage, because Pelosi’s staff had not been made aware of prioritization of useage. They were under the impression that an advance request had to be made to assure availability, and so were submitting reqests when a need for travel was possible but uncertain.
Animal Control

“Someone should take her in a back room and only he come out”

Sound’s like violence to me.
Where was the Secret Service? Inspecting Obama’s waffles.
elise

Well, cynic, if Dennis Hastert did it, it must be a good thing because he was certainly a role model for ethical behavior. How can I help be reminded of my children when they were growing up? ie “He did it first” or “It was already broken when I got it. I didnt break it”.

The congress doesn’t fly in the kind of military plane which usually comes to mind. There are stewards to serve meals and an open bar.

“U.S. Air Force travel for VIPs such as members of Congress is first-rate.
The planes are staffed with stewards who serve meals and tend an open bar.
Communications suites allow members to conduct business while traveling.”

The sound like the AIG VIPs. Here I always believed they lived in Washington DC and only returned home to campaign for elections. And, you HAD to bring up the unfortunate fact Pelosi is second in line of succession for the White House. I wonder how many people are aware of this provision? The suicide rate would certainly go up if it were commonly known.