Think Progress is claiming that the Washington Times published a false report regarding a request from Speaker Pelosi “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.” While TP attempts to spin things as though they can support that claim, they cannot.
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.
First, they claim that the request came from the House Sergeant at Arms and not Pelosi. That's a bit of a laugher. There is nothing unusual about such formality. They then go on to state that the request was only due to a need for an airplane which wouldn't require refueling to make the coast to coast flight.
That's fine, and may be part of the rationale. However the catch is at the end of the statement TP uses to support their false claim. It actual prevents them from proving anything and actually looks to be more supportive of the WaTimes than TP.
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.
Based on that last paragraph there is nothing in the statement disproving the claims of the Washington Times. Actually, it may well support them, if it sheds any light at all. The statement says nothing as to the nature of the questions posed by Pelosi, or members of her staff - only that several were posed.
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."
"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.
—Dan Riehl is a blogger and journalist. Read more of his work at Riehl World View.














Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I heard she requested a maste
February 6, 2007 - 04:10 ET byI heard Nancy requested a master key to all the white house women's restrooms.
If we cannot count on the MSM at least for reporting the latest gossip correctly, what good are they?
hmm..."They just don't make 'em like Walter anymore."
OMG, really? I heard she wa
February 6, 2007 - 10:03 ET by steviep831OMG, really? I heard she wanted to put up a divider in the Oval Office and use 'her' half for storage...
You know, I don't mind her team inquiring about use of the military planes, and I don't mind if she actually uses them if she has to... But two things: this is not a limo service for all your family and friends. And WTH does "staff and other supporters mean"? Anyone that gives you a buck, you are going to allow them access to military planes? I'm sorry but Barbara Streisand is not flying around on my dime. You can take the plane along with your immediate staff and only if thery are going with you. That's it.
Secondly, being from the environmentalist wacko state, do you really think your wacko constituents are going to go for you flying around in large military aircrafts anytime you want? What about your precious global warming? How are you going to rationalize that?
lol... exactly....
February 6, 2007 - 13:26 ET bylol... exactly....
They then go on to state th
February 6, 2007 - 07:12 ET by motherbeltThey then go on to state that the request was only due to a need for an
airplane which wouldn't require refueling to make the coast to coast
flight.
Since when do civilian aircraft need to refuel for a coast-to-coast flight? Don't planes fly from NY and DC to the west coast all the time?
not 100% sure...
February 6, 2007 - 09:02 ET by dmntd1If my memory holds, there were four civilian flights that took off for non-stop East coast to West coast flights that never made it.....
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
The chance of terrorism and
February 6, 2007 - 15:28 ET by motherbeltThe chance of terrorism and/or hijacking was NOT given as a reason for wanting military flights. Avoiding refueling was. And civilian flights do NOT need to refuel to go coast-to-coast.
While your comment is true, it is irrelevant to the Pelosi situation.
And to pay for this, addition
February 6, 2007 - 10:54 ET by FastEdAnd to pay for this, additional taxes (on the rich - what's today's definition of rich?), can we say mis-use of military aircraft and air crews (though this could be considered "training"). But, what about the additional CO2 and hydrocarbons and the effect on GW?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Ok, then I have a question. W
February 6, 2007 - 11:00 ET by sarcasmoOk, then I have a question. Was it misuse of military aircraft and crews when Hastert was doing the same exact thing? (I think so, because I think it's post-9/11 pork that does little or no good for US national security for the dollars in taxes spent now and when Hastert was doing it, but I think that regardless of the party of the porker benefitting from personal airplanes!)
JMR
It seems to me that a certain
February 6, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Del DolemonteIt seems to me that a certain NY Yankees fan from Illinois/Arkansas also used government aircraft while she was running for the Senate in 1999 and 2000. No one even cared about that...
For brevity sake I left out t
February 6, 2007 - 12:16 ET by FastEdFor brevity sake I left out that Hastert was using a smaller aircraft, and my BIG complaint is the DEMAND for a larger and less fuel efficient aeorship. I agree that ALL government tax feeders should be using public transportation, in fact, all who are on the dole, should be using private means, with the exception of the CinC.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
LOL, Dan I love how you chose
February 6, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, Dan I love how you chose to abbreviate "Think Progress" to the two letters "TP". We all know what that means!
When I flew for the Navy we u
February 6, 2007 - 11:25 ET by BruzillaWhen I flew for the Navy we used to do lots of cross country flights for non-military purposes. The planes and crews are already paid for whether we're flying a military mission or a training mission, so there's really no extra expense aside from fuel. We would fly squadron members home on leave, take shopping trips, house-hunting trips, trips to talk to personnel folks about upcoming orders, etc. These were all non-military flights, but the crews still have to fly to keep current, so we always tried to get some benefit out of long navigation flights. Another issue is that we get "X" number of flight hours a quarter, and if we don't use them then the next quarter's hours are reduced. This mean that sometimes we would fly from Jacksonville to Bermuda to Norfolk to Brunswick, Me and back to Jacksonville just to burn up flight hours.
Whenever I would deploy and w
February 6, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Eric TurnerWhenever I would deploy and we'd fly over on USAF birds I always loved it how they just happened to have "mechanical problems" near Rota, Spain or Ramstein, GE. Amazingly the crew would return with racks of beer after the "maintenance trouble" was corrected.
seems it's all true
February 6, 2007 - 14:04 ET by tumbler_2007A pal of mine, now deceased, was in the USAF; once I asked him did he fly the jets.
He said, "Nah; they only want crazy cats for that; HOT ROCKS." Now you put the seal on it.
The reason for "engine t
February 6, 2007 - 14:12 ET by BruzillaThe reason for "engine trouble" around Rota was the Hummel and Lladro figurines that you could buy at the exchange. :) Reasons for failures near the Azores was wine and other beverages. If you developed problems over Sicily you kept going until you got somewhere else or bailed out over the Med. :)
The other great spot for engine problems was over the Soviet SRS Kubon, which was a floating brothel that the Soviets used to send around to anchorages to take care of the guys who couldn't go ashore. The location of the Kubon was part of every pre-flight brief I got in the Med.
USAF birds and layovers
February 6, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Eric TurnerYeah, I know. I had some great 2 and 3 day layovers in Rota, Sigonella, Ramstein...wonderful. I was stationed in Germany 6 years but still, having a layover there was nice.
But man did I hate flying on the KC-135 tankers. I really can't tell you which was the worst I mean it's like picking the worse apple in a bunch of bad apples - flying in a C-130, C-141, KC-135 or a C5. They all stink when you're in the back on a cargo strapseat or sitting in a passenger pallet seat. I always enjoyed the chartered civilian flights though - sweet! umph..isn't it funny? They weren't flown by the USAF! ;-)
What will she say if the Air
February 6, 2007 - 11:29 ET by ucWhat will she say if the Air Force comes back stating such use is only allowed during war time and other imminant threat to our national security periods? And why wouldn't it be better to buy and use her own ride and maybe just have landing rights at Andrews Air Force Base? Is it the jumpsuits she wants access to?
Pork's pork. That's why I'm n
February 6, 2007 - 11:31 ET by sarcasmoPork's pork. That's why I'm not-a-fan of either "major" political party. If we still had Proxmire Hastert and Pelosi would have both gotten well-deserved "Golden Fleece" awards.
JMR
A little known fact about Arnold, regardless of your opinion.
February 6, 2007 - 13:36 ET by acaiguanaA little known fact about Arnold, regardless of your opinion.
Dear Ms Pelosi,
Your fellow Californian, Mr. Schwarzenegger, was appointed by Ronald Reagan to be the National Spokesman for Physical Fitness (or some such title).
He puchased from his own pocket a jet aircraft. He paid for his own flights around the country to give speeches about physical fitness.
I know you ain't got a dime in this country where poor middle class folks from Baltimore, Maryland (I think that was the recent BS line on her background) although your Daddy was the Mayor and in the House. But what the hey, maybe you could get your supporters to buy something (Cessna maybe?) to get you around - or at least your 'supporters'.
Naw, I don't begrudge your use of our Military to haul your Liberal Military Hating Butt around. After all, it is a 'perk' of the office. All you politicians think alike from both sides of the aisle on this one.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
President Bush says sure, S
February 6, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Jack BauerPresident Bush says sure, Speaker Nancy can have her military jet.
But it's going to be fitted with a left wing only.
Crash and burn baby.
(And no, moonbats, I'm not actually suggesting that the Speaker of the House is imolated as part of a giant right wing conspiracy!)
On the other hand... I rememb
February 6, 2007 - 15:40 ET by BruzillaOn the other hand... I remember all the things we used to do to VIPs we didn't care for while we were flying. Little things like dropping a couple of drops of hydraultic fluid into their coffee, putting "WARNING: ELECTRICAL SHOCK HAZARD" stickers on the toilets, dropping food into the hydraulic service center, sinking a half toothpick into the seat cushions, "running out" of comfort items like ear plugs, coffee cups, blankets, etc., due to "budget cuts", etc. Now that I think about it, I would LOVE to fly Ms. Pilosi and her military-hating buddies anywhere they want to go. :)
Here is real ethics reform:
February 6, 2007 - 21:14 ET by GoldenEagleHere is real ethics reform: Some Conservative should submit a bill that denies access to government aircraft to ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR THEIR STAFF unless it is authorized by the President. Of course, if I were President, I would slash their travel budget so much they would have to hitch a ride with a "commoner" to get around. Perhaps that will encourage them to reduce the time they spend in Washington and stop abusing the citizens of this country. I would also reduce my use of Air Force One to 1-2 international flights per year only, using commercial carriers for all domestic flights and actually flying with the people who pay my salary. That might actually improve airline safety.