Pelosi proves it again

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Boy, I hate when my private jet has to stop and refuel before I reach my destination.

I know how you feel. Makes me want to put a bullet in my head every time.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Seems she wants more than was allocated to a former House Speaker regardless of what the rules are. She wants special treatment.

Not that a right wing rag like Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times would have an agenda somewhere outside of reality, but... :shocked:

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:

• Pelosi to Fly in Air Force Plane
  Service to Provide Bigger Jet By Rachel Van Dongen
  Roll Call Staff
  February 5, 2007
  
  The Defense Department has agreed to furnish House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with a jet big enough to fly nonstop coast-to-coast, despite complaints from some Republicans that the request was causing friction at the Pentagon.
  
  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.

More Repuglican propaganda exposed. :thumbsup:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Seems she wants more than was allocated to a former House Speaker regardless of what the rules are. She wants special treatment.

Not that a right wing rag like Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times would have an agenda somewhere outside of reality, but... :shocked:

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:

• Pelosi to Fly in Air Force Plane
  Service to Provide Bigger Jet By Rachel Van Dongen
  Roll Call Staff
  February 5, 2007
  
  The Defense Department has agreed to furnish House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with a jet big enough to fly nonstop coast-to-coast, despite complaints from some Republicans that the request was causing friction at the Pentagon.
  
  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.

so.... /thread?

 

[boomerang]

Get her a smaller plane that can be re-fueled in the air. That oughta get her some wood!

 

[Fern]

I wish the articles had some info regarding the ref-fueling. Is it really that big of hassle? Or just a ploy to get a much larger plane?

Isn't there a similar sized plane, but with longer flight capability, she could possible use?

Murtha makes a "threat" to the Pentagon/military?

Murtha said he is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking information about the possibility that Pelosi would use large military planes to make her look bad. But he said, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them,'' referring to the Pentagon budget.

That's a jack@ss thing to say. I.e., we don't budget based on need &/or priorities, rather how much @ss kissing we recieve.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern
I wish the articles had some info regarding the ref-fueling. Is it really that big of hassle? Or just a ploy to get a much larger plane?

In flight refueling requires launching a second plane, a tanker, which, by definition is a heavy lifting fuel burner with an experienced crew, and it requires a second takeoff and landing operation for the tanker.

The most dangerous and fuel consuming times in any flight are takeoff and landing, and launching the second plane just adds another chancd of an accident that exists for any aircraft.

Isn't there a similar sized plane, but with longer flight capability, she could possible use?

I caught Pelosi's statement on the news, this morning. She said she's willing to take commercial flights, but her security people are against it. She also said they tried to find smaller craft that would make the trip non-stop.

Maybe you could search for available smaller planes that would. If you find any, post the info, and send the it to Pelosi.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I caught Pelosi's statement on the news, this morning. She said she's willing to take commercial flights, but her security people are against it.

So? Take one anyway. They work for her, not the other way around.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

In short, the attempt to limit her to a plane that was used by somebody before her that had a short flight, and the attempt to build this into some fantastic political issue of greed and personal corruption and hypocrisy, etc. is nothing more than small minded, in this case, Republican snit and vituperation of which there exists a massive abundance.

I'm sure you'd have felt the same way if Hastert was lobbying for a larger "plain".

I certainly would have. I long ago accommodated myself to the fact that important people get and deserve special perks due solely to their position and regardless of their personality. I don't care that the Queen of England doesn't walk to the store or that Bush gets to fly in a helicopter. I see no reason at all to feel slighted by the privilege of others who have done the actual work to arrive at their positions, regardless of my assessment of their real merit because I am emotionally mature enough to handle it. My self worth does not depend on everyone else, including people I have no respect for, being equal to or beneath me. I do not begrudge the extra cost I will have to pay in taxes because it will be microscopic and an inevitability of the reality of the situation and I already have to pay for millions of things in taxes I already do not support. In short I am not an idiotic emotional child at east in this one area and have memories of the same reaction to people on the left bitching about privileges taken on the right. How about you?

That's the thing. Elected officals are representatives of the population. They are not suppose to be royality and pampered.

That's right. I don't want my representative wasting their time on crap like refueling a plain that can't fly to it's destination. I want them pampered and treated with time saving efficiencies so they can do their real job. I also don't want the executives in companies I hold shares in looking for a parking spot instead of making me more money. Try to grow up emotionally. Your body is too big for such a small-minded point of view.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern
I wish the articles had some info regarding the ref-fueling. Is it really that big of hassle? Or just a ploy to get a much larger plane?

In flight refueling requires launching a second plane, a tanker, which, by definition is a heavy lifting fuel burner with an experienced crew, and it requires a second takeoff and landing operation for the tanker.

The most dangerous and fuel consuming times in any flight are takeoff and landing, and launching the second plane just adds another chancd of an accident that exists for any aircraft.

Isn't there a similar sized plane, but with longer flight capability, she could possible use?

I caught Pelosi's statement on the news, this morning. She said she's willing to take commercial flights, but her security people are against it. She also said they tried to find smaller craft that would make the trip non-stop.

Maybe you could search for available smaller planes that would. If you find any, post the info, and send the it to Pelosi.

How bout one of allen's/Benson's X planes?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's right. I don't want my representative wasting their time on crap like refueling a plain that can't fly to it's destination. I want them pampered and treated with time saving efficiencies so they can do their real job.

Speak for yourself. Since the 'real job' most reps do is pretty darn poor (can't even balance a budget, for one), the longer the layover, the better!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Harvey
I caught Pelosi's statement on the news, this morning. She said she's willing to take commercial flights, but her security people are against it.

So? Take one anyway. They work for her, not the other way around.

Travel to her home district is part of her job, and there are major security issues faced by a high profile public office holder. A reasonable security would require a number of people traveling with her. Now, you're paying for all of their time and their round trip fares, food, lodging for every trip, and that's before you get to the logistical hassles each and every time she travels.

Assuming nothing more than doing her job well is important for the nation, her security is important, and the real costs of using commercial travel don't make sense.

Think through the problem, and try again.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow, even the White House is defending Pelosi's request:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

In an interview with Fox News Wednesday night, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.

The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee nonstop service.

Link

Looks like the Pentagon turned down her request for a larger plane tho...

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Harvey
I caught Pelosi's statement on the news, this morning. She said she's willing to take commercial flights, but her security people are against it.

So? Take one anyway. They work for her, not the other way around.

Travel to her home district is part of her job, and there are major security issues faced by a high profile public office holder. A reasonable security would require a number of people traveling with her. Now, you're paying for all of their time and their round trip fares, food, lodging for every trip, and that's before you get to the logistical hassles each and every time she travels.

Assuming nothing more than doing her job well is important for the nation, her security is important, and the real costs of using commercial travel don't make sense.

Think through the problem, and try again.

Thanks for your condescension. The difference between you and me is that I don't think she, or most any 'high profile public office holder' is worthy of a security detail. It's not like there's a shortage of rich white people we can't plug right into her chair if she gets whacked. If Pelosi didn't want to assume the risks of the job, she should return to her substantial estate and let the next millionaire public 'servant' step up.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, even the White House is defending Pelosi's request:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

In an interview with Fox News Wednesday night, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.

The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee nonstop service.

Link

Looks like the Pentagon turned down her request for a larger plane tho...

wow, that pretty much kills this thread. it was nice that the pentagon is now trying to be accomodating with a larger plane based on its availability.

 

[Looney]

Look at this, even the White House is defending her:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/D8N5MJO00.html

But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office _ or the White House.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Thanks for your condescension. The difference between you and me is that I don't think she, or most any 'high profile public office holder' is worthy of a security detail. It's not like there's a shortage of rich white people we can't plug right into her chair if she gets whacked. If Pelosi didn't want to assume the risks of the job, she should return to her substantial estate and let the next millionaire public 'servant' step up.

Oops. Sorry. That wasn't intended to be condescension. It was contempt. Your own statement proves both your arrogance and your ignorance without further comment from me. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

In short, the attempt to limit her to a plane that was used by somebody before her that had a short flight, and the attempt to build this into some fantastic political issue of greed and personal corruption and hypocrisy, etc. is nothing more than small minded, in this case, Republican snit and vituperation of which there exists a massive abundance.

I'm sure you'd have felt the same way if Hastert was lobbying for a larger "plain".

I certainly would have. I long ago accommodated myself to the fact that important people get and deserve special perks due solely to their position and regardless of their personality. I don't care that the Queen of England doesn't walk to the store or that Bush gets to fly in a helicopter. I see no reason at all to feel slighted by the privilege of others who have done the actual work to arrive at their positions, regardless of my assessment of their real merit because I am emotionally mature enough to handle it. My self worth does not depend on everyone else, including people I have no respect for, being equal to or beneath me. I do not begrudge the extra cost I will have to pay in taxes because it will be microscopic and an inevitability of the reality of the situation and I already have to pay for millions of things in taxes I already do not support. In short I am not an idiotic emotional child at east in this one area and have memories of the same reaction to people on the left bitching about privileges taken on the right. How about you?

That's the thing. Elected officals are representatives of the population. They are not suppose to be royality and pampered.

That's right. I don't want my representative wasting their time on crap like refueling a plain that can't fly to it's destination. I want them pampered and treated with time saving efficiencies so they can do their real job. I also don't want the executives in companies I hold shares in looking for a parking spot instead of making me more money. Try to grow up emotionally. Your body is too big for such a small-minded point of view.

You have much to learn about the world. I'm sure that extra 2 hours that is spent refueling is costing the US billions of dollars because being the Speaker of the House is such an important mission. If she didn't need one before, she doesn't need one now because she just didn't get elected to Congress.

If you don't like the way a CEO runs the company you hold stock in, you can sell your stock and spend your money on something else. US taxpayers can't sell stock in the gov't and reinvest it somewhere else.

Maybe next time before you spout some nonsense, you should try and think first.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Thanks for your condescension. The difference between you and me is that I don't think she, or most any 'high profile public office holder' is worthy of a security detail. It's not like there's a shortage of rich white people we can't plug right into her chair if she gets whacked. If Pelosi didn't want to assume the risks of the job, she should return to her substantial estate and let the next millionaire public 'servant' step up.

Oops. Sorry. That wasn't intended to be condescension. It was contempt. Your own statement proves the point without further comment from me. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Just because you need a lord and master doesn't mean I do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal. But isn't it funny that the Dems put Reps under a microscope for so many years for any and everything possible...and now the Dems find themselves under the scope and cry 'foul'. Isn't it amusing to see how 'rational' Dems can be when justifying themselves and oblivious to reason they are when criticizing the other party. I think the Dems should start getting used to the heat because (I suspect) that this is just the beginning.

But...then again...I imagine that the Dems should be OK with being treated the same as they treated the Reps when the Reps were in control. After all...turnabout is fair play.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Quote:
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.

Quote:
On Feb. 1, unnamed administration and congressional sources leaked to the Washington Times that Pelosi was "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.'"

Quote:
Because the C-20 generally would need to stop and refuel to make it all the way to the Bay Area, Pelosi requested a plane that could make it to California without having to stop along the way, and asked for clarification from the Pentagon about whether friends and colleagues could accompany her.

Quote:
Republican leaders have also stated - with no tangible evidence - that Pelosi wants to use the plane to reward financial contributors.

"She was offered the same aircraft that the previous speaker had," Putnam said yesterday. "It sat 12 people, and she refused it, didn't think it was big enough for all of her friends and supporters. In fact, she specifically requested that supporters be able to travel."

Quote:
There are four types of planes available at the 89th Airlift wing, at nearby Andrews Air Force Base - the C-20 Hastert once used, C-21s which are even smaller than the C-20 and thus not able to fly nonstop to San Francisco, and the fabled C-32.

There is also the C-37A - a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar.

Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.Quote:

The republican swiftboaters are pathetic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, another issue where the Republican hate machine makes itself out to be a collective of fools.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Just because you need a lord and master doesn't mean I do.

Ahh... That's MUCH better. You've improved from arrogance and ignorance to benign irrelevance. :laugh:

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal. But isn't it funny that the Dems put Reps under a microscope for so many years for any and everything possible...and now the Dems find themselves under the scope and cry 'foul'. Isn't it amusing to see how 'rational' Dems can be when justifying themselves and oblivious to reason they are when criticizing the other party. I think the Dems should start getting used to the heat because (I suspect) that this is just the beginning.

But...then again...I imagine that the Dems should be OK with being treated the same as they treated the Reps when the Reps were in control. After all...turnabout is fair play.

I don't see why it's funny. She never requested it herself. Even the White House has admitted this has been solely between the House Sergent-at-Arms and the Pentagon.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal. But isn't it funny that the Dems put Reps under a microscope for so many years for any and everything possible...and now the Dems find themselves under the scope and cry 'foul'. Isn't it amusing to see how 'rational' Dems can be when justifying themselves and oblivious to reason they are when criticizing the other party. I think the Dems should start getting used to the heat because (I suspect) that this is just the beginning.

But...then again...I imagine that the Dems should be OK with being treated the same as they treated the Reps when the Reps were in control. After all...turnabout is fair play.

I don't see why it's funny. She never requested it herself. Even the White House has admitted this has been solely between the House Sergent-at-Arms and the Pentagon.

Please don't spoil the fun with humble facts. I need to hate Nancy Pelosi and I don't want real information to get in the way. Please don't try to make it obvious that I am a fool.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal. But isn't it funny that the Dems put Reps under a microscope for so many years for any and everything possible...and now the Dems find themselves under the scope and cry 'foul'. Isn't it amusing to see how 'rational' Dems can be when justifying themselves and oblivious to reason they are when criticizing the other party. I think the Dems should start getting used to the heat because (I suspect) that this is just the beginning.

But...then again...I imagine that the Dems should be OK with being treated the same as they treated the Reps when the Reps were in control. After all...turnabout is fair play.

I don't see why it's funny. She never requested it herself. Even the White House has admitted this has been solely between the House Sergent-at-Arms and the Pentagon.

I think it's funny as to how how defensive everyone is. Like I said, this is no big deal. I think you missed the point of my post.