Think Progress Makes Unsupported Charge

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.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"The statement says nothing as to the nature of the questions posed by Pelosi, or members of her staff - only that SEVERAL WERE POSED."

Oh my goodness! What if they asked the military what tbeir favorite color was! Or boxers or briefs! Or something!

What is this, the Chewbacca defense? Or can you just not read?

"...to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane."

Here, let me spell it out for you. The Air Force let Hastert use a plane under one of its policies. Pelosi wants to know why, because unless the Air Force was violating its own policies, she is presumably extended the same privilege.

[seekeronos]

It is very likely that Hastert made use of "space available" or "Space-A" seating arrangements on USAF airlift aircraft (C-17s and C-5s and refeuling aircraft which frequently fly between airbases for resupplying parts and other materiel).

There is a priority for how folks can use Space-A - typically highest priority goes to active duty military, then thier dependents, then reserve members, guard members, and retirees. I wouldn't be surprised if senators and congressmembers had access to Space-A as well.

Much, much less likely is the appropriation of an USAF aircaft for "private" transport, although some VIPs have been known to use small transport (like those Beechcraft King Airs/C-12s used by MAJCOM commanders)

[Dave]

I think Denny would need a cargo plane to shuttle his fat ass around. Did he bring any of his sweaty high school wrestlers with him?

[Legalize]

No, Profesir Riehl, the Moonie Times leveled an unsupported charge, backed by the ubiquitous unnamed source. Pelosi inquired into the use of the plane used by Hastert. If it is alright for Denny to use a plane to fly to suburban Chicago why is it not ok for Pelosi to use a plane to fly to San Fran? San Fran is farther; thus a larger plane would be required to get there. There is no "catch" in the last paragraph. It merely describes that Pelosi, in fact, made an inquiry. There is nothing to support the charge that she made an inquiry so that she could cart around 42 people.

You are a buffon, Riehl. No wonder cute girl bloggers don't want to sleep with you. Of course that could have something to do with your hair piece.

[Artie]

Is he really sporting a rug? It would explain why he's so angry.

[Legalize]

My unnamed source on Mars has it on good authority that it is a piece. And Riehl hasn't disproved it, so the only intellectually consitent conclusion is that this is the case.

[Artie]

Sounds like enough evidence for the Moonies over at the Washington Times to run with it, so why not. That wig should be declared an evil-doer and be liberated asap.

[Alex]

What I particularly love, Dan, is how you completely ignored the vital part of Think Progress' post: namely, it's the Air Force who wants Pelosi to have a new plane, because they think it's safer for her, in a post 9/11 world (what, you want the terrorists to win?), to be able to go non-stop.

But hey, you've never let anything petty like facts or reality interrupt you before.

[scarshapedstar]

The Air Force is a bunch of commie libtards anyhow! What do they know?

[Bill Adkins]

Pretty simple, really - give us the exact info and specifics about Hastert's use of such planes and extend the same circumstance to Pelosi.
As to the moonie/Republican connection, it's pretty extensive. Check out this google string - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2006-32,RNWE:en&q=sun+myung+moon+republican Does it make you feel any better that the Bush family in particular is lined up with Moon?

[seekeronos]

"...San Fran is farther; thus a larger plane would be required to get there."

-Legalize

Not necessarily. She could get there in a series of connected flights in a smaller "learjet" or Beechcraft turboprop aircraft just fine. Or better still, haver her and her staffers sit in the web seats on a C-130 with her knees wedged between slightly dirty AGE equipment or LOX carts or crates of supplies and soldiers/airmen on route to somewhere.

Now THAT could be judicious use of federal aviation assets.

But paying for her first class ticket or slapping each congressperson a fully staffed 747 to gallivant around the country? Can I have that with a $20,000 titanium toilet seat as well? I mean, it's just my tax dollars ya know.... not like I needed any of that money anyway.

[Bill Adkins]

False analogy, seeker - Pelosi's Speaker of the House - you know, third in line. Did you protest Hastert's use of military planes?

[Jon G]

Another bogus story from the Times - who would've thunk it? Your argument is with Hastert. He's the guy that set the precedent. Course you were fine with it back than, but now that it's a Dem, a woman, and, in the words of the Times, she's "demanding", you're all up in arms. Crocodile tears anyone?

[Jon G]

I'll let Tony Snow do the talking here:

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.

...
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.

[Jon G]

I'll let Tony Snow do the talking here:

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.

...
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.

[Jon G]

I'll let Tony Snow do the talking here:

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.

...
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.

[Jon G]

Looks like the nail in the coffin.

For Immediate Release

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.