Just when I thought that the hypocrisy of the liberals couldn't get any worse, it absolutely did.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has requested a C-32 military airplane to travel back and forth from Washington to her district in California. Her reason is that she feels that having to refuel along the way is a big security risk, a concern that the plane, which is the equivalent to a Boeing 757, would remediate.
For those who aren't airplane savvy, a 757 is the same type of airplane that carries thousands of Americans everyday. For lack of a better visual example, this is the same model of plane that was used in the attacks on the Pentagon on Sept. 11.
It is a huge plane; the military equivalent would cost Joe Taxpayer $22,000 an hour to run. But don't worry. Pelosi has promised that this will be the "most honest Congress in history."
Well, it looks like Pelosi has gone back on her promise and isn't being so honest. Instead of simply admitting that she had an error in judgment when she requested that her military transport "757" have a bedroom and entertainment center to cart her entourage of family, friends and political benefactors around, she started the most obvious spin campaign to try to twist what was said.
After watching various press reports about this, and hearing media testimony of the Speaker given to the press under questioning, the stories didn't add up.
In the first video, Pelosi took a stab at the Bush administration. That was retracted after Press Secretary Tony Snow said that all of this surrounding the issue of a transport plane was a "silly story."
In the next video, Pelosi praised the president for all the encouragement he gave her and took a stab at the Pentagon and Rumsfeld. That one was particularly interesting to me because the last time I checked, Rumsfeld resigned months ago. Why is the Speaker bringing up Rumsfeld when the question was why she needed such an extravagant military plane?
The reason why Pelosi seemed nervous when being questioned, brought up Rumsfeld and denied ever having requested the plane in the first place was because she realized she was caught in the act of doing the opposite of what her "most honest Congress in history" should have done.
She said herself that non-public documents such as the request should not have been leaked. She also said that it was the sergeant-at-arms that requested the plane for her. It's amazing how the story changed in tone and substance as a couple days went by.
Just read the response letter from the Pentagon that was to the Speaker, not the sergeant-at-arms. The fact is that the Speaker is in damage control mode because she was found with her hand in the cookie jar. Actually, a more fitting political version of the clich? is she was "found with her hand in the taxpayers' wallet."
I completely understand the need for security for someone like the Speaker of the House, who is two heartbeats away from the presidency. I completely acknowledge that the last Speaker had a plane and Pelosi should have a plane, too.
I do not agree, though, that refueling at some military base in the middle of the Midwest somewhere poses such great a security risk for Pelosi that she needs a military "757" that costs you and me $22,000 an hour!
Oh, and what about that global warming Pelosi is so worried about? The plane she requested produces thousands more units of carbon dioxide than former Speaker Dennis Hastert's plane.
Okay, if you still don't agree with me by now, I'll tell you what. I'll accept the Speaker having this extravagant plane (even though she denies everything now), but you can pay for it if you want to indulge self-serving politicians' needs of luxury and extravagance at the expense of those they should be serving.
Information from - comcast.net/news, msnbc.com, gopusa.com
