Nancy Pelosi: Come Fly With Me
By Frank Salvato
February 9, 2007
The hoopla over whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have access to an Air Force commuter jet or to a larger, more amenity-laden, 757-styled jet just goes to prove that anything in Washington DC can be politicized. Quite frankly, with Ms. Pelosi's penchant for taking pot-shots at the president, I would have thought her request would have been for a C-130 gunship.
Traditionally, members of congress have had to requisition the use of Air Force transportation through the Executive Branch. The allocation of a personal aircraft to the Speaker of the House only began after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and then it was only because the Speaker of the House was second in the line of succession to the presidency.
As the story goes, Speaker Pelosi's people wanted to upgrade the aircraft used to transport her because the aircraft that had been allocated for this task while Illinois Representative Dennis Hastert was speaker can't make it non-stop from Washington to California. The word that should be scrutinized in the last sentence is "non-stop."
While traveling aboard an aircraft that has to refuel during the journey may be an annoyance, it certainly isn't anything to turn one's nose up at, especially when someone else is footing the bill as the American taxpayers are in this case.
Early on in this pathetic excuse for political confrontation, Speaker Pelosi exclaimed, "It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance. We want an aircraft that can reach California."
Here's a newsflash for Speaker Pelosi, a millionaire in her own right who can afford to pay her way as far as airfare is concerned: All airplanes can make it from Washington to California; some just have to refuel in order to complete the trip.
Some would opine that landing to refuel would present a security risk for Ms. Pelosi, an opportunity for terrorist malcontents to lay siege to her aircraft. This is a hollow and uneducated argument. Any Air Force transport jet that would be shuttling Ms. Pelosi would undoubtedly land to refuel at military installations of which there are many between Washington DC and California. Security, with regard to landing for the purpose of refueling, is not an issue.
It is more likely that Ms. Pelosi simply doesn't want to be inconvenienced by a task as mundane as having her all expenses paid government issued private jet refueled while she is ferried back and forth to Washington on the taxpayers' nickel, her staff and family in tow. The request for such an extravagant upgrade leads me to ponder whether Ms. Pelosi is attempting to elevate the stature of the speaker's office to a status equal to that of the presidency.
Further, I can't help but wonder whether or not we should brace ourselves for another scathing column from William Arkin of the Washington Post. Arkin recently took our soldiers stationed in Iraq to task for the "obscene amenities" afforded to them. One would think he would have a field day with Ms. Pelosi's request given the amenities offered on the Air Force C-32, (web site) a modified version of Boeing's 757 commercial intercontinental aircraft, which boasts:
>> Continued -- Page 1 2
| 
