The Seargent At Arms made the request, not Pelosi or her staff. Game, Set, Match.
Hope there are some nice parting gifts for you.
Maybe she could have! Hell, for all we know, Pelosi is actually the incarnation of Genghis Khan, out to destroy the world for his own nefarious purposes, beginning with flying a larger-than-necessary jet across the country. Since we can’t say for certain that she isn’t, only partisan shills would deny the charge.
Daniel
I’ve been dealing with various size aircraft for 25 years ranging from Cessna 208’s to Antonov 124’s. I’ve loaded them, scheduled them, and chartered them all over the United States. When not working with aircraft for a living I fly them for sport. I know bullshit when I see it. But if you think you know more about aircraft you can write to Andrews AFB (the operators of the plane in question) and explain why the link on their website is wrong. They have 2 models of the C20 and I posted the range of the lesser model fully loaded. Which means there is an even longer range version available.
So you can accept the design specs from the manufacturer and the Air Force, Which I’ve posted, or you can go on record as believing everything politicians say starting with the White House.
The SAA would choose an airplane based on need. Since the previous speaker used the C20, which is overkill to begin with, he would have been given a request for something more. Checkmate.
Ok then, talk to the captain here:
So, the area around Tikrit, and east, west, south and north somewhat?
As ABC found out by asking, your “checkmate” looks more like this:
Captain Zapp Brannigan: If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
[Kif groans]
A C20-H has a range of 4,800 miles. Even with winter winds you won’t have a problem with this kind of range. I pull up winds-aloft every day and it is a localized event (does not occur coast to coast). Fog is a much greater problem and it will be the most likely culprit in a fuel stop.
And this just takes us back to square one where a theortical fuel stop would be needed. It was only recently that the SOTH had access to military transport (for security). The difference between a C20 and a C32 is so over the top unnecessary that only the most politically dogmatic would accept this.
The only place political dogma plays into it is if Pelosi asked for the plane, which as has been repeatedly and patiently pointed out to you, she did not.
If you’re going to post a site as evidence then accept this from the same site:
“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.”
Actually, the only “politically dogmatic” poster on this thread has been you. I do not know why the request was placed for an upgraded plane. I am sure that it seems to make no sense.
However, you have asserted that the request had to have originated from Rep. Pelosi without a shred of evidence that this is true. You have asserted that the Sergeant-at-Arms had to have been responding to a request from Rep. Pelosi withut providing a single shred of evidence beyond your claim that the requested plane was unnecessary for the task.
The closest that you have come to providing “evidence” has been the unsupported claims of Rep. Putnam that have no supporting statements by any neutral party.
Beginning with “Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence” and proceeding through any number of possible byzantine paths that such a request might have traveled to the Seargerant-at-Arms from any number of as yet unidentified sources, it is your unsupported insistence that the ultimate request HAD to have originated from the inflated ego of Rep. Pelosi that has the strongest flavor of politics–possibly even partisan poltics.
I’ve been patient and I will continue to do so even though I’ve left bread crumbs all over the place.
This is not a political issue in that it is a slam on Pelosi. I’ve tried to goad people into looking into the larger scope of it by doing a little research. When you stop thinking in terms of Democrat or Republican then it should be obvious to all that our chains are being yanked over this.
So the next breadcrumb is to look over the Andrews AFB site and do some math. Read the articles that were posted.
It’s Saturday night and I’ve got more interesting things to do so I’ll leave y’all to your thoughts of why the crap from your party of choice doesn’t stink.
:rolleyes:
That was Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), aka the partisan making false accusations! The report does make the point that he is just launching a partisan attack! Since he already has been found to be misleading, I would expect a cite for his “facts”. Still, how can you miss that your demand that I accept your cite is bonkers when you ignore the context?
And you are moving the goalposts, a C20-H does have more range than a C-20 but you will need a cite that the captain was not referring to that one (It seems then that the one the former speaker was using was the c-20, and while other c20-H could be available, I would not be surprised that they are not configured yet to be used by the new speaker)
And for all I know so far, Pelosi would be ok with a C20-H if it does have the practical range; however, it seems to me a C20-H is not ready right now for the changes I think are needed to be used by the new speaker. What it is clear so far is that the Republican partisans have been caught already several times throwing bullshit.
And yet you accept everything Putman (R-FL) said.
I see you don’t have the guts to call the captain then.
Since I see other conservatives and the Air Force pointing out that these accusations are bananas, I think your attempts tells me that the extreme conservative wing of the Republican party is rudderless. Good.
I was just getting ready to shut down for the evening. You almost generated a line of thought. You mentioned that the pilot may or may not have been talking about a specific airplane. What was the question he was asked? There are many questions here but nobody asks them. Members of both parties are throwing out very narrow answers to very narrow questions and nobody wonders why.
I’ll say it again. This is not about Pelosi (specifically).
That was ABC asking the captain, but thanks for playing.
No, it’s pretty clearly about smearing any prominent Democrat available, right? Notice that it’s backfiring yet?
Either debate or don’t, but regardless, stop treating us like we’re children. There is no need to ‘lead’ us to various bits of evidence.
Actually, this thread is very explicitly about Pelosi and claims made against her by one segment of one political party. Your posts, with sly little digs and irrelevant hints that something else is going on very nearly resembles trolling. Either post an explicit thesis with arguments showing how they apply to this thread, or back off.
[ /Moderating ]
Um, folks, I already posted once about this. I’ll be a bit more explicit: if you feed them, they will keep coming out from under bridges…