What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" wrote in message
...
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 00:47:39 GMT, William Asher wrote:

As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best
part for last.


That is true. What if there's a fire? Then you were smart to eat your
steak first.

Life is short, eat dessert first.

Well, I have to say you're living proof of someone that's short eating
desert.

"y_p_w" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 16, 7:07 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:

The only difference is that she would
need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to
fly
further.
It's really pretty simple.
Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?
The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to
think
it isn't
worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of
planning a
refueling
stop, in addition to the logistics of security.

I love watching you tell us what the DoD is thinking.

It's not nearly as amusing as watching you tell us whatPelosiis
thinking. It is less predictable, however.

Maybe I don't know what she's thinking, but here's the Pentagon's
response letter. I guess this is the "smoking gun" that she requested
a jumbo jet with sleeping quarters. sarcasm mode off

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...DoD_Letter.pdf

I typed the following, since it was a scan of a letter.

** **

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
regard to airlift support for your travel.

We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
line of succession.

This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
and availability.

Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
authorized.

As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.

Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
100th Congress.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Wilkie.
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs)

Now this is pretty funny - this was the RESPONSE of the Department of
Defense to Pelosi's request for a plane large enough to move her and her
pals and her family and her hanger's on non-stop to California.

Of course anyone that could READ would notice that the DoD made the
following points:

1) "We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
Congress."

Do you suppose they quoted the law for no reason whatsoever?

2) "Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle missions."

Gee why did they make the points that they would transports FAMILY MEMBERS
ONLY?

3) "Non-U.S. government travelers, other than your immediate family, will
not be authorized."

I suppose they just pulled this one out of their ass just to be polite to
Pelosi.

I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Pelosi
made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down the
policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who aren't
even bright enough to recognize it.

On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"y_p_w" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Feb 16, 7:07 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:

The only difference is that she would
need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to
fly
further.
It's really pretty simple.
Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?
The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to
think
it isn't
worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of
planning a
refueling
stop, in addition to the logistics of security.

I love watching you tell us what the DoD is thinking.

It's not nearly as amusing as watching you tell us whatPelosiis
thinking. It is less predictable, however.

Maybe I don't know what she's thinking, but here's the Pentagon's
response letter. I guess this is the "smoking gun" that she requested
a jumbo jet with sleeping quarters. sarcasm mode off

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...Pelosi_DoD_Let...

I typed the following, since it was a scan of a letter.

** **

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
regard to airlift support for your travel.

We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
line of succession.

This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
and availability.

Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
authorized.

As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.

Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
100th Congress.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Wilkie.
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs)

Now this is pretty funny - this was the RESPONSE of the Department of
Defense to Pelosi's request for a plane large enough to move her and her
pals and her family and her hanger's on non-stop to California.

Of course anyone that could READ would notice that the DoD made the
following points:

1) "We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
Congress."

Do you suppose they quoted the law for no reason whatsoever?

2) "Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle missions."

Gee why did they make the points that they would transports FAMILY MEMBERS
ONLY?

3) "Non-U.S. government travelers, other than your immediate family, will
not be authorized."

I suppose they just pulled this one out of their ass just to be polite to
Pelosi.

These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
service.

I don't have any problem if she or Hastert ever asked for
clarification about what the rules for this shuttle service were as it
applies to flying on the small corporate style jets. I also have no
problem is she had the SoA ask about staffers (Hastert had two aides
on most flights) and/or friends/members of Congress accompanying her.
The main thing that has never been demonstrated is that she ever
specifically asked for a C-32/757 or C-40/737. Speaker Pelosi's
critics make it sound as if she requested "Air Force Three" so that
she could fly around dozens of political supporters or dole out dozens
of seats on her weekly ride as a favor. There's no evidence to
support that.

I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Pelosi
made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down the
policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who aren't
even bright enough to recognize it.

"Laying down the policy" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as
"turning down an unreasonable request".

BTW - reports are that Speaker Hastert had one of these jets
dispatched to fly in Rep John Shimkus (in charge of the House page
program) to speak at a Monday press conference during the Mark Foley
page scandal. A commercial flight probably wouldn't have made it in
time. Now that's a real waste of money using the DoD's resources to
fly in someone for some political spin doctoring.

On Feb 16, 4:04 pm, "y_p_w" wrote:
These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
service.

Forgot one more possibility - a "boilerplate" response. My quoting of
the letter wasn't necessarily meant as any statement of fact per se,
but that this was supposedly the Pelosi critics' "smoking gun".

"y_p_w" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question.

Or it could be like everyone else is saying - that Pelosi wanted MORE AND
BIGGER. But then your only interest is ignoring her corruption. Bet you
didn't see anything wrong with her trying to push Unendited Co-conspirator
Murtha for high office.

I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the
Pelosi
made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down
the
policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who
aren't
even bright enough to recognize it.

"Laying down the policy" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as
"turning down an unreasonable request".

So despite what it actually looks like you're willing to accept the excuses
no matter how rediculous.

BTW - reports are

Hmm, THOSE reports are accurate but the ones about Pelosi and Broomstick One
aren't.

On Feb 16, 5:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"y_p_w" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question.

Or it could be like everyone else is saying - that Pelosi wanted MORE AND
BIGGER.

OK then. where's the proof? Taking the boilerplate language pieced
together by an attorney (Asst Sec of Def Wilkie) and turning that into
a denial of a request rather than an outline of the Speaker's travel
policy? I mean, who writes verbatim twice, "title 31 of the United
States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
Congress." It's pretty clear that the Sergeant at Arms relayed the
message to the DoD, and I'm pretty sure that he would have stopped her
if he thought any of her requests were over the top.

So what if the Speaker's staff or the Sergeant at Arms asked who else
could come along? I don't travel a lot, but when I do, I ask my
employer what I can and can't do. So her staff probably asked what
the limits are. It probably doesn't help that Rep Murtha got so
combative about it, but there was no way the DoD was going to give her
a C-32 for her weekend flights home and I'm pretty sure she already
knew it (if she even had any idea what it was).

In one way I guess Speaker Pelosi will get MORE AND BIGGER. The plane
best suited for Speaker Hastert's needs was a C-20B (83 ft long), and
the DoD accordingly assigned that to his detail most often. Speaker
Pelosi's needs are best met by C-37A (96 ft long), and she'll
probably get that the most often. Complaining about that is like
bitching about taking a commuter flight in a 737 while someone flying
cross country or overseas is doing so in a 747 or 767. You choose the
right tool for the job. This is already a non-issue with the
Pentagon, which has already sent Speaker Pelosi the policy and will
provide similar service to her that they provided for Speaker Hastert.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h...elated&search=

Tom Kunich wrote:
Well, I have to say you're living proof of someone that's short eating
desert.

There must have been a software tweak to the input-output filters of the
insult generation neural network. The insults seem to be slightly
more subtle than before. Have the changes been checked into CVS yet ?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Its never bothered him before. OTOH, he probably will be frothing.

If he was a beer you could say he gives good head.

On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h...elated&search=

Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
too. That's real news.
I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
Greg would be happy to tell you how they are all pretty much equally
bad and are in violation of what used to be the Constitution.
I'd agree with a hell of a lot of it too.
Bill C