Pelosi-Not-a-Gate -- Let's see if we can break this down.

Okay. Apparently the MSM has some trouble with this story. It is SO complicated and confusing, it is fusing their motherboards and sending them in to epic tizzy fits.


So can me break this down and get to the heart of it.


Gee I bet it will be REALLY hard. Even with some help from Talking Points Memo

Statement from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

From an interview for FOX (really) news:

They told me the first day that I was supposed to go that I couldn't make it across the country. And I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial. ... I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family. ... I'm happy to go commercial. But they want me to go on this plane, so the issue was distance, not size. And again, it's not about having a plane. It's about having transportation. These planes are used for other purposes in between trips, which are, you know, take place once or twice a week, going or coming. So, it isn't about that. But there are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard. But it has nothing to do, as I say, with the president of the United States. He has encouraged my having the security I need.

So she wants a plane to travel safely home to California. Making a nonstop trip lessens terrorist threats or weather/mechanical trouble threats. Simple enough. The Speaker wants to go straight home quick and safe. In this time of terror, as the Republicans like to harp on it, their is a need to ensure security, especially for people like, say, the 3rd in line for the Presidency. Seems pretty straight forward. Right?

So word got out she wanted a private plane. The horror! Trouble is that the previous Speaker was granted this, as a way to keep him safe. Now the new Speaker wants a similar courtesy, a plane to take one home, nonstop. In this case, instead of to Illinois, to California. Simple enough?

Now more insight, from Talking Points Memo.

From The Sergeant-At-Arms of the House.

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.

So he corroborates her story and stand. Anyone confused yet?

So Pelosi, her office, and the HSAA all agree. Meaning the person who made the request, the person who handled the request are in unison, that only leaves the person who got the request, the DoD. THEY must have made the statement that she made unreasonable requests.

Hmm? No mention of that? Odd?

So...Where is this story coming from? Who is providing support for this story?

And...WHY DOESN"T THIS INTEREST THE MEDIA? I know, dumb question.

As it is maybe someone was too chatty at the DoD (that is a pleasant thought), and let a friend in Republican PR in on the request, and the spin began.

But, after so many lives loss, after so many costs, on so many levels...For Pete sake MSM, freaking GET-A CLUUUUEEE!

Here's a bone for you guys, okay? Why doesn't the DoD want the new Speaker of the House(Also 3rd in line from the Presidency, Democrat, Critic of a number of the DoD actions in the past few years) to have the security and courtesy they saw as critical for the previous Speaker? Why deny her that safety? Any interest there? Hmm?


I know, say she's out of control, crazy with power, unable to lead, and/or derailing the party. Cause that is the story you've picked already.

And like the White House, why wait and work with reality.

AMERICAblog and ABC News have more.