House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she might decline the use of Air Force planes to travel from Washington to her San Francisco district because the Pentagon won’t guarantee her an aircraft that can make the trip non-stop.
“I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn’t go coast to coast,” Pelosi said today.
It’s certainly more greenhouse friendly. But Rep. John Murtha continues his thuggish ways:
Murtha said he will hold hearings that examine the use of military planes by members of Congress and Bush administration officials for the past two fiscal years. Asked whether the hearings are payback for the decision on Pelosi’s request, he smiled and said, “Would I do something like that?”
Not if he’s smart — glass houses and all that. Which probably means that the answer is “yes.”
UPDATE: Reader Randy Dunn finds Pelosi’s claims that security is the motivation disingenuous in light of other Democratic positioning on the war:
Given this practice was initiated shortly after 9/11 for the 2nd in succession, which at the time seemed to be the thing to do, shouldn’t the whole program be reevaluated? Now that the Democrats have reaped the benefits of having most of mainstream America doubting the necessity of the war on terror, the reason for the military transport program has eroded considerably. Why perpetuate an expensive, environmentally destructive program when it has outlived its effectiveness? Actually, to retain the program, there would have to be some consensus that that it still is relevant – that Islamic terrorism is still a clear and present danger to our government leaders. And that terror attacks are imminent.
Personally, I like it that members of Congress mostly fly commercial, as it makes them aware of what the rest of us have to go through, and gives them a stake in security procedures that work.