Are Barry and San Fran Nan REALLY walking the walk on Global Warming?
Barry: TWO 747s and THREE C-17 transport jets on TWO TRIPS to Copenhagen in a month, 10 trips...
PLUS San Fran Nan's TWO JETS for her 30 person entourage, 2 trips.
9 hours EACH WAY, 36 flight hours total times 12 trips =
That's 432 hours of flying (or one jet flying 18 DAYS 24/7)... How's your "carbon footprint", folks? Did you buy your "carbon credits" from Algore before you left? WHAT A JOKE!
ALL FOR NOTHING!
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I guess you missed the part where the House Sergeant at Arms explained that he makes all the travel arrangements for our highest politicians, and that even if the politician did not want that kind of travel arrangement, they are forced to have it. Did you sleep through that part just so you could criticize people you already don't like for things they are doing that are not wrong and are not different from what the past office holders have done?
Tony Snow & House Sergeant At Arms Rebut Right-Wing Attacks On Pelosi
During today’s White House press briefing, Snow beat back the false claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to misuse government resources. Snow called the conservative attacks a “silly story,” arguing that it is “important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel.”
SNOW: I’ll just repeat our position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it’s appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.
Also today, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood released a new statement emphasizing that it was he — not Pelosi — who requested she use an aircraft capable of flying non-stop to her district in California to “ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.”
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 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 regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.
Read the full Sergeant at Arms statement:
Statement of the House Sergeant at Arms
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.
- Alan SLv 61 decade ago
First of all, even if you disagree politically, you should be respectful to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and former Vice President Gore (who won the 2000 election and should have been President Gore). This is the first time since 1996 that our president was legitimately elected.
As far as the whole carbon footprint, it isn't just Obama, its all of the world leaders that are there. But do you really expect President Obama to fly commercial? You're just being ridiculous like all the conservative mouthpieces and harping on trivial points to attack Obama instead of looking at the big picture. The big picture is that all the pollution caused by this conference is nothing compared to what the world can do to reduce pollution and slow or stop the continued destruction to our planet caused by global warming.
I will admit the main point of your question has some validity. I think that President Obama really does want to do all sorts of great things and make our country and the world a better place. At least we have someone who is trying to do good for a change after 8 years of the Bush/Cheney crime family.
The problem with Obama is that he is great at articulating his vision and how important it is to stand up for these important values. But when it comes to actually getting something done, he is too willing to compromise and back down, and too afraid to actually stand behind what he claims he believes. He let the Republicans and phony "blue dog" Democrats water down the health care bill so much that many on the left want to vote against it and start from scratch. He even had Democrats back down from voting to allow drug importation because he had a deal with the pharmaceutical industry. While Bush's ideas were all bad, he got a lot of things done with about 55 votes in the Senate. Obama should have 60 votes and can't do a thing. If Obama and Harry Reid had any guts they would use the "nuclear option" that the Republicans threatened in the past and get a good health care bill passed with only 50 votes + Joe Biden.
With climate change it is a little different because we are dealing with other countries who may not want to go along. It is a lot harder to get a worldwide agreement than to get a Democratic controlled House, Senate, and Presidency to pass health care. If he can't pressure Senators in his own party to tow the line, I don't see how he can pressure other countries to get an agreement on climate change.
It is sad that President Obama is too willing to compromise and back down, and I blame him for that. But the reason he feels he has to compromise and back down is because of backwards people like you who vote against their best interests and have no understanding of science or politics.
- loughreyLv 44 years ago
How a lot time has to bypass with the help of earlier all of us with an lively suggestions ultimately sees those dems for what they're? they do no longer provide a fliyin f**ok for any majority voice of opposition to any concern interior the final 19 months. Why commence worrying now? If human beings do no longer vote those rat bastards out of place of work and that they finally end up getting re-elected, this usa merits to be a third worldwide usa status. And the blame then will fall completely on the shoulders of fool social addicted electorate who the two ought to grant a rat's a$$ for the rustic.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Nope. Plus, Obama flew in a chef from St. Louis...to make pizza!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
I don't believe they are actually concerned with it. Mostly it's just for the "little people", not important world changing leaders like them.
Besides, without it how else would they give kickbacks and the like?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Of course not, the liberal motto is do as I say not as I do.