John Boehner to fly commercial as Speaker

[BJJ-Blue]

"House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Wednesday he intends to take commercial flights home when he moves up to speaker in the new Congress.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft, and I am going to continue to do that,” he told reporters.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, took heat in 2007 when she started flying an Air Force jet that could go nonstop back to her congressional district in California."

Source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44943.html
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44943.html#ixzz155ZqrF7H

[Reality_Check]

Sigh.....

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_order_up_a_200-seat.html


Did Nancy Pelosi order up a 200-seat jet for her personal use?

Is it true that Nancy Pelosi travels from California three times a week on a private jet (200-seat size) at a cost to the taxpayers of $60K per flight? If so, this would total $480K per month or $5.7M per year. This comes from taxpayer money? If true, how can we criticize others? Is this a good use of taxpayers' hard-earned money and what about the carbon footprint?

The Democratic House speaker normally flies in a 12-seat Air Force jet, just as her Republican predecessor did. This rumor stems from a request by the House sergeant at arms, not Pelosi, for a jet large enough to reach California without refueling.

Reports like this one, saying Pelosi routinely flies about in her own 757-size jet, have been floating around for almost two years. The claims were revived when Democrats complained that CEOs of the Big Three U.S. automakers had used their corporate jets to come to Washington to seek billions in federal aid. But the rumors are incorrect. Spokespeople for Pelosi and Andrews Air Force Base say that the speaker has used the big Air Force jet once, but she normally uses a much smaller plane, the same one used by the previous speaker of the House, Republican Dennis Hastert.

The spread of this rumor – and its first debunking – dates back to February 2007. At that time, the speaker of the House had had access to an Air Force craft for about five and a half years. Hastert had been issued a plane after Sept. 11, 2001, for security reasons (the speaker of the House is next in line after the vice president for presidential succession). Hastert used an Air Force C-20B, a small 12-seater based on the Gulfstream III, to travel to his home district in Illinois. (Ford and GM auto executives, incidentally, travel in the slightly larger Gulfstream IV.)

When Pelosi became speaker, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, according to his own account, worried that the small craft would be unable to travel to her home district of San Francisco without stopping to refuel. Livingood, who was first elected by a Newt Gingrich-led House in 1995, asked the Air Force and the Department of Defense about getting a bigger plane. He also requested clarifications of other rules regarding the aircraft – for instance, whether family members would be allowed to accompany Pelosi on her flights.

According to ABC News' Jake Tapper, Capt. Herb McConnell of the Air Force said that the C-20B is sometimes able to make cross-country flights without refueling, but that it depends on headwinds. The much larger C-32, a military version of a Boeing 757 that's usually used by the vice president and the first lady, is easily able to make a nonstop flight across the country. But it's also on the lavish side. It's not quite a 200-seater, but it does include 50 business-class seats and a full stateroom with a private lavatory and entertainment system.

We've seen no evidence, however, that Livingood specifically requested for Pelosi to have access to the C-32, which is the largest plane available at the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base. According to his statement, he requested a plane that was able to fly cross-country. Pelosi spokespeople at the time said that the speaker would be happy to use a smaller plane that could make a nonstop cross-country flight.

The Pentagon responded to this request by saying that it would make "every effort ... to provide non-stop shuttle support," but that Pelosi's aircraft access would depend on availability. Officials also clarified that Pelosi's family members and other members of Congress could fly with her, but they would have to reimburse the government for their flights and food, paying the price of a coach ticket on a commercial airline. Pelosi would have to submit a written request for her family or other Congress members to accompany her on flights.

The Pentagon response stoked rumors that Pelosi had requested access to a posh personal craft for herself and anyone she wanted to bring along. Tapper traces the rumor back to House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, who called the C-32 "a flying Lincoln bedroom." That's not a wholly inaccurate assessment of the plane (there's even a pull-out bed!), but Blunt implied that Pelosi had expressly requested such extravagance. White House spokesman Tony Snow called this a "silly story," breaking with congressional Republicans who objected to Pelosi's supposedly over-the-top request. At a press briefing, Snow reiterated that the conversations about plane travel were perfectly routine:


Snow, Feb. 7, 2007: After September 11th, the Department of Defense – with the consent of the White House – agreed that the Speaker of the House should have military transport. And so what is going on is that the Department of Defense is going through its rules and regulations and having conversations with the Speaker about it. So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft and Speaker Pelosi will, too.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly told FactCheck.org that the speaker does have access to military air travel. When she flies to her home district, she uses whatever Air Force craft is available. Daly told us that "they try to do a nonstop flight." But the plane Pelosi uses most often is the C-20B, and she has occasionally used even smaller planes. According to Daly, Pelosi once used the C-32 when no other planes were available, but she also has had to stop for refueling on at least one trip on a smaller aircraft. Pelosi's family has traveled with her a few times, but they had to reimburse the government for the cost of their tickets, as stipulated in the Pentagon's letter. Congress members who are traveling to California sometimes do the same. Pelosi only uses the jet to travel between Washington, D.C., and San Francisco on official business. For any other trip, she and her family use commercial airlines.

Update, December 22: After this story was posted, we received word from Eric Sharman, deputy chief of public affairs at Andrews Air Force Base, confirming what Pelosi's spokesman told us about her aircraft use. Sharman said that Pelosi has in the past used the C-20B and the slightly larger C-37A, depending on availability, and that these may or may not be able to make a nonstop cross-country flight depending on conditions. He confirms that Pelosi has used the C-32 once and only once, when no other planes were available.

Update, March 23: The Web site Judicial Watch has made public e-mails to and from the Department of Defense regarding Pelosi's travel requests. The conservative organization claims the e-mails show that Pelosi has made “unreasonable requests for military travel.” These e-mails, however, back up what we were told by Pelosi's staff and by the Air Force, i.e., that Pelosi did not usually travel on the C-32 and that any family members or other members of Congress she brought with her on flights to her home district were asked to reimburse the cost of a coach ticket. The messages are about smaller planes, not the 757-size jet. Also, most of the e-mails are not about shuttles to and from Pelosi's home district at all, but are about congressional delegations to other states and countries. Pelosi's office oversees transportation for these trips for all members of the House, not just the speaker. For a little more detail on the Judicial Watch-released e-mails, see our post on the FactCheck Wire, "Plane False."
Also, we originally said the C-32 seats 50. But an Air Force fact sheet, while showing that it has 50 seats, says that it seats 45. We are resolving this contradiction in favor of the lower number.

[Reality_Check]

Sigh....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp


After the 9/11 terrorists attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush ordered that the Speaker of the House (next in line of succession to the presidency after the vice-president) be afforded secure government transportation on military aircraft when traveling on official business, and then-speaker Dennis Hastert often used a C-20B to travel back and forth between Washington to his home state of Illinois.

[BJJ-Blue]

LMAO at you.

You just don't get the point. The point is that Boehner is saving the Gov't money. Although he has the OPTION of flying as Pelosi and Hastert did, he CHOSE to fly commercial.

[GLW]

Or are they laughing at YOU...

Boehner''s statement is a PR ploy - plain and simple... or it is showing how simplistic and irresponsible he can be.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is THIRD in line - as in President, VP, Speaker...

So, if we are truly at risk from terror and enemy attacks, the danger of having someone so close to being the POTUS traveling in any unsecure fashion is ridiculous.

This means that either Boehner is planning on saying later "See, I was all for saving the taxpayers' money, but the rules of the government wouldn't let me." - all to get stupid people to say "oooh...he is out to be the govt. watchdog....ooohh..." (as in some will believe anything). Or, he is a doofus who takes his responsibilities as Speaker lightly.

[BJJ-Blue]

This means that either Boehner is planning on saying later "See, I was all for saving the taxpayers' money, but the rules of the government wouldn't let me." - all to get stupid people to say "oooh...he is out to be the govt. watchdog....ooohh..." (as in some will believe anything). Or, he is a doofus who takes his responsibilities as Speaker lightly.

From the article you didn't bother to read before you commented on it:

"House Deputy Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley said officials there had approved the decision of Boehner, the presumed new speaker in the new Congress, to fly commercially, both to his district and to other locations in the country.

“Based on the current security assessment, the sergeant of arms is comfortable with him traveling commercially,” Hanley said."

[GLW]

key word is CURRENT...he is NOT Speaker of the House YET....and is therefore NOT in the succession order for becoming POTUS.

Until the new Congress is seated and the majority party has its official election of their Speaker of the House (pretty much a shoo in but it does have to take place),
he is nothing more than a Rep. who holds a minority party position.

Were something to happen to him between now and his taking the Speaker's role, the Republicans would simply elect another Speaker.

However, once the Speaker is chosen and it is official, his security level is no what it is CURRENTLY.

So, CURRENTLY, there is no reason for him to even be talking about how he would travel because he is NOT eligible for the same travel arrangements that a Speaker of the House has.

AFTER he becomes Speaker, his security situation is NOT what it is CURRENTLY and it is only then that he should even be talking about how he plans to travel....and it is THEN that he should not be on commercial transport.

So, he is either jumping the gun and talking NOW - a dumb non-story at best - or he is talking about AFTER he is Speaker - and which is what your post is implying - in which case, he is going to either change his tune or prove himself to be irresponsible.

Take your pick.

[BJJ-Blue]

You just can't give anyone with an (R) after their name any credit, can you?

The man is just doing what he's always done before. He isn't letting power go to his head. I actually like having a Speaker (or any representative) who isn't an elitist and will fly like 99% of regular, working Americans do. And yes, one benefit the country gets because of Congressman Boehner's decision is savings. It's a breath of fresh air to see a Gov't official actually saving taxpayer money rather than spending it like a drunken sailor.

[David Jamieson]

You just can't give anyone with an (R) after their name any credit, can you?

The man is just doing what he's always done before. He isn't letting power go to his head. I actually like having a Speaker (or any representative) who isn't an elitist and will fly like 99% of regular, working Americans do. And yes, one benefit the country gets because of Congressman Boehner's decision is savings. It's a breath of fresh air to see a Gov't official actually saving taxpayer money rather than spending it like a drunken sailor.

The fact that he is a government member makes him one of your countries elite.

What are you trying to sell here? This is the guy who gave out tobacco company cheques on the house floor prior to a vote on them and has been strongly tied to lobbyists as late as only a month or so ago.

you don't think he's elitist? that's amazing... I can't think of any single member of the government who isn't elitist or a member of the power elite.

Senates, congresses, presidents chairs etc are all filled with multimillionaires more often than not. I'm not certain that government of any stripe is in the business of actually serving the people so much as they are in the business of regulation and control of the people.

[Drake]

You just can't give anyone with an (R) after their name any credit, can you?

The man is just doing what he's always done before. He isn't letting power go to his head. I actually like having a Speaker (or any representative) who isn't an elitist and will fly like 99% of regular, working Americans do. And yes, one benefit the country gets because of Congressman Boehner's decision is savings. It's a breath of fresh air to see a Gov't official actually saving taxpayer money rather than spending it like a drunken sailor.

He took $340,000 from the tobacco industry and is cozy with Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. You don't call that elite?

This guy is dirty, and a PR stunt does not exempt him from that.

[GLW]

Assuming facts not in evidence again.

My statement is that Boehner is simply a ranking member of the House CURRENTLY.

Nothing partisan about that at all.

Since he is not in the succession flow for the presidency, there is no reason CURRENTLY for him to fly at the nation's expense.

Nothing partisan about that. Were current Democratic Caucus Chairman John B. Larson (CT) to say that he was NOT going to fly on the nation's dime, it would not be news since like Boehner CURRENTLY, there are no grounds for him to be afforded that privilege.

Come January, Boehner is the presumptive Speaker of the House of Representatives. This makes him THIRD in succession - or actually SECOND since it is SUCCESSION.

Currently, this list is :

1 Vice President Joe Biden
2 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Daniel Inouye
4 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Come January, the name Nancy Pelosi will by all estimates change to John Boehner. The other 3 entries will stay the same.

All FOUR of these people should be afforded secure transportation at all times given how close they are to becoming POTUS...

and

There is NOTHING partisan about THAT either.

And for Boehner to not recognize the possibility of his boogie man of terrorist attack by accepting and saying nothing about the use of secure transport shows that "Country First" either has no meaning to him or he is dumber than a sack of hammers....take your pick.

[BJJ-Blue]

The fact that he is a government member makes him one of your countries elite.

Stereotype much?

No, it doesn't. Sure, many are elitists. But to say ALL is just wrong. I thought you liberals were all about judging people as individuals, not prejudging people.

[BJJ-Blue]

This guy is dirty, and a PR stunt does not exempt him from that.

It's not a PR stunt. He's been flying commercial since he's been in Congress.


And for Boehner to not recognize the possibility of his boogie man of terrorist attack by accepting and saying nothing about the use of secure transport shows that "Country First" either has no meaning to him or he is dumber than a sack of hammers....take your pick.

What part of the House Sergeant-at-Arms is comfortable with Congressman Boehner flying commercial are you not getting?

[GLW]

Well, that is based on the CURRENT situation - again, you fail to see that ANYTHING can be said now and changed in 3 months.

So, if it is secure then, tell me how you can warrant such fear of terror and justify things.

But, again, you are falling for a PR stunt which begs the question of exactly how gullible you truly are.

[Drake]

It's not a PR stunt. He's been flying commercial since he's been in Congress.



What part of the House Sergeant-at-Arms is comfortable with Congressman Boehner flying commercial are you not getting?

It IS a PR stunt if he's using it as bragging rights.

[Syn7]

It's not a PR stunt. He's been flying commercial since he's been in Congress.


yeah because he had no choice but to be hearded with the cattle... now he has a choice and he is denying those rights... and thats great, good for him, smart PR... but it doesnt change what he's done and who he works for... and if you think he works for "the people" then you clearly have an idealistic and naive grasp of politics in general... but i dont think you do think he works for the people, i think you know that most people on either side of the isle are subject to the wants of the countries most wealthy private citizens... thats just a fact... so what? he is saving some money by doing what he's always done by flying cheap... like i said before, it doesnt change who he's cozy with and it wont help him get his puppetmasters d!ck out of his mouth either... but you should already know this...

most people who get far enough to have to choose a side of the isle have had to compromise their integrity too much to be a righteous politician... just getting there brings the moral base waaaaay down... you are either bright eyed idealistic and fail, or idealistic, then having that naivety crushed and in turn making moral compromise to hold on to position...
this is how the game is set up and this is how the wealthy stay at the top of the ladder as far is political influence, lobbying and so forth...
and here you are asking for people to pat this guy on the back becoz he's saving a few bucks??? how bout we print up a list of ALL his donors and then have a talk about how much of a great guy he is... big tobacco isnt the only d!ck in this guys mouth, every orifice on this cat is plugged tight with bad donor money...

[Syn7]

It IS a PR stunt if he's using it as bragging rights.


plain and simple....

now if he never brought it up and kept humble about it, that would be different... the fact is he wanted everyone to know he made this choice... that is the very defenition of a public relations play...

[BJJ-Blue]

now if he never brought it up and kept humble about it, that would be different... the fact is he wanted everyone to know he made this choice... that is the very defenition of a public relations play...

Can you prove that Congressman Boehner brought it up?

The article said Congressman Boehner was speaking to reporters, and that's it. Do you know if Boehner was asked about it first? This may be news to you guys, but reporters ask politicians questions all the time.

[BJJ-Blue]

And I could care less about what lobbyists, contributors, etc give to him as long as it's legal. They can spend their money as they want. I'm just happy Congressman Boehner is saving taxpayer money.

[Syn7]

Can you prove that Congressman Boehner brought it up?

The article said Congressman Boehner was speaking to reporters, and that's it. Do you know if Boehner was asked about it first? This may be news to you guys, but reporters ask politicians questions all the time.

ofcourse he didnt... that would be bad pr... he had his people make it known.... no i cant prove that... but its a most reasonable assumption... besides, even if he didnt leak it at all, anyone with half a brain would know the info would get out eventually after the first flight and the desired pr efffect would be the same... but he can stand back and say stuff like "can you prove i leaked that for PR???"

[Drake]

Can you prove that Congressman Boehner brought it up?

The article said Congressman Boehner was speaking to reporters, and that's it. Do you know if Boehner was asked about it first? This may be news to you guys, but reporters ask politicians questions all the time.

Come on. Seriously. The key to PR is to have one of your minions bring it up, or "leak" it to a friendly news organization. what you said was stupid on countless levels.

[BJJ-Blue]

Come on. Seriously. The key to PR is to have one of your minions bring it up, or "leak" it to a friendly news organization. what you said was stupid on countless levels.

Again, my point is that I'm happy the guy is saving taxpayers money, even if it is a PR stunt.

[MightyB]

The US Guvment has a b-o-ner... he he he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsjMqpOdTYY&feature=fvw

[Syn7]

ok blue, and anyone else, what do feel about removing the ethics committee??? so far ive heard him say he doesnt want it around anymore, but he hasnt said anything about what would take its place, if anything... how do you feel about that??? has he made any comments on what he'd put in its place??? or does he feel congress doesnt need any sort of ethics check and balance???

[BJJ-Blue]

ok blue, and anyone else, what do feel about removing the ethics committee??? so far ive heard him say he doesnt want it around anymore, but he hasnt said anything about what would take its place, if anything... how do you feel about that??? has he made any comments on what he'd put in its place??? or does he feel congress doesnt need any sort of ethics check and balance???

Just removing it is a bit extreme, but imo it's not fullfiling it's duty anyway so it's worth looking at that solution. When the "ethics committee" just gives a slap on the wrist to the guy Chairing the Ways and Means Committee (which actually WRITES tax law) who didn't pay his own taxes, they really aren't doing their jobs.

[Syn7]

Just removing it is a bit extreme, but imo it's not fullfiling it's duty anyway so it's worth looking at that solution. When the "ethics committee" just gives a slap on the wrist to the guy Chairing the Ways and Means Committee (which actually WRITES tax law) who didn't pay his own taxes, they really aren't doing their jobs.

no doubt, always room for improvement... esspecially with politicians... make it better but dont axe it without a better plan...

[Taryn P.]

So, if we are truly at risk from terror and enemy attacks, the danger of having someone so close to being the POTUS traveling in any unsecure fashion is ridiculous.
.

:eek: "Insecure"???!!?? How can you say commercial air travel is insecure, now that they're doing such a great job KEEPING AMERICA SAFE by giving us all a choice between a)having our naked picture taken and b)being sexually groped by a stranger before we get on the plane?

[Syn7]

:eek: "Insecure"???!!?? How can you say commercial air travel is insecure, now that they're doing such a great job KEEPING AMERICA SAFE by giving us all a choice between a)having our naked picture taken and b)being sexually groped by a stranger before we get on the plane?

maybe they are insecure because they had bad touch when they were little:rolleyes: i think maybe you mean unsecure??? like the cat you quoted???




personally, i dont have a problem with random strangers seeing my naked body, im kind of a $lut that way... im not into the radiation thing though... but i'll only do patdowns if they promise to send a woman...


i just dont understand why people are so hung up with sexuality... oh no, some random person may see me naked in another room and will never see my face... oh no... they only real issue i have with it is that you cant throw down a wink and a smile and maybe get some back out of it...


why are people such INSECURE(yes i mean insecure not unsecure) pussies when it comes to this??? who cares, take a long hard look... enjoy...

[Taryn P.]

: i think maybe you mean unsecure??? like the cat you quoted???...

Oops- yup, I did. I was typing in a bit too much of a hurry.

If someone's going to gawk at my nudie pictures or fondle my body, I'd prefer to be the one who decides who gets to do that, not some random stranger.

For me personally, it's more the principle than anything else that bothers me. Air passengers are guilty till proven innocent, which concept I am against. I don't appreciate being treated like a terrorist for no cause.

And the "security theater" has just gone too far in terms of invasiveness. It drives me nuts how many people passively accept these intrusions because they are being brainwashed into thinking it's "keeping us safe", but in practical terms these measures are not very effective (certainly not effective enough to warrent all the money, time, hassle and invasiveness). It's just to make the powers that be look good, to look like they're doing something to protect people.

I also don't like strangers rifling my personal belongings. And if anything goes "missing", the TSA blames the airline and the airline blames the TSA, and they figure neither of them has to take responsibility. It's a blank check for anybody to help themselves to whatever they want out of your luggage. Just *try* getting recompense for it.

For all of this mounting outrage, the ticket prices keep increasing, there are the new bag fees, while all the perks (meals, drinks, pillows) are eliminated and the seats/legroom get smaller and smaller.

It's just all gone beyond the tipping point for me. The backscatter virtual strip search was the last straw. I'm outta there before they start doing body cavity searches.

[Syn7]

yeah, i just dont understand the sexual hangups of the average western mind... i grew up different... i really couldnt care less who sees my naked body... i wouldnt care if the scanner picture was right there at the terminal... who cares... you are who you are... shame is not humility... the former a weakness, the latter a strength...
i dont care about the pat down either... i would have to draw the line at cavity searches ofcourse... gotta love the dignity in asking a citizen to bend over, spread their cheeks and give em two good coughs... thats the kind of sh!t we do to convicts...


ofcourse i could complain ALLLLL day about many things related to flying...

i will never forget, just after 9/11 i was flying from vancouver to sanfrancisco with my. at the time, fiancee... she is a mexican american university graduate with no criminal history whatsoever... me, if i lived in the states i would be what is called a two strike felon... my youth was rather shady to say the least... anyways, at this time i hadnt been involved with the law for a few years and was almost elligable for pardon... but i expected trouble at the airport... back then you didnt need a passport and i didnt have one... anyways i was waved thru on both sides no sweat... my girl tho, she was givem SuperSpecialService as they call it, fully random... this happened 4 times in a row on teo return trips with the same destinations... all four flights, both sides, both countries... she was searched hard... no rubber glove, but shoes off, external clothing off... invasive patdown gone over like 4 times... each time her searches took over 20 minutes of procedure alone, not counting the waiting...\

no racial profiling my ass... i am a convict she is a uni grad with no record and lots of community service and recognition... shes searched everytime, i am never searched... think it was coz she was with me??? nope, when she was alone on 3 other flights it happened to her too... SSS the ticket says... super special service they joke around and call it... she is brown, i am white... go figure... if she was arab i cant imagine how much we'd have been held up... i'd say ive given about 24 hours of my life to security checks travelling with her... not once was it me... she checked and she wasnt on a no fly or watch list... so wtf...

[BJJ-Blue]

If someone's going to gawk at my nudie pictures or fondle my body, I'd prefer to be the one who decides who gets to do that, not some random stranger.

For me personally, it's more the principle than anything else that bothers me. Air passengers are guilty till proven innocent, which concept I am against. I don't appreciate being treated like a terrorist for no cause.

Thank you. That makes perfect sense.


And the "security theater" has just gone too far in terms of invasiveness. It drives me nuts how many people passively accept these intrusions because they are being brainwashed into thinking it's "keeping us safe", but in practical terms these measures are not very effective (certainly not effective enough to warrent all the money, time, hassle and invasiveness). It's just to make the powers that be look good, to look like they're doing something to protect people.

Again true, and sadly it's because if the TSA did what needs to be done, it would be politically incorrect. You see old ladies getting felt up, MOH winner Joe Foss was not allowed to fly with his MOH to a West Point event, and he was in his 70s at the time. So knowing this, when's the last time an old lady hijacked a plane? When is the last time an old, retired military hero hijacked a plane? Yet they pick these people for extra screening alot. Face facts, you have certain demographics that have NEVER hijacked a plane, and you have certain demographics that fit most of the hijackers. Use those FACTS to better stop hijackings. But they won't because only checking those who fit the profile (yes, I used that word) and not checking those who never fit the profile would be offensive.

[Drake]

Thank you. That makes perfect sense.



Again true, and sadly it's because if the TSA did what needs to be done, it would be politically incorrect. You see old ladies getting felt up, MOH winner Joe Foss was not allowed to fly with his MOH to a West Point event, and he was in his 70s at the time. So knowing this, when's the last time an old lady hijacked a plane? When is the last time an old, retired military hero hijacked a plane? Yet they pick these people for extra screening alot. Face facts, you have certain demographics that have NEVER hijacked a plane, and you have certain demographics that fit most of the hijackers. Use those FACTS to better stop hijackings. But they won't because only checking those who fit the profile (yes, I used that word) and not checking those who never fit the profile would be offensive.

That's why I would use a blue eyed, blond haired Chechnyan to ruin you. Gullible. You CANNOT show a pattern, no matter how stupid it looks otherwise. If I were Al Qaeda, the SECOND you started going after only middle easterners, I'd have your ass.

Think, McFly!

[KC Elbows]

Could we see a picof this blue eyed blonde haired Chechnyan, for profiling purposes?

[Drake]

Could we see a picof this blue eyed blonde haired Chechnyan, for profiling purposes?

You'd never see it coming. Then again, she would be a prime candidate for a pat down. :D

http://themoscowdiaries.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/butt.jpg?w=200&h=300

[MasterKiller]

This is the face of an Islamic Extremist!

http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/ea297dfa-e24e-4817-a508-9b8784869dec.jpg?filter=ktar/299

[KC Elbows]

You'd never see it coming. Then again, she would be a prime candidate for a pat down. :D

http://themoscowdiaries.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/butt.jpg?w=200&h=300

There's only a couple places she could be hiding a bomb, and I'm willing to mount a search post haste.

Is she considered a flexible weapon?

[Drake]

There's only a couple places she could be hiding a bomb, and I'm willing to mount a search post haste.

Is she considered a flexible weapon?

Maybe a weapon of ASS destruction? GET IT? ASS DESTRUCTION? HUH? FUNNY, RIGHT? HAR HAR! :rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

Maybe a weapon of ASS destruction? GET IT? ASS DESTRUCTION? HUH? FUNNY, RIGHT? HAR HAR! :rolleyes:

I find your comments inappropriate and tasteless.

Welcome to the forum.

[Drake]

I find your comments inappropriate and tasteless.

Welcome to the forum.

It's a pleasure to be here.

[BJJ-Blue]

That's why I would use a blue eyed, blond haired Chechnyan to ruin you. Gullible. You CANNOT show a pattern, no matter how stupid it looks otherwise. If I were Al Qaeda, the SECOND you started going after only middle easterners, I'd have your ass.

Think, McFly!

I didn't say to only check people that look like the 9/11 hijackers. But lets be honest, have 60+ year old grandmothers ever been hijackers?

[BJJ-Blue]

This is the face of an Islamic Extremist!

Perhaps you should show the picture of what he looked like when he was captured, not what he looked like after his lawyer got him all cleaned up.

Of course he fit perfectly in one aspect that ALL recent hijackers of US planes have, Islam was his chosen religion.

[Drake]

I didn't say to only check people that look like the 9/11 hijackers. But lets be honest, have 60+ year old grandmothers ever been hijackers?

Let's be honest, if you were a terrorist, and you KNEW that we began letting these people through, wouldn't you change your TTP to take advantage of that?

Think this one through.

[BJJ-Blue]

Let's be honest, if you were a terrorist, and you KNEW that we began letting these people through, wouldn't you change your TTP to take advantage of that?

Think this one through.

Of course you make sense. But they haven't been able to recruit any grandmothers yet. Or any retired military men. Or any MOH winners. Or any middle aged women. And I'll be honest, I doubt they will, no matter how hard they try.

Would you, as a law abiding, taxpaying, member of the military want your wife felt up at an airport? Better yet, would you want your mother or grandmother felt up at an airport?

[Drake]

Of course you make sense. But they haven't been able to recruit any grandmothers yet. Or any retired military men. Or any MOH winners. Or any middle aged women. And I'll be honest, I doubt they will, no matter how hard they try.

Would you, as a law abiding, taxpaying, member of the military want your wife felt up at an airport? Better yet, would you want your mother or grandmother felt up at an airport?

I would opt not to fly. Trains are actually a very nice way to travel.

I get searched too, military ID and all. It's ok, because I accept that if I want to use a particular service, I have to agree to play by their rules.

They have recruited grandmothers, children, and women. I don't know why you think they haven't.

[MasterKiller]

Muslim to profile?

http://lakers.topbuzz.com/gallery/d/28123-3/Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar+photo+on+Media+Day+2008.jpg

[MasterKiller]

They have recruited grandmothers, children, and women. I don't know why you think they haven't.
Yuuuuup

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01252/IRAQ-BOMBER_1252660c.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/4452218/Iraqi-woman-recruited-more-than-80-female-suicide-bombers.html

Iraqi woman 'recruited more than 80 female suicide bombers'
A woman suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has been arrested, the Iraqi military said.

The woman, nicknamed "Umm al-Mumineen," suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has been arrested Photo: AP11:00PM GMT 03 Feb 2009
The woman – who was identified as Samira Ahmed Jassim or by her nickname "Umm al-Mumineen", which means the mother of believers – was shown confessing in a video played for reporters at a press conference in Baghdad.

Dressed in an all-encompassing black Islamic robe, she described how she would persuade the women to be bombers, then escort them to an orchard for insurgent training and finally pick them up and lead them to their targets.

She said she was acting on behalf of insurgents based in the volatile Diyala province, north of Baghdad.

[MasterKiller]

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/colleen-larose-pictured-in-1997-e1268339076245.jpg

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/colleen-larose-in-a-photo-taken-from-a-website-she-maintained-e1268339440761.jpg

[MasterKiller]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002936760_balkans18.html

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina — His code name was Maximus, and he held secret meetings in a shabby room at the Banana City Hotel on the outskirts of Sarajevo.

Bosnian police put him under surveillance, and in a raid last fall on his apartment on Poligonska Street, authorities seized explosives, a suicide bomber belt and a videotape of masked men begging Allah's forgiveness for what they were about to do.

What they planned, investigators believe, was to blow up a European embassy. Compounding their concern, they say, was the ringleader's background: Maximus turned out to be Mirsad Bektasevic, 19, a Swedish citizen of Serbian origin with ties to a senior al-Qaida operative.

According to classified intelligence documents, terrorists have been working to recruit non-Arab sympathizers — so-called "white Muslims" with Western features who theoretically could more easily blend into European cities and execute attacks.

[BJJ-Blue]

Muslim to profile?

Doubtful. He is older than the usual profile.

I'm not saying all Muslims are hijacking planes, but in the last 10 years every hijacker of a US plane has been a Muslim. It is what it is, PC or not.

You don't see Mormons hijacking planes in the name of their religion. Or Jehovah's Witnesses beheading civilians and journalists in the name of their religion.


Iraqi woman 'recruited more than 80 female suicide bombers'

I asked about hijackings of US planes. Have any grandmothers been hijackers? Grandfathers? MOH winners? I'm not asking about suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Europe. I am talking specifically about American airports.

[Drake]

Doubtful. He is older than the usual profile.

I'm not saying all Muslims are hijacking planes, but in the last 10 years every hijacker of a US plane has been a Muslim. It is what it is, PC or not.

You don't see Mormons hijacking planes in the name of their religion. Or Jehovah's Witnesses beheading civilians and journalists in the name of their religion.



I asked about hijackings of US planes. Have any grandmothers been hijackers? Grandfathers? MOH winners? I'm not asking about suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Europe. I am talking specifically about American airports.

A Chinese guy beheaded a guy on a bus recently in Canada. Eyewitness reports say it sounded like a cross between a baby crying and a dog barking. Live with that image in your head.

[Drake]

Doubtful. He is older than the usual profile.

I'm not saying all Muslims are hijacking planes, but in the last 10 years every hijacker of a US plane has been a Muslim. It is what it is, PC or not.

You don't see Mormons hijacking planes in the name of their religion. Or Jehovah's Witnesses beheading civilians and journalists in the name of their religion.



I asked about hijackings of US planes. Have any grandmothers been hijackers? Grandfathers? MOH winners? I'm not asking about suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Europe. I am talking specifically about American airports.

In the last ten years, there was only one incident of a US plane being hijacked that I'm tracking.

[Drake]

Here's a list of hijackings over the last ten years:

2000: Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 is hijacked on an internal flight within Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and ended up at London Stansted Airport, where most of the passengers claimed political asylum.

2000: Philippine Airlines Flight 812 was hijacked en route from Davao City, Philippines to Manila. The hijacker parachuted from the aircraft while still airborne; his body was later found.

2000, 11 November: an Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Makhachkala to Moscow was hijacked by a man demanding it be diverted to Israel. The plane landed at an Israeli military base where hijacker surrendered. None of 59 people onboard were injured.[24]

2001, 15 March: another Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Istanbul to Moscow was hijacked by a three Chechen terrorists demanding it be diverted to Saudi Arabia. After the plane with 174 people onboard landed at Medina the terrorist threatened to blow it up unless it would be refuelled for flying to Afghanistan. The Saudi authorities decided to storm the plane. During the assault 2 people were killed by Saudi police: one of the passengers (Turkish citizen), and the leader of the terrorists. The stewardess, Yulia Fomina, was killed during the hijacking, and later the plane was named after her.[25]

001: American Airlines flight 11 , United Airlines Flight 175 , American Airlines Flight 77 , United Airlines Flight 93, were hijacked on the morning of September 11th. Two planes were deliberately crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one was crashed into the Pentagon and one did not reach its hijacking destination because the passengers attacked the hijackers and crashed it into a field in Pennsylvania. Both towers of The World Trade Center collapsed; in total 2,976 victims and 19 hijackers were killed and over 6000 people were injured. It is to this day, the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on US soil.
2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace. The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals which were picked up by the Greek air force; the flight was intercepted by military aircraft and landed safely at Brindisi, Italy.
2007: an Air West Boeing 737 was hijacked over Sudan, but landed safely at N'Djamena, Chad.

2007: an Air Mauritanie Boeing 737 flying from Nouakchott to Las Palmas with 87 passengers on board was hijacked by a man who wanted to fly to Paris, but the plane landed in an air base near Las Palmas and the hijacker, a Moroccan, was arrested.[26]

2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked by two Arab students, who said they were Al Qaeda operatives, one trained in Afghanistan, and wanted to go to Tehran, Iran. The plane landed in Antalya, the passengers escaped and the hijackers were arrested.[27]

2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked shortly after takeoff. The hijackers demanded to be taken to France where they reputedly wanted to gain asylum. The plane initially tried to land at Cairo but was refused permission. It subsequently touched down at Kufra, Libya. The hijackers gave themselves up almost 24 hours after taking the plane. There were no reported casualties.

2009: CanJet Flight 918, a Boeing 737-800 preparing to depart from the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, Jamaica to Canada was hijacked by a gunman who forced his way through airport security onto the plane. His main motive was a demand to the crew to fly him to Cuba. Most of the passengers on the plane gave him money to buy their freedom. For the rest of the night, negotiations took place as 6 crew members were held hostage in the flight for several hours. Quick responses from the police force allowed them to disarm the hijacker and arrest him. There were no casualties.

2009: AeroMéxico Flight 576, a Boeing 737-800 flying from Cancún to Mexico City was hijacked by José Marc Flores Pereira, a Bolivian citizen claiming he had a bomb and demanding to speak to Mexican president Felipe Calderón. The plane landed at Mexico City International Airport where it then taxied to a remote stand where the passengers and crew were later released. Mexican officials stormed the plane where 5 men were taken into custody with only 1 being held. There were no casualties. It was the first hijackings for the airline.


So... primary motivation seems to be political asylum.

[Syn7]

But Boehner has had his share of taint. He handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor in 1995 while lawmakers were weighing tobacco subsidies. In 2004, he allowed Sallie Mae to throw him a fundraiser while the student lending outfit was lobbying his committee. And he is a frequent flier on trips paid for by special interests

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202571_pf.html