$16.2M for the Air Force to create "world class" accommodations exceeding the standards of a regular business-class flight

flying as a passenger in a large military cargo aircraft is no joy ride... neither is flying economy on a commercial airline or a military passenger aircraft... but my response to that is, "tough shit"... i'm a regular long-haul flyer and i have to make do with what i can afford - economy - or what my employer will pay for - economy... if i have work to do, i figure out how to get it done... if i want to sleep, i try to make myself as comfortable as possible and nod off... i don't get the pleasure of the lie-flat beds in first class... i don't even get the pleasure of the fully-reclining seats in business class... the last thing we need is our military leaders even more separated from their troops than they are by enjoying first-class amenities on their travels, particularly amenities paid for by anti-terrorism funds...

from page one of today's wapo...

The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules' carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents.

[...]

Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.


The Air Force's new capsules, which will
fit in large aircraft, are meant to ensure
that senior military officers and civilian
leaders can travel in comfort.
(Special To The Washington Post)


An Air Force document specified that the
capsule's seats are to swivel such that
"the longitudinal axis of the seat is
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft" regardless of where the capsules
are facing.
(Special To The Washington Post)

The effort has been slowed, however, by congressional resistance to using counterterrorism funds for the project and by lengthy internal deliberations about a series of demands for modifications by Air Force generals. One request was that the color of the leather for the seats and seat belts in the mobile pallets be changed from brown to Air Force blue and that seat pockets be added; another was that the color of the table's wood be darkened.

Changing the seat color and pockets alone was estimated in a March 12 internal document to cost at least $68,240.

In all, for the past three years the service has asked to divert $16.2 million to the effort from what the military calls the GWOT, or global war on terrorism. Congress has twice told the service that it cannot, including an August 2007 letter from Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to the Pentagon ordering that the money be spent on a "higher priority" need.

Officials say the Air Force nonetheless decided last year to take $331,000 from counterterrorism funds to cover a cost overrun, partly stemming from the design changes, although a senior officer said yesterday in response to inquiries that it will reverse that decision.

i repeat... tough shit... fly like the rest of us... more importantly, fly like the troops have to fly...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Here's what tearing down the wall between church and state gets you

faith-based lobbyists trying to score faith-based earmarks... just fracking swell...

as night follows day, if religious organizations can wangle money out of the government to do things they otherwise would have to raise money for or not do at all, they're going to do it, right...?

St. Vincent College, a small Benedictine college southeast of Pittsburgh, wanted to realign a two-lane state road serving the campus. But the state transportation department did not have the money.

So St. Vincent tried Washington instead. The college hired a professional lobbyist in 2004 and, later that year, two paragraphs were tucked into federal appropriation bills with the help of Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, awarding $4 million solely for that project. College officials said the work would improve the safety and appearance of the road into the campus, which President Bush visited two days ago to give the college's commencement address.

Religious organizations have long competed for federal contracts to provide social services, and they have tried to influence Congress on matters of moral and social policy - indeed, most major denominations have a presence in Washington to monitor such legislation. But an analysis of federal records shows that some religious organizations are also hiring professional lobbyists to pursue the narrowly tailored individual appropriations known as earmarks.

[...]

From 1989 to January 2007, Congress approved almost 900 earmarks for religious groups, totaling more than $318 million, with more than half of them granted in the Congressional session that included the 2004 presidential election. By contrast, the same analysis showed fewer than 60 earmarks for faith-based groups in the Congressional session that covered 1997 and 1998.

it's what's known as the law of unintended consequences... oh, but wait... we're talking about the bush administration... make that the law of INTENDED consequences...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Murtha says it's on the table

this is good... it BELONGS on the table, front and center, and this kind of visibility, along with impeachment summer 2007 and a multitude of grassroots efforts, will help it become part of the mainstream political dialog, where it most definitely belongs...

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) revised the much publicized statements he made yesterday and told National Public Radio that impeaching President George W. Bush was 'on the table' late on Monday afternoon.

"I'm just saying that's one of the options that Congress has on the table, I'm getting more and more calls from people about the President on impeachment," the long-time Congressman, who is a veteran of the US Marines, told NPR's Melissa Block on the program 'All Things Considered' Monday afternoon.

Murtha's remark was at variance with Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has insisted since last year prior to the Congressional election that returned a Democratic majority in the House that impeachment was 'off the table.'

The Congressman's explanation came after he repeated his statement made on CBS News' Face the Nation yesterday that impeachment was one of four options that can be used to hold a President accountable, in addition to elections, polls, and the Congress's control of the executive branch's budgets. In yesterday's appearance, he refused to say whether impeachment was being contemplated, stating only that it was an option.

Murtha later noted that he didn't think impeachment was appropriate at this time. But he also added, "It's just one of the things we always consider, it's a part of the process."

now, nancy, what is YOUR response...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush...? Compromise...? HAHAHAHAHA...!

john murtha today...

“They say we’re willing to compromise,” he said. “And then we don’t get any compromise.”

“We’ve already compromised,” Murtha said. “And we need to make this president understand, Mr. President, the public has spoken. There’s three ways or four ways to influence a president. One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is the purse.”

the nyt on friday...

President Bush and Democratic leaders yesterday toned down the talk of the last several weeks and hinted at a willingness to compromise.

here's what i posted yesterday...

the democrats should know after 6+ years that bush only lays traps, he doesn't negotiate, he doesn't compromise... he and his criminal compadres are interested in one thing and one thing only - getting their way - and they aren't going to settle for anything less...

i'm glad to hear a moderate with the credibility of murtha using the "i" word... now, how about madam speaker...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place

wow...! i can't imagine a stronger message...

the dems' weekly radio address by ltg (ret) wm. odom...

[T]he President has let [Iraq] proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

"Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

"To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is 'absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

"Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.

"Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President's management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.

here's what i wish would happen...

i wish odom, along with four or five of his retired general officer colleagues, would join with larry wilkerson, james baker, richard clarke, russ feingold, chuck hagel, john murtha, harry reid, nancy pelosi, hell, throw in lee iacocca too, to sit down with bush in the oval office and lay the cards on the table...

"look, george... it's over... iraq's over... your presidency is over... you've got a choice... you can either gracefully resign along with dick cheney, or we're going to bust our humps to remove you via impeachment... the country and the world can't put up with any more, george... we've had it..."

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Murtha: “They’re striking out because they have no answers”

not only do they have no answers, they also have no public support... and, if the public really grasped the fact that petraeus' plan calls for ten more years, what precious little support is left would evaporate...

For all of President Bush’s vows to pursue his policies in Iraq, Mr. Murtha argued, “They can’t continue this direction.

“They can say that, just like they said they weren’t going to fire Rumsfeld two weeks before the election,” he added, referring to the dismissal of Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary immediately after the election. “But in the end, you can’t sustain a war if you don’t have public support.”

Of Mr. Cheney’s remarks, Mr. Murtha said, “They’re striking out because they have no answers.”

the above is from the nyt, which attempts to describe murtha's struggle in gaining support for his plan... the wapo has a similar article, altho' in best wapo fashion, it's considerably more negative toward murtha, starting with the headline and hitting full stride in the second paragraph...

Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs

Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks

[...]

[A] botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

to further cement the bias of the article, it persists in spreading the myth that those who are against the war are part of the far-left crazies...

The strategy he would craft was designed to calm the nerves of the party's conservatives by fully funding the war, while placating the antiwar left...

c'mon wapo... insinuating that over two-thirds of the u.s. population belong to the "antiwar left" just doesn't fly...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments