About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN did not challenge unsubstantiated GOP claim that Pelosi specifically requested "one of the most luxurious planes"

February 08, 2007 8:57 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

28 Comments

During a report on the February 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, contributor Carol Costello repeated recent Republican allegations that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has specifically requested a large and lavish military jet to fly between her home in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Costello reported Republicans' charges that Pelosi "desires a luxury taxpayer-funded Pelosi One to ferry her family and friends" and "want[s] not only a military plane that could fly coast to coast without refueling, but one of the most luxurious planes in the Air Force's fleet." Earlier, host Wolf Blitzer had introduced the report by noting that GOP critics "accuse her of first-class ambitions." Costello reported that the information about Pelosi's supposed request "came from the conservative Washington Times through unnamed congressional sources." But neither Costello nor Blitzer provided independent evidence of Pelosi's request. By contrast, several other media reports on the controversy have stated that there is no evidence Pelosi ever asked for a specific plane and noted that her staff has explicitly denied she ever made such a request. Indeed, Pelosi herself has repeatedly explained she merely wants an aircraft that can travel nonstop to California.

The CNN report repeated the ongoing GOP allegations that Pelosi requested access to "not only a military plane that could fly coast to coast without refueling, but one of the most luxurious planes in the Air Force's fleet -- the C-40 -- which boasts a private bed, an entertainment center, and a crew of 16." (Costello appears to have been referring to the C-32, a military version of the Boeing 757, which Republicans have specifically claimed Pelosi requested. According to the Air Force, the C-32 usually requires a crew of 16, while the C-40 usually requires 10 crew members.)

CNN went on to air a clip of Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) asking, "So, why does she need 42 seats? Why do we need an airplane that costs $22,000 an hour to operate?"

During the report, CNN also aired two brief clips from Pelosi's February 7 remarks to reporters, in which she defended herself against the Republican charges:

PELOSI: It has nothing to do with family and friends and everything to do about security.

[...]

PELOSI: The only misrepresentations could be coming from the administration, and one would only have to wonder why.

But absent from Costello's report was Pelosi's insistence during the same news conference that she does not care about the size of the plane, only about whether it can travel from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco without stopping to refuel. From a February 8 Associated Press article:

[Former House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized jet. Pelosi and her aides say that because her congressional district is in California, her security would require a larger plane that can fly coast to coast without refueling.

"It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi said Wednesday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that Pelosi's press secretary, Brendan Daly, has denied that the speaker "requested a specific plane":

The House sergeant at arms originally advised Pelosi that Hastert had used a military plane and recommended that she use one that didn't need to refuel. That prompted her office to request clarification of the rules, Daly said, noting that she never actually requested a specific plane.

And on the February 8 edition of MSNBC's The Most, NBC News congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that "no one here can confirm that she's actually asking for a 757." In a report later in the day, Viqueira stated: "[T]here's really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for ... this 757."

From the February 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, coming under fire from Republican critics who accuse her of first-class ambitions when it comes to using U.S. military planes.

Let's check back with CNN's Carol Costello. She's been investigating -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Wolf, ever since 9-11, the House speaker has been authorized to fly on military aircraft for security reasons. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert used military planes to fly to and from his home state of Illinois. Speaker Pelosi needs to fly to and from California. It's the "how" that's sparked an ugly partisan battle.

[begin video clip]

COSTELLO: The charges against Nancy Pelosi are strong -- an abuser of power who desires a luxury taxpayer-funded Pelosi One to ferry her family and friends. They are so loud, the speaker spoke out.

PELOSI: It has nothing to do with family and friends and everything to do about security.

COSTELLO: But her words did not quiet Republican Congressman Adam Putnam, who's accused Pelosi of wanting not only a military plane that could fly coast to coast without refueling, but one of the most luxurious planes in the Air Force's fleet -- the C-40 -- which boasts a private bed, an entertainment center, and a crew of 16.

PUTNAM: There are corporate-sized aircraft that exist that can serve this same function. So, why does she need 42 seats? Why do we need an airplane that costs $22,000 an hour to operate?

COSTELLO: That bit of info came from the conservative Washington Times through unnamed congressional sources. Critics wondered why Pelosi couldn't use the planes her predecessor, Republican Dennis Hastert, had used -- the smaller C-37A or C-20. Both planes are capable of flying coast to coast without refueling under optimal conditions. Pelosi says the debate has been mischaracterized.

PELOSI: The only misrepresentations could be coming from the administration, and one would only have to wonder why.

COSTELLO: But her ally in Congress, [Rep.] John Murtha [D-PA], says he does know, telling us off camera the Pentagon is leaking information to The Washington Times, saying, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense."

[end video clip]

COSTELLO: So, there's probably more battle to come. We did wonder how Mr. Hastert used military aircraft. Former members of his staff tell us he used the planes only during the legislative session to fly home and back about 80 times a year -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So, the story will continue, presumably. We'll watch it. Carol, thank you.

From the February 8 edition of MSNBC's The Most:

VIQUEIRA: The C-32 is the modified 757. That is among the universe -- in the universe of planes that are operated by the military from Andrews Air Force Base, here outside of Washington, that could meet her requirements. As backed up by the House Sergeant in Arms, incidentally, who says that she needs a plane that can fly her from Washington to her home district in San Francisco in one hop without stopping.

The plane that Dennis Hastert used, apparently, a modified Gulf Stream 3, could not do that -- would have had to stop. So, she's not necessarily asking for this modified 757 -- this C-32 -- that happens to be among the planes that would fit the bill. There are others, like the Gulf Stream 5, which is operated by the Air Force, that could get her there nonstop.

And we understand, Rita, that the Pentagon has come back to her last night and said that "[y]es, we will provide you with the same plane that Dennis Hastert has." The question is: Is that a modified plane? Can I get her -- get her there nonstop? Or would she have to stop instead? You heard her just say right then and there, when I talked to her about an hour ago, that if she -- if they can't get her there, it's no big deal, she'll fly commercial.

But Republicans have been jumping all over her for this, alleging that that 757 has a bedroom on it. They call it the Lincoln Bedroom. We just heard from her counterpart, the majority [sic] leader, John Boehner, in the House, who says the request is a bit over the top as he understands it -- no one here can confirm that she's actually asking for a 757 -- and he's concerned about what's reasonable to charge the taxpayers, Rita.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the February 8 edition of MSNBC News Live:

VIQUEIRA: We just had a top Republican leader go to the House floor and offer an amendment on a completely unrelated bill that had to do with energy consumption and pollution that said that Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be allowed to fly on this airplane. So, they're jumping all over this, getting some traction, and they're certainly happy about it -- although, again, there's really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for the plane that is in question here -- this 757.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 08, 2007 9:07 pm ET)
         

      Oh, yea...

      Nancy demanded the plane with the flight attendants from Chippendale's...  and the velour, vibrating seats. What morons...  but I'm glad to see how Pelosi stood up to the creeps.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (February 08, 2007 9:55 pm ET)
         

      It looks like much of the misinformation about this whole thing is coming from Roy Blount out of Missouri and maybe the Pentagon.

      What a bunch of crybabies these guys are.  The more information that come out about this, the worse the right is getting beat up over this.  Chalk this up as another Drudge misfire.  You would think he would learn from his mistakes by now.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by prof (February 08, 2007 10:25 pm ET)
         

      I find this rather ironic.  The right wing neo-con political machine manufactures an incipient scandal about Pelosi's air travel--a bogus story that she wants to travel in luxury while in reality she is now REQUIRED to travel on a military plane for security reasons and she only wants a plane, any plane, that can fly to San Fransisco non-stop.  Meanwhile, Senate right wing neo-cons (at the behest of the Whitehouse) effectively shut down any debate on Bush's "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq.  And, while these neo-cons beat their chests with faked indignity and outrage at Pelosi, helicopters are being shot down in Iraq by insurgents using ground to air missiles.

      This is how the neo-conservative Republik neo-con right wingers continue to bring shame on our nation and more misery and death to our soldiers in Iraq. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by west1 (February 08, 2007 11:42 pm ET)
         

      "Indeed, Pelosi herself has repeatedly explained she merely wants an aircraft that can travel nonstop to California."

      No matter what party the House Speaker belongs to, it is a waste of money and excessive to give the Speaker his/her own plane to fly across the country.  After 9/11, enough security has been put in place at the airports that they are secure enough for the House Speaker.  Before 9/11, it wasn't necessary and it still isn't.  Is she going to ride in a tank to the grocery store?  Pelosi can do the country a favor and stop the practice.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by left of center (February 09, 2007 11:09 am ET)
           

        No, I strongly disagree - the security measures now taken at commercial airports are mostly for show.  Also, you are not taking into account that the Speaker is 3rd in line for the Presidency - I believe additional security measures are warranted.  As much as I could not STAND Hastert, I have no problem with the fact they provided that service for him when he was speaker

        Report Abuse
      • Author by harley (February 09, 2007 11:10 am ET)
           

        It's not just a security issue, it's also an accountability issue.  Since we are living in a "post-9/11" (Tm) world, it's wise that the third in line to the WH can be secured in a moments notice and their whereabouts is detailed down to the second.   

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (February 09, 2007 11:15 am ET)
           

        Consider this...what sort of confidence does it show the Administration has in airport security that they would deem it important for the Speaker to have a military aircraft for security reasons?  Makes you think anyway.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 09, 2007 12:06 am ET)
         

      How amusing it is to see the right wing suddenly expressing so much concern for the American tax dollar after we've seen over $300 billion flowing over the cliff of unaccountability into a bottomless pit in the Middle East without so much as one Republican congressman even sneezing. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (February 09, 2007 7:35 am ET)
         

      this is all another manufactured republican "scandal" that the press is glad to go along with. she never requested this specific plane. that should be the rebuttal to this. any news organization that does not note that in the story is failing to be objective.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by autopsychic (February 09, 2007 8:03 am ET)
         

         Why does she need one to fly non-stop? What difference could it make whether it takes her 4 hours or 5 to get there? She'll still abuse the right and give all her crony friends in SF free rides to and from the east coast. Perhaps all her land investors would be interested in purchasing more land and Pelosi could accomodate them by providing free flights to any purchase sights. I wonder how she is going to get tough on crime in the house and senate without getting herself caught? Considering all the shady land deals she and her husband have made over the years. You have to ask yourself if she really wants a jet for security reasons or is she is looking for another way to scam the public. Living in the SF area I am well aware of her already shady financial past, why would it stop here. When she can take her illegal activities all the way to the white house. Only now at the expense of the taxpayers. BTW, it's amazing how liberals will complain about wasted tax dollars until it is a liberal who wants to waste them. Then suddenly it's a "you did it, now I will" excuse. Is that how the liberals are going to run the house and senate now that they have control?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Marker (February 09, 2007 8:15 am ET)
           

        I wonder what is more pathetic, the fake outrage over a lie about the speaker or your fake outrage over money being wasted. With the Iraq war close to 400 billion dollars and you whine about a plane flying across the country......

        Report Abuse
      • Author by prof (February 09, 2007 9:33 am ET)
           

        You are an idiot.  Nothing happened, except the usual neo-con lies and speculations about Pelosi's INTENTIONS.  People like you are truly creepy.  You're either really stupid or really evil, or both.  Go away.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 09, 2007 10:20 am ET)
             

          Loud-Christoputz,

          Even Tony Snow has debunked this story.  Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's butt and face the real world. 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 09, 2007 10:34 am ET)
           

        a jet flying non stop from coast to coast is not exactly some rarity. and as far as expense, it takes money to land and take off, just to refuel. plus there is also the security issue in the fact that accidents almost always involve takeoffs and landings. reduce those and you reduce the chances.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (February 09, 2007 10:59 am ET)
           

        "Shady land deals."  You guys crack me up.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (February 09, 2007 12:31 pm ET)
             

          By "shady land deals" PC could mean that the property had a lot of shade trees on it.  It might be true.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by flimflam421 (February 09, 2007 4:44 pm ET)
           

        I head that Nancy Pelosi killed Vince Foster because he was going to spill the beans about her relationship with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 09, 2007 10:39 am ET)
         

      I suppose this is this year's version of the White House vandalism lie that the GOP put out in 2001.  Certain idiots will continue to believe it and repeat it, no matter how often it is debunked.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brian in FL (February 09, 2007 12:33 pm ET)
           

        Exactly. The GOP doesn't care if this story is completely false or not. They got what they wanted, which is all the media organizations talking about this and smearing Pelosi. It gets Iraq and their major scandals (Libby trial, Defense Department report saying Pentagon intel on Iraq was manipulated, etc.). off the news, and smears the "San Francisco liberal".

        And, like you said, a certain number of people will end up believing it no matter what the facts show. Look at the "Proud-Christian" troll on this board. I'm sure he/she is not alone in believing this.

        The height of hypocrisy came when Republican Congressman worried about the environmental impacts of her trips. What a joke...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by buyavowel (February 09, 2007 12:42 pm ET)
         

      I heard she demanded laptops for the plane with no W's

      Report Abuse
    • Author by HRN (February 09, 2007 5:44 pm ET)
         

      She probably wants TWO bags of peanuts, too! I'm outraged!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ldoren1626 (February 09, 2007 6:44 pm ET)
         

      She requested the bigger one than Hastert so she wouldn't have to refuel.

      The only thing next in line is the lux one.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by goofticket (February 10, 2007 7:30 am ET)
         

      Anyone with half a brain, including CNN, THe Republic Party and the Pentagroin could with two mouse clicks learn some facts. The US has two 757's, the planes in question. According to the AF website, these are specifically used for the Vice President and the First Lady. No other use is listed. So a 757 is not available to the Speaker. The plane that Hastert used, a Gulfstream G-III has been replaced with a Gulfstream G-IV, a plance with extended range capable of making the trip. If the moronic Republic Party want's to create a scandal, why not go all out and say she demanded, no requested, that the third Air Force One 747 be her plane of choice. Hell, why not get the Concorde in New York fired up for the trip?

      Here is the link, if the CNN editors & the lazy GOPe'ers would like a source to quote, of the entire AF fleet, listing all aircraft, the numbers owned and the ranges they can fly.

      [link to www.af.mil]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Oakland (February 10, 2007 7:45 am ET)
         

      In the blogosphere, this article would be known as a troll diary.  A troll diary is full of lies, innuendos, rumours, designed to enflame, and includes no facts and no sources.  Why CNN, FOX and the networks are getting their asses kicked by the bloggers. They are NOT stenographers.  You are.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Oakland (February 10, 2007 7:47 am ET)
         

      In the blogosphere, this article would be known as a troll diary.  A troll diary is full of lies, innuendos, rumours, designed to enflame, and includes no facts and no sources.  Why CNN, FOX and the networks are getting their asses kicked by the bloggers. Bloggers are NOT stenographers; today's journalists are.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.