• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An American Travesty

A

Anonymous

Guest
I watched the House Appropriations Committee hearing on this- and if GW as Commander and Chief of the Military- or the Congress don't overturn this decision it will be an American travesty...Giving $35 Billion of the US taxpayers money to fund the US Air Forces purchase of tankers to a French company- Airbus (who's manufacturing history is terrible)- to be built in France, Germany, and the UK, that is using Northrup Grumman as a facade US front is as wrong as 2 men playing Broken Back Mountain.... :mad:

Every Congressman at the hearing was screaming about it - but the Air Force refused to answer hardly any question- claiming bidding secrecy rights.... :???: :( :mad: Just saying that "industrial base" or "the US economy" did not figure into their bidding decision.... :???:

I can't believe when our economy is in as bad a shape as its in- and GW, Paulson, and crew are saying "buy American" to revitalize the economy-and the rest of the world has told us where to stick it with any military assistance, that it would even get this far....But then 9/10th's of what GW's leadership has done has totally confused me...
:roll:




Boeing says Air Force steered it to bid 767 tankerReuters, Thursday March 6 2008 (Recasts with Boeing executive's comments)

By Jim Wolf and Doug Palmer
WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force steered Boeing Co to offer its smaller 767 aircraft as a refueling tanker, a company executive said ahead of a Friday meeting with the military on why the $35 billion program went to a bigger aircraft offered by Northrop Grumman and Europe's EADS.

The choice has enraged many U.S. lawmakers and labor unions who say it threatens to send high-paying aerospace jobs to Europe and rewards EADS' Airbus unit, the subject of a U.S. complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Mark McGraw, vice president of Boeing's aerial tanker program, told CNBC television on Thursday that Boeing bid its 767 aircraft based on what the military identified as its needs.
"To some extent, the requirements steered us to (offer) the 767," McGraw said, instead of Boeing's larger 777 aircraft.

When the Air Force announced its choice of the bigger Airbus A330-based tanker last Friday, it praised its greater capacity to carry fuel, cargo and passengers.

Boeing, which meets Air Force officials on Friday over why it lost, "probably" will decide over the weekend whether to file a formal protest, McGraw said.

After the briefing, Boeing has 10 calendar days to file a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

"We want to listen tomorrow," McGraw said. "We do not protest often. We take that decision very seriously because it could have an impact on the men and women of our military."

The Air Force plans to spend up to $35 billion for 179 modified Airbus A330 wide-bodied jets over the next 15 years. Boeing built the existing KC-135 U.S. tanker fleet, with planes that on average are now 47 years old.

Backers of the Northrop-Airbus tanker include lawmakers from Alabama, where assembly work will be done.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne this week described the Airbus-Northrop bid as "clearly" better than Boeing in the key criteria used to evaluate the planes.

U.S. TRADE CASE AGAINST AIRBUS
Lawmakers from Kansas and Washington state, where Boeing has large facilities, have bitterly criticized the Air Force decision and its impact on U.S. jobs and trade policy.
Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts said it defied common sense for one branch of the U.S. government to challenge Airbus subsidies at the WTO while another branch awards Airbus a big contract.

"This is an outrage," Roberts said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing. "It truly makes me question our trade agenda."
The EU and the United States are pursuing competing complaints with the WTO over tens of billions of euros and dollars in state support for Airbus and Boeing
.
The United States accuses Airbus of getting grants and loans at unfairly favorable rates in the form of "launch aid." Europe's trade case against Boeing hinges on the provision of research and development assistance from NASA and the U.S. Defense Department.

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told the Senate committee she had no role in the tanker program, saying the decision was made "solely by the Air Force."

She said the WTO could issue a confidential preliminary decision in April or May in the U.S. case against Airbus. If the United States wins its case, she said there would be "opportunities for settlement, opportunities for compensation and if necessary, opportunities for retaliation."
Retaliation could include higher tariffs on EU exports to the United States, such as aircraft and aircraft parts, which would raise the cost of making EADS tankers.
"U.S. taxpayers could potentially foot the bill for higher duties imposed on spare parts for the Airbus tanker being finished in the United States. That's quite a catch-22," Roberts said.
Jim Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing's integrated defense systems unit, told an investor conference Wednesday that U.S. tanker-related revenues would have amounted to just 1 percent of the company's sales over the next five years. (Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Toni Reinhold)
 

Mike

Well-known member
Boeing previously had employees who went to jail for boondoggling defense contracts? :lol:

I understand why the Democrats would fight the EADS contract. One word.........."UNIONS".

And all you have to do is follow the money for the Repubs screaming.

Asking Boeing to actually COMPETE for a bid? Ludicrous! :lol: :lol:
__________________________________________________________

Boeing Supporters Target McCain

Mar 8 03:47 AM US/Eastern
By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer 32 Comments




View larger image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.
There are other targets for their ire—the Air Force, the defense secretary and even the entire Bush administration.

But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.

"Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it."

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its U.S. partner, Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman, won a competition with Boeing Feb. 29 to build the refueling planes in one of the biggest Pentagon contracts in decades. The unexpected decision has sparked outrage from union halls to the halls of Congress over the impact on U.S. jobs, prestige and national security. EADS and Northrop say about 60 percent of their tanker will be built in the U.S.

McCain said he is keeping an open mind on the contract, but in the past he has boasted about his role in blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. The deal was killed in 2004 after a former Boeing executive improperly recruited an Air Force official while she was still overseeing contracts involving prospective Boeing deals. The former Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials.

McCain has run ads touting his role in fighting "pork" such as the tanker project and cited the deal in a recent GOP debate.

"I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoing the thoughts of many congressional Democrats, sees McCain's role in a less positive light. She said the earlier tanker deal was "on course for Boeing" before McCain started railing against it.

"I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Pelosi told reporters. "Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be—this work may be outsourced."

Even Boeing's Republican supporters are critical of McCain.

"John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he's flat-out wrong—and I'll tell him that to his face," said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican whose district includes a Boeing plant that could have gained hundreds of new jobs from the tanker program, said McCain's role in killing the earlier deal is likely to become an election issue. Both of the leading Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have criticized the Air Force decision.

"I think we absolutely will hear more about it," Tiahrt said. "We'll hear it mostly from the Democrats and they have every right to be concerned."

McCain called such criticism off base.

"In all due respect to the Washington delegation, they vigorously defended the process before—which turned out to be corrupt—which would have cost the taxpayers more than $6 billion and ended up with people in federal prison," he said. "I'm the one that fought against that ... for years and brought down a corrupt contract."

Keith Ashdown, with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Boeing executives who broke the law were to blame for the demise of the tanker contract—not McCain.

"This was theirs from day one," he said. "This idea that any lawmaker is to blame is a joke."

Still, Todd Donovan, a political science professor at Western Washington University, said McCain's opposition to Boeing could hurt him with voters in Washington and other states affected by the tanker program. Boeing would have performed much of the work in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., and used Pratt & Whitney engines built in Connecticut. Significant work also was slated for Texas.

"If he can be painted as somehow being associated with job losses ... it could hurt him on the margins," Donovan said.

McCain's role in the tanker deal did not bother Alabama politicians, including Republican Gov. Bob Riley, who endorsed McCain three days after the Air Force contract was announced. The EADS-Northrop tanker, based on the Airbus A330, will be built in Mobile, Ala., where it will produce 2,000 new jobs, and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.

___

Associated Press writers Libby Quaid and Sam Hananel contributed to this story.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
During the hearings on this, it was pointed out- not only is Airbus government subsidized, giving them a big bidding advantage over Boeing or Lockheed- but that both the governments of France and Germany where much of the proposed plane building will take place have laws giving their countries companies preference over US or any other countries products....

And every Congressman speaking - Repub or Dem- and even one Repub that said he comes from an area that stands to gain by the Airbus bid- believe this was wrong- using foreign countries to build US taxpayer funded military equipment- and having no where in the bidding decision the "economic impact" to the country or the effect on the countries "industrial base" to maintain a military readiness.....

Another example of FREE TRADE- but not FAIR TRADE......

Too me its kind of sad- after France tells us to go to He77 in Iraq- is pretty much telling us and Nato the same in Afghanistan- and GW gives them preference over US countries to war profiteer..... :???: I can't even believe we would be allowing foreign countries to bid- in order to maintain the viability of our own military industrial base for the time we might really need it.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
It seems to me the first option ...

was to give the contract to Boeing.. that would not have given our troops the best equipment , and a guarantee that it would be built in the US,.. nor would it have given the taxpayers the best tanker their money could buy..

the second option

of putting it our for bid offered and getting the best tanker for our Military and for the taxpayer .. is a tanker built by a subsidized conglomerate of US and EU corporations and splitting the economic benefit.. seems lukewarm at best...

but it leads the way for a third option

for congress.. Boeing and lockheed to actually do all three..

Build the best tanker for the military..
build the best tanker for the Taxpayer dollar
and build it primarily in the US..with US built components..


Boeing has already said they have a better plane.. the bid just didn't specify it..

We know what the Airbus should cost. so Boeing has to just do better. and congress and the Air Force need to specify they not only want an American built plane with American components and this could be solved..

And solving it would be the best for the US military.. so if the steps taken so far lead to the Military having the best Tanker available.. then it is worth it..

because option one and two of this are not in the best interest of the US...
 

Mike

Well-known member
There are more than two sides to this story. The sum of the totals need to be evaluated before making a decision by any of us out of the loop.....
_______________________________________________________

Even Boeing would use foreign parts
Some are upset the Air Force went with a European firm for its huge tanker contract.
March 7, 2008
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print WASHINGTON - If it's un-American to send military contracting jobs to France, is it OK to send them to Japan? That's the question Boeing might have to answer if it tries to wrestle back a $35 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract.

The awarding of the contract last week to a European plane maker — and not Boeing Co. — has sparked outrage from union halls to Congress over the impact on U.S. jobs, prestige and national security.

But even if Chicago-based Boeing had won the deal, critical parts of its tankers would have come from other countries, including Japan and Italy. And the tankers that will be built by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its partner, Northrop Grumman Corp., are certain to produce jobs in the U.S. What's more, even as Boeing supporters criticize the Air Force for outsourcing such a high-stakes award to an overseas company, Boeing itself — along with other U.S. defense contractors — relies on contracts from foreign governments.




"People tend to think American or foreign, black or white, but it's more gray than that," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. "This is an oversimplification of what is effectively a global business."

The Air Force is scheduled to debrief Boeing today on why it chose the EADS/Northrop team to replace the first 179 planes in its aging fleet of nearly 600 air-to-air refueling tankers. Boeing plans to make a decision on whether to protest the Air Force decision within five days of the debriefing.

The uproar over the Air Force tanker award has taken on a protectionist tone on Capitol Hill, with many members of Congress accusing the Pentagon of choosing a French plane (EADS' Airbus subsidiary is based in France) over an American one. Leading the charge are lawmakers from Washington, Kansas and other states that stood to gain jobs from a Boeing win.

And the tanker contract would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at Boeing and more than 300 suppliers in more than 40 states. It would have performed much of the tanker work in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., and used Pratt & Whitney engines built in Connecticut.

The engines for the EADS' tanker will be supplied by GE in Ohio and the so-called "French" planes will be assembled in the USA, creating 22,000 plus jobs.
 

Mike

Well-known member
U.S.-Europe Team Beats Out Boeing on Big Contract

By LESLIE WAYNE
Published: March 1, 2008


WASHINGTON — The Air Force, in a stunning upset against the Boeing Company, awarded a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers on Friday to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus, putting a critical military contract partly into the hands of a foreign company.

The Air Force awarded a tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and the European aircraft maker EADS on Friday.
The contract, one of the largest at the Pentagon, is initially valued at $40 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract.

Under the contract, Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. It gives a huge lift to Airbus, whose commercial aviation program has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant in Mobile, Ala., parts would come from suppliers across the globe.

At a news conference, Air Force officials said that the creation of domestic jobs was not a factor in the decision. In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”

Reaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.

“We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military,” the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. “This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform,” the statement added.

For its part, Boeing, which had been considered the strong favorite to retain the contract, said it was “very disappointed” in the outcome. But it did not say whether it would file a formal protest — something that Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, has said that he hoped the losing bidder would not do because it would only further delay the tanker replacement program.

In its statement, Boeing said, “We believe that we offered the Air Force the best value and lowest-risk tanker for its mission.” The company added that only after a debriefing by the Pentagon would the company “make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and the nation.”

A Boeing victory was considered so certain that many Wall Street analysts had already factored the contract into their economic forecasts for the company. One senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, sent out a press release prematurely praising Boeing for its victory.

“This isn’t an upset,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research group. “It’s an earthquake.”

The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics.

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid.

Senator McCain’s campaign spokeswoman referred calls to his Senate office, which could not be reached for comment.

Representative Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and a Democrat from Washington State, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s offices in Washington when the mood suddenly darkened.

Mr. Dicks added: “Here we are in the middle of a recession, and we give this to Airbus? That is not going to go down well.”

Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a telephone interview that he expected members of Congress would have a “variety of views” depending on whether their districts would be gaining or losing jobs under the deal.

Mr. Sugar said that 60 percent of the content of the new tanker would come from the United States and that it would create 2,000 jobs in Mobile and 25,000 over all in the United States.

“This is more about the capability that we will give to the kids fighting the wars and the cost to the taxpayer,” Mr. Sugar said.

Backing Mr. Sugar’s view was Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican who hailed the decision as “great news for Alabama.”
 

fff

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I can't believe when our economy is in as bad a shape as its in- and GW, Paulson, and crew are saying "buy American" to revitalize the economy-and the rest of the world has told us where to stick it with any military assistance, that it would even get this far....But then 9/10th's of what GW's leadership has done has totally confused me...
:roll:


Stay calm, OT. Didn't you see George W. Bush's comments yesterday? He said the economy seems to be slowing, but don't worry. He got out ahead of the recession and issued a stimulus package. That $1200 you're going to receive will get all those business that have shut their doors or laid off employees back in business. It will help everyone get caught up on their mortgages and credit card bills. It'll buy enough gasoline for us to get to work for a year. Thank you, George, I was starting to get worried. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And there were indications brought up in the hearing that after Boeing submitted the bids on the 767- the Air Force modified the specs to better suit the much larger Airbus....Boeing countered that if they had known they wanted a larger plane they would have bid the 777...
The Air Force admits the specs were modified- but denies it was to give Airbus an advantage....

Also- the French Airbus Corporation has never before successfully built a tanker plane- and has no track record on tankers- altho in the testimony it was shown their track record on keeping time schedules and completion of other projects has been terrible- The plane they are proposing isn't even been built yet- where Boeings 767 and 777 are already here...

On top of that you have the fact that the US Commerce Department is now suing them over WTO violations because of government subsidies.....Like was mentioned by the Congressmen- that really looks good when one Agency of government is buying from a Company that another Agency of the government is suing for improper trading :roll: :???:

But thats been the entire GW administration- the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing- and the controller in the middle can only go "DUH".... :wink:

But I guess thats the new neocon thinking -- outsource even the military while bankrupting the country and that way they can fasttrack their New One World Order ..... :( :( :(
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And there were indications brought up in the hearing that after Boeing submitted the bids on the 767- the Air Force modified the specs to better suit the much larger Airbus....Boeing countered that if they had known they wanted a larger plane they would have bid the 777...
The Air Force admits the specs were modified- but denies it was to give Airbus an advantage....

Also- the French Airbus Corporation has never before successfully built a tanker plane- and has no track record on tankers- altho in the testimony it was shown their track record on keeping time schedules and completion of other projects has been terrible- The plane they are proposing isn't even been built yet- where Boeings 767 and 777 are already here...

On top of that you have the fact that the US Commerce Department is now suing them over WTO violations because of government subsidies.....Like was mentioned by the Congressmen- that really looks good when one Agency of government is buying from a Company that another Agency of the government is suing for improper trading :roll: :???:

But thats been the entire GW administration- the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing- and the controller in the middle can only go "DUH".... :wink:

But I guess thats the new neocon thinking -- outsource even the military while bankrupting the country and that way they can fasttrack their New One World Order ..... :( :( :(



You have outrage... but had Boeing been handed a no bid contract would it have made you happy.doubtful .in other posts you complain and act outraged about no-bid military contracts now ..when one is bid and you don't like the out come again you act outraged..

the process can work if is allowed to.. mock outrage doesn't help.. facts do.. Edited to add.. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
And there were indications brought up in the hearing that after Boeing submitted the bids on the 767- the Air Force modified the specs to better suit the much larger Airbus....Boeing countered that if they had known they wanted a larger plane they would have bid the 777...
The Air Force admits the specs were modified- but denies it was to give Airbus an advantage....

Also- the French Airbus Corporation has never before successfully built a tanker plane- and has no track record on tankers- altho in the testimony it was shown their track record on keeping time schedules and completion of other projects has been terrible- The plane they are proposing isn't even been built yet- where Boeings 767 and 777 are already here...

On top of that you have the fact that the US Commerce Department is now suing them over WTO violations because of government subsidies.....Like was mentioned by the Congressmen- that really looks good when one Agency of government is buying from a Company that another Agency of the government is suing for improper trading :roll: :???:

But thats been the entire GW administration- the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing- and the controller in the middle can only go "DUH".... :wink:

But I guess thats the new neocon thinking -- outsource even the military while bankrupting the country and that way they can fasttrack their New One World Order ..... :( :( :(



You have outrage... but had Boeing been handed a no bid contract would it have made you happy.doubtful .in other posts you complain and act outraged about no-bid military contracts now ..when one is bid and you don't like the out come again you act outraged..

the process can work if is allowed to.. mock outrage doesn't help.. facts do.. Edited to add.. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Lockheed was also in the running at one time too....

I do believe in low bid contracts- but I have worked in government work for 30+ years- with cities, counties, state, and schools (school board) and every one of them gave some type of "local" preference- on both contracts and on direct purchases... Usually somewhere between 10-20%, just to help maintain the local viability- and the taxpayers that are paying those costs "industrial/business base"...

Its just a sad situation when the US economy is imploding (no matter if GW doesn't want to say the "R" word or not") - and GW's Treasury Secretary is the laughing stock of the country when he advises folks to go out spend and "buy USA product"- because folks realize between Clinton and GW they have gave most the industrial base away- and then the government decides to also give away our "military industrial base" too... :( :( :mad:

Today FOX News was getting quite a laugh out of the fact the neither GW, nor any of his staff will use the "R" word- and even his press secretary had said that she couldn't talk about it as they'd been advised not too :roll:
FOX called it, the President "sugarcoating" the economy....I call it what GW's administrations legacy will be - "the BS Administration"..... :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
Lockheed was also in the running at one time too....

I do believe in low bid contracts- but I have worked in government work for 30+ years- with cities, counties, state, and schools (school board) and every one of them gave some type of "local" preference- on both contracts and on direct purchases... Usually somewhere between 10-20%, just to help maintain the local viability- and the taxpayers that are paying those costs "industrial/business base"...

if the process of investigating the bid.. allowing Boeing to protest.. and an open fair contract is placed out for bid.. then the process can work..

but in the world of political blame... that doesn't happen because politicians feed on the emotional outrage of uninformed citizens and a media that needs to sell a story.. even if it hurts the military and the US..

all the Corporations should be allowed to bid and present their best plane.. if the Air Force specified a medium/large plane and accepted a large plane from a US/foreign conglomerate.. then congress should investigate and admonish the Air Force brass and make sure the best plane is ordered. from a contractor that can actually build the best plane on our soil.. Instead of standing around trying to find away to tie this to a BUSH BASH...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OldTimer
Lockheed was also in the running at one time too....

I do believe in low bid contracts- but I have worked in government work for 30+ years- with cities, counties, state, and schools (school board) and every one of them gave some type of "local" preference- on both contracts and on direct purchases... Usually somewhere between 10-20%, just to help maintain the local viability- and the taxpayers that are paying those costs "industrial/business base"...

if the process of investigating the bid.. allowing Boeing to protest.. and an open fair contract is placed out for bid.. then the process can work..

but in the world of political blame... that doesn't happen because politicians feed on the emotional outrage of uninformed citizens and a media that needs to sell a story.. even if it hurts the military and the US..

all the Corporations should be allowed to bid and present their best plane.. if the Air Force specified a medium/large plane and accepted a large plane from a US/foreign conglomerate.. then congress should investigate and admonish the Air Force brass and make sure the best plane is ordered. from a contractor that can actually build the best plane on our soil.. Instead of standing around trying to find away to tie this to a BUSH BASH...

OOPS I forgot-- Republican Commanders in Chief only want to take credit for the good things that happen- and pawn off the blame on any of the bad things :wink: :lol: :lol: :p

The Buck Stops Here!
Harry S. Truman
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
OOPS I forgot-- Republican Commanders in Chief only want to take credit for the good things that happen- and pawn off the blame on any of the bad things

When your, and the liberal democratic congress's only action is to bash Bush nothing else gets solved.. :roll: :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OldTimer
OOPS I forgot-- Republican Commanders in Chief only want to take credit for the good things that happen- and pawn off the blame on any of the bad things

When your, and the liberal democratic congress's only action is to bash Bush nothing else gets solved.. :roll: :???:

Well all the republican congressmen (don't know if they are liberal or conservative) were bashing him in those hearings too-- but it is an election year.... :wink: They commented many times that it shouldn't have to be Congress's job to clean up GW's mess- it shouldn't have gone that far...

They also made it quite clear that their only alternative and way to change GW's/Pentagons policy - was to deny the funding for the project- which in the long run could weaken the US military's capability by stalling the start of the project...But that they would bipartisanly do so- if it meant a better plan for the US taxpayer and economy....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Heres one of Steves socalled "libs" websites you can go to- to find out more about this travesty- and sign a petition against the US military sending our US taxpayers dollars to foreign owned, foreign government subsidized companies to build our military equipment.....

http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/

I am outraged by the recent Air Force tanker contract decision.

I am outraged by the recent Air Force decision to award the KC-X Next Generation Air-fueling Tanker contract to a foreign competitor in the name of the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Team.

An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers. America must not outsource its national security. This decision shockingly creates French jobs in place of Kansas jobs. This is unacceptable.

I believe that the Tanker Competition was unfair and poorly evaluated, and if not overturned will negatively impact the United States for generations.

If allowed to stand, this contract award to a foreign company will:

1) Hurt American workers by the loss of U.S. jobs;
2) Outsource an essential military asset to Europe;
3) Force the United States to be dependent upon Europe for our national defense;
4) Result in an inferior tanker for the United States Air Force; and
5) Result in the US being more vulnerable at a time when we must be less vulnerable

I am urging the Air Force to reverse this dangerous decision to award the KC-X Tanker contract to the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Team.

I invite you to take the following survey.

Todd Tiahrt
Member of Congress

Todd Tiahart- by the way is a Republican Congressman...
 

Steve

Well-known member
They commented many times that it shouldn't have to be Congress's job

it is absolutely Congress job..

our system is checks and balances of power.. each having the authority to put the other in check,.

The president can't over-ride the legislature but both the legislature and the courts can over ride the president..

The courts can over-ride the president and the legislature.. but is not supposed to legislate..

maybe they failed that particular class in about the US government.

but so far I have only seen politicians complaining and jockeying for airtime.. no one has made any action to actually solve the problem.. not even GW Bush..

Could Bush over-ride existing law?.. ? is that legal? to invalidate a law put forward by the legislature and signed into law?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Could Bush over-ride existing law?.. ? is that legal? to invalidate a law put forward by the legislature and signed into law?

According to Rep. Tiahrt the other day in the hearings- it is NOT US law to include NATO nations into the "Buy America Act"... He said it is an Administrative policy that Bush, the DoD, and the Pentagon are following that gives 17 countries (NATO nations) the same priorities/preference as the US when bidding on contracts.....

The Air Force Representative kept saying they had to allow it by law- and Rep. Tiahrt and other Congressmen became quite upset saying it is not law- rather DoD policy....

From what I've found it appears they are right....Reagan got rid of the law...

European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were particularly vocal in 1982 when the Reagan administration failed to oppose amendments to the defense appropriation bill, which eliminated waiving of Buy American legislation for NATO military programs while still maintaining preferences for Canadian products ("Buy American Actions Concern Allies," 1982).

--------------------------

As a result of memoranda of understanding and other international agreements, the DoD has determined it inconsistent with the public interest to apply restrictions of the Buy American Act/ Balance of Payments Program to the acquisition of defense equipment which is mined, produced, or manufactured in any of the following countries (referred to in this part as "qualifying countries")

* Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-78177457.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lou Dobbs came out today and said that if this awarding of US taxpayers dollars to European countries, that we're suing thru WTO over illegal trade subsidies, to build these US military planes goes thru- that he will call for the impeachment of GW :D :clap:

After announcing the travesty this is - and putting Congressman Tiahrts website address up- there were so many hits on the site that the Congressman said it crashed several times.... :D :clap: :clap:

About time that this neocon Administration start realizing that the US public is P.O.ed about this Free Trade over Fair Trade and putting the Globalist elites corporate market ahead of the US producers/workers/ business's.....

As one commenter that sent an e-mail to the show said-- "I don't mind so much putting up with a government that is corrupt- I can live with that...But its hard putting up with a government that is both corrupt and stupid like we have now....." :wink: :lol: :(

Outsourcing Our National Defense
Why did the U.S. Air Force award a major contract to a European company that's in a trade dispute with Washington DC?
It’s just another example of how our own government is following the lead of our business elites and selling out American workers. Tell Congress how outraged you are that the U.S. Air Force is choosing to ship American jobs overseas. Click here to join the fight – Sen. Patty Murray's website: murray.senate.gov or Rep. Todd Tiahrt's website: www.house.gov/tiahrt to find out how to make your voice heard.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Boeing to Protest Loss of $35 Billion Tanker Award

By Susanna Ray

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. said it will protest the U.S. Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion aerial refueling tanker program to Northrop Grumman Corp. and partner European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co.

``Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal,'' Jim McNerney, chairman and chief executive officer of the Chicago-based company, said in a statement today. ``This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company.''

Concern about job losses amid a national economic slowdown led some U.S. lawmakers to condemn and even threaten to block funding for the contract awarded Feb. 29 to Northrop and EADS, the parent of Boeing rival Airbus SAS. The partners plan to do about 40 percent of their work in Europe on the 179-plane order.

Boeing, which had built the current fleet of tankers since 1956, said it will file a protest tomorrow to the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Washington. The protest will automatically suspend the contract while the GAO investigates to decide within 100 days if the complaint is valid and, if so, offer a solution. Air Force spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer Cassidy said the service was just informed of the protest decision and had no immediate comment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SAME OLD STINK :( :( :mad: :mad:

McCain Advisers Lobbied for Airbus

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:48 PM

By: Jim Kuhnhenn



Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.



Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.


EADS is the parent company of Airbus, which teamed up with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to win the lucrative aerial refueling contract on Feb. 29. Boeing Co. Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in a statement Monday that the Chicago-based aerospace company "found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal."


McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been a key figure in the Pentagon's yearslong attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus.


EADS retained Ogilvy Government Relations and The Loeffler Group to lobby for the tanker deal last year, months after McCain sent two letters urging the Defense Department to make sure the bidding proposals guaranteed competition.


"They never lobbied him related to the issues, and the letters went out before they were contracted" by EADS, McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said Monday.


According to lobbying records filed with the Senate, Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Loeffler and Susan Nelson, who left the firm and is now the campaign's finance director. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who was assigned the EADS work, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign's congressional liaison.


"The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. "Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition."


McCain, a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics, has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_boeing/2008/03/11/79529.html?s=al&promo_code=46FD-1
 
Top