It is good that the Air Force is reopening the tanker contract. According to a review by the Government Accountability Office, there were “significant errors” in how the Air Force handled the contract. And without those errors, there was a “substantial” chance that the contract would have gone to Boeing instead of Northrop Grumman and EADS. If Northrop/EADS still ends up winning the contract, so be it. But the competition needs to be fair.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
61 Comments
Bad news is John Young is still going to oversee the project. He should have been fired after the GAO findings revealed the bias.
Will they stick with the changes that tipped the scales to airbus, like more passengers, more fuel?
Thanks to Tanker Todd and Pat Robertson who stayed on this travesty until it was reversed.
The made the travesty possible.
As I said before after the GAO findings:
The Air Force made mistakes in math and procedure, failed to consider all information it was given, underestimated costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, changed specifications and ratings but only notified Northrop of the changes, and failed to check that the tankers could refuel all planes in the fleet, according to the 67-page Government Accountability Office ruling made public June 25
Young should have been fired.
This will be fun to watch: a titanic battle between to multi-national corporations, neither of which has any particular loyalty for the American worker, battling it out for the rubber match of “Who Can Break the Most Laws and Get Away with It?!”
Match One was when Boeing waved the red-white-&-blue and passed the green under the table, y’know, old fashioned corruption. (One of the Republic Party’s most prized family values.)
Match Two was a bend-over-backwards to avoid looking like you got green under the table from Boeing during Match One (which you probably did, but didn’t get caught). You don’t move the goalposts that many times during a game unless you’re trying to shave the points. Awarding Match Two to Airbus one one of Donald Rumsfeld’s last acts in office.
Now that we’re approaching Match Three, both Boeing and Airbus have spent far to much in development, presentation, red-white-&-blue, under-the-table green, and PowerPoint presentations, neither outfit’s gonna make squat from a $35 billion contract. They’re counting on cost-overruns to make up the difference, but they’re really in a multi-national corporate pissing match.
This is Capitalism by Texas Death Match Rules.
The made the travesty possible.
As I said before after the GAO findings:
The Air Force made mistakes in math and procedure, failed to consider all information it was given, underestimated costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, changed specifications and ratings but only notified Northrop of the changes, and failed to check that the tankers could refuel all planes in the fleet, according to the 67-page Government Accountability Office ruling made public June 25″
Young should have been fired.
MH – good observations. It’s too bad Todd and Boeing tried so hard to really shaft the taxpayer with their ‘lease’ no-bid corrupt contract in the first place.
All true. But the worst part is that if they pick Boeing, Pat and Todd will be safe in office until they retire.
Talk about a Hobson’s Choice.
Dennis
What I’d like to know is the extent of Tiahrt’s involvement in Boeing’s bribery scandal in regards to that original plot to lease tankers to the Air Force for excessive bucks. Could be that the reason they gave the contract to Airbus was that they didn’t trust Boeing. Tiahrt’s squawking may be more saving his own ass than Kansas jobs.
Tiahrt’s job at Boeing was procuring government pork.
If Pat Roberts wouldn’t have voted to weaken “buy America” provisions or blocked Duncan hunters bill that would prohibited buying from foreign companies under investigation for illegal trade practices buy the WTO, then Boeing wouldn’t be in the mess its in now
Democrats take note:
Some of your fellow Democrats hate Todd Tiahrt so much, that they WANTED Boeing to lose this contract, so that Tiahrt would look bad!
What is bad for the Country is GOOD for Democrats.
What is bad for Wichita is GOOD for Democrats.
Tiahrt is a major player in this reversal, and has done a very good job for Wichita and for Boeing.
Tiahrt knows the bidding process, he knows how these contracts are supposed to work.
Tiahrt also worked very well the the Democrats in Washington State, sharing his knowledge and coordinating this effort with everyone who wanted to give American workers a fair chance.
It all came down to the GAO.
Without the GAO, Airbus would be now building tankes.
According to Tiahrt he was often told to shut up by Roberts and Brownback. Perhaps Tiahrt can take credit for getting out of the way and let the more intelligent people take over.
Paul – people in Alabama would disagree with you. Alabama is as much a part of the USA as Wichita is.
Bth,
Perhaps Paul forgets there are 200 Airbus employees in Wichita. Paul must think Wichita isn’t part of America either.
Has Boeing committed to not outsource any of the tanker (and mainframe) work? How much of Boeing’s “American” tanker will be made in China?
The pentagon will apparently still have to abide by the MccAing Ammendment (which our good Senators backed).
Also, Young is the wrong guy for this.
“Young said federal procurement law barred any evaluation of the rival bids’ potential impact on preserving the U.S. defense-industrial base, an issue of concern to Boeing backers. Nor were there plans to consider a U.S.-European aircraft subsidy dispute now before the World Trade Organization.
In addition to putting Young in charge, the Pentagon will also appoint a new source selection advisory committee to do the detailed analysis of the competing bids.
Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said continuing congressional concerns, a possible World Trade Organization ruling in July on the Boeing-Airbus subsidy dispute, and the sheer complexity of the tanker competition made it unlikely a decision could be reached by December.
Jim McAleese, a Virginia-based defense consultant, praised Young’s willingness to assume responsibility for the controversial program, and predicted he would do everything in his power to finish work on it before the end of the year.
Young acknowledged that he had backed the Air Force’s handling of the tanker competition before the GAO decision was released, but said his office’s independent review had begun only in December, shortly before the contract award. Another independent review would be done this time around, he said.
Since McCain’s law made it illegal to consider the impact on American jobs, it would do no good for boeing to commit to ‘building American’.
That may be true Phantom; however Boeing’s outsourcing negates their own arguements.
At least their corporate taxes will be paid here. I’m not sure how much of 767 is outsourced.
Phantom – Northrup also pays eaxes here. As for Boeing – maybe. I don’t know how much they dodge through vatious offshore strategies. I’d have to see both their 1120 and also supporting 1118’s.
Tiahrt actually has worked on bids, before.
Brownback and Roberts, for all of their efforts, do not know nearly as much about this entire process as Tiahrt.
Tiahrt helped in many ways.
Yes, the GAO mattered. However, do not think for one minute that the GAO did not take the politics into consideration. Politics SHOULD play a part, when there has been an injustice. Tiahrt educated other lawmakers, Tiahrt educated the public, and Tiahrt helped a great deal with the bi-partisan effort to reverse the Airbus decision.
BTH proves my point:
A Democrat from Wichita who wanted Airbus to get the contract, if only to hurt Tiahrt!
Paul, why are you such an advocate for corporate welfare, earmarks and big government spending?
Maggot and Ben
numbers matter.
FAR more American workers will be employed by the Boeing Tanker deal.
That should matter to taxpayers as well, since a very large portion of the contract money will be taxable income, if it goes to American workers.
We can not tax the money that the French workers make.
Besides, Airbus was NON COMPLIANT and should not have gotten a chance to bid, at all.
maggot
So, “corporate welfare” to FRANCE is ok with you?
$100 billion dollars could be spent building America’s infrastructure rather than developing weapons of war. Levees could be repaired, windmills could be built, neighborhoods could be improved. Instead we are spending that money to help us bomb third world countries in order to advance our empire.
Paul, I’m opposed to the contract in general so your little game of thinking I’m in favor of outsourcing is just childish.
Maggot
Without a sound national defense policy, why do we need levees, roads and bridges?
The FIRST duty of the Federal Government is national defense.
The FIRST duty of any society is the defense of its citizens from predators and enemies.
Everything else comes AFTER our defense needs are met.
“So, “corporate welfare” to FRANCE is ok with you?”
Is “corporate welfare” to US companies okay with you?
“neighborhoods could be improved”
How?
Obama was a “neighborhood organizer” for several years, in Chicago. Gang violence has gone way up, in Chicago, over the last year. Do you wish to spend more money on “neighborhood organizing” which is nothing more than hand outs to the politically motivated in corrupt, big city machines?
It is not the job of the federal government to spend money on local projects. It is the job of the federal government to provide a strong national defense.
Actually, I do not think that the Boeing Tanker deal is “corporate welfare” — one of the Boeing and Tiahrt hating Democrats used that term first, not me.
If you work for it, it is not welfare.
If you work for it, it is not a handout.
The Boeing workers will work hard for their money.
They will also be grateful to Tiahrt.
That is why Democrats are so upset.
Paul, America spends over 50% of it’s GDP on war, it spends more than every nation in the world combined. Who are we needing defense from? Is our foreign policy so awful that we have that many enemies? A militia in Afghanistan and Iraq are beating up with homemade explosives and rifles they can get at Gander Mountain.
Where do you figure that our government’s first priority is national defense? According to the Constitution it is to provide for the common welfare.
Is it possible to provide for our national defense without spending trillions of dollars each year or are we so utterly weak, and so hated by the world that we must have a larger military than all other nations? The second world war is over Paul, quit fighting it.
“Actually, I do not think that the Boeing Tanker deal is “corporate welfare” — one of the Boeing and Tiahrt hating Democrats used that term first, not me.”
Then it will be made at cost with absolutely no profit to the corporation right? I’m sure Boeing is bidding on the project without profit motivations but out of a sincere sense of patriotism. Lay off the bong Paul.
Maggot,
Left up to you and your liberal friends, we would not have a country of our own.
If we survived, at all, we would be taking orders from the rest of the world.
You want America to be weak. You share the view of many weak Democrats.
This is why the country often rejects Democrats for the office of President.
We are a capitalist country.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with profit.
Go move to a communist country if you thing otherwise, maggot.
“Left up to you and your liberal friends, we would not have a country of our own.
If we survived, at all, we would be taking orders from the rest of the world.”
Yeah, because Roosevelt was such a conservative. Crack open a history book.
The Democrat Party USED to stand for a “strong national defense”
You have LOST many Democrats, precisely BECAUSE the Democrat Party has become weak on defense issues.
“You have LOST many Democrats, precisely BECAUSE the Democrat Party has become weak on defense issues.”
Like Kennedy and Clinton? The only one weakening the military appears to be your hero Bush. Once again you don’t know what you are talking about.
Bush has been so tough on Iran, that exports to them has increased 10 fold during his regime. Don’t even talk about Repub. foreign policy.
Here’s your Republican Hopeful McAirbus on todays news:
McCain said U.S. companies should not get preference over foreign competitors in the decision-making process for the tanker deal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_medicare_pass_dc_4
“You want America to be weak.”
Bull – nonsense, Paul “44%” Rossell, absolute BS.
That is what I hate, absolutely hate about the right wing idiots here – when faced with actual facts and logic, they resort to that kind of ad hominim lies to cover their behinds.
Patriotism is NOT an exclusive province of the Republicans, so “44%” kindly go screw yourself.
Phantom
Would you rather we starve Iran?
We are opposed to the government if Iran, not the people of Iran.
It is actually smart to trade with Iran.
However, we must not let the government get nukes.
Iran is ruled by tyrants. There is no reason to hold the entire population responsible.
I don’t think Iran will starve if we don’t cell them cigarettes.
WS
If you would care to read what was actually posted, by anti-military leftists, on this very thread, you would see that we have at least one person that does not think that our refueling tankers should be replaced at all.
That liberal seems to think that the American military is evil, and should not be given the tools to keep America strong, or to defend freedom around the world.
Democrats DESERVE the anti-American label, if they do not stand up for our military, and the absolute need for our military to have the best equipment that we can provide to them.
Maggot’s anti military views would not get him very far, in this country, if he ever tried to run for office, himself. However, the Democrat Party is full of anti-military types, just like Maggot. Your CANDIDATES, however, are usually smart enough to move to the RIGHT, on military matters, after the Primary. (Witness Obama!!)
“Democrats DESERVE the anti-American label”
And what label do you deserve, “44%?”
And just in case you were wondering, Democrats out number Republics in the United States, so WHO is anti-American?
We, “44%,” are in the MAJORITY.
Dumbass.
Maggot is a Democrat.
Maggot is un-American to the core.
Is it patriotic for Maggot to call former Senator Jessie Helms, who died on the 4th of July, a “racist”??
He certainly did. Go to the most recent Brownback thread!
Helms hired James Meridith, a Black man who needed the help of Federal troops in order to go to college.
Helms wrote favorably about Harvey Gantt, the first Black man to attend Clemson, and this was 10 years before Helms entered politics!
Helms was honored by Bono, for his great help in fighting Aids in Africa!
Yes, Maggots name fits, Maggot is an anti American Democrat.
“Is it patriotic for Maggot to call former Senator Jessie Helms, who died on the 4th of July, a “racist”??”
What does patriotism have to do with Helms being a racist?
Helms WAS a racist……………
Besides, Helms died on July 3, 2008, and the time of death was fudged so that it would appear that he died on the Fourth.
In actual fact, Helms died about fifty years ago.
WS
Helms was a great American.
There was nothing racist about Jessie Helms.
I would have to call it unAmerican and Anti American for anyone to attack American leaders with completely baseless charges, especially right after their death.
You have gotten angry with me, on this thread, for saying that Democrats are often anti military and that Democrats are often anti American.
Now you ask how I can say that?
Maggot doesnt want ANY tanker deal.
And Maggot is attacking a great man, Jessie Helms!
You do not have to agree with Helms to admit that he was a great man.
Also, your complete ignorance is showing. There was nothing racist about Jessie Helms.
Helms stood up for several Black leaders, including Harvey Gantt and James Meridith. Helms HIRED Meredith. Helms had GREAT relations with the Jewish community. Helms was honored by Bono, for the work Helms did, in Africa.
You are a hateful bigot, WS. It is pure bigotry to assume that conservative Republicans are all “racists” as you ignorantly try to claim.
Bigotry is the ignorant catagorization and stereotyping of people.
You are mad at me for saying that many Democrats are “anti American”???
You are a hypocrit.
Look at your prejudices before you scold me or anyone else!
Pall,
In case your memory is defective, Helms was a strategist for segregationist Willis Smith’s campaigns (one of the ads he wrote for Smith read “White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races.”), and ran for office on a platform opposing all civil rights legislation. Of course he was a racist!
Jed
Square what you just posted with the fact that James Meredith, a Black man who went to college with the help of Federal troops, in Mississippi, went to work on the Senate staff of Jessie Helms, for over a year.
Square what you just posted with the fact that Harvey Gantt was praised by Helms, in writing, 10 years prior to Helms even entering politics.
You libs love to run down America.
In the liberal mind, conservatives are always “racist” and the military is always “evil”.
“Franklin” left out –
“…and Hitler was kind to dogs.”
The libs left out:
“Willis Smith (19 December 1887 – 26 June 1953) was a Democratic U.S. senator from the state of North Carolina between 1950 and 1953. Born in Virginia, he moved to North Carolina before age 2. After graduating from Trinity College (now the undergraduate liberal arts college of Duke University) in 1910 and Duke University Law School in 1912, he became a practicing attorney — but interrupted his work to serve in the United States Army during World War I.
Smith served in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 1928 to 1932, and was briefly the speaker of that body in 1931.[1] He also served as a U.S. observer at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, as chairman of the American delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Bern, Switzerland in 1952, as chairman of the Duke University board of trustees, and as president of the American Bar Association.[2]”
So, you attack Helms for supporting a former President of the American Bar Association?
Oh, lets not forget, Willis Smith was a Democrat! You attack Helms for supporting a Democrat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Smith
As far as segregation is concerned, many people changed their minds on that issue.
Bill Clinton worked for Senator Fulbright, a segregationist.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is a former leader of the KKK.
— I guess it is ok if you are a Democrat, huh?
I guess, “Franklin” –
What I don’t understand is why you obvious racists run away from the term?
You obsess on race. You spend hours of calculating miscegenation algebra to come up with you “44% Arab” screed. You have some web link that lets you cut-and-post the racial profile of anyone who ever walked into Jesse Helms’ office and didn’t piss on his desk. You ignore Helms’ pre-Senate career when he constantly aired racist rants on North Carolina television. You conveniently forget about Helms’ campaign tactics that embarrassed even Republic Party officials with their racist overtones.
But, hey! He won!
And he finally stopped saying “nigrah!”
But why?
If race is such an obsession for you, why run away from the issue that obviously means so much to you?
By skirting around the issue, you obviously believe you can make political points through insinuation. Why be so coy?
There are enough racists out there who are getting your message it just might work!
But those people tend to be not too clever. They’re not the brightest pencil in the deck, so to speak.
You might be too clever by half, expecting the racist core of CONservative voters to pick up on your subtle agenda.
Embrace your message! “Obama isn’t an African American, he’s a mulatto-Arab! McCain’s a white guy! Next question?”
That obviously your agenda, “Franklin.”
Own it.
Pall,
“Jed
Square what you just posted with the fact that James Meredith, a Black man who went to college with the help of Federal troops, in Mississippi, went to work on the Senate staff of Jessie Helms, for over a year.”
Something about politicians (and priests) and strange bedfellows? And Helms had some of the strangest! Doesn’t mean he supported civil rights (which he fought at every turn) just that he knew how to play the game.
And I don’t give a rat’s ass what party Willis belonged to, any politician who runs on a racist platform is a racist, pure and simple, and we don’t need them in a government that is at least nominally representative of the people- all the people!
As far as associating conservatism and racism, it seems that the conservatives have done a pretty good job of associating themselves with the politics of exclusion all the way around, with good ole Jesse at the forefront!
Now, how about squaring the quote I cited upthread with your denials of Saint Helm’s racism?
Good News on Tanker Contract? Or Major Bureaucratic Delay?
July 10, 2008 Tanker Bids to Start Anew.
Today’s lead story advises us that the Pentagon under the leadership of Robert Gates will reopen the bidding for the 35 billion dollar tanker contract, and that Gates, not the Air Force will oversee the contest. That may or may not be good news based upon one’s perspective of past performance.
To put this issue in perspective, including the congressional braggadocio of Senator Roberts and congressman Tiahrt, one needs to look at how long previous decision makers have taken to get this tanker off the ground and how “up to speed” Secretary Gates is in the process.As well as how “poorly” our government has treated the issue. For the record:
The inception study of the need to Replace the KC-135 tanker with the Boeing 767 was first reported in the Wichita Eagle’s Business & Money section on September 29,2001, just 19 days after 9/11, and the main page headline that day was “Softening the Landing” Boeings planned elimination of 5,000 jobs. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Washington)Seattle Plant area stated “We think there is a good chance to make the case on this one, especially with the Air force’strongly behind it.’”
At the time, the projected cost was $20 Billion dollars with “completion” in 10 years. Seven of those years have already passed, war-torn years during which, in spite of the magnanimous reporting of “great progess in Iraq” our President, Congress,Air Force and both competing Aerospace companies were locked in non consensus and gridlock with NO REGARD for this Urgent Need, NOR the Airspace Security of the American People. It is absolutely unconscionable that this Contract has taken so long. It is likewise unconscionable that Roberts and Tiahrt should be touting their accomplishments in such glowing terms stictly for their partisan election purposes, when they should be hanging their heads in shame.
Dakota,
Seems awfully politically expedient that Tiahrt and Roberts managed to get the contract decision delayed until after the election so they can campaign on the unfounded premise that they are the saviors of Kansas jobs.
But it may mean that Democrats are prevented from playing Helms altogether. Here is Helms. The races are a great way to improve Helms as well.