Was given an old computer and then a newer one, learned a few basic’s and got back to being the activest I was when I was younger…Last fall I cashed in a tiny stock thingie and baught my new Mac book, still learning…Now that I am retired get lot’s of info from all kind’s of source’s, paper, cable and 50 plus email’s from all kind’s of site’s daily…Don’t post as much at TP as I did when they first started up, like the Zoo better…Less troll’s and a nice mix of music and good poster’s I now consider friend’s by extension and it’s like going home..They are good to me and over look my spelling flaw’s and baligerent attitude…LOL…Back at ya on having a great evening and thank’s for putting up with my little rant….Blessings

I’m sure I’m not well versed on this Boeing thing since I just read about all the past deed’s but having said that wern’t the guilty partie;s held accountable.? Think I read they were….Has Boeing cleaned up their act.?…From the recent view’s of Patty Murry and other’s it seemed Boeing was not given the same speck’s or a change in plan’s was allowed Airbus….Bigge tanker mean’s bigger air strip’s ect;…What’s wrong with wanting 40,000 plus job’s to stay here.?..Just asking question’s….Any way it may be moot to even speculate since the Air Force can ignore the recent new’s and do as they please….Is this my tax dollar’s at work.?..If so how come the house and senate isn’t putting up a fuss,…Oh excuse me, this is bull shit bush world….Blessings

Good day Witchl, the parties were sent to jail one from Boeing and One former Senior Air Force Officer.

Patty Murray wants Boeing to get it because the Air Force changed the specs. Boeing had to pay alot of money protesting this and filing all the paperwork and attorneys fees. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. I just didn’t want the 40% of the jobs going overseas if Northrop got awarded the contract. (that’s the short version)
Have a great day Witch 1:)

Freedom Rebel Says
A short sighted view about the Boeing – Northrop Grumman deal. Most of the NG money will stay in the US, and there will actually be more, or just as many jobs created from NG as from Boeing. And the aircraft is more flexible and a newer design.

Overall, the US will lose many contracts in Europe, and cause much ill will. Not that Chauvinists give a crap.

You may very well be right HighPlainsJoker. I am looking at it from the perspective of what we so desperately need now in this country, that is jobs. My 9,000 quote for Boeing is only part of the project, they have not said how many other new jobs this will create if awarded this contract. Were as, Northrop is only going to have 60% of the project in the US.

Call me selfish, but this country has lost so many jobs overseas I don’t believe at this time we can afford to lose the 40% that will be taken outside the border. I know that Northrop is planning on building a plant in Alabama, I believe. It can be debated that if Northrop won the bid, Alabama, Ohio and North Carolina would see new jobs created. If Boeing wins then it is Washington and Kansas.

It could also hurt us in the future if it doesn’t go for Northrop, but it will cost the taxpayers more for that tanker in the long haul. It is much bigger than the Boeing one so to run it is going to be even more costly over time. Plus you have limited spaces that it can be put because of the l00,000 lbs difference. Bigger is not always better.

I am not saying I would rather see money go to Boeing versus other US companies, I’m saying I don’t want to lose the 40% that will go overseas which is what Northrop is expected to take away.

But I will give serious thought to your points and do even more research, have a good night :)

Frankly all this hoo-hah is working out quite well in one respect: military policy and needs are going to change in 2009 and I’d rather have the Dems (in general) involved in a $35 billion contract rather than the current administration, and I’d also trust the GAO’s influence on the decision more as well (assuming a reduction in partisan political influence). IMHO the GAO is one of those Government instituions that keeps my faith in Government,

My best regards to you .

You are being far to kind. I wish I was more well versed on the issue, time is the factor. I have tried to keep on top of it as much as I could when I first posted about Northrop getting the award.

My best to you also :)

The real problem is that now, because of our chauvinism, European companies will stop buying from the US, as they have in the past. US contracting law requires the NATO countriies be treated like US companies when contesting for contracts in both spheres. What you are really saying is that you would rather the money goes to Boeing than to other US companies who will lose in the long run.

Overall, the US will lose many contracts in Europe, and cause much ill will. Not that Chauvinists give a crap.

( WHAT? You have things to do outside of posting at TP?! I am shocked! :D )

Yup, I agree with that and the rest of your points. Though Maliki’s government isn’t subject to the same kind of public pressures that the US Gov. is (yeah–I know; hilarious! ) I just can’t imagine they’d concede everything .

Re the Boeing/Airbus Tanker deal you are clearly much better-informed about the subject than I assumed from your (specifically quoted by me) reaction.

Plus add to that sensitive military research and development would be in the hands of a company that is foreign owned.

Umm…I don’t have the source handy right now, but the Pentagon contracted EADS to take care of the computer systems security last year (I think). As I said foreign ownership is not an overarching disqualification, though of course it is a factor.

It would appear to be back to square-one for Boeing and Airbus and the USAF. At this time I don’t know what Boeing is proposing now. If it’s a 787 version then Airbus has nothing new/equal to offer, or a if a 777 then Airbus has to go with an A340 derivative I guess. Either way the airplanes on offer then are much more distinct than before.

Frankly all this hoo-hah is working out quite well in one respect: military policy and needs are going to change in 2009 and I’d rather have the Dems (in general) involved in a $35 billion contract rather than the current administration, and I’d also trust the GAO’s influence on the decision more as well (assuming a reduction in partisan political influence). IMHO the GAO is one of those Government instituions that keeps my faith in Government,

Anywhoo…it’s a great pleasure to correspond with Freedom, and I hope the rest of the regulars get something out of this exchange too, despite it being rather tangential.

My best regards to you .

Freedom Rebel Says:
Boeing victory: GAO calls for new bids for Air Force tanker
I’m very happy about this news. The thought of sending a $35 billion contract to another country, what in the hell was the Air Force thinking?? I agree with many of the Senators they should just give the contract to Boeing after putting them through the process of protesting and attorney fees they have encurred.

Wasn’t Grampy McRibs instrumental in the awarding of this contract?

The last one in 2005 I believe. When there was a big scandal. A former senior Air Force official went to prison, as did Boeing’s chief financial officer. Boeing was fined 600 million dollars also. Another day of corruption under the Bush Administration.

Have a good day Exit Stage Left:)

Wanna bet any sleazeball blackwater mutts in jeopardy are long out of the country prior to this taking effect?

Good point. Well there is always Interpol to track them down.

Good day Exit Stage Left :)

There were only two possible contenders for the new Tanker contract; Boeing and Airbus (the Russians haven’t made a new airliner/commercial cargo plane for about 30 years).
Boeing was caught bribing the USAF procurement officer for the project, so the only option then was the Airbus, by default.

Only 60% of the work is going to be in the US if Northrop Grumman gets to keep this contract. Boeing however has 9,000 people whose jobs are depending on this project, last I heard.

Plus add to that sensitive military research and development would be in the hands of a company that is foreign owned. I agree that most of it will be done in the US but still do we really want vital information in the hands of another country?

Because of the scandal with Boeing the Air Force modified or changed their critieria so that Northrop’s larger Tanker would be in the running and have two bidders. Plus the tanker is actual going to be more expensive for the Air Force to operate and it weighs 100,000 lbs more than Boeing. Which means there are less places to put the beast, so to speak.

Have a great day 5th Estate ;)

Air Force, Boeing scandal

This totally made my day.

8-)

This is no “compromise”. This is CAPITULATION!!!

See Glenn Greenwald’s excellent blogging on this (here and here, as well as other columns).

Then Go do the right thing: GO SUPPORT ACT BLUE’S CAMPAIGN to stop this monstrosity!

Cheers,

Wasn’t Grampy McRibs instrumental in the awarding of this contract?

The US has accepted that foreign contractors in Iraq will no longer have immunity from Iraqi law under a new security agreement now under negotiation,

If only, Freedom (thanks btw for all your contributions).

The only way I can see the US agreeing to rescinding immunity is if they dictate the terms under which it applies, where the devil will be in the details—specific exclusions, vague wording and probably defining references to US legal precedents that they have invented absent judicial review or Congressional authority.
Remember, it is still the Bush Administration running the show, and look what they managed to do with ‘established’ US law.

The real test of this agreement, should it come to pass, will be the reaction of the mercenaries. If they start leaving then the agreement will have ‘teeth’, if they don’t then it will be a farce. Also of note would be which mercenary outfits leave (if any); if the Canadian Garda-World and the British Aegis leaves, but Blackwater, Caci and other US outfits stay, rest assured it will have been the US who has written the agreement in their favor, not the Iraqis, and it will be worthless.

Good Morning 5th Estate :)

Sorry to be away had to take care of few things..

I agree with all of your points. The details of the agreement pertaining to the prosecution of the contractors will be the sticking point with the Iraqi government. Too many of the citizens are very outraged by the deaths of the 17 people that went unpunished.

The Bush administration I agree will probably put in exclusions in this agreement. Even though I don’t have complete faith in the Iraqi government, with all the corruption that has been going on. I believe they will hold firm on many issues, and make sure that there are not too many loopholes in which our government and the contractors can slide right through.

The reason I think that is because they haven’t caved in yet to Bush’s demands so far. Plus they have to save face with the Iraqi people and I believe the end result to be a serious uprising if they didn’t push this issue. It will be interesting to see how tough the negotations will be over this, personally I’m amazed Bush even made that major concession. But he wants that Oil and Iraqi Air Space so bad I think he will probably do anything to get it.

Wanna bet any sleazeball blackwater mutts in jeopardy are long out of the country prior to this taking effect?

I’m sure glad I’m not using Daryll’s god’s word to buy stocks…