The tanker deal was welfare for aerospace engineers -- it goes to the loser company, not the winner. Airbus is on the skids as the 787 is crushing them.

Hey postman, let the truth out and tell Washingtonians why Senator Murray and the democrat party lobby the Air Force with the backing of special interest to lease fuel tankers Yes Folks LEASE this would be windfall profit to Boeing that would go on paying Boeing for 50 or more years. Under this sweetheart deal people went to jail and Boeing got fined. Who was the ugly American who stopped this insane waste of taxpayer’s money its Senator John McCain.

Please note the Federal Government doesn’t lease things they are mandated to buy outright. Where is the backlash against Murray? Where are the Democrats who say we spend too much on military? Now let’s hear how un-American Senator John McCain is.

"Democratic"

To interpret, imply or accuse McCain of trying to help Airbus or be anti-american would be totally ignorant.

Fact:
Boeing executives went to jail due to their unethical and unlawful actions during the original contract exposed by John McCain. And this wasn't the only time this happened at Boeing.

Fact:
McCain did save the taxpayers billions and Boeing missed the boat massively on the new contract, hence Airbus wins by a landslide.

Blame McCain for what???

McCain wasn't beat hard enough in Vietnam. He screwed all Americans. He's no hero of any kind. He's a complete disgrace!

It's a free market economy. Airbus won. Boeing lost. Get over it.

I fear this country is still going to elect another war monger by voting McCain wanna save money , STOP SPENDING $5000 A SECOND ON THE WAR AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME. What the hell is America thinking wanting a president, thats still old school and may not live long enough to finish his first term, is fed everything he reads by the Party, Imagine if Bush had died and left Cheney in charge, jeez America , wake up.

To the posting of Jim(11:55am).

I am a Democrat / Vietnam-era Vet and voting for Obama - yes McCain did it wrong but your stance of McCain not getting beat enough when he was POW shows how ignorant you really are in life and in political opinion

Oh Lawerence! Oh how ignorant you are my friend! Open your mind! I'm voting for Obama too. Can I be your pal?

To all the rest of you ...Let Airbus build it in Alabama with non-union labor and drive wages down. Then all you MFers can pay for unemployment and State and Federally funded retraining. Now that's saving money ain't it?

Jimmy Boy, the only way we'll be paying for any state or federally funded retraining is if your friend Obama some how makes it in office.
That's if there's any money left from him funding all the illegals in this fricken country!

Anyone who says they want change in Washington and want to vote for Obama because McCain save the taxpayers billion from a bunch of corrupt Boeing officials deserve Obama.

You are either looking out for yourself or your are looking out for America. So you may have lost a job because Boeing did not get to screw America hard enough, but the country gained.

I thank McCain for exposing this sham that Boeing was pulling on all Americans. If people in Washington want to get srewed by Boeing they should pay for it exclusively. don't get my tax dollars involved in this mess. That goes for anyone living in Iowa and the Farm bill.

Posted by Jim
11:55 AM, Jun 10, 2008
McCain wasn't beat hard enough in Vietnam. He screwed all Americans. He's no hero of any kind. He's a complete disgrace!
____________________________________
Looks like Nitwit Jim should go back to work at Boeing instead of playing on the pc during work hours. He's not sharp enough to have his own business and proabably not employable anywhere but Boeing.

american tax momey should be spent in the Good old USA, not to prop up airbuss welfare sys

Some of Boeing's executives did some shady stuff on the first contract proposal - and went to jail.
But what McCain has done is use that as justification to let his campaign contributors from AIrbus - led by the Airbus lobbyists on his staff - to secure the final contract long after Boeing had rooted-out the problems.
McCain helped divert a military contract to a foreign company that contributed to his campaign.
He effectively sent tens of thousands of jobs overseas - not to make microwave ovens or mp3 players, but to build our next generation of military refueling aircraft.
Hello?
McCain doesn't give a damn about American jobs or the economy - never has.
And although I admire him for surviving his imprisonment in Vietnam, let's not forget he broke under torture and spilled his guts. Not saying I or any one of us wouldn't necessarily do the same thing, but when McCain starts bragging about his service, let's not forget that many servicemen of harder metal died without providing the enemy that propaganda confession.
McCain's had a free ride on his hero status, and enjoys the best of everything his 200-million dollar trophy wife can provide him.
He's never had a real job, supports a failed strategy in the middle east, and admits he knows little about the economy.
He should be recalled from the Senate for selling this military contract to Airbus (he weaseled out of the Keating Five scandal).
He certainly can't be trusted to be President.

To Jim,

You must be upchuck if not you’re under the mental care of

Congressman McDermott, you really need to get a second opinion and get the help you need.

This sure is a democrat blog with such words.

not voting for this clown anyway !

To Jim D,
Your post where becoming more normal until today,
The attack on a POW is.............

Boeing ships work overseas daily in fact Jim he they won the contract it included them shipping work overseas.
You need to wake up JimD it's 2008 not 1924 we are in a global economy get used to it.

He effectively sent tens of thousands of jobs overseas ...

Alabama? Overseas? That's news to me.

Of course, Boeing and Airbus contract-out a lot of their work.
And naturally, some of Airbus's part's will be made here in the US.
This goes without saying - common knowledge.
But the NET difference between the Airbus and Boeing contract is about 40,000 American jobs.
And-- this is a military contract involving highly where more classified information that will be passed to foreign countries than if Boeing was in charge.
And-- McCain took large campaign contributions from Airbus.
And-- members of McCain's staff were lobbyists for Airbus.
It's one thing to integrate with a world economy effectively and to our advantage.
It's quite another to throw military contracts to France and other foreign nations that have bought and paid for crooked politicians like McCain.
Please - save the highest Vietnam honors for the 50,000 who died.
McCain came back and had a chance to live the rest of his life.
Too bad he's wasted it plundering the hard work and good will of others.

So McGrumpy, tell us all WHY you fly around the country in a Airbus plane instead of an AMERICAN made plane??

Face it.. we are sending BILLIONS of our tax dollars to France who, just a few years ago, we were so angry at we had to switch to Freedom Fries. Well I guess when the rubber meets the road, the GOP is all about lip service. They feign outrage at the French when it suits them politically to do so but then have no issue sending billions of OUR dollars to them when it, too, suits them. To claim McBush is saving the taxpayers money is ridiculous. The jobs and subsequent tax revenues lost due to this 'deal' far outweight any savings he may .. or may NOT .. have saved us. And to listen to others here DEFEND his actions tells me that many care more about their PARTY than they do their COUNTRY. How pathetic.

Since when do Democrats worry about our military or classified secrets going overseas?

This is the biggest scam the democrats have to tell lies. You can’t backup Murray support of the lease so you attack an American hero.

As for Airbus it’s a business run by countries and this surprises me why Democrats object to companies run by the Government a plan they always had for us.

Where was Murray during the investigation of Boeing hiding under her table?

The truth is the Democrats want control of our daily life they can’t do this without money from special interest.

If they can’t feed the beast they lose just like BO cant close the deal and is the lowest grade of a public official I have seen since Jimmy Carter.

The Democrats are scared in their boots over him, as he should be leading McCain by 30 points. This is the real story they don’t want you to know.

Stand by for more slander as they can compete on issues.

Unbelievable that Anybody would say that Senator Mc Cain wasn't "Beat Enough" I wonder how Jim would like living with the fact that they couldn't lift their arms because of their treatment in "Hanoi Hilton" and then theres Senator Durban that compared our Troops to Despots like Pol Pot! Sheesh!! Unbelievable!

1. The KC-30 (NG/EADS A330) will cost at a minimum 30-50 billion dollars more in life cycle costs compared to the KC-767. How exactly does NG/EADS winning this competition save the U.S. Money?

2. The KC-30 cannot land at over half of the USAF's overseas bases, and less than 1/4 of the bases in the middle east. How does this make it a more effective tanker?

3. The current USAF long range tanker, the KC-10, is smaller than the KC-30, yet carries more fuel with a longer range. The USAF is not yet replacing it (until the KC-Z competition), and yet has apparently selected an inferior replacement. What will replace the KC-135, a close support tanker?

Actually, my understanding is that the Airbuses actually cost more, not less than the Boeing planes, and that the air force switched its specifications from midsize to full size tankers. Last but not least, do we really want to outsource our own military production?

It is ironic that McCain is be criticized for insisting on a fair bid process. Government is so full of corruption that it seems to be the only standard. How soon we forget that a Boeing VP and a senior government procurement officer went to jail over the initial Boeing contract. Thank you John McCain for insisting on an honest bid. The people of Washington State will never support your election bid but at least you can sleep at night.

My vote for imbecile of the year, Jim, who posted the following at 1155 AM:

"McCain wasn't beat hard enough in Vietnam. He screwed all Americans. He's no hero of any kind. He's a complete disgrace! "

I thank Senator McCain for his courage, service to our country and perseverance. And if Jim is looking for a "complete disgrace", I suggest he look in the mirror!

This issue has little to do with publicly financed campaigns.

In this case, the "special interest" is Boeing, and they lost due to competitive bidding of which John McCain supported! So, John McCain took the side of standing up against special interests!

First off, Publicly financed campaigns are a horrible idea. Secondly, it's doubtful this deal would be any different if campaigns were publicly financed.

I suggest you delete more of these vicious comments. It is totally out of line to disparage McCain by reference to his time as a POW.

That said. McCain can and should be criticized for the role he played in the awarding of the fueling contract to Airbus. He has paid staffers on his election committee who lobbied on behalf of Airbus and he needs to be more sensitive to thle appearance of impropriety. John has the big open tent of the Republican Party and pays staffers who lobbied for despotic African governments and other questionable foreign interests. I really do not think he has changed his behavior since the Keating Five scandal (and I am not suggesting he was guilty of much more than sloppiness in his associations). If McCain aspires to the presidency he needs to examine this personal fault.

Boeing submitted a bid that was bad for the Air Force and not cost efficient. John McCain stood up for our troops and for taxpayers, even though it obviously hurt him politically!

Democrats are turning to anti-trade economic populism. It helps with elections but hurts the American economy!

Oh, and why does David Postman post this and nothing on Obama megafundraiser Tony Rezko's federal convction last week of:

6 counts of mail fraud;
6 counts of wire fraud;
2 counts of aiding and abetting bribery; and
2 counts of money laundering.

So, McCain has some political types working for him. Who cares? Obama gets $200,000+ in political contributions and completes a personal land deal with a convicted felon and no mention.

Come on people. McCain isn't responsible for Airbus winning this contract. I live here in Washington too, and support Boeing. Many of you have your blinders on if you believe this. The only thing he did was play the whistle blower card and uncover a massive conspiracy, which ultimately would have cost American taxpayers billions, instead corrupt Boeing employees, and government employees have had their justice served to them. I will say this though, I think Boeing did get screwed by the Air Force for changing direction during the bids for the new tankers, which ultimately hurt Boeing. BTW the McCain Comment about Vietnam? Seriously man, Un-called-for

Senator McCain didn't cause Boeing to lose the 2nd tanker deal. Arrogance did!

Arrogance from Boeing.

Arrogance from Patty Murray.

Arrognace from Maria Cantwell.

Arrogance from many others.

IF there was a problem with Airbus getting this contract then why wasn't the issue raised well before the contract was awarded? Arrogance is the answer. We were all so sure that Boeing would win it hands down that no one said squat about Airbus bidding on the contract. That is poor leadership from the folks that are raising such a stink now.

I happen to think that the Air Force did make inappropriate changes during the bidding process and the contract should be thrown out and rebid. And if we have a problem with all of that taxpayer money going out of country then say so up front.

Show some leadership Washington State Congressional Delegation!

My concern is why all the screaming about "promoting America" from the Boeing croud? In driving by the parking lots for Boeing, what is the percentage of auto's made by the Big 3 Auto Makers? Think about it, it works both ways folks!

And-- this is a military contract involving highly where more classified information that will be passed to foreign countries than if Boeing was in charge.

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

When you start reading nonsense like this . . . the Air Force made the award to Airbus, not a foreign government. If this was a security issue Airbus would never have been allowed to bid in the first place.

As I recall Boeing probably would have had this contract if not for the illegal conduct of their employees and Pentagon officials.

And Boeing now sends thousands of jobs overseas in their commercial operations - I don't recall Murray raising this as an issue.

Big defense contractors regularly bilk American taxpayers out of billions of dollars in cost overruns and schedule delays, so let's get some perspective.

I don't have a side on this issue one way or another. But I am sorry some of the people on here on not well informed. To suggest that John McCain (whom I happen to like) did this because he was standing up for the American taxpayer is ridiculous. McCain is the first American politician that EADS the parent of Airbus has given money to in a political campaign. Secondly, many of McCain's advisor's have ties to EADS and some lobbied for the company. The Program will support 2-3000 jobs in Alabama. It would have supported over 40,000 had Boeing won the contract. Finally, to suggest that this is capitalism and Boeing simply got beat I would have no problem with that except that Airbus is subsidized by the French government. Boeing isn't. That is not a fair competition. So now a major piece of American military infrastructure is going to be built by a nation that is disturbingly trending more and more radical whose population is turning more and more disturbingly toward an Islamic state.

John McCain is dumb. He had a chance to make Washington competitive in November. But he has pissed off so many Boeing employees and retirees that there is no way he wins in the state now.

When I was a boy, 45+ years ago, there were 2 things considered very low on the face of the earth. The 1st was a used car salesman, a denotation that's still used as an insult today. The 2nd was a politician. Here we are in 2008 arguing over the merits individuals who, by the very nature of being a contender in such a high stakes race, have undoubtedly crossed various ethical lines after convincing themselves it's for the greater good.

The truly pathetic thing is people championing the merits of any politician. Who's whore is better is not an argument that leaves the pundit anything but very mushy ground to stand on.

Have a nice day!

That is not a fair competition. So now a major piece of American military infrastructure is going to be built by a nation that is disturbingly trending more and more radical whose population is turning more and more disturbingly toward an Islamic state.

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

No doubt this will be of great interest to the Pentagon, the European Union, and Airbus, a consortium. And who says Americans aren't aware of what goes on in the world?

-------------------------------
But he has pissed off so many Boeing employees and retirees that there is no way he wins in the state now.
-------------------------------

To think that McCain passed up the opportunity to buy these votes?

I'm a bleeding heart liberal for the most part. Boeing lost the deals on their own behavior. They offered up a 30 year old model against a newer more usable/flexible model. If you were to pick which you would have our troops utilize would you select a 30 year old model that didn't meet specs in the RFQ and embrace cronyism? or go with the latest technology? Do your best not to let your party direct you from what you believe to be the best decisions -we've been doing that for a couple years now and it hasn't worked out so well.

The only reason Airbus was able to undercut the Boeing bid was because of the government subsidy given to the company by France. The EU is notorious for awarding sweetheart deal to favor European companies and punishing US companies with tariffs and fines.
In addition this is a US MILITARY contract. If the full working details of these planes are classified should we be awarding contracts to companies that are funded by other national governments then our own? What happens if the interests of those nations come into conflict with our own?

To dufus John,
Lease was the cheapest alternative for the U.S. A company has the right to offer a lease as opposed to a sale outright. It's up to the government whether to accept.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004276310_mcairbus12.html

"It also has focused attention on McCain's reliance on lobbyists in his campaign for president because his finance chairman and several other top advisers lobbied on behalf of Airbus last year at a time when Boeing and Airbus were in fierce competition for the Air Force contract."

“Airbus parent EADS North America more than tripled its contributions to U.S. lawmakers after 2004, as they pursued the Air Force contract, according to an analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). McCain was the top individual recipient of contributions from the company in the 2008 election cycle.”

To Joel,

I hope you lease everything in your life, bet you also pay the minimum payment due on your credit cards every month.
I also hope you do your own taxes.

Have a great night at work.

McCain has EADS (parent of Airbus) people on his campaign. Fact. McCain contacted the Airforce early in 2007 and told them to make sure that Airbus/Northrup didn't withdraw (Northrup knew that the requirements as written were not going to be met by their offering and had planned to withdraw). Fact. McCain had nothing to do with the huge screwup at Boeing, or even uncovering it, as Boeing was the reporting party when it found out about the illegal behavior. Fact. McCain NEVER examines any Airforce contracts except those where Boeing is the lead. Haven't heard him complain about the massive overruns and underperformance on the F35 at Lockheed. McCain was seriously in the pockets of Keating and the S&L's in the 80's and he is still any lobbiests lapdog at the wave of a little currency. Look at his bio. He was a lousy pilot and always close to washing out of the service. Yeah, he sometimes says the right things, but you never know which way he's gonna jump (unless money is involved.)

One should remember that Patty Murray was the one to broker the crooked deal between Boeing and the USAF (Darlene Druyan)..and she's the one making the most noise over this.

I wonder how much Boeing is paying her?

To kittenpah,
When did George Soros tell you these facts before or after dinner?
One was correct "Fact. McCain had nothing to do with the huge screw up at Boeing, or even uncovering it, "

I contacted SENATOR PATTY MURRAY Democrat WA. office in DC about this a while back, I asked where was she the last few years while the investigation were going on? They assured me SENATOR PATTY MURRAY Democrat Wa. Was involved in the Boeing deal from the design through the bidding procces.

To that I told them no wonder we lost it!

nomorerain wrote:
"...Come on people. McCain isn't responsible for Airbus winning this contract..."

Good grief - he's taking campaign contributions from a foreign government he actively worked to award a military contract to!
McCain's own employees lobbyed the Air Force on behalf of Airbus!
And you say McCain had nothing to do with giving the contract to the French government - the FRENCH no less?

(John, your lie about how Patty Murry's staff told you she helped design the airplane...LOL...is a lot funnier than your racist, slanderous lies about Obama and the other LIES you post here.)

Cry me a river liberals, if we lived in China you would get what you deserve for your disgrace of one of our countries heroes.

McCain received money from Airbus. Coincidently, taxpayers' dollars are headed to France. Can America afford to ship tax dollars overseas? Let's take a brief look at the state of the economy.

The spike in unemployment in May was the highest job loss spike in 20 years. In addition, the Quarter 1, 2008 year to year housing price drop was the largest in history. The price plunge demolished the previous record set during the great depression.

Our government is borrowing money at an alarming rate in an effort to stop the bleeding. But can America afford to borrow all this money? When Bush took office, the National Debt was 5.7 trillion dollars. It is now over 9.4 trillion. IOW, by the time he leaves, he just might get a double out of it.

That is absolutely staggering considering Clinton had balanced the budget, and many of Bush's early campaign promises were aimed at what to do with all the "extra money."

Let's put American's debt into perspective. The American workforce consists of approximately 139 million workers. Thus, if each person with a job were to split the repayment of the debt today, they would owe approximately $67,000.00 each. This is increasing at a rate of about $4,000.00 per American worker per year.

Instead of paying back the money, Americans borrow more money to pay the interest on their loan. Why? Because not too many people would appreciate having to mortgage their home and use the equity to pay the money they owe to foreign investors. So America continues to throw caution to the wind and continues to borrow money to pay for its costly wars and other "must have" items. In addition it borrows more money in order to pay the interest on the money it has already borrowed. This does not make good financial sense.

These days, it seems the only people get rich are weapons manufacturers and oil companies. Take a guess at who is paying for this and how it is being financed? To add insult to injury, the money you and I have borrowed from foreign investors to pay for the Airbus deal is being immediately shipped out of the U.S. to help stimulate France's econom.. And get this, the dollar has been steadily dropping in value compared to the French Franc since late 2005. Now that is what I call adding insult to injury.

Well said, Jonness!

Hey Rob - If you prefer China's lack of free speech, why are your wasting time here in the greatest, freest country in the history of the world?
How about some respect for what this country stands for?
You know - the constitution?
If you think John McCain is going to get a break because he's a war hero, think again.
If anything, McCain's isolation during his imprisonment makes him LESS qualified in matters of war.
He missed the history of what happened while he was locked-up, and came back thinking we could have won that "war" if we'd just used more bombs and troops.
And that's how he looks at the world today.
More aggression. More troops. "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran."... and the rest of his belief we can simply bomb and kill the rest of the world into submission.
No vision.
No political ethics.
No communication skills.
No understanding of the middle class from his ivory tower.
Certainly no expertise in waging war.
He sells our jobs and national security to the highest foreign bidder (Airbus, for one).
And he hides his crooked dishonesty and lack of competence behind his military service - as if he's some God no one can question.
If anyone does try to question him, he throws a temper tantrum like the spoiled, self-centered brat he apparently is.
I'd trust President Paris Hilton more than I' trust that slimy, low-life weasel John McCain.

McCain should get all the blame because the Lobbyists from Northrup Grumman and Airbus whom gave money McCain's election campaign. The issues is not about Democrat vs Republican, it is about US tax payers which is going to subsidize Airbus and European countries. It should be go to US company that provides jobs here. Also another issue is US military contract which should go to US company not European or other countries.

Boeing submitted a inferior design thinking it would get the contract anyways, at the expence of the US tax payers. Also the same percentage of either plane would be manufactured overseas. NG/EADS in Europe, Boeing in Aisa. Boeing getting the contract would not produce anymore American jobs, not getting the contract would not cost any American jobs. NG/EADS receiving the contract will result in new jobs for Americans and would mean that the Air Force would get a better plane faster and that more tankers would be in service sooner than if Boeing won. If there were any justice Boeing because of its history of coruption should not have even been alowed to bid on the tanker contract in the first place and should be barred from reciving any futher government contracts.

They are lying through innuendo. They want you to think McCain intervened FOR Airbus. They carefully avoid saying that through outright lies, but they intentionally imply it. And of course, it isn't true: McCain did not, in any way, intervene on behalf of Airbus, who wasn't even involved at the time.

Say whatever you want about the deal for Airbus, but all McCain did was kill a BAD deal and help put a FAIR process in place. If that process FAIRLY chooses Airbus, then how is McCain to "blame" for that? The only problem I have is if the process was UNFAIRLY not followed and chose Airbus, and again, McCain wouldn't be to blame for that, either: that blame would lie with the officials who were unfair.

This is pretty simple stuff.

One good thing comes of this: no one will be fooled into thinking Public Campaign Action Fund is a nonpartisan group ever again. It is quite clear they -- along with posters like "Don't have a side" -- are in the tank for Democrats, because that is the only way you can retell the facts and make it look like McCain did anything for Airbus, by intentionally leaving out the fact that McCain's intervention had nothing whatsoever to do with Airbus, and everything to do with killing a bad deal and a bad process.

David Postman, not to suck up, but I thought you were good on Up Front last week ... with Robert Mak gone, I hope you become a regular, because not to insult anyone at KING-5, but none of them are nearly the political reporter Robert was, but you can help fill that gap nicely.

To JimD,
(John, your lie about how Patty Murray’s staff told you she helped design the airplane...LOL...is a lot funnier than your racist, slanderous lies about Obama and the other LIES you post here.)

JimD, Very strong words from a little boy…You where doing so good in your post the last few days, What on earth got you and your friends upset yesterday? Did all of you forget your medication? I’ll try to respond to your nasty remarks you made about me my friend. I thought we where getting along so good.

How do you know what the staff told me where you listening in?

Calling me a Racist?
Is that when I said Obama should be 30 point higher in the polls being a black man in the democrat party? Or was it when I stopped calling him BO and added his middle name BHO? Need to help on these JimD.

Slanderous lies about Obama?
Was there a new command put out by Obama that I missed? Let’s see can’t talk about his friends, business associates ,wife,church,pastor,mother,father,grandmother,cigarettes,his network,political affiliations,what he said yesterday and any questions he screwed-up.
Did I miss one JimD?
Or was it his statement he wants to fingerprint every America?

Other Lies I post here?
Like calling McDermott a scumbag? I hope I didn’t call you one? Or Calling Senator John McCain a liberal? Help me kid….

Pudge:
"... McCain did not, in any way, intervene on behalf of Airbus, who wasn't even involved at the time..."

No, members of McCain's STAFF intervened on behalf of Airbus.
They were PAID by Airbus to do so, as registered lobbyists for Airbus.
That's what lobbyists do.
And the money they took from the airbus consortium was clearly payment for persuading McCain, among others. (duh!)
And Airbus made huge campaign donations to McCain directly, and were doing so while McCain was investigating Boeing.

If you're saying McCain doesn't know who's giving him and his staff huge bundles of cash, that's a pretty strong indictment of McCain's competence.
If on the other hand you say Mc Cain is somehow above this obvious conflict of interest (now under investigation btw) you're offering a new and unprecedented level of trust which I'd argue no politician is worthy - least of all McCain who's consistently flip-flopped on issues to his political advantage of the moment.
Pick your poison.

JimD: you are incorrect. Airbus had NOTHING TO DO with the intervention. Airbus was not even in the picture at the time.

You are doing the same dishonest thing this ad is doing: attempting to show guilt by innuendo. But Airbus was not involved at the time McCain was involved. And you can only try through completely baseless innuendo to link them. It's dishonest.

pudge wrote:
"But Airbus was not involved at the time McCain was involved. And you can only try through completely baseless innuendo to link them. It's dishonest."

The airbus consortium was giving campaign cash to McCain and employing his staff as lobbyists when McCain was involved.
That is a fact nobody disputes.
Again - are you suggesting McCain is above the obvious conflict of interest concerns?
Especially when his involvement helped steer the contract away from Boeing, the alternative to Airbus?
I mean - if you think McCain should get a special pass on conventional conflict of interests, and that it's okay for him to take unprecedented campaign contributions from Airbus while investigating Boeing, and there's nothing wrong with employing staff members who are registered lobbyists for Airbus at the same time...just say so.
But don't blame me for pointing out the FACTS.
McCain employed Airbus consortium lobbyists and took Airbus' campaign contributions throughout his involvement in investigating Boeing AND helping steer the contract to Airbus - at a net cost to American jobs, not to mention additional outsourcing of American national security related technology.
Would the outcome have been the same if McCain's own people weren't employed by Airbus, or Airbus hadn't given him wheel barrel loads of campaign cash?
At least be honest about your faith-based trust in mcCain, pudge.
But don't expect others to similarly ignore overwhelmingly evidence McCain's involvement and positions were bought and paid for by the Airbus consortium, or that he shouldn't be held to the conventionally prudent standard regarding conflict of interest.

JimD:

It is obvious to al readers that you have still failed to show any way in which Airbus was involved in the Boeing deal that McCain intervened in, that we all know was corrupt, and that SHOULD have been killed.

So I have nothing more to say you.

Pudge,
The original contract SHOULD have been killed, of course.
Boeing itself FIRST revealed the corrpution scandal based on its own internal audit (by the way) and helped put the crooks in jail.
Did this give McCain an opening to push Airbus, which was paying him and his staff to do so?
Isn't McCain's insistence that he helped save the taxpayers billions dishonest, when it was Boeing that broke the scandal?
Good grief -- Airbus gives McCain and his staff wads of cash, McCain lies about how Boeing wasn't capable of producing an honest contract (when Boeing had already weeded-out the crooks, corrected the problem and opened their books), and the folks employing McCain and his staff get the contract.

I wouldn't have anything more to say either.
There's no defense for McCain's betrayal.

A few facts re lease and WTO- Boeing did NOT want Airbus subsidies to be involved in the tankere program in 2001-2002. To the extent they imposed on the union to not file a complaint.
OIF COURSE WHAT WAS UNKNOWN AT THE TIME WAS THE RIPOFF COST FACTORS BOEING USED --
original of the following minutes on file-
Minor typos corrected and several names deleted as they are/were not public persons_ original on file
LEGISLATIVE & PUBLIC AFFAIRS
MINUTES/REPORTED TO COUNCIL
Monday, February 25th, 2002
SPEEA Headquarters

ATTENDEES: J--- Craig Buckham ( then SPEEA president ), -- Dan Hartley, (deceased march 2004 ) J--

STAFF: Charles Bofferding, Bill Dugovich, and Kristin Farr

COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES: Rudy de Leon, Bill Baragar, and Bob Watt

Committee Chairperson --- called meeting to order at 10:00 AM

Charlie provided overview and history of how we got where we are today. What the subcommittee has accomplished to date, his support for the project, and what he and Mr. de Leon had discussed in a prior meeting.

Mr. de Leon started with his resume, which included the important fact that he had only been with the Boeing Company for the past six months. He continued with the fact that he was here today to discuss three issues: 1) Air Force 767 tanker program; 2) FSC tax, and 3) the plusses and minuses of a trade filing at this point in time.

Mr. de Leon has a team of 12 looking at the Airbus issue, which was commissioned by Phil Condit.
1) Tankers – the KC135’s are approximately 40 years old. The Air Force wanted leases to make it easier to get a new fleet of tankers, due to budget constraints over the next several years. Leasing the tankers allows the money to come from another pocket where money is available. The Air Force wanted 767s because Boeing built almost all the tankers the Air Force ever had. They were also getting lots of support from Congress, and on 12/21/01 Congress passed the defense budget bill containing provisions to lease up to 100 converted 767 tankers. However, The Washington Post ran an Airbus story the day before Christmas saying Airbus could build the tankers and for 40% less money. Boeing needs to prevail on this issue for the good of Congress, the public, and the Air Force with a contract. Airbus has retained DC law firms to help them make this a competitive bidding process. Airbus is making this a subsidy issue by saying this is nothing more than a handout to Boeing. The Air Force has to decide tankers configuration before the design phase may begin.
Don asked when do we make the 1st airplane and the answer was we would start right away once we had a contract in hand. The present schedule is for a 2004 rollout and 2005 delivery of the first airplane. 25% of the KC135’s are in the depot at any one time so the Air Force is flying wings off these aging planes. We also need new planes to support the War on Terrorism. This is a limiting factor for other flights (fighters, bombers, transports, etc.).
2) FSC – impacts us all because it is a tax deal. European industries can get VAT tax back on goods they sell outside the EU. This provision for VAT was grand-fathered into WTO agreements in the 1980’s. However, FSC taxes were not grandfathered into the WTO agreements for some reason. Our government needs to fix the FSC tax problem in the WTO agreements if possible. Pat questioned, how does our CVD petition cause a problem? Answer: A trade case opens up a third front to attack Boeing. Airbus would say Boeing wants a trade case because we can’t compete in the market place. The fact that SPEEA filed the CVD Petition makes no difference as it would be said that Boeing put us up to it.

Rudy said his staff’s focus will be on 767 tankers and FSC tax issues, so he hopes he does not have to deal with the CVD petition at the same time since his political and legal resources are already tied up. Discussion on what this means and how we might be of more help then began. Mr. de Leon presented two ideas on how people might help:
1. SPEEA could work the hill (Congress) on 767 tankers and FSC taxes.
2. Help find some mechanism to level the trade “playing field” between America and EU.

Charles made a couple of comments:
1. IF Boeing has plan to maintain jobs – we don’t see it? No answer provided.
2. SPEEA wants to help Boeing preserve jobs.

Dan made a couple of comments (some of what was said):
1. Need to sell airplanes to airlines.
2. Need to build up U.S. military’s resources from downturn during last 10 years.
3. Need insurance to fly airplanes and maybe government needs to help with it.

Boeing is trying to fill trough in 767 line by building tankers, thus employing workers.

The meeting went on for about 90 minutes. Mr. de Leon was unable to answer questions that dealt with either job security or the off loading of jobs. Both issues had come up during the debate in the media on 767 tankers. He was also unable to answer a question about what the company’s reaction would be to our filing the CVD Petition.

After the Company representatives left, the remainder of us continued to discuss the question of filing the CVD Petition. The result was that we would not file the petition today. We would continue to make the petition better in preparation for filing. We would determine the answers to several questions in regards to filing a successful petition. We will leave no stone unturned in the effort to do what is best for our members.

Meeting closed around 1:15 PM.

Uhh kittenpah ??? You said "Fact. McCain had nothing to do with the huge screwup at Boeing, or even uncovering it, as Boeing was the reporting party when it found out about the illegal behavior."

WRONG- Boeing stonewalled the lease issue for about two years- and it was not until they were forced to reveal certain emails that the scam and the depth was revealed

Please take the time to read up on documents available

The lease concept was a direct result of 911 and was pushed as a way to keep the 767 line open. As shown in my previous post - Airbus in 2001-2002 was already lining up their opposition. It was the Boeing miss-management goons in the military side that came up with the phony numbers and corrupt pollcies- in keeping with the old corporate culture in MDC.

it was Boeings to lose - and by their actions- they did just that

The above being said - I think it is a good bet that when the smoke clears- the contract will be divided between the 767 and Airbust tankers

Airbus took a gamble and submitted a larger plane, they priced it competitively to win the contract which is what a good contractor does. They won end of story. If the contract is taken off them then they have no incentive to rebid the contract. Boeing can charge what they like for the new tanker. This ends up being a bad deal for the American taxpayer. Airbus is not in trouble and neither is Boeing, the A380 was 2 yrs late and the new 787 will also be 2 yrs late. Boeing believed the tanker contract was their's just because their name is Boeing hopefully this will wake up all American companies to be more competitive.

To the Prozac bunch,
The only bidder was Boeing where is your outrage?

Just in case you forgot, think of Boeing being Halliburton!
Patty Murray and I'm sure Jimd,Upchuck had a tantrum over the no bid.....

Being its Boeing that changes everything. When Hate blocks your view no matter what the truth is you will never see it.
See you in a week or so.
Cheers,
John

Caterwauling such as that by the SPEEA crybaby over how Bad and Mean the military side of post-merger Boeing is makes me laugh and laugh over how red-state Alabama has beat out blue-state Pacifica (er, Washington) for the tanker. Wail, protectionists, wail!

That said, a good Democrat such as John McCain needs to be held accountable for how the USAF suddenly adopted a bigger-is-better approach to the tanker (and possibly after release of the RFP, pending the GAO finding). All well and good that the Airbus tanker [labeled the "Northrop tanker" by the USAF in the post-decision announcement] can service aircraft from Britain to the Falkland Islands or some crazy such, but it should disturb the average American that the Airbus cow is too big to land on many runways within points of interest such as Afghanistan and Iraq. And with oll climbing north of $140/barrel, perhaps Boeing and her SPEEA partners will soon pencil-whip the extra-costliness of the Airbus cow, in a manner to, you know, "enlighten" the GAO.

JimD:

Did this give McCain an opening to push Airbus, which was paying him and his staff to do so?

Thank you for finally admitting that you have no evidence to back up your claims.

Your apology is accepted.

MR Icharo Susiki seems to disagree with my characterization of MDC management made part of boeing ' military"

Copied below is another opinion by someone who was considerably more qualified t than myself to expound on such an opinion

The following is an OCR version of page 74, in the Courts findings of Facts and
conclusions of law in the case of James R Milsap,et.al v McDonnell Douglas Corp. Case
No 94-C-633-H Filed Sept 5, 2001 U.S District Court, Northern District of
Oklahoma... The citation omitted in this email copy is to Reeves 120 S.Ct. at 2108,
quoting St. Mary’s Honor Center v Hicks 509 U.S .502,511 (1993)
231. The fact finder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by a defendant “may be
quite persuasive” of intentional discrimination “particularly if disbelief is accompanied
by a suspicion of mendacity.”[cite ] {cite] - . Here, Defendant’s mendacity is
manifest Specifically, as identified in the Findings of Fact, MDC’S
mendacity is established by the untruthful and misleading answers
provided to Plaintiffs under oath in its discovery responses, its
depositions and in its trial testimony.
232. The record further reflects a corporate culture of mendacity, as
evidenced by the testimony of plant manager Mr. Bittle and the disregard
for the truth evidenced by the testimony of CEO John McDonnell. As the
Court observed during the trial:
We have sat here for two weeks and listened to testimony that I
think at some places is almost knee buckling in the way in which it
evidences an abject disregard for people’s representations, people’s
representations to their employees, their teammates, people’s
representations to the public, people’s representations to public
officials. We have other kinds of testimony: Mr. Bittle himself indicating
he believed himself to be an unwitting instrument of fraud on the
employees and the public; I think that the notion of engaging in
negotiations that are known to not to mean to go to anything; and the
ultimate question of closing a plant, recognizing the broad latitude the
company has under the law, it’s entirely appropriate to review the numbers as long
as improper numbers are not considered; but to hear testimony that there was never
even consideration as to whether there were commitments, express or implied, to
employees, to the public, to public officials.
Tr, 1243.
+++
233. The Court finds that the testimony of Defendant’s key witness at
trial on the reasons for the Tulsa plant closing, Project M Team leader
Peter Juliano, was clearly untrue, not . .

271. In addition, the Court tinds that Defendant’s failure to produce the
government disclosure documents demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ case was
materially prejudiced.
272. The Court finds that Defendant’s obstruction of discovery, including
the failure to answer interrogatories, deposition and trial questions
truthfully, and its destruction or nonproduction of documents warrants
the sanction of striking MDC’s defense that Tulsa closed for financial
reasons related to excess capacity. Defendant’s defense coot be permitted
to go forward given the pattern of discovery abuse that occurred in this
case. Defendant has made material misstatements of fact in discovery,
refused to produce documents, falsely and repeatedly claimed that it had
produced all responsive documents, and it sought to avoid the testimony of
the central financial figure in this matter, William Austin.

I stand by my opinion - the above being just one documented reason

pudge wrote:
"...Thank you for finally admitting that you have no evidence to back up your claims.
Your apology is accepted..."

Interpreting an admission or apology out of something that contains neither, is as delusional as believing McCain and his staff were not influenced by the cash they received from Airbus to obtain the contract.

JimD: "Interpreting an admission or apology out of something that contains neither ..."

No, JimD, it was implicit. Sorry, but you just blew it. You wrote, "Did this give McCain an opening to push Airbus ... ?"

That question implicitly admits that YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE that McCain was pushing Airbus.

As this was your point, and as I kept saying you had no evidence, and you said you did ... you have now admitting you were wrong.

Pudge,
JimD, would agree if you switched the name McCain to any other Democrat name. It’s waste of energy & time to debate him or his ilk. He is a challenged individual.

William

??? It makes no difference to me whether it's a republican or democrat.
What a bizarre and typically prejudiced accusation from a republican...lol.
Corporate influence in DC is not party specific.
This just happens to be John McCain - who wants to move his particularly blatant brand of corporate governance into the white house - in essence, picking-up where Bush leaves off.
Sell policy to the highest corporate bidder - that's how McCain (and plenty in both parties) view government's role - as if this was a country by and for corporations, not citizens.
It's disgraceful, and if Obama, Clinton or anyone else running for President had such a flaming example of corrupted influence dogging them, I'd be just as critical.
And what sets McCain apart from most in DC - in a whole different class than Obama and most democrats - is his shameless DEFENSE of corporate governance.
The difference between McCain and Obama in this regard is unprecedented in presidential politics, and reducing corporate influence at the expense of the citizenry - from fuel prices to promoting the foreign outsourcing of jobs at the expense of American industry - will be a major issue in the campaign.
You had your shot with Bush and we're not going to let you further destroy this country with John McSame.
Quit your whining and get used to something better - whether you know it or not.

I said you’re challenged to be nice, I should have said mentally challenged.

I’m a moderate democrat you’re killing our party with your one sided opinions of truth.

William

"I’m a moderate democrat.."

And I'm Nancy Sinatra.

William:

Yes, I just said it to point out JimD's error to others. I gave up trying to convince HIM. :-)

Pudge

Will be interesting to see the out come one-way or the other.

Competition is needed especially for Government contracts.

William

Well, we do agree on at least two things, William.
The results of the investigation into the contract will be interesting indeed.
And competitive is obviously important - even in military contracts.

But if you're implying in the latter that the contract should always go to the cheapest bidder regardless of the impact on American workers, you and I part company on the master / servant relationship between citizenry and the government we employ to SERVE us.
Using our tax dollars to finance a French government jobs program at the expense of our own workers, in concert with wads of cash paid McCain and others to get these tax dollars - to build a critical part of our military infrastructure no less - must have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves, and has more than pizzed off the American workers who were betrayed yet again by republican elitists.