Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I already addressed the people that went to jail, because of improper behavior, during the Air Force's attempt to lease tankers, to keep from siphoning money from their other wish list items. ... Boeing won the tanker contract because EADs had no suitable airframe for the project.
|
Airbus once had no airframe for a tanker. If nobody had an alternative to the Boeing 767 tanker, then why were Boeing and Air Force officials so corrupt in 2003 to promote a 'sure thing'?
Which is it Bruce? 1) Boeing had the only tanker to sell. 2) Or Boeing's proposal was so bad in 2003 as to not even compete against a new design from Airbus. Which is it Bruce? Airbus did not have a tanker (yet). But the Boeing 767 tanker was still so inferior as to need massive corruption to get promoted even in 2003.
Same crappy tanker in 2003 should have won in 2008? This is not square dancing. It's a duck moonwalking.
Responsible sources repeatedly say the Boeing 767 tanker was hands down crappy. The Electrical Engineering Times joins a long list of honest and technical sources that all say same. So Bruce must also attack honest sources? Facts cannot be denied. Bruce, you finally admit to 2003 corruption because it is even in the EE Times editorial. So crappy was that Boeing 767 tanker that new levels of corruption were implemented to win a 767 contract. Responsible sources also said both in 2003 and 2008 that Boeing's proposed crappy tanker was for 'corporate welfare'. An honest person cannot deny that reality.
Bruce, do you work for Boeing? I don't know and normally would not care. But your biases are absurdly obvious. Bruce, do you work for or in Boeing? Certainly sounds like it. Since Bruce will not answer, does anyone know if Bruce works for Boeing? Question asked only because Bruce's replies and accusations sound like a TheMercenary post and because Bruce will not answer that question.
Boeing's 767 tanker was hands down the crappier proposal - for America today as it also was in 2003. So crappy back then that widespread corruption both in the Air Force and in top Boeing management was necessary. So shitty today that only a completely dishonest person could deny it.
Well, Bruce implied the US Air Force is so anti-American as to deny Boeing its just reward. Nonsense. Boeing proposes the same inferior 2003 tanker in 2007 - and lost again. The US Air Force did what is best for America. Numerous honest sources state that and state why. The only thing anti-American was that Boeing 767 tanker proposal. A patriotic Boeing that was really interested in American jobs would have proposed a superior and less expensive 777 tanker. But that would not create corporate welfare.
Again, if that is not obvious, one needs to question the integrity his information sources. Was Fox News honest enough to admit this? From Brit Hume on 13 Mar 2008:
Quote:
It was originally awarded to Boeing under a deal so corrupt, as John McCain described it, that people went to jail and a COE of Boeing lost his job.
Then a new process was begun, and Boeing appeared to be the only qualified bidder. That was when McCain weighed in and said, wait a minute, you have to at least have a competitive bid here.
They did. The Air Force then awarded the contract to a consortium, partly Grumman, an American company, and the parent company of Airbus. It is a European company.
Now the Democrats, on Capitol Hill in particular, are screaming that this was unfair, improper, a national security issue, and so forth. You heard what McCain had to say about it. Who is right here?
|
How curious that the right wing news service associates Bruce's accusations with anti-American Democrats. Even Fox News could not be more critical of what Bruce posts.
If it squawks like a moonwalking duck, it is Boeing propaganda. Even Fox News sees through those lies.