Gates reopens tanker fight

Why should he prove it when to date you refuse to offer anything to support your claims?

Where are the links to the blogs where you claim tanker crewmembers are refusing to fly the Northrop Grumman jet?

Where is the link to the FAA certification for the KC-767AT?

Where is the link to the first flight of the KC-767AT?

All you have offered is lies, exaggerations, personal anecdotes and Boeing propaganda.

Hence the reason why the jets are going to be built here IN the U.S.

It's the reason that they should be built here in the U.S. But you are not supporting that capability with support of EADs.

Note their Lobbying is rather explicit where they are mostly going to be built, and its isn't your "400+" "U.S." companies:

The Guardian: EU leaders lobbied White House on tanker contract

Key Passage:
European newspapers have reported for months that Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel have lobbied Bush, writing letters and raising the issue in direct talks.
Initially the leaders lobbied for the contract and more recently, according to the latest reports, they have expressed concern that the Pentagon decision to reopen the tanker competition could jeopardise Airbus jobs in Europe.
"He will support the Airbus bid in any way he can," an unidentified spokesman for Brown told The Times of London last week, adding that 11,000 jobs were at stake in Britain, where the wings for the A330 are built.
According to a report in the International Herald Tribune, Tom Enders, a top EADS executive, accompanied Merkel to one meeting with Bush at the White House.

"11,000 jobs" wouldn't be at stake in Britain...unless they never intended to build the wings anyplace but Britain. Alabama is being played for a patsy. A minimal (almost non-existent) assembly pretext only, most likely to be ditched completely once they actually have the contract sewn up.

European corruption grows more undeniable with each passing day, with no doubt about the coercion and probably bribery eclipsing anything that Boeing ever did by promising a couple jobs...and the trail is leading straight to McCain and Bush.

This is further reason why we from the national security conservative wing will not be trifled with by the likes of your side. You have splintered, divided and destroyed the conservative coalition with your rapacious and heedless greed.

Who do you think Northrop Grumman is?

Clearly, they are not who you think they are. Certainly not who they pretend to be. They aren't the ones designing and building the main subcomponents or fuselage. This is who is:

Note this little gem from the Senate testimony just this week:

EADs CEO: "EADS should be "considered as an American citizen," Louis Gallois said.

Psssst. Boeing is working to arm China too.

EADs does worse there, btw. And how does giving U.S. taxpayer money to EADs change anything? It just makes it worse in every way.

You reward the worst offender, and you leave the remaining actual U.S. firm no choice but to throw in with the corruption.

I would like to see some other US companies get back into the plane making bizness. And I’d like to see EADS go T.U.

Thanks for alerting me to Ron Fogelman, and his premature voluntary retirement and exit as USAF Chief of Staff.

I discovered this useful historical note by Dr. Richard Kohn:

The Early Retirement of Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force

I think you are right on, this illustrates a lot of what was already going wrong.

“You reward the worst offender, and you leave the remaining actual U.S. firm no choice but to throw in with the corruption.”

Boeing has been corrupt since before EADS formed. They have been buying off politicians for the past 40+ years.

Darleen Druyun pleaded guilty to inflating the price of the contract to favor her future employer and to passing information on the competing Airbus A330 MRTT bid (from EADS).

In June 2003, Lockheed Martin sued Boeing, alleging that the company had resorted to industrial espionage in 1998 to win the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) competition. Lockheed claimed that the former employee Kenneth Branch, who went to work for McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, passed 25,000 proprietary documents to his new employers. Lockheed argued that these documents allowed Boeing to win 21 of the 28 tendered military satellite launches.

And that’s not including Boeing’s long standing practice of rollerstamping work off as acceptable without the required inspections to see if the airplane components are acceptable or not.

Politicians bought and paid for by Boeing:

henry “scoop” jackson AKA “The Senator from Boeing”
john murtha
patty “osama mamma” murray
todd tiahrt
norman dicks

Just to name a few.

I could keep going but it would take too much time to read through all the articles about Boeing corruption and paying off politicians.

Oh the guardian.

Pravda, or even the New Yuck Slimes would be more believable

Thanks for the ping!

Read the RFP

Need not say anymore

And as far as can not do it’s job, the KC-767AT can’t refuel the M-22 Osprey either due to the slower speed of the V-22.

Wrong THe KC-30 CANNOT refuel the V-22 REad the RFP GAO RESPONSE.

“the KC-30 is not what its made up to be people”

Really who says? You? ROFLMAO!!!

Read the Tanker blogs plenty of aircrews.

How is it 5 years behind? The partner nations, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Belgium, and Luxembourg, signed the agreement in May 2003 to buy 212 aircraft. And following the withdrawal of Italy and revision of procurement totals the revised requirement was for 180 aircraft, with first flight in 2008 and first delivery in 2009.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/11/05/eads-airbus-boeing-markets-equity-cx_ll_1102markets05.html

Today the technical support of the NATO of airplanes takes place in the work Manching of the EADS. Here also in the last years a ESM system was re-tooled, to recognize by the two antenna dents on the left and on the right by the front trunk.

http://www.namsa.nato.int/gallery/ws_awacs_e.htm

not eads..All depot mx done at TINKER. Or at NAMSA.

According to your logic Boeing gathered no experience from KC-10?

How do you figure that its part of the Boeing Family now. and they are doing upgrades to them.

Wedgetail won’t count as AWACS, I suppose

yes its a close AWACS. but the question was does Eads BUILD a AWACS aircraft the answer is NO.

WRONG all 22 are either employed by EADS or NG. and they had to retract there newspaper ad.”

Funny, but in post 133 you claimed it was only 12.

Does it matter they lied and got caught. typical EADS deceptions.

Boeing didn’t offer the KC-767 for the competition, they offered the non-existant KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker)
that is based on the equally non-existant 767-200LRF.

So how could a non-existant aircraft “score higher on what counts” than an aircraft that is already flying?

What ever. They bib a KC-767 it made the grade were it counted the KC-30 DID NOT

All you have offered is lies, exaggerations, personal anecdotes and Boeing propaganda.

Unlike your EADS NG posts. I have showed links.

So how could a non-existant aircraft “score higher on what counts” than an aircraft that is already flying?

Good question

Hey if you are in Denver go see the KC-767 Advanced Tanker Technology Demonstrator .

The demonstrator will be located in the AMPCO parking lot across from the Grand Hyatt Denver Hotel, 1750 Welton St., Denver, CO 80202 When: Wednesday, July 23 and Thursday, July 24, 2008; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mountain time

Boeing Advanced Tanker, less a tanker, more a multimedia presentation

Just to name a few.

No links. Nothing comparable to the CASH BRIBERY of the EADs.

Job offers, while certainly corrupt, just are not comparable. Boeing "espionage" on Lockheed, amounted to learning the price structure to be able to counter their bid. EADs espionage goes beyond that, to filch technical secrets and engineering that they could never afford to replicate on their own either financially or at all.

Your failure to recognize the ever-spiralling evil of EADs here, and your monomaniacal demonizing of America's ONLY commercial plane manufacturer shows a degree of extreme "BDS" - "Boeing Derangement Syndrome" that really takes the cake. It makes it clear, to me at least, that you would fecklessly and blithely echo the Communist line in favor of your venal position to back EADs. EADs, btw, was a socialist state entity from the get-go, and going further down that path, now being partly owned by Russia seeking to increase that share still more...

Who are you really?

What country do you come from...or more importanly...work for nowadays? You come across as a mercenary for hire. Not a patriot.

I could keep going

No you can't, you still haven't shown any Boeing corruption ON THIS particular contract bid, by Boeing, but it is already clear that EADs tried to bribe its way in, and muscle its way with foreign coercion and persuasion. The corruption is Especially significant if any of your "anonymous" little cabal are on the payroll, which is further proof. You guys are the ones "bought and paid for."

but it would take too much time to read through all the articles about Boeing corruption and paying off politicians.

And EADs tries to buy off the President and John McCain, and then shamefully lie to Shelby and the Alabama delegation. How pathetic of your team.

As for this, you are simply laughable:

Politicians bought and paid for by Boeing: henry “scoop” jackson AKA “The Senator from Boeing”

First, let's take a look at the guy you communists are disparaging...

Henry M. Jackson's bio from Wikipedia:

Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson (May 31, 1912 – September 1, 1983) was a U.S. Congressman and Senator for Washington State from 1941 until his death. Jackson was an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976. As a Cold War anti-Communist Democrat, Jackson's political philosophies and positions have been cited as an influence on a number of key figures associated with neoconservatism, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.[1]
Personal life and early career
Born in Everett, Washington, Jackson went on to graduate with a bachelor's degree from Stanford University and a law degree from the University of Washington, where he joined the Delta Chi fraternity. In 1935 (the year of his law school graduation) he was admitted to the bar and began to practice law in Everett. He found immediate success, and won election to become the prosecuting attorney for Snohomish County from 1938 to 1940, where he made a name for himself prosecuting bootleggers and gamblers.
In 1961, Jackson, called by Time the Senate's "most eligible bachelor,"[2] married Helen Hardin, a 28-year old Senate receptionist, but Jackson didn't move out of his childhood home where he lived with his unmarried sisters for several years. The Jacksons had two children, Anna Marie Laurence and Peter Jackson; Peter is currently a speechwriter for Governor Christine Gregoire.
Jackson was nicknamed "Scoop" by his sister in his childhood, after a comic strip character that he is said to have resembled.
Legislative career
Jackson successfully ran for Congress as a Democrat in 1940 and took his seat in the House of Representatives with the 77th Congress on January 3, 1941. From that date forward, Jackson did not lose a congressional election.
Jackson joined the Army when World War II started, but left when Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered all Congressmen to return home or resign their seats. As a representative, he visited the Buchenwald concentration camp a few days after its liberation in 1945. He attended the International Maritime Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1945 with the American delegation, and was elected president of the same conference in 1946, when it was held in Seattle, Washington. From 1945 to 1947 Jackson was also the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs. In the 1952 election, Jackson relinquished his seat in the House for a run at one of Washington's Senate seats — he won that election, and remained a Senator for over thirty years. Jackson died in office in 1983 after winning re-election for the fifth time in 1982.
Though Jackson opposed the excesses of Joe McCarthy (who had traveled to Washington State to campaign against him in 1952), he also criticized Dwight Eisenhower for not spending enough on national defense, and called for more inter-continental ballistic missiles in the national arsenal. Jackson's support for nuclear weapons resulted in a primary challenge from the left in 1958, when he handily defeated Seattle peace activist Alice Franklin Bryant before winning re-election with 67 percent of the vote — a total he topped the next four times he ran for re-election.[1][3]
In 1963, Jackson was made chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which became the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 1977, a position he held until 1981.
Jackson authored the National Environmental Policy Act and was a leader of the fight for statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. In 1974, Jackson sponsored the Jackson-Vanik amendment in the Senate (with Charles Vanik sponsoring it in the House) which denied normal trade relations to certain countries with non-market economies that restricted the freedom of emigration. The amendment was intended to help refugees, particularly minorities, specifically Jews, to emigrate from the Soviet Bloc. Jackson and his assistant, Richard Perle, also lobbied personally for some people who were affected by this law — among them Anatoly (now Natan) Sharansky. Jackson also led the opposition within the Democratic Party against the SALT II treaty, and was one of the leading proponents of increased foreign aid to Israel.
For decades, Democrats who supported a strong international presence for the United States have been called "Scoop Jackson Democrats," the term even being used to describe contemporary Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and R. James Woolsey, Jr.[4][5]
Jackson served almost his entire Senate tenure concurrently with his good friend and Democratic colleague Warren G. Magnuson. "Scoop" and "Maggie" — as they affectionately called each other — were one of the most effective delegations in the history of the United States Senate in terms of "bringing home the bacon" for their home state. Washington State received nearly one sixth of public works appropriations, even though it ranked 23rd in population.[6]
Jackson was often criticized for his support for the Vietnam War and his close ties to the defense industries of his state. His proposal of Fort Lawton as a site for an anti-ballistic missile system was strongly opposed by local residents, and Jackson was forced to modify his position on the location of the site several times, though he continued to support ABM development. American Indian rights activists then protested Jackson's plan to give Fort Lawton to Seattle instead of returning it to local tribes, staging a sit-in. In the eventual compromise, most of Fort Lawton became Discovery Park, with twenty acres leased to United Indians of All Tribes, who opened the Daybreak Star Cultural Center there in 1977.
Opponents derided him as "the Senator from Boeing"[7] because of his consistent support for additional military spending on weapons systems and accusations of wrongful contributions from the company; in 1965, eighty percent of Boeing's contracts were military.[1][6] Jackson and Magnuson's campaigning for an expensive government supersonic transport plane project eventually failed.
After his death, critics pointed to Jackson's support for Japanese American internment camps during World War II as a reason to protest the placement of his bust at the University of Washington.[8] Jackson was both an enthusiastic defender of the evacuation and a staunch proponent of the campaign to keep the Japanese from returning to the Pacific Coast after the war.[9]
National prominence and presidential campaigns
Jackson was not only successful as a politician in Washington State, but also found recognition on the national level, rising to the position of chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1960 after being considered for the vice presidential ticket spot that eventually went to fellow Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Jackson ran for president twice; his campaigns were noted for the hostile reception they received from the left wing of the Democratic Party. Jackson's one-on-one campaigning skills, so successful in Washington state, did not translate as well on the national stage, and even his supporters admitted he suffered from a certain lack of charisma.[1][10][11]
1972 presidential campaign
Jackson was little known nationally when he first ran in 1972. George McGovern, who eventually won the nomination, accused Jackson of racism for his opposition to busing, despite Jackson's longstanding record on civil rights issues. Jackson had the support of Marxist theorist Max Shachtman, an associate of Leon Trotsky.[12] Jackson dropped out of the race after finishing well behind McGovern, Ed Muskie, and Hubert Humphrey in early primaries.[11][13]
1976 presidential campaign
Jackson raised his national profile by speaking out on Soviet-U.S. relations and Middle East policy regularly, and was considered a front-runner for the nomination when he announced the start of his campaign in February 1975. Jackson received substantial financial support from Jewish-Americans who admired his pro-Israel views, but Jackson's support of the Vietnam War resulted in hostility from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Jackson chose to run on social issues, emphasizing law and order and his opposition to busing. Jackson was also hoping for support from labor, but the possibility that Hubert Humphrey might enter the race caused unions to offer only lukewarm support.[1][10][11][14]
Jackson made the fateful decision not to compete in the early Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, which Jimmy Carter won after liberals split their votes among four other candidates. Though Jackson won the Massachusetts and New York primaries, he dropped out on May 1 after losing the critical Pennsylvania primary to Carter by twelve points and running out of money.[1][10][11][14]
Legacy
Jackson died suddenly at the age of 71 in Everett of an aortic aneurysm, shortly after giving a news conference condemning the Soviet attack on Korean Air Lines Flight 007. News reports showed video of Jackson in which he was seen reflexively massaging the left side of his chest while talking, and speculated that this was his reaction to an early symptom of his coming fatal attack.
He was greatly mourned; Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated "Henry Jackson is proof of the old belief in the Judaic tradition that at any moment in history goodness in the world is preserved by the deeds of 36 just men who do not know that this is the role the Lord has given them. Henry Jackson was one of those men." Jackson is buried in Evergreen Cemetery in Everett.
Posthumous honors

Jackson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1984;
Ronald Reagan called him "one of the greatest lawmakers of our century,"[15] and stated:

“ Scoop Jackson was convinced that there's no place for partisanship in foreign and defense policy. He used to say, 'In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics.' His sense of bipartisanship was not only natural and complete; it was courageous. He wanted to be President, but I think he must have known that his outspoken ideas on the security of the Nation would deprive him of the chance to be his party's nominee in 1972 and '76. Still, he would not cut his convictions to fit the prevailing style.
I'm deeply proud, as he would have been, to have Jackson Democrats serve in my administration. I'm proud that some of them have found a home here.[16] ”

In 1983, he was awarded Delta Chi of the Year.
With his death in office, the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was initially renamed Henry M. Jackson International Airport, but political resistance to the change led to this being reversed in favor of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It wasn't that the public didn't want to honor the late Senator, but rather leaders in both Seattle and Tacoma (Tacoma, in particular), fearing the loss of convention business, demanded that their cities name be included in the name of the airport. The airport lies between the two cities in the municipality of SeaTac. One of Jackson's last acts as Senator was to sponsor legislation creating what became the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, which was named after him after his death.
The Jackson family created the Henry M. Jackson Foundation to give grants to nonprofits and educational institutions. Board members have included Richard Perle, Tom Foley, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.[17]
The University of Washington has named the Jackson School of International Studies in his honor. However, students objecting to Jackson's hawkish views on the Cold War in the mid-1980s caused the university to move a bust of the senator to the end of an abandoned corridor until it was restored to a more prominent place outside the Jackson School in 2006.[8]
The US Navy submarine Henry M. Jackson was also named after him, in recognition of his longtime support of the nation's military.
In 1994, the Everett School District completed construction of Henry M. Jackson High School in Mill Creek, Washington. The Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Area was created in his honor by the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, with the cooperation of the Jackson family, awards a Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson Distinguished Service Award to individuals for their career dedication to U.S. national security. Jackson won the first award in 1982, and it was named after him after his death. Winners include Max Cleland, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, Jane Harman, and Paul Wolfowitz.[18]
[edit] Influence on neoconservatism
Jackson believed that evil should be confronted with power.[17] His support for civil rights and equality at home,[8] married to his opposition to detente,[17] his support for human rights[19] and democratic allies,[20] and his firm belief that the United States could be a force for good in the world[21] inspired a legion of loyal aides who went on to propound Jackson's philosophy as part of neoconservatism. In addition to Richard Perle, neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith were former Democratic aides to Jackson who, disillusioned with the Carter administration, supported Ronald Reagan and joined his administration in 1981, later becoming prominent foreign policy makers in the 21st-century Bush administration. Neoconservative Ben Wattenberg was a prominent political aide to Jackson's 1972 and 1976 presidential campaigns. Wolfowitz has called himself a "Scoop Jackson Republican" on multiple occasions.[19][22] Many journalists and scholars across the political spectrum have noted links between Senator Jackson and modern neoconservatism.[1][23][24][20][17][25][26][27][28][29]
Jackson's influence on foreign policy has been cited as foundational to the George W. Bush administration's foreign policy, and the Iraq War.[30] Jackson biographer Robert Kaufman says "There is no question in my mind that the people who supported Iraq are supporting Henry Jackson's instincts."[17]
Peter Beinart, author of The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again, argues that the Democratic Party should return to Jackson's values in its foreign policy, criticizing current-day neoconservatives for failing to adopt Jackson's domestic policy views along with his foreign policy views.[21][24]
In 2005, the Henry Jackson Society was formed at the University of Cambridge, England. The non-partisan British group is dedicated to "pursuit of a robust foreign policy ... based on clear universal principles such as the global promotion of the rule of law, liberal democracy, civil rights, environmental responsibility and the market economy" as part of "Henry Jackson's legacy."[31] The Society, however, disclaims any neoconservative affiliation.[32]

Comment:

Henry M. Jackson, although never my Congressman, was a patriot. And a strong anti-communist leader. A spokesman for national strength, national security, and nuclear superiority. Boeing didn't send him money to buy him off...they didn't need to buy him. The same claims were made against Ronald Reagan. These guys were promilitary OUT OF CONVICTION not out of venality, as are the EADs backers. And Boeing would naturally support natural conservatives and patriots. Rather than their OPPOSITE numbers...

My conclusion is that if you were an American who had been a "2nd Cavalry Trooper" then you surprisingly ignorant of Henry M. Jackson. A soldier. A leader. A patriot. Someone the communists...foreign and domestic... hated.

And if any of your side are the communists I am beginning to suspect, then it is only natural that they would go out of their way to dump on Henry M. Jackson...as you just did.

One of the few Democrats we national security conservatives could rely upon to ally with on the important issues of defense.

And all you can think to do is defame him with the aspersions of the Loony Left whom he clobbered during his time in office.

but the question was does Eads BUILD a AWACS aircraft the answer is NO.

There are a huge problems on sites like FreeRepublic.com, you can look back:

cmdr straker: “EADS has ZERO AWACS experiance.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043036/posts?page=265#265

Boeing has been corrupt since before EADS formed. They have been buying off politicians for the past 40+ years.

Uh, if they were so prodigious at that...then you have to explain the contradiction...how was it that EADs was allowed to participate let alone win? True political dominance by Boeing on Capitol Hill would never have allowed this result favoring EADs.

The fact is, they never should have been allowed to get in and start their bribing and propaganda operation...where they are both the pot and kettle and are busy...with your assistance (paid or voluntary) calling the Corning Ware black...h'mmmm.

I like an article you likely never read:

Defense jobs shift overseas=foreign policy by threat or fear?
Wes Vernon, Renew America, April 14, 2008
Let's start with the assumption that the "global economy" is here to stay.
Let us also entertain the notion — one that we used to take for granted — that the "global economy" does not mean we leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign governments when it comes to providing for our own defense.
Can we all agree on that — just for starters? I mean, we're not on a suicide mission here, right?
(Living with the "global economy" also should not mean we sacrifice our very sovereignty, but that is a more multifaceted issue with which we have dealt in previous columns and will again in the future.)
So why are we doing this?
Several weeks ago, the U.S. Air Force announced its decision to award a European firm a $40 million contract to replace a refueling fleet that dates back to the Kennedy-Johnson years and in some cases, all the way back to Ike.
The winner in that bidding war was Northrop-Grumman/ EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company — parent of Airbus). Days later, the Boeing Company, an American firm that lost out to EADS — filed a formal protest charging the acquisition process was "flawed." Further, Boeing believes the metaphoric cards were stacked, bars raised and goal posts moved in a manner that favored EADS and disadvantaged Boeing.
Boeing alleged that, "Repeatedly, fundamental but unstated changes were made to the bid requirements and evaluation criteria. These arbitrary changes not only unfairly skewed the results against Boeing; they penalized the warfighter and the taxpayer by selecting an airplane that did not satisfy the Air Force's own bid requirements."

Again, why are we doing this?
In the bidding, the Boeing KC-737 surpassed the EADS KC-30 in terms of the optimal size requirement and mission capability. But here's the part that has fair-minded observers scratching their heads: Boeing and EADS were given equal ratings on the issue of risk (about which much more below). For reasons that will no doubt outrage taxpayers, the U.S. Air Force discounted weight and life-cycle. Boeing charges that such unbenign neglect was compounded by the fact that USAF actually inflated Boeing's costs by billions.
Why are we helping them?
Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis writes in Human Events that a former EADS executive told him it was the "declared objective of Airbus to destroy, if possible, the American commercial airplane dominance."
About that question of "risk"
So USAF gives Boeing and EADS "equal" ratings on the question of "risk."
Let us examine that judgment:
For starters (meaning read on, it gets worse) Boeing has repeatedly cited its record of building and upgrading over 2000 operational tankers, compared to zero for Northrop-Grumman (EADS' American partner).
Boeing has delivered over 1800 air to refueling booms; again Northrop-Grumman, zero.
From stupidity to malice
Frank Gaffney (a former Reagan Pentagon official) spends most of his waking hours steeped in fact-finding for his Center for Security Policy (CSP). Where America's strategic interests are concerned, nothing gets past him.
After the Air Force made its decision, Gaffney participated in a news conference here in Washington, declaring that as far as he was concerned, EADS is most welcome to compete in U.S. contracts..................after the company cleans up its act.

Talk about risk: I'll show you "risk"
Can we really trust a company whose backer-state spies on this country, steals our secrets to the detriment of U.S. interests, and "uses bribery and chicanery to undermine this country around the world?" While that sordid activity has not been tied directly to EADS, one of its supporters — La Belle France — has been so implicated.
However, if EADS has been accepting stolen American secrets, CSP believes Airbus has thereby been complicit in such breaches of trust.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal a few years ago saying that the U.S. "Echelon" intelligence program had caught France in the act of bribery.
The former intelligence chief said the U.S. was not spying on European companies to steal their trade secrets. "They don't have much to steal. Instead, we were looking for evidence of bribery." Or to put fine point on it: "Your companies' products are often more costly, less technologically advanced, or both, than your American competitors. As a result, you bribe a lot."
The U.S. Department of Commerce has also cited French spying on American firms. So too has the European parliament.
Putin's oar applied to the mix
EADS is partly owned by the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, whose KGB fangs have been increasingly evident the longer he stays in office and then virtually anoints his successor. Press reports indicate Russia might very well collaborate with the nation of Qatar — owner of the Islamist propaganda organ Al Jazeera — to increase the Kremlin's shares in EADS.
Hugo Chavez
EADS' "in your face" attitude regarding America's security interests was highlighted when CSP caught it arming the America-hating, terrorist-loving Marxist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez with the same CN-235s it was selling the U.S. Coast Guard and was trying to sell the Pentagon.
Red China again
Notwithstanding a European Union embargo, EADS has managed to funnel supplies to Communist China's armed forces. China, let it be remembered, has missiles pointed directly at the United States and, in the considered judgment of some military experts, poses an even greater threat to the U.S. than does Islamofascism. EADS has provided China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) with a helicopter — the EC 175 — that has both civilian and military uses.
Iran's nuclear program
Through its dealings with a South Korean company, EADS may have inadvertently aided Iran's nuclear program. The South Korean company was reselling some Nickel 63 and so-called "Tritium Targets" (acquired from EADS and both pivotal for a nuclear explosion)" — to a company that is a front for Partoris, a state-owned Iranian firm. Even if this was done unknowingly, that would make EADS suspect in terms of carelessness.
Not exactly Archie Bunker's union
CSP defines EADS — through its aviation program — as "a huge jobs program for anti-American labor unions that form the backbone of some of Europe's most powerful socialist parties." Chief among these is the German IG Metall which represents workers at Airbus Deutschland, whose flag is still the Soviet-era red banner and whose literature has ripped American businesses as "bloodsuckers" and "parasites."
Would you feel comfortable knowing your sons and daughters depend on materials made with people so imbued with such virulent "Hate America" propaganda? And this is no isolated instance. Socialist-dominated EADS unions abroad have engaged in work-stoppages in support of Chavez in Venezuela and supported communist causes in Mexico aimed at destabilizing the already porous southern borders of the United States.
But again — why?
Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters insists on allowing Mexican trucks over the border to roam through American highways at will. This despite the clearly expressed wishes of Congress — on both sides of the aisle — to stop it. Reportedly the Bush administration's defiance is prompted — at least in part — by a concern that unless the dangerous and job-killing trucking program goes forward, Mexico stands ready to retaliate.
Is that why obvious pressure was brought to bear to award the tanker contract to a foreign firm instead of an American one — a fear — implied or stated — that there will be retaliation from one or more of our trading "partners" if the USAF/EADS deal is not consummated? There may be a Pulitzer awaiting some investigative reporter. Is this foreign policy by threat? It is hard to imagine any other explanation that makes sense.
Buy American — now more than ever
American jobs in this? Estimated at 25,000 for EADS; 44,000 for Boeing. Getting back to that comment by a onetime EADS executive about the aim of destroying American airplane dominance, here's the rest of the quote:

"With truly unfair trade practices and our naïve, stupid government, they succeeded in shutting down Lockheed and McDonnel-Douglas, leaving Boeing to slug it out on a very unlevel playing field."

Do tell!
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

Thanks for the inclusion in that ping Paul. There’s a lot of interesting information in that post isn’t there.

You're welcome. Yes.

In particular, I found this referred officer of profound importance: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis.

Maginnis has a good bead on this issue. He also some very germane knowledge, and he makes for interesting reading as well, I like this particular set of quotes and observations he reports:

An active duty Air Force pilot familiar with tanker operations said “… as an American officer I’m pretty angry. I find it unforgivable that we have done this. It seems to me that with the competing aircraft pretty close in capability we ought to tilt very favorably toward the American company.”
He suggested that a common view among his peers is that “… our Air Force leadership has simply lost its way … This sad tale of the tanker acquisition, from Darlene Druyun till now, has typified the confused, misguided, and haphazard direction our generals have been on for nearly the last decade.” In 2004, Druyun admitted to favoring Boeing in the tanker deal while acting as an Air Force weapons buyer and, at the same time, negotiating a job contract with the company. She was sentenced to nine months in prison.
Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with Teal Group in Virginia, said of the decision to favor EADS over Boeing that “There’s always the chance that the Air Force wanted to distance themselves as much as possible” from the Druyun situation.
The Netherlands-based EADS - a group that includes Russia - was formed in 2000 by a merger with German, French and Spanish firms. Less than half of EADS’ stock is publicly held, while the majority is owned by a “Contractual Partnership” which includes the French and Spanish governments.
European governments have kept EADS afloat, sustaining more than 116,000 European jobs. US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), whose state includes a Boeing plant, stated that European nations have provided Airbus (read EADS) “illegal subsidies.”
In 2001, Under Secretary of Commerce Grant Aldonas told a US House panel, "Airbus and other major aircraft manufacturers in Europe have a history of government ownership and control. Given this direct financial interest, European governments have undertaken steps to boost their industry’s competitiveness.”
In 2005, Peter Allgeier, the deputy US Trade Representative, indicated that European governments have forgiven Airbus debt and provided equity infusions, infrastructure support and research and development funds. These practices, said Allgeier, continued even after the Bush administration reached an agreement limiting government support for large civil aircraft programs. Allgeier said that support gives Airbus a “very significant” competitive advantage over Boeing.
A former EADS executive told this writer it was the “declared objective of Airbus to destroy, if possible the American commercial airplane dominance. With truly unfair trade practices and our naïve and stupid government they succeeded in shutting down Lockheed and McDonnel Douglas leaving Boeing to slug it out on a very unlevel playing field.”
EADS would not have been able to fund its side of the tanker competition without government financial assistance. Although European government “aid” to EADS may have been invisible to Pentagon technical decision makers it should be a red flag to American workers and those concerned about the export of our industrial manufacturing infrastructure.
Apparently, Europeans have money to subsidize their aircraft industry... but not enough to fund their own security. They rely on Uncle Sam’s troops, planes and ships to make their continent safe. While the US invests 4.2 percent of its GNP on defense, EADS supporters such as Germany spend only 1.5 percent.
Pentagon contracts should always favor American manufacturers with an eye on preserving our industrial base, providing our fighting forces with quality products and wisely using taxpayer money.
The tanker deal demonstrates flaws in our procurement decision making that pretends made-in-America isn’t important and gives our rich European partners another pass on being responsible security partners. Any serious presidential wannabee should show his or her true colors and stake out a position on the new tanker fleet.
Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.