AND buying the wrong tanker [one that flunked five of eight survivability criteria...and costs $5 billion+ more to acquire and probably $10 billion more to operate] and rewarding enemies of the United States of America and freedom everywhere.
So your framing of the choices was rather lame and shortsighted. You can't just misargue the micro issues...as you are want to do. You need to squarely face the larger issues. National Security.
Corruption, which undermines the rule of law, such as EADs and its K-Street lobbyists epitomizes [dwarfing every single allegation you guys make against Boeing or McDonnell Douglas] represents the death of democracy.
I just want to mention Darleen Druyun and Michael M. Sears.
...AND buying the wrong tanker [one that flunked five of eight survivability criteria...
This is Boeing spin at best to go from “B proposed something better” to “A flunked”. For Boeing every tanker except the KC-767 is a wrong tanker.
...and costs $5 billion+ more to acquire and probably $10 billion more to operate]...
As I read the GAO report the KC-45 is about 0.1 % more expensive. Did you have something better than the study by “Conklin & de Decker” sponsored by Boeing to support your figures? The KC-45 is rated 6 % more efficient in arial refueling by Air Force. GAO supported Air Force calculations on this field.
A fleet of 179 KC-45 can handle 2,327 pallets more than a KC-767 fleet. The difference is about the cargo volume of 130 C-17. Value about $28 billon.
... and rewarding enemies of the United States of America and freedom everywhere.
I didn't know NG gets parts for the KC-45 from Iran or Syria.
Try to listen to your allies sometimes before going to war. France and Germany were right not to go at war against Iraq. Both countries support Operation Enduring Freedom.