Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paleo Conservative

Everyone should call/email every Congressional representative you have (I already have) to protest this foolish decision. It is extremely offensive that my tax money is being given to the parent of Airbus. However, it is even more offensive that we are allowing a foreign country to supply the airframe for a defensive project. It is not only offensive, it is extremely, absolutely stupid!

President Bush, where are you? You are the Commander in Chief, and you need to quash this idiocy! American defensive programs need to be built by Americans! Because you cannot predict who our enemies are going to be in 20 years!


8 posted on 02/29/2008 7:24:31 PM PST by DennisR (Look around - God gives countless clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DennisR
This is why Boeing was not selected:
Ex-Boeing CFO pleads guilty in Air Force procurement scandal

The former chief financial officer for Boeing pleaded guilty in federal court Monday to illegally helping Darleen Druyun, the Air Force's former No. 2 procurement official, land a lucrative job with the company.

Michael Sears, 57, who along with Druyun was fired by Boeing in late 2003, pleaded guilty to a single count of aiding and abetting illegal employment negotiations in United States District Court in Alexandria, Va. Sears, who will be sentenced in January, could receive up to five years in prison.

"Michael Sears' secret employment negotiations with a senior Air Force official struck at the heart of the integrity of the multibillion-dollar defense acquisition process. Conflict-of-interest rules are important and protect the public interests," U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty said in a prepared statement.

"This is the largest corruption case by defense contractors our nation has seen in decades," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based interest group. "Sears' plea confirms that Boeing knowingly set out to make billions off of the illegal acts of a few."

In court papers, Sears admitted meeting with Druyun to discuss employment with Boeing while she was still serving as one of the Air Force's top contracting officials. In that job, Druyun held enormous influence over the service's nearly $30 billion annual procurement budget, and was key negotiator in a controversial deal for the Air Force to lease tanker aircraft from Boeing.

Druyun admitted in federal court last month to favoring Boeing in at least four contract negotiations, including the tanker deal. She said she felt indebted to the company for giving her daughter, her son-in-law and herself jobs. Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison.

Last week, the Pentagon announced it would review all contracts Druyun oversaw from 1993 to 2002 as the Air Force's principal deputy assistant for acquisition and management. The Defense Science Board also will conduct a review of the military's acquisition systems to determine if there are sufficient checks and balances in place. Sears admitted to not only meeting with Druyun while she oversaw Boeing contracts, but attempting to conceal those meetings from the Pentagon and federal investigators. Court documents show top Boeing's executives discussed recruiting Druyun at an Oct. 2002 meeting.

"They were very interested in Druyun's considerable talent and experience. They also discussed the fact that they did not want her to join Lockheed Martin, Boeing's primary competitor," court documents stated.

On Oct. 17, 2002, Sears and Druyun secretly met in a private conference room at Orlando International Airport, where Druyun had flown to attend an industry conference, to discuss her future plans. Druyun told Sears she had reached an agreement to accept a job with Lockheed Martin, but said she would consider an offer from Boeing, court documents showed.

The documents indicated that at the meeting, Druyun and Sears also discussed cost, delivery and schedule delays on the Air Force's F/A-22 fighter aircraft program, on which Boeing played a role as a subcontractor.

Druyun and Sears would later agree via e-mail to tell investigators they had not discussed her potential employment until early November, after Druyun had signed a letter recusing herself from all Boeing matters before the Air Force.

In subsequent e-mails and phone conversations, Sears implored Druyun to "hang tough" as investigators began questioning her about how she got a $250,000 a year job managing Boeing's missile defense programs.


23 posted on 02/29/2008 7:34:14 PM PST by FreedomCalls (Texas: "We close at five.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR

How is this a foolish decesion?


44 posted on 02/29/2008 8:00:15 PM PST by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR
What happened to the Buy American Act?

TITLE 41 > CHAPTER 1 > § 10a. American materials required for public use
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and unless the head of the department or independent establishment concerned shall determine it to be inconsistent with the public interest, or the cost to be unreasonable, only such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been mined or produced in the United States, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States, shall be acquired for public use. This section shall not apply with respect to articles, materials, or supplies for use outside the United States, or if articles, materials, or supplies of the class or kind to be used or the articles, materials, or supplies from which they are manufactured are not mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality. This section shall not apply to manufactured articles, materials, or supplies procured under any contract the award value of which is less than or equal to the micro-purchase threshold under section 428 of this title.
58 posted on 02/29/2008 8:42:06 PM PST by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR
It’s not idiocy. Our British and Australian allies use the KC-30 and it’s a good plane. Furthermore, it’s a proven design and isn’t going to be pouring money into Airbus’ coffers as much as into Northrop Grumman.
83 posted on 02/29/2008 9:35:21 PM PST by GAB-1955 (Kicking and Screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR

The Air Force was absolute this time around on having a checklist and awarding a fair contract. If there never was to be a conctract issued to a foreign company...then congress should have written the rule...but they didn’t. I’m guessing at the end of the checklist...Northrop/EADS had the better plane. You have to remember...this plane isn’t just a tanker...it had to be able to haul cargo and passengers, if required...so you have to quickly disassemble pieces and have it quickly ready for the next mission. I’m guessing Boeing’s plane wasn’t a “quick-turn-around” plane.

So I’d ask myself...why waste effort complaining to congress? A significant group of Alabamians are going to be employed. The last time I looked...we were still part of the US and paying US taxes...so we aren’t exactly giving away vast sums of money to foreigners. Also...the last time I looked...the Seattle area was one of the most expensive areas in America to manufacture anything. Mobile is at the other end of the spectrum...so we saved the government a heck of a lot on cost.

I don’t see a problem here. Both Boeing and Airbus have pluses and minuses....neither makes a perfect plane. So this all comes into the scenario in the end.


105 posted on 03/01/2008 12:48:29 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR

Since the years of the $600 hammer, Congress has threatened the Armed Forces. They’ve been told to give contracts to the lowest bidder and save taxpayers’ money. The Air Force did its job and now Congress is upset. I don’t get it.


123 posted on 03/01/2008 5:56:48 AM PST by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson