McCain's Boeing vendetta

T

toybox99615

New member
"One of John McCain's most celebrated achievements in recent years was his crusade to block a Pentagon contract with Boeing for a new fleet of midair refueling tankers. Incensed over what he denounced as a taxpayer "rip-off," McCain launched a Senate probe that uncovered cozy relations between top Air Force officials and Boeing execs. A top Air Force officer and Boeing's CFO ended up in prison. Most significantly, the Air Force was forced to cancel the contract—saving taxpayers more than $6 billion, McCain asserted.

But last week, McCain's subsequent effort to redo the tanker deal was dealt a setback. Government auditors ruled that the Air Force made "significant errors" when it rebid the contract and awarded the $35 billion project to Boeing's chief rival, partners European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (or EADS) and Northrop Grumman. It's likely the Air Force will have to redo the bid yet again, which analysts say will delay the replacement of the fleet's 1950s-era refueling tankers. The auditors' ruling has also cast light on an overlooked aspect of McCain's crusade: five of his campaign's top advisers and fund-raisers—including Tom Loeffler, who resigned last month as his finance co-chairman, and Susan Nelson, his finance director—were registered lobbyists for EADS.

Critics, including some at the Pentagon, cite in particular two tough letters McCain wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in 2006 and another to Robert Gates, just prior to his confirmation as Defense secretary. In the first letter, dated Sept. 8, 2006, McCain wrote of hearing from "third parties" that the Air Force was about to redo the tanker competition by factoring in European government subsidies to EADS—a condition that could have seriously hurt the EADS bid. McCain urged that the Pentagon drop the subsidy factor and posed a series of technical questions about the Air Force's process. "He was trying to jam us and bully us to make sure there was competition by giving EADS an advantage," said one senior Pentagon official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive matter. The assumption within the Pentagon, the official added, was that McCain's letters were drafted by EADS lobbyists. "There was no one else that would have had that level of detail," the official said. (A Loeffler associate noted that he and Nelson were retained by EADS after the letters were drafted.)" http://www.newsweek.com/id/142658

So in his zest to care more about vengeance against Boeing McCain sells out American workers. Nice attribute for a presidential candidate.
 
Although one of them will win....

It seems that neither of the big political parties can pick a "winner".

It seems we have reached the point where the majority of those seeking high political office are not the kind of people who ought to hold high political office. Now it may be that people have always felt this way, I can't say for sure, but I suspect so.

So what are we to do? It does seem to be a fact of life that decent honest people don't often get very far in politics. Do we continue to vote for the least crooked appearing candidate? Or the crooked one that seems most on our side? Any way you can look at it, it looks ugly.

I wonder how many other "skeletons" will come out of the candidates closets before the vote in November.
 
I have an 'obligation' to vote, not just the right. I don't see a whole lot in either of these guys, so I have to go for the one who will do the least damage. First on the list is, of course, 2nd Amendment, second is nomination of judges, including Supreme Court.

btw, the parties did not pick these guys - the people did in the primaries. Makes you wonder what they were thinking, huh? Style over substance?
 
Yeah, another story from a liberal mag with a source from some secret anonymous source. Who happened to own Boeing stock, and who supports Obama. Big surprise there. :barf:

McCain has a lot of experience in the military. And with military contracts. Obama is entirely devoid of any experience with the military. I suppose that Obama was too busy complaining about the Iraq war (while, at the same time, he was voting to fund the Iraq war) to scrutinize multi-million dollar contracts for equipment our troops will be using.

Anonymous official, indeed. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: and I love the title of this thread, as though McCain has some kind of "vendetta" against Boeing:

McCain's main objection is that the Pentagon awarded the contract under a special method known as "other transaction authority," which reduces government oversight of the contract.

The method was developed to provide flexibility for smaller research projects, but was not intended for major suppliers such as Boeing, the second-largest defense contractor in the U.S., critics say. They complain that it circumvents some controls against waste and arbitrary price increases, as well as regulations that prohibit military officials from discussing future employment with suppliers with whom they've recently negotiated procurement contracts.

Ken Boehm, director of The National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group, said these loopholes open the way to cost overruns and pricing irregularities. Boehm's group was instrumental in the tanker investigation and worked closely with the federal government on it.

He told the Senate panel that "Boeing is an exceptionally poor choice" to integrate all the other contractors on the FCS project because the lead integrator "has to have the trust of the government and of the other firms."

The Government Accountability Office had raised the issue of significant risks in this contracting process. Its representative said that the Army's decision to proceed with the contract had been "premature" because the individual components had not been fully examined before the contract was awarded.

McCain is likely to pursue amendments to the FCS, said Boehm, "to prevent its final cost from spiraling out of control."

Boeing spokesmen declined to comment on the contract.
Click to expand...

Did the GAO have a terrible "vendetta" against Boeing, too? Did Newsweek mention that? Did the 'anonymous official' have any comments about the GOA's concerns about the contract? Come on, folks, you gotta be better with the McCain bashing. At least put some effort into it. Obama-rama!!!
 
disprove the article and

its content. Otherwise Fremmer your just an unhappy camper who does not want to believe thier candidate could ever do anything wrong. The information in the article gives you ample things to dispute. Either the two former McCain campaign finance people were or were not registered lobbyist for EADS. Prove they were not. Either the two letter written by McCain exist or they do not. Prove they do not.

Simply claiming the article is wrong is nothing more than whimpering until you disprove the content.

Attempting to make the issue McCain contract experience over Obama's is not even remotely connected to the issue of McCain involvement with this contract.
 
The proof would be that they DO. The article is authored by an unhappy camper that seeks to reshape the facts of an event to form an IMPLICATION and to build off that implication the conclusion that a vendetta exists.

Look, the 'PatH' type articles are out there and the the consumers of them abound. In short order the 'rest of the story' comes out in the threads and the usual 'ugh' from those lacking the vitriolic need to hate. At some point the farmers and foragers of such stories have repeated the behavior so often that the threads are all but discounted when the originator of those threads is seen. All that remains is for the like minded vitriolic haters to drop in their '+1 patriot' post and for the op to avoid the presented facts and insist on proof that something DIDN'T happen (a known impossibility).

There are sites where the attendees have the same mental perversions and where such tripe gets an audience. I have no doubt whatsoever that the 'patriots' here know it well.
 
I'm sorry, but that article is terribly slanted.

The initial deal was a complete gimme to Boeing where the Air Force would lease the planes. First, leasing is always more expensive than buying. Second, in this case the rate of return granted to Boeing was about twice as much as that earned by airline leasing companies. Third, Darleen Druyun, a senior Air Force acquisitions officer essentially acted as Boeing's representative inside the Air Force. She was looking out for Boeing's interests, not the Air Force's interests. She disclosed information about the Airbus bid to Boeing. While continuing in her position in acquisition of the tanker, she started employment negotiations with Boeing -- once again a clear conflict of interest. She was sentenced to 9 months in jail. The Boeing CFO Michael Sears also plead guilty.

Throwing out the first deal was definitely the correct thing to do.

It appears that during the second go around, the Air Force once again managed to screw up the acquisitions process (google CSAR-X if you want to see another Air Force f*** up). Is it any wonder why the current SECDEF canned the civilian and military heads of the Air Force?

Comparing the two aircraft, the A330 certainly has significant advantages of the 767. It is significantly larger, can offload much more fuel, and can carry more cargo and personnel. Whether or not those offset its disadvantages isn't clear to me. You can find discussion of the two here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=315624

Note, however, that most of the folks on pprune.org are from across the pond and some of them are undoubtedly just as biased as folks in Seattle.

Boeing certainly hasn't had much success with its current 767 tanker program. The KC-767 programs for Japan and Italy are very, very late and over budget.

Personally, I'd hate to see EADS get this contract. But the acquisition process needs to be fair. The last two go arounds have been anything but.
 
the essence of the issue

"Personally, I'd hate to see EADS get this contract. But the acquisition process needs to be fair. The last two go arounds have been anything but." M1911

To me that is the real significant issue at hand. How the process got FUBAR is the question. If in fact McCain was in the middle of the process I believe it is a significant reflection on his character. To date McCain has not disputed the existence of the letters.


No doubt the article is slanted. But what article is not when you get into the facts of the matter.

Now a few folks want to discredit the author or the publication. Interestingly enough a similar story appears here http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gaAtVQvXK6iqv6u9iNF0sLIR58VgD91COSUO1 on the AP site by a different author and another version here on FOX http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/setback-for-mccain-on-air-force-tanker-contract/ and another on CBS at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/ap/politics/main4193203.shtml I say the proof of the letters existence is in the preponderance of the evidence: all major publications and news networks claim the letters were written by McCain.
 
................and vendetta didn't appear in any of them. If the letters exist let them be made pubic for vetting rather then have others claim what they say. Release them and let's see that that they don't rebuke those companies and detail thier misdeeds and challenge them to answer for those deeds if they fight the contract being redone in the proper way. Let's see em'.

Seems the issue is about corrupting the GOA process. McCain does have a strong anti-corruption record. Especially since the Keeting Five case. His pursuit of corruption has at times been over zealous. It's good that a Presidential candidate has such attributes. It's also good that we have a Presidential candidate with such a strong ability to influence. After all, that's what leadership is. Neither Obama, Clinton, or Paul (also legislators) can show the ability to influence fellow leaders to thier way of thinking.

Like the results or not the truth is the man is a leader. He has demonstrated leadership ability. McCain is only about 15% as bad as he is made out to be. Those that seem to be bent on reshaping facts to allude to implied potential indiscretions that could show possible problems with him will find a human being. Now comparing a lifelong record of service to this country to someone that has little experience in some areas and none in most could be twisted into a record void of mistakes verses one riddled with errors.

I bet you have made fewer errors in your record of service to the country too.

That said I don't smell anything wrong with this one. If anything it gives Boeing, or another American company, another shot to keep this contract on American soil. That actually a very good aspect his leadership on this topic. It also shines disinfecting sunlight on the Democrat led Congress oversight and the unorthodox means a foreign entity was awarded this Defense contract.

Bravo McCain for providing leadership to rectifying this obviously wrong headed contract to have our national Defense contracts outsourced and fighting to keep American manufacturing jobs and control over the tools of our national defense here in America where it belongs.
 
Remember, Bruxley, you have to disprove the allegations of an anonymous source, and if you can't do that, then it must be true. Just ignore the fact that the first contract -- the one that the GAO didn't like -- was a complete mess. In fact, ignore the GAO completely, because that doesn't fit the conspiracy theory. Or about the lease issue. And ignore the air force officer's conviction. And ignore the Boeing official's resignation and conviction. Because those facts don't lend themselves to support the conspiracy theory, and those facts make it much harder to bash McCain.

By the way, where was Obama when all of this was going on? Why didn't Obama do anything about this? Or is 'business as usual' good enough for Obama? Why didn't he step up as a leader should to stop that contract? At least McCain had the guts to do something about it.
 
Justice

is provided for by laws and courts. It is not the prerogative of the Air Force, the GAO or McCain as a member of the Armed Service Committee to dispense justice to Boeing for what ever improprieties that might have previously taken place with Boeing. The military personnel involved with dismissed by the military. Stopping Boeing from being a bidder may have been justified. But they did not stop Boeing from bidding they apparently changed the process in the middle of the bid. Perhaps the failure to justifiably stop Boeing for some impropriety by a legal means would pass muster to all of us; this process does not.


Fremmer once again your trying to tie Obama to an issue that only involves McCain. Your feeble attempts to turn the issue will not absolve McCain. Fact and documentation that McCain was not involved nor did he influence the process is the matter at hand.
 
It is not the prerogative of the Air Force, the GAO or McCain as a member of the Armed Service Committee to dispense justice to Boeing for what ever improprieties that might have previously taken place with Boeing.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely McCain's duty to stop the crappy bid that Boeing was trying to shove through. Somebody had to take charge, and nobody other than McCain stepped up to put an end to a bloated, unfair bidding procedure that was going on. Especially when an Air Force officer was trying to influence the bidding process. The contract called for a lease rather than the purchase of equipment. And it wouldn't have provided for proper oversight of costs and payments. McCain did exactly what he was supposed to do, which was to stop a contract that could have resulted in a huge waste of money. McCain fulfilled his duty. Obama showed absolutely no leadership concerning this matter, which clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the military and military contracts.

Stopping Boeing from being a bidder may have been justified. But they did not stop Boeing from bidding they apparently changed the process in the middle of the bid.
Click to expand...

McCain stopped Air Force officials from influencing the bidding process, and he stopped the lack of oversight of costs and payments. Notice that Boeing's CFO resigned because of this whole mess? But if you want business as usual, and lots of earmark pork spending, and military contracts without proper safeguards, then Obama's your man. Because Obama -- a United States Senator -- did absolutely nothing concerning the original, screwed up bid that Boeing wanted to push through. I suppose that Obama just didn't know enough to take action, but maybe he can learn how to conduct proper oversight someday. Maybe.

The GAO agreed with McCain that the bidding process wasn't proper. You do agree that both the GAO and McCain didn't agree with the bidding process, correct? And where are the letters that were allegedly written by McCain? We'd all like to see them. I'd appreciate it if you would provide a link so that we can see them ourselves, rather than having to rely on what some anonymous source supposedly said. Then I'll be a happy camper. :)
 
Frankly, since much of the work is going to be done by Northrop Grumman in Mobile, Alabama, I DO SUPPORT the EADS deal. The fact that their tanker is superior confirms this.

Or, do we really want to choose the inferior craft just to keep Boeng happy?

Davis
 
GAO decision

appears to support the Boeing claims that the process was screwed up. Now lets see what happens. Just make the process fair and equatable and watch the results.

Bye the way there are lots of pilots posting on various other boards who differ on which aircraft would be better. From my reading I'd estimate the split is darn near 50-50 when it come to one over the other (Boeing v AirBus.)
None of the posting I've read have indicated the Boeing is inferior to the Airbus. Lot of reasons why some pilots like one over the other: most of which are pilot experience with flying one or the other.
 
Again, Bravo McCain for providing leadership to rectifying the specious way this contract was awarded. Although it may not have been the intent of the OP to present McCain as the strong leader in rectifying this, it does show character that you are able to see it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top