Financial Times
Pelosi points finger at McCain on Boeing
By James Politi and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: March 7 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 7 2008 02:00
function floatContent(){var paraNum = "3" paraNum = paraNum - 1;var tb = do ent.getElementById('floating-con');var nl = do ent.getElementById('floating-target');if(tb.getElementsByTagName("div").length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagNam e("p")[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[0]);}}}}The controversy over the Pentagon decision to award a $35bn refuelling tanker contract to EADS spilled into the presidential race yesterday, when a senior Democrat suggested that John McCain, the Republican nominee, was responsible for the deal being "outsourced" to a European company.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, said Boeing had been on course to supply the US Air Force with tankers until Mr McCain "intervened".
"My understanding is that it was on course for Boeing before. I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Ms Pelosi told reporters.
"Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be - this work may be outsourced."
The air force originally chose Boeing to supply it with 100 tankers. But Congress cancelled the deal after it emerged that Darleen Druyun, a former top air force acquisitions official, had held illegal job discussions with Boeing while still negotiating the deal. Ms Druyun admitted boosting the value of the deal to help Boeing.
Mr McCain has pointed to his aggressive investigation into the Boeing deal as evidence that he is willing to stand up to powerful corporate interests.
The tanker scandal claimed the career of former Boeing chief executive Phil Condit. Ms Druyun and Mike Sears, Boeing's former chief financial officer, were sent to jail.
The suggestion by Ms Pelosi came as Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill opened a new line of attack against the deal, which ultimately could be worth more than $100bn as the air force replaces its entire fleet of about 600 in-flight refuelling tankers.
Pat Roberts, a Republican senator from Kansas, where Boeing has a strong presence, claimed the decision to award the deal to EADS and Northrop Grumman, its US partner, ran counter to US trade policy.
Mr Roberts said the decision "defies common sense" because the US was pursuing a subsidies case against Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, at the World Trade Organisation.
"This is an outrage. It truly makes me question our trade agenda," the Kansas senator told the Senate finance committee.
Mr Roberts' attack follows a spate of criticism in Congress. The decision stunned most analysts, who expected Boeing, which has supplied the US military with in-flight refuelling tankers for five decades, to win.
Boeing will have 10 days to lodge a protest with the Government Accountability Office, the oversight arm of Congress, after it receives an air force briefing.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Before you award McCain the Dwight D. Eisenhower Courage Award for opposing the Military Industrial Complex, understand that those EADS tankers will be assembled in Georgia, adding a couple hundred new jobs to our Military Industiral Complex...albeit in a more Republican state.
So he's in the pocket of the European Military-Industrial Complex.
Than Kansas? What?
Would you rather we just not get new tankers?
So let me get this straight... Boeing had an insider who conspired to boost the value of the contract to build 100 tankers. In other words, they were conspiring to defraud the taxpayer.
In light of this, somebody from Congress intervened to prevent Boeing from getting away with it. Another contractor got the job as a result. The Boeing CEO was fired, and the CFO, along with the conspiring insider, went to prison.
And now, Congresspeople and Senators with Boeing ties are crying foul.
Why is this about McCain? Why isn't it about the unethical and illegal conduct by Boeing and its unseemly influence in Congress? isn't this exactly the kind of corporate/lobbyist influence against the public interest we decry in this country? By jumping on the protectionist bandwagon here, we're just playing into the hands of K Street and the pork peddlers.
Nancy Pelosi is just proving that she is a shameless corporate who will go to the mat for a company like Boeing against the taxpayer, in spite of whatever liberal veneer she purports to possess. Remind me how this is supposed to reflect badly on McCain?
Barack Obama claims to stand against the influence of corporations and lobbyists in Washington. When will he rebuke Nancy Pelosi?
Than Washington and California, where the bulk of Boeing and it's employees are located. Hence Pelosi's deep concern.
this so outweighs the fraud in Iraq.
clambake... you're such a shemale.
Just trying to outdo you in relevance on this topic.
so new fraud beats old fraud?
so old fraud justifies new fraud.
in a sense, apparently.
so because Iraq was a fraud in your sense committed by Republicans, New Fraud committed by Democrats is ok.
What exactly does the fraud in Iraq have to do with the fraud in the Boeing case? Are EADS or Airbus implicated in a fraud case in Iraq? Is John McCain? Are you arguing that because Cheney has been a corporate for Halliburton in Iraq, it is therefore OK for Nancy Pelosi to be a for Boeing? Or are you arguing that because Bush and Cheney are Republicans, no Republican is allowed to try to stop fraud? Perhaps you're arguing that because of the fraud in Iraq, we should just embrace all fraud by defense contractors? Maybe fraud is OK if it helps the economy in blue states?
pssst. They were going to build the planes in Kansas (you think E.S. was just blowing smoke?)
psst. Plane parts are manufactured by several diffrent plants at several different locations...including, for example, California.
Hence Pelosi's concern.
Not if the planes are built in Alabama?
But a lot of the executives are in Washington and California. What, you think assembly workers are giving the big campaign contributions to Pelosi and Murray? If those two aren't openly whoring for Boeing, Boeing will buy influence elsewhere.
You need to understand that lobbyist influence is a good thing when lobbyists fill up Democratic coffers.
They will be assembled in Alabama, parts manufactured overseas (mostly France).
I'm not calling you a liar; dont' need a gotcha here; figure you have it.
Please link your source for the source of parts for each manufacturer.
(also, I figure now you are ON record for supporting Boeing in this matter, regardless of their criminal behavior?)
This is clear contrast between right and left viewpoints.
Those of us on the right of this issue think that the purpose of building a military aircraft is for military operations, and that the primary criteria for buying a plane should be getting the best plane for the taxpayers' money.
Those of us on the left think that the purpose of building a military aircraft is to create jobs in states that vote Democratic, and that the primary criteria for buying a plane should be creating as many new jobs as possible that Democratic politicians can point to when they run for re-election.
Those of us on the right find it appropriate that Boeing did not get the contract, since it acted criminally in attempting to steal money from the taxpayer.
Those of us on the left find it inappropriate that Boeing did not get the contract, since inflating the contract as a bribe is a small price to buy for getting more public-sector jobs in your district.
I take this incident as an object lesson in the confidence we all should have that Democratic leadership will clean up the culture of corruption propagated by the Republicans they replaced.
the Dwight D. Eisenhower Courage Award
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
