Tanker Deal Backlash

The Pentagon's remarkable decision last week to stiff Boeing and award a $40 billion deal for refueling tankers to rivals Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space continues to roil Congress.

A Boeing win was a foregone conclusion -- or so it seemed. As Loren B. Thompson, a defense consultant, told my colleague Dana Hedgpeth in the Post: "It is a stunning upset in which the underdog won...Everybody expected Boeing to win. Boeing has been doing this for half a century, and it was simply assumed they knew what the Air Force wanted better than other companies."

Some members of Congress are up in arms, as they say. This has gotten personal. How dare the DoD give a contract for that many billions to a...European competitor.

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told CQ Today. "I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."

"I am very concerned that this decision means that the women and men in our military will not get the best tanker to meet our nation's security needs," Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) was quoted as saying in the Chicago Tribune.

Other members of Congress? Not so much. It turns out that the lawmakers like Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida whose districts might get work from the deal aren't quite as vexed.

"We really need something like this," Nelson told the Orlando Sentinel. "NASA just said it was cutting jobs in the area, and these 500 new high-tech jobs will really help."

Not surprisingly, Boeing is distressed by the unexpected turn. Among other things, they may have to shut down their 767 line of planes as orders wane in the coming years. They have demanded -- and likely will this week receive -- a debriefing from Air Force officials about just what happened.

More on this from the Financial Times.

And this from Hedgpeth and The Post this morning.

By the way

A few readers -- at least one fairly informed Hill staffer, I understand -- took issue with the suggestion that the legions of Government Inc. readers contribute to the commonweal by probing the depths of procurement data and sharing the illuminating stuff with us. Government Inc. is delicate but tough-minded. Therefore, we ignore the criticism and repeat: We're all ears for any spending tidbits, patterns and the like. Here's the way to the database.

By Robert O'Harrow |  March 5, 2008; 6:12 AM ET defense
Previous: Nuke Detection | Next: Domestic Intelligence, Commercial World


Please email us to report offensive comments.

The issue is whether the US military deserves the best "American-made" aircraft available or the best aircraft available period. The 767 is nearing the end of its life while the A330 is in its prime. As an Air Force reservist with many friends who are Air Force pilots, I am glad to see this award go to the higher-performance aircraft, as opposed to the politically convenient one.

Posted by: Aerospace Engineer | March 5, 2008 8:24 AM

- The B767 has been obsolete for a while, already replaced by the A330 in airline.
- When there was a suggestion to split the contract, Boeing refused saying that it should be winner-take-all. Obviously they were not going to give anything to NG/EADS. As it turns out now, they may have dug a hole for themselves.
- Talk about "Buying America" is just smoke. Big parts of the B767 are built in Japan. Something which many people forget to mention
- The big jobs which were supposed to be created or retained (read retained) will not be lost. This contract is actually a blessing for Boeing. The obsolete B767-line can be discontinued which will make place for a second line of B787. This aircraft had it's share of problems but with the big order book, people are starting to buy Airbus due to the long waiting time. A second line may give Boeing extra delivery slots which will actually make it more money then the two tankers per month it would deliver to the Air Force.
When looking at the facts, I think people will agree that the best airplane/offer won. Remains to see if Boeing will resist the political madness that the representatives are making and accept the decision without spending taxpayers money on an appeal that will not change the decision (if based on merits that is).

Posted by: FVTu134 | March 5, 2008 8:24 AM

Some of us would really like to know a bit more about Loren Thompson, and who are the paying clients of the Lexington Institute. I saw a 20 page glossy brochure written by Thompson on the Northrop website, which looks to be a (Congressional?) briefing paper on the need for a tanker. My suspicion is that this is a product for which the Lexington Institue and/or Thompson was paid by DOD/Air Force or friends of DOD. Lets find out a little more about how Thompson's bread is buttered. The fact that Thompson's cryptic analysis -no real facts- of the tanker win on the Lexington website refers heavily to Northrop rather than EADS/Airbus is troubling. Geeeeze, they are supplying the airplane! And, its one that has never flown as a tanker -EVER! Heck one has never been assembled in a plant yet to be built in Alabama, by assemblers who have yet to be hired and trained. And what about the potential language and cultural barriers with the Airbus partners who don't speak English. Is this some kind of Air Force fairytale. Talk about risk. This scenario has it all.

Thompson has taken on the role of a pitchman for the Air Force. What is even more troubling - and we should all worry about this - is that he, apparantly after consulting undisclosed Air Force contacts, to put a spin on this competition result even before the official factual briefing of Boeing as the loser. Something really stinks with this Air Force procurement practice, and communication through a consultant. The DOD/Air Force needs to be kicked hard in the backside, and The Washington Post has an opportunity to expose it. Get in there and do some real investigative reporting you guys!

Posted by: tbear | March 5, 2008 8:40 AM

I am a registered republican, who will vote democrat this year due to McCains comments that he is glad Boeing did not get the contract.

Posted by: Dianna Pyles | March 5, 2008 8:42 AM

I am amazed at the whining over the granting of a legal contract that was analyzed and given to the best proposal.

If (and Im stratching it here) Boeing did have the better plane, then they had the worst written proposal, which is part of the contest. Instead of wooing our elected officials with buy money, Boeing should have wooed the customer.

Since Boeing illegally tried to scam us on the $20 Billion Lease program for 100 planes (in 2003 Dollars), they should have never been allowed to bid on this contract. Do you allow the person who attempted to ROB your store, become your supplier? I dont think so.

Boeing's modus operandi is to work illegally until it gets its hands caught in the cookie jar and then profess permission.

I would like the WP to investigate what Boeing did to LtCol Smith and how they are still getting away with breaking the law even after writing him an apology.

Posted by: Mr. AWACS | March 5, 2008 9:20 AM

Why does Boeing 'deserve' this contract? The deal seems good for the USAF, and for the economy. Jobs will get created with the NG/EADS win, whereas no new jobs are created with the Boeing deal.

Why should the USAF, who already has an aging fleet, procure aircraft that were essentially designed in the 1970's? Boeing started designing during the Ford adminstration, it first flew in 1981. Let's give our airmen something that isn't technologically older than they are.

Posted by: Kim | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM

DoD has been upgrading it's source selection training over the past decade, training our people to select the best value for the American people. Apparently without political interference, these people chose an American compnay (Northrup) to integrate advanced systems on an international airframe as the best value to the American taxpayers, without sacrificing quality to the DoD. I for one am looking forward to seeing the details of the deal, and to having an upgraded refueling platform

Posted by: Mike | March 5, 2008 10:29 AM

People don't seem to realize that even the 767 is largely made overseas, and the only part of the 787 that's made in the US is the tail. Boeing is the king of outsourceing - it requires subcontractors on the 787 to outsource a fixed percentage of software work to China. Such wailing is hypocritical, at best. But if a foreign competitor was so unacceptable, why has this competition been going on since 2002 and no one in Congress was heard taking exception to it? Because they figured it was fixed in the first place?

Boeing has a history of corrupt dealings (it woon a multi-billion dollar C-130 upgrade program thanks to one), so maybe this is simple payback.

Posted by: Quatermass | March 5, 2008 11:53 AM

Lost in all the gnashing of teeth in Washington State, Kansas and California is the fact that this is a Northrop project, not an Airbus project. What does Nancy Pelosi have to say to Northrop, which is based in California? What about the thousands of jobs that will be created in Alabama where a new assembly plant will be built? The decision should be based on merits alone, but even when viewed with an eye toward economic impact the Northrop bid was more than competative with Boeing's.

Posted by: Wes | March 5, 2008 11:54 AM

To Tbear.

A few facts.

1. The language of Airbus is English and in my experience is spoken to a higher standard to some whom profess to speak English as their first language.
2. The tanker is flying and refuelled a Potuguese F16 for the fist time last Friday (ironically).
3. 60% by value of this contract will be American. How much is the 767 ?
4. The NG EADS offering is superior which ever way you look at it to the 767 tanker. It has won virtually every contest against the 767 it has entered (UK, Australia, Saudi etc.
5. No one was bribed.
6. Not only will Mobile be responsible for the tankers for the USAF but also for the A330 freighter which sold 77 units last year alone in it's first year in the market place. How many more 767's are Boeing going to make ?
7. The A330 has killed off the 767 in the commercial market due to its superiority
8. Europe buys billions of dollars worth of defence and commercial aersopace products annually. Why shouldn't the Europeans have the chance to bid for US contracts ?
8. Major parts of the 767 are outsourced to other countries. Aerospace is a global business not a national one.

And a final thought. Are we really suggesting that American airman will have to use an already obsolete airframe for the next 40 years the is proven to be less capable than it's major modern competitor ?

The moaning politicians don't appear to give a damn about that it would appear and are putting the financial interests of the few above the lives of USAF servicemen. And these people call themselves patriots ?

Posted by: SteveO | March 5, 2008 11:58 AM

After much emoting on the part of Murtha and his Men, the one argument that seemed to carry ANY weight was the one which cited a need for a strong domestic industrial base. Since it's clear that Northrop Grumman is a domestic company (3rd largest Defense contractor) who is already responsible for the sole production of several key parts of the Defense infrastructure (aircraft carriers) I fail to see how this award would weaken our domestic military industrial base. Further, I fail to see any legitimacy to the statements made today such as "Northrop Grumman is a front for the French."

I firmly believe that when Boeing receives its debrief and communicates to its hired guns on the Hill the justification for its loss all of this will go away. The only recourse for Congress would be a huge earmark which instructs the DoD to purchase the Boeing tanker in addition to the Northrop Grumman tanker. An earmark that size, however, is a bit more serious than a "bridge to nowhere." A several billion dollar earmark would take almost historical levels of cooperation in the House and Senate for the benefit of just a few districts.

Posted by: Ed S. | March 5, 2008 1:09 PM

The Airbus plane is not superior. It is too large to land on many runways throughout the world. This can be a problem when you have downloaded your fuel to fighters. The cost to house and fuel the airbus plane is excessive more that the Boeing offering and this will be paid with tax payer money. It will only be a matter of time before the French withdraw support of this plane due to political issues. The creation of jobs in AL is for the lower paying jobs with the greatest amount of profit going to Europe. It is a terrible decision!

Posted by: Outraged | March 5, 2008 1:11 PM

The idea of giving this contract to Boeing would be tantamount go a Government subsidy, similar to what the hypocritical politivians are wailing about EADS gets from the EU. Sorry, but the idea of sending billions of tax dollars to Kansas to build inferior planes just doesn't make sense. Also, I find it exceedingly hard to believe that Boeing didn't know early on that NG was pitching the A330 solution. Instead of addressing the competition (i.e. with a 777 proposal), they decided to try to railroad the USAF, possibly because of a completely misguided sense of entitlement. Finally, to all the people who say Boeing has this magical experience with tankers. The last tanker Boeing built is 40+ ago. The 767 tankers on order by Italy and Japan are now almost three years late. What kind of experience is that!

Posted by: MPE | March 5, 2008 1:35 PM

The real issue in my eyes is that the Air Force changed the parameters it was judging the proposals on. This contest should be rebid if it comes out that Airbus won because the USAF rigged the game. Boeing's KC-777 beats the bejeezus out of the A330.

Posted by: Bob | March 5, 2008 1:36 PM


It depends on your definition of the word superior. Suggest you check your dictionary and then the reasons the USAF have given for the decision.

Why do you insist on calling Airbus a French company ? The French politicians do not control Airbus, they hold 12% of it's parents stock that's all. Airbus is registered in Holland has plants in UK, France , Germany, Spain, China and soon Mobile. It sources globally and uses many of the same suppliers as Boeing.

If fuel economy, the ability to land on small runways and the cost to house the plans were the main criteria Cessna would have won had they entered.

Posted by: SteveO | March 5, 2008 1:47 PM

Uh, OK Bob, if Boeing did have a plan for a tanker version of the 777 it wouldn't have as many knocks against it as the 767, and could very well have won.

But Boeing isn't looking at stretching out it's 777 production, and have never offered a tanker.

Conceivably (since we're just making up stuff), couldn't EADS also offer a tanker version of the A380? Maybe they could put multiple booms on that?

Posted by: Kim | March 5, 2008 3:28 PM

If congress rejects this contract because it has to go to firm that is 100% American, congress has its head up its butt. I am an out of work Oracle DBA, fully half of the IT engineers now working in the USA were brought in from low wage countries and can take what they have learned home with them any day they choose (China is now spending about $50 billion each year to lure the "best and the brightest" home with what they know). What we do know is that the last proposed contract was single sourced and was laden with fraud. If the bidding process does not offer a level playing field, than only one company will bid. You got tax money to support single sourcing every pork laden contract?

Posted by: Harrison Picot | March 6, 2008 8:35 AM

A Seattle Times article or March 6, 2008, "Boeing's tanker bid damaged when Air Force changed criteria...," by Alicia Mundy, refers to and contains a link to a Boeing letter to USAF Contracting pointing out very specific changes in the RFP to which it was responding. This reportedly happened mid-course in the competition. Each of the changes seemed to go in the direction of a larger tanker. At the same time, Boeing was discouraged by the Air Force from switching its entry to the larger 777. Talk about not having a level playing field. Allegedly the need for changes were at the request of one Senator John McCain, so that the Airbus A330 could remain in the running. It is also interesting that the simulation model used in the competition was developed, upgraded and maintained by Northrop (however the USAF runs its analysis on a standalone computer). As of March 2007, Boeing did not have all the manuals, training and documentation to run MCARP model for itself. Of course, Northop did, because they developed the model. Read the Times article, the appended Boeing March 7, 2007 letter and USAF contracting office response. Draw your own conclusions.

It seems entirely appropriate for Congress to look at the process and outcome of the competition, especially if one or more of its members (McCain, or others) gave direction to USAF to change the RFP at a critical time in the competition. The other thing that stinks in this competition is that the A330 is too big to fit in many of the hangers where it would be serviced or stored, thus setting the stage for the Air Force to get new buildings at various facilities, maybe around the world. This additional cost to taxpayers, along with runway strength and length improvement to accomodate the larger airplane was not part of the competition. There are even more infrastructure costs that follow with a bigger footprint airplane. It is what is called a "foot in the door" procurement tactic, and the military knows just how to manipulate it to eventually get what they want in future budgets.

This needs to be fully aired, including any sweetheart deals for Alabama (Senator Sessions) worked out behind the scenes. Another year delay and full disclosure is not a bad thing for the American people, or its would be contractors.

Posted by: Tbear | March 6, 2008 12:00 PM

Nice details Tbear. But the clock is ticking on the existing fleet, especially considering the operational tempo.

I still don't buy the 777 would beat the A330 scenario. They really aren't in the same class. The A330 was built as competition to the 767. As such, they've learned from the 767 and is just a little bit nicer and newer aircraft. The 777 would run into the same sizing issues that you bring up for the A330.

And really, how many KC-135's are parked inside? Servicing would indeed be an issue, but I'd conjecture that existing C-17/C-5 facilities or existing structures for the dearly departed C-141 may be used.

Posted by: Kim | March 7, 2008 1:25 PM


There are actually many times that the aircraft will be parked inside a hanger. Most times fuel cell work has to be done inside a hanger with special equipment. major inspections are done inside a hanger. If the aircraft has to go on jacks, that is usually done inside a hanger, to prevent wind damage. Pain will be done inside a hanger. Many tasks have to be done inside a hanger when there is bad weather.

The 767 wing span is about 156 feet and the length is about 176 feet. The A330 wing span is about 209 feet and the length is about 193 feet.
The wing span of the KC135 is about 130 feet and the length is about 136 feet.

The aircraft may very well fit into a C-5 hanger but will not fit into the already existing KC135 hangers or any of the older C-141 hangers. The facilities will have to be built outright or modified to accept either aircraft, just like the old C-141 hangers were re-built or modified at Charleston AFB as well as McChord AFB to accomidate the C-17.

Posted by: Mike | March 7, 2008 5:05 PM

It just "feels" wrong to me. The failed effort by Boeing et al to Lease aircraft didn't pass the smell test and should not have. This doesn't either. I wonder how the dollar / euro exchange rate will play into this desicion as time goes by?
Granted, the A330 is a newer design but I don't think as rugged as a Boeing design. This is based on my making at least one international trip a month on each manufacture of airplane. Boeing is better.
It is a shame Boeing didn't compete well and it feels as thought the deck was stacked against them by changing specifications and background conversation about their first aborted leasing attempt.
I can't believe the 777 is not a better aircraft and I agree, the 767 isn't the plane for the job...a wonder it was ever offered.

Posted by: GeorgeGest | March 8, 2008 4:24 PM

Erroneous comments continue to be repeated in the media and in Congress regarding this contract award. The following sets the record straight:

Northrop Grumman, a Los Angeles-based company with over 120,000 employees, is the KC-45A tanker prime contractor

* A contract between the U.S. Air Force and Northrop Grumman Corporation for the Northrop Grumman KC-45A was signed on Feb. 29, 2008.

* Northrop Grumman KC-45A primary subcontractors include EADS-North America, General Electric, Honeywell, AAR Cargo Systems, Sargent Fletcher, Knight Aerospace Products, Parker and Telephonics.


* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A U.S. supplier base includes 230 companies in 49 states.

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker will support more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs in the United States -- a conservative estimate based upon the U.S. Department of Commerce aerospace industry jobs projection formula.

* Using more recent data from our suppliers and applying the Labor Department's formula for projecting aerospace jobs at the state and regional level, the KC-45A will employ approximately 48,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide.

* Assembly and militarization of the Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker will take place in Mobile, Ala., resulting in the creation of 1,500 jobs in the United States.

* Job creation was not a part of the evaluation criteria, in accordance with federal law.

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program does not transfer any jobs from the United States to France or any other foreign country.

Repayable Loans / WTO Dispute Issue

* The U.S. Department of Defense ruled that the disputes involving Boeing and Airbus currently being adjudicated by the World Trade Organization were not relevant to the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition.

Acquisition Process

* The KC-45A competition underwent the most rigorous, fair and transparent acquisition process in Defense Department history.

* Throughout the process, both competitors in the KC-45A acquisition hailed the Air Force for conducting a fair and open competition.

* The size of the proposed tanker aircraft was not dictated by the Air Force nor was size an established criteria -- each contractor was free to propose the best solution and platform to meet Air Force warfighter requirements.

* Both contractors had ample opportunity in the protracted acquisition and source selection process to propose the best aerial refueling capability to meet the warfighter's requirements.

Reduced Risk to the Government

* The first Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker aircraft was built in July 2007 and flown in September 2007.

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A Aerial Refueling Boom System has completed 73 test flights totaling more than 200 flight hours. The boom completed the first in-flight fuel transfer on Feb. 29, 2008 passing 2,000 pounds of fuel to a Portuguese Air Force F-16 combat aircraft.

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A is based upon the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B Multirole Tanker -- which has been built, flown, and is undergoing flight tests. It will be delivered on schedule to the Royal Australian Air Force in early 2009.

* Boeing's proposed KC-767AT tanker and refueling boom were never built, flown or tested.

Industrial Base

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program will create a new aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States.

* The KC-45A program helps return competitiveness to the U.S. aerospace industry.

Foreign Content

* All modern jetliners are built from a global supplier base, and the two entrants in the KC-45A competition are no exception.

* Boeing's proposed tanker includes parts manufactured in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and Italy.

* Northrop Grumman tanker includes parts built in the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and France -- countries exempt under the Buy America Law.

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A will include approximately 60 percent U.S. content. It is America's tanker.

Foreign Suppliers to U.S. Military Programs

* There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital U.S. military programs. Foreign suppliers currently play essential roles in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the VH-71 Presidential Helicopter and the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program.

* No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe. For the KC-45A program, a commercial A330 jetliner will be assembled by American workers in EADS's facility in Mobile. The aircraft will then undergo military conversion in an adjacent Northrop Grumman facility. All of the KC-45A's critical military technology will be added by an American company, Northrop Grumman, in America, in Mobile, Ala.

Posted by: KLK | March 10, 2008 9:18 AM

Wasn't Boeing under investagation for milking a contract or something. Now they cry Poor Me Poor Me. To them I say "you own most of washington, had laws fashioned to your liking all so you could manipulate the outcome for your own high profit margins". Why don't you [Boing] go back to building virtual fences at 50% increases. As and American I'm letting you and other BIG companies know what you started [Free Trade] is not free. Deal with it!!!!!!

Posted by: jfisher23 | March 10, 2008 1:12 PM

This is just a small part of outsourcing. soon Americans will have few jobs we can do because big companies like this keep offshoreing and outsourcing. It seems in todays world there is no more American Pride.

Posted by: robert | March 11, 2008 6:42 AM

While I have read the bulk of th comments above, my main concern is one which has never been looked at, (or, indeed, been noticed.

Just for starters, there are three banks which finance much of Boeings work:

Deutsche Bank
Bank of America
Chase Manhattan ( Now in a loose, albeit somewhat unclear, association with J. P. Morgan)

What has that to do with anything?:

I invite you to take the Logos of all three banks and study them for a unifying pattern. Nothing mystical, just how all three llogos are easily converted to a swastika. Doubt it?

Start with Deutsche Bank and its slanted line within a box. Take the square and divide each side in half.. Next, simply unite them with the SLANTED line in the middle.

I read Deutsch Banks reasoning behind the design - and it is as clear as mud.You have to turn each of the four severed corners to an angle linking up with the slanted line in the middle.

Now take Banc Of America (which used to be Bank of Italy until WW2) Take the long arms and cross them. Take the four short arms and place them on the ends of the crossed arms.

My first experience with this idea of convertibility of Logos began with Chase Manhattan due to its (now removed) rapid
convergence to the center and out again.

I have done this with two OTHER BANKS logos. For the last 20 years I have been fascinated with the bank takeovers and/or "mergers", as well the fall of Japanese Banks from the top ten position.

The change coincides with the magnetic stripe embedded in the new currency. A small number of people (one of which ran a training school for pilots on the route up the West US coast,to Alaska, thence to Japan.)

The "Cargo"? : Bundles of newspapers with 100 dollar bills inserted between the pages of the bundled newspapers. The recipients: The Japanese Yakusa (Particularly the head of the Tokyo Ukasa.). The magnetic stripe was detectible through the paper; but not the bills without the mag stripe.

The banks were given the money to use for a year. It was spread across all the banks in the 7 who were in the top ten at that time. After a year, the "Laundering" completed, the Yakusa received a 30 to 40% "payback" over four years time.

Why don'T We look at the present day and notice that McCain (whom I like most of all the wannabes) in either party, (though he may not last his full term)
could suddenly fall heir to all the campaign money he has been lacking in his quest for the Presidency.

The climate of uncertainty these days will be heightened when the STOCK MARKET FALLS BELOW 9000 POINTS ABOUT JUNE OR JULY

The National Debt (Which Pres. Jeffrson
said was "a good thing,as long as it doesn't get too high",) will be further
along because it is not just the "American" elite who want unions
finished off in the U,S,,but NEVER ARISE in the rest of the world. Organizers are being killed off around the globe (or simply imprisoned, as China does it). We are now a debtor nation which has armed every 3rd World Nation with GRANTS OF MONEY put in the rulers hands. A recent study found that only 2% of the money reaches the people. A thied of it goes to Swiss Bank accounts. The rest is given to:





and a lesser number of small nations which can supply ingredients (such as Belgium) necessary to bring this nation down. We are on the precipice now.

That money buys the armaments for the oppressive regimes.

Britain bought our Tank mfg company several years ago. They also bought Arco and Mobile oil. Guess who owns Drilling Rights in the Arctic Preserve? Guess which nations Navy escorted the oil company engineers (in 1955) to Prudhoe Bay while doing a PR blitz to the US that the trip was to "repair the DEWLine."

Taxpayers are so happy to keep us safe. The EXXON MOBILE case will never be settled. Neither will the Tax dollars used to clean up the Alaskan Shoreline be paid, by EXXON, in full.

When an 'ALLY' like Britain can make a profit of 40 BILLION just about everv quarter, and buy American company's(as they have since the 1970's) and then position their military in Iraq at the areas where a trans Afghanistan pipeline would end up in the Basra area, we can only ask why.

England has never given up on regaining the colonies.

Does Bill Gates care a second about his
wealth having been safely developed here
along with stealing ideas wherever and whenever possible?

I ponder just what the Europeans think about losing their legal suits against Gates in such percentages, and then watching the lost suits come back with a new face,perhaps greased by behind the scenes meetings from the TriLats and a few stronger ones up the line plus the familiar Skull and Crossbones trio of 2 Bushes and Clinton.

Did anyone notice that Kerry married a Heinz? Heinz was one of that Fraternity just a tad over 80 years ago.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. What about the grand cabal between Henry Ford and the Rockefellers to suppress the motor Tesla invented and Westinghouse wanted until persuaded otherwise by Edison and Rockefeller. Beware of Magnetic Motors.

The English would lose the oil market they control, even though OPEC is thought to be in charge.

Khadafi gave BLAIR CARTE Blanch to oil rights on the Chad borders so long as England helped in building the huge water conveyance system through to the Chad area from the Mediterranean.

How much money will McCain get? If Exxon can manage, along with its contacts in our august Congress: PLENTY.

Stay tuned for the Air Force to prevail and for a report of the creation of about 100,000 jobs throughout the US South and some in the beleagured Rust Belt.

A Californis Doctor of Philosophy (NOT ECONOMICS) states that the mfg demise in heavy industry was due to Intellectual Growth. For the life of me, I can't find a way to ship goods in a computer; and Japan and Korea are STILL building farm equipment PLUS computers.

Ah' well. I served in the Military and I thought I was doing something to protect America. No good deed should go unpunished.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 16, 2008 8:48 PM

I believe that all the people that decided to use tax payers money to fund the Tanker Deal should be fired. And by the way it is tax payers money, American Tax Payers.

Posted by: H. B. Harvey | April 6, 2008 6:37 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company