Hillary Does not Understand the Military
Apr 13, 2008 Political
Once again the Socialist part of Hillary Clinton has reared its ugly head. Clinton was speaking at a transmission plant in Indianapolis when she started discussing Pentagon contracts. Ms. Clinton told the workers that the Pentagon would have to look at how a contract affected jobs in America during the award process. Hillary must have missed my article about the Pentagon NOT being a social welfare department.
Speaking at a plant here that builds transmissions for military vehicles, Clinton said she would limit the Defense Department’s ability to buy foreign-made products, in part by making the agency consider the impact on U.S. jobs when it awards contracts. WBAL
Clinton is obviously pandering to people working on a defense project. She is trying to portray problems as a failure of the Bush administration (she used those words) and that she would ensure Americans had work because she would make the Pentagon look at the impact on American workers. This is typical of liberals because they never expect people to have to produce quality in order to be rewarded. I am sure these workers do the best job they can and are proud to be working on items for our troops and I am sure they would not want troops saddled with substandard items just to appease politicians or to ensure jobs.
The Pentagon should not have to look at how jobs are affected. The goal of the Pentagon is to procure the best equipment for our troops regardless of who makes it (short of enemy or potential enemy countries). If American companies want to win contracts then they need to put forth a proposal that shows why they are the best for the job. They need to make superior products for a reasonable cost in order to win. The Pentagon certainly does not select companies because they are the cheapest or the worst so if American companies are not winning it is because their product does not match up, plain and simple.
Once again we have a Clinton using the military as a social program. In this case it is to provide jobs and in her husband’s case it was to make homosexuality socially acceptable by allowing gays to openly serve. The Pentagon is not the social welfare department and exists to make sure we have the best equipment and best troops to defend this nation. Besides, the Pentagon provides a great number of jobs already. People can enlist in any of the branches of the service and they will have a great job.
The Pentagon does not need Clinton or anyone else playing politics with the procurement process. This in and of itself shows why she is not fit to be the President.
Clinton also addressed the issue of security and ensuring our technologies are not sold off to other countries. I wonder why nothing like this was in place when her husband sold missile technology to the Chinese in exchange for donations. Somehow I don’t think the Pentagon is what we need to worry about with regard to security. Seems to me that the Clintons are a security risk in and of themselves.
Hillary has run an abysmal campaign. She has tried to be everything to everyone. She might have had a better chance if she actually took stands and stuck with them (and did not lie) but now she is toast and she is only hanging on because she is delusional (not that I mind them continuing to ruin the party). These recent remarks clearly demonstrate another reason Hillary Clinton should never run this country.
Blame Boeing, not McCain for Loss of Contract
Mar 8, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier about the contract for the military’s refueling tanker and how that contract went to a French company. I did not debate the merits of the contract and instead chose to focus on the outrage expressed over the loss of jobs in America because the contract was not awarded to Boeing. The members of Congress who object to the contract are doing so based upon the loss of jobs and they are still at it only this time they are pointing their fingers at John McCain because he was responsible for nixing the tanker contract with Boeing in the past. The politicians are trying to use the actions of McCain against him in the upcoming presidential election and many union members as well as Boeing employees are joining the bandwagon.
I wrote before and I stick to my point that government contracts should not be awarded based upon the number of jobs they provide and to whom those jobs go. The Pentagon is responsible for ensuring our troops get the best possible equipment regardless of who provides it. The idea that the Pentagon and its contracts are some sort of social welfare is ridiculous. As I stated, I do not debate the merits of the contract because I do not know them. My friend Trip at Webloggin wrote an excellent piece indicating why the contract was a bad one and the potential problems that lie ahead. If members of Congress focused on the points Trip made then I would see their point. The prattle dealing with jobs is not an argument I care to hear because it is irrelevant. Certainly Trip has valid points about the economy but they cannot be the sole reason for the contract. If there are problems with the products and the methods, it is one thing but building the economy or providing jobs is quite another.
Of course, our economy is in a slow down so any chance to cry about jobs is one that Congress jumps at. The same people who are crying about lost jobs are the ones who utter nary a word with regard to all the jobs that ILLEGALS are taking from US citizens. If they close the border and get rid of the ILLEGALS there will be plenty of jobs. I realize the jobs involved are skilled and that Mexicans are taking few, if any, of those. However, John McCain is not the reason those jobs are going to France (but he is responsible for the jobs lost to Mexicans). Boeing is solely responsible for the loss of the contract because the company engaged in illegal activity to get the contract and John McCain caught it and ended it. McCain should be praised for halting corruption.
McCain called such criticism off base.
“In all due respect to the Washington delegation, they vigorously defended the process before – which turned out to be corrupt – which would have cost the taxpayers more than $6 billion and ended up with people in federal prison,” he said. “I’m the one that fought against that … for years and brought down a corrupt contract.”
Keith Ashdown, with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Boeing executives who broke the law were to blame for the demise of the tanker contract – not McCain.
“This was theirs from day one,” he said. “This idea that any lawmaker is to blame is a joke.” My Way News
Boeing executives broke the law and that cost them the contract. That is the bottom line and no amount of finger pointing can change that fact. As McCain points out, many of the people criticizing him are the same ones who went along with the original, illegal, contract. He was the one who stopped it. In other words, the members crying about jobs were more than happy to overlook corruption in order for Boeing to gain the contract and keep jobs here in the US. That is business as usual in Congress and I would bet if we looked at other contracts there is plenty of corruption and these very members were aware and condoned it. I thought that at one time there was talk about denying any company involved in illegal contracting procedures the right to bid on contracts for some period of time. If they had something like that in place perhaps Boeing would not have been able to bid on it at all.
I have problems with John McCain but in this instance I side with him. The money for this contract comes from taxpayers and we deserve to have the money that is extorted from us spent wisely. Corrupt contracts and corrupt politicians cause the need for more money and fuels the Democrat’s desire to raise taxes. People should take a good, hard look at the folks who are upset with McCain and decide if they are the kind of people who are best suited to be good stewards of our money. I think not.
Regardless of how this plays out and regardless of how many fingers get pointed, one thing is for sure, creating jobs is not a valid argument for awarding a contract.
Tags: boeing, contract, corruption, economy, jobs, McCain, tanker