U.S. Company Boeing Lost $4.5 Billion Contract Because of NSA Spying

Posted by Tina

PJ Media:

The U.S. lost a fighter jet contract with Brazil worth $4.5 billion in the wake of the South American country’s anger over revelations that President Obama’s intelligence agencies spied on the personal communications of President Dilma Rousseff.

Boeing was considered to be the front-runner for the contract with its F/A-18 Super Hornet until the leak from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

Think of the job security for union members wrapped up in all that money.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to U.S. Company Boeing Lost $4.5 Billion Contract Because of NSA Spying

  1. Libby says:

    So …?

    Are you grieved because we’ve been indiscriminately spying … or because we got exposed for indiscriminately spying?

    But you may be comforted (and surprised) to learn there is a little more to it. I mean, does a sensible purchaser go with an inferior product because of some tacky (well, maybe criminal) behavior? It makes sense for the Brazilians to go with SAAB, which makes an aircraft more suited to an emerging economy … not so many expensive bells and whistles.

  2. Tina says:

    Grieved? I don’t know if that actually would come close to what I’d feel in that situation. If I were Boeing, who was reportedly the frontrunner in the bidding, I’d be more than ticked off that my government’s terrible foreign policy efforts (and lack thereof) had denied my company and my employees a major opportunity.

    Let’s face it, this administration has not been good for business generally. It has not engaged with other countries in a way that did Americans proud, whether enemy or friend.

    ” It makes sense for the Brazilians to go with SAAB, which makes an aircraft more suited to an emerging economy ”

    Not if the Boeing bid was lower.

    There is a very good chance that Brazil took the occasion to poke America in the eye, even if it cost them a few million.

    Brazil isn’t the only country to express great displeasure with the president and his “Stasi” like NSA.

    By the way, Brazil asked for a product and there is a chance that in their request for quote they defined the level of bells and whistles they wanted.

  3. Libby says:

    “… I’d be more than ticked off that my government’s terrible foreign policy efforts (and lack thereof) ….”

    I’m glad to see you picking up new syntactic effects … very gratifying, but I think you’re confused. The NSA has been on a tear since 2001, which has only just been exposed. Obama can be faulted for failing to restrain the beggars.

    And it’s not for any “lack” of foreign intervention that we are in the dog house with several of our global neighbors.

    Some big cell/phone/system manufacturer (Cisco, I think) is truly pissed. Their would-be Chinese customers (big and growing companies) will not buy Cisco systems … cause they don’t want to be spyed on!

  4. dewey says:

    The Tea Party is for privatized military!.

    You do not see ea party helping the rest of us try to get a hold on the NSA. Not a peep.

    Hum GW and his phony 911, war in Iraq and the patriot act? Yep then the NSA goes on steroids? Gh Bush and his carlyle group making millions spying on Americans?

    That is the Big Gov, the privatized Industrial Military complex

    Audit the fed and the Pentagon and years of secret American terrorists will be revealed. The world has a right to hate us.

    So now is that not the free markets?

  5. Tina says:

    Libby “intervention” isn’t the only Lego in the box. This administration sucks at diplomatic relations with our allies, he hasn’t done much better with those who tolerate us, and he’s been a disaster with our enemies. Hillary and now Kerry…what the heck did they bring to the job in the way of diplomatic experience?

    Obama isn’t forgiven the spying because nobody thinks he can be trusted.

    Cisco and other tech companies have plenty to be upset about. Obama glad hands these big players and makes all kinds of promises and then sticks it to them first chance he gets…all in secret meetings, mind you. (The most transparent….) Whether this is by evil design or simply by a combination of arrogance and ignorance I don’t know. What I do know is the man is not to be trusted, nor is anyone under him!

    As for China there’s some talk of a big debt crisis coming soon…yeah they’ve been borrowing too!

  6. Tina says:

    Dewey: “So now is that not the free markets?”

    No Dewey, that, to the degree that you are correct, is big government run amok!

  7. Libby says:

    “Obama glad hands these big players and makes all kinds of promises and then sticks it to them first chance he gets…all in secret meetings, mind you.”

    We’ll be wanting proof of this Tina. Nobody’s buying your paranoid fantasies on spec.

    In fact, I do believe I read that the Brazilian jet fighter negotiations have dragged on through THREE American administrations and were getting to be something of a joke.

    Finally … the Brazilians get off the pot, but I expect they will make troublesome customers, and Boeing is well out of it.

  8. Tina says:

    Libby you may be right about that. I’m sure its little consolation to the employees who hoped for the security that job would have provided.

    As for the players I wasn’t speaking about the Boeing job. I was talking about his private little talks with tech giants, bankers, and insurance groups. Corporatist deals were made in private (green energy) and intimidation tactics were used in some cases (Insurance and banks). Examples in the news:

    Washington Times:

    On Jan. 23, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan met in Chicago with several Democratic state attorneys general (AGs) in an attempt to strong-arm them into signing up for an administration-backed agreement to settle the “robo-signing” scandal. Wall Street would pay what sounds like a large fine ($25 billion), and in exchange, the state AGs would relieve the bankers of all legal liabilities related to the fraudulent mortgage-lending practices that led directly to the 2008 financial meltdown and a 30 percent drop in U.S. home prices.

    The Foundry:

    Ever since the results of the government’s stress tests were released, banks across the country have been rushing to escape from their TARP traps. Now comes more details on how they got snared to start with. Documents made public this week by the Treasury Department – pursuant to a Freedom of Information request by the advocacy group Judicial Watch provide a glimpse into the October 13, 2008 meeting at which then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson arm-twisted CEO’s of the nation’s nine largest banks into ceding hundreds of billions worth of equity in their enterprises to the U.S. government.

    The fateful meeting appears from the documents like a James Bond movie performed by the Keystone Kops. The nine bank CEOs were called to the gathering without being told why. Once there, they were – as evidenced by ‘talking points’ used by Paulson – told in no uncertain terms that they would be selling stock to the feds. “We plan to announce the program tomorrow – and that your nine firms will be the initial participants.” In case anyone missed the subtle message, Paulson added “We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out, because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.”

    NYT:

    Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and his advisers have been quite active, sometimes negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president’s rhetoric.

    Early last month, for example, hospital officials were poised to appear at the White House to announce a deal limiting their industry’s share of the costs of the overhaul proposal when a wave of jitters swept through the group. Senator Max Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman and a party to the deal, had abruptly pulled out of the event. Was he backing away from his end of the deal?

    Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support.

    Real Clear Politics:

    WASHINGTON — Candidate Barack Obama offered a lofty vision of how his White House would operate. When the details of health reform were being hammered out, he vowed, “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”

    The campaign even aired an ad singling out Billy Tauzin, the drug industry’s chief lobbyist. “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies,” Obama said in the ad. “And you know what? The chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that.”

    Now, it turns out, the Obama White House has cut a backroom — actually, Roosevelt Room — deal with Billy Tauzin: Drugmakers would ante up $80 billion in savings in return for a promise that Medicare wouldn’t be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

    “We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,'” Tauzin told The New York Times.

    Imagine that.

    The White House, playing the political version of “Deal or No Deal,” is backing away, rather unconvincingly, from its initial confirmation. In New Hampshire Tuesday, Obama raised the prospect of getting more from drug companies. But the episode underscores the dangerously wide gap between Obama’s idealistic campaign-trail promises and the gritty realities of real-world governing.

    Politico what a laugh…”gritty world of governing”

    This isn’t an example of governing…this is an example of Chicago style politics, plain and simple, he would do anything to shove this down the throats of the American people, including making deals (bribing and intimidating) companies and harming people when they lose their insurance in the middle of treatments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.