Blair rejected by Bush

[Rebecca Loos]

something to ponder

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Rolls-Royce/GE technology was, well, how can I put it, a bit on the tulipe side, and it's fair enough they got rejected?

After all, would you buy something endorsed by Blair?

I don't know, maybe the IT side of the bid was handled by EDS!!! Or Logica. Or Accidenture....

[OwlHoot]

It was the same relationship that sent our armed forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly Bush could have influenced the decision without risking impeachement

But let's not forget, Blair has been trying to ride with the hounds and run with the fox in that he has committed the UK to some EU joint defence force and defence procurement scheme.

Not too sure of the details, but it's definitely a strategic decision and much more than a token "toe in the water" gesture, and apparently as a result for all practical purposes the US have cancelled any special arrangements with the UK in the military sphere. After all, in twenty years they may well be at war with the EU!

(I think the UK in similar vein will also be an active participant in the new Galileo GPS system, which is another sore point with the US as China is also involved.)

[AlfredJPruffock]

Tell him we'll pull out of Iraq if he doesn't give us the 'kin contract.

Thats more the langauge that Bush understands.

I wonder what Maggie would have done ?

PS If the US doesnt want it , why not flog the technology to Iran ?

[AtW]

So then Atw How do you think Harliburton managed to get all those Iraq contracts and a few where there was no other competing bids allowed ?

The keyword was "no other competing bids", they won by default - and its okay for US politician to lobby US company, but clearly not okay to do so for a foreign company - Tony Blair has no right to make political contributions for next elections there

[AlfredJPruffock]

This kind of stuff won't work and quiet rightly so.

All those contract competitions have rules and I am pretty sure its a serious offence for politicians like Bush to interfere, its illegal and also his american buddies want contracts even more badly.

So then Atw How do you think Harliburton managed to get all those Iraq contracts and a few where there was no other competing bids allowed ?

[Mailman]

Atw

It was the same relationship that sent our armed forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly Bush could have influenced the decision without risking impeachement.

Looks as if Tonys Shoulder To Shoulder statement was a one way street.

Another failure from Blair.

And look at the sh1t being thrown at Tony by goons like you

Mailman

[AtW]

Tell him we'll pull out of Iraq if he doesn't give us the 'kin contract.

This kind of stuff won't work and quiet rightly so.

All those contract competitions have rules and I am pretty sure its a serious offence for politicians like Bush to interfere, its illegal and also his american buddies want contracts even more badly.

[PerlOfWisdom]

Tell him we'll pull out of Iraq if he doesn't give us the 'kin contract.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Why the F$$K anyone would expect to be winning contracts due to "relationship" between leaders? It is certainly out of Bush's hands, he'd get impeached for this sort of crap, so no wonder his advisors told him not to interfere.

Atw

It was the same relationship that sent our armed forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly Bush could have influenced the decision without risking impeachement.

Looks as if Tonys Shoulder To Shoulder statement was a one way street.

Another failure from Blair.

[AtW]

Why the F$$K anyone would expect to be winning contracts due to "relationship" between leaders? It is certainly out of Bush's hands, he'd get impeached for this sort of crap, so no wonder his advisors told him not to interfere.

[foritisme]

Maybe BennO can put him up

[Dundeegeorge]

Ah well, at least the Indians still like him

It's just a shame he doesn't **** off to somewhere that they do like him....

[AlfredJPruffock]

Seems that Blair is a PM with a great future behind him , even GW Bush has given him the cold shoulder ...


ROLLS Royce, Britain’s aero engine maker, and General Electric of America, are reported to have lost out on a multi-billion dollar contract to supply engines for America’s F-35 joint strike fighter after Prime Minister Tony Blair’s appeals to President Bush were rejected.

A Reuters report late Friday based on sources claiming close ties to defence contractors and the Pentagon, says Blair ended a video conference with Bush last week “empty-handed”.

It is believed the Pentagon wants to kill the engine being developed by GE and Rolls-Royce.

Under the Pentagon’s plans more than 2,400 F-35s would be built in three models for the US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Britain’s Royal Navy.

Rolls-Royce and General Electric won a $2.4bn (£1.4bn, E2bn) development contract from the Pentagon last July based on having a choice of two engines for the first batch of F-35s. The other engine is being developed by the American company Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies unit.

A spokesman at the White House would not confirm what was said between Blair and Bush in the discussions. “We don’t get into characterising those private conversations,” said Frederick Jones.

Blair has raised the issue in two video conferences and in an earlierletter, confirmed Rhian Chilcott, head of the Washington office of the Confederation of British Industry, the industry group representing British firms such as Rolls-Royce.

The Rolls-Royce/GE development contract was to run through to September 2013. It would have led to huge earnings from the sale of spares and maintenance of the engines over their projected 40-year life.

The Pentagon plans to spend some $256bn, its biggest purchase, on the radar-evading, single-seat F-35 being developed by Lockheed Martin.