There's been a lot of hoopla over the Qataris offering the US a replacement for the backup VC-25 aircraft. Much of it centering on the false premise that the aircraft is being given to Trump. The assumption being that the giver of a gift, is doing so to get something in return.
France gave the US the Statue of Liberty, Britain gave the US the Resolute Desk, other countries regularly give gifts to the US or POTUS, without expecting a quid pro quo.
Although I guess you could say that the US did return the favor by saving the asses of both the French and the Brits when they were in grace danger of being conquered.
I guess the Qatari order of something like $160,000,000 worth of jets form Boeing might be a concern as well. Oh wait, that benefits the US.
3 comments:
Happened to have heard on Hannity's radio show this afternoon that the Qataris have pumped something like $8 billion into our military base there. While it's a concern that Qatar has terrorist ties, that does not preclude finding ways to negotiate deals of any kind, which could lead to a lessening of ties to terrorists. What's more, doing such deals increases our influence which lessens the influence of others, like China, Russia or Iran. To what extent is debatable of course, but to suggest that it has no such effect is naive.
I've heard several jet and security-related experts note that it takes years to retrofit a normal jet to be the level of secure that an AirForce One requires. I mean, they've been working on the current one since signing the contract for it in 2017. They project that AirForce One (two of them, actually) will be done by 2027.
Presuming that starting from scratch with this Qatari "gift" would take a similar amount of time (or even if it was done in half the time!), it's not like Trump will be able to use this in THIS administration.
AND, we'll (you and I, mind you) have to pay for THIS "gift" to be retro-fitted to be an AF1.
How is any of that rational? JUST to let Trump think he got a fancy gold palace in the sky... that he won't even be able to use?
And then, there is the question of what happens AFTERWARDS, where Trump has said it would be decommissioned and put in his presidential library. So, that would be going to Trump, the man's, personal presidential library (IF he doesn't decide NOT to decommission it... do you REALLY trust that felon to do what he says?), it is a personal gift to one man, NOT a gift to the citizens of the US.
How does any of this make fiscal or rational or moral sense?
Well, if you've heard "several experts", (unnamed, anonymous) then we should obviously defer to your "experts" because you've said so.
It's absurd to think that a VC-25 should take 10 years to bring up to the appropriate level of security.
When you admit that you're "presuming" than treat your presumption as fact, it makes your bias show through loud and clear.
The point being that it's not about Trump. It's about having a presidential airplane that isn't old. It's not like Trump gets to keep it, it belongs to the US as a whole.
Yes, the US taxpayers have always paid for a presidential plane and airplanes are not magical. They age and need to be replaced from time to time, which is paid for by the US taxpayers.
Your obsession with bashing Trump for every and anything, no matter how bizarre, simply makes you look foolish.
It's always amusing when you go off on these flights of fancy and act is if your fantasies are real. If, as you claim, this aircraft MIGHT end up as a static display at a potential presidential library, who cares? How does that benefit Trump at all? If he doesn't decommission it, and the next POTUS (or the next several) use it, then your conspiracy theory goes up in smoke.
How about if you apply your "fiscal and moral sense" argument to all government policy decisions of all administrations.
Post a Comment