On Jan 31, 9:59 am, "The Patriot" <xxx...@charter.net> wrote:

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."<scie...@zzz.com> wrote in message

news:79f10dc6-f64b-47ab-a7e3-39bae5eac207@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 30, 10:01 am, "The Patriot" <xxx...@charter.net>
wrote:

"Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA" <scie...@zzz.com>
wrote in
messagenews:e264608e-7950-4c73-885e-e5e4457ff787@o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 12:10 pm, "Hager" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Let's just say that Sarah Palin is hated by the
Leftard Liberals almost as
much as George Bush or Dick Cheney. There isn't a
day
when they don't go
into an orgasmic frenzy some new tidbit, usually a
lie, that surfaces
somewhere in the Blogosphere.
Sarah is to them what that Botox-injected, bongo
drum
tautly stretched
formerly wrinkled facial leather of that Standard
bearer of Liberal idiocy,
one Nancy Pelosi, is to us Conservatives.

Go Sarah ... I hope you have a long, long career
driving the Liberals morons
into a frenzy for those final few inches that
separate their insanity from
the cliff their black Pied Piper is about to lead
them over.

God bless you Sarah ... go kill and skin another
Moose ... or a Caribou ...
if you see something in the Alaskan bush that
resembles a big Asshole ...
don't shoot ... it's probably a Liberal, following
the lemmings headed for
..... well, anyway ... not worth the waste of ammo.

Palin is for nitwits, fools, people who eat feces and
drink urine--
sounds like your typical debunker.
******************************************************
It seems that you will stoop to nothing to advance
your agenda. You useless piece of crap. You are a
degenerate human being. I hope you are the next
criminal to be hung.

Shut up and start eating your crap, when you are done
with your
delicious meal, go straight to the nearest FEMA camp.
And take the
rest of your truth-terrorist cult with you.  Earth has
had enough of
your kind!!

Sir Art
****************************************************
Sie m ssen sich Herr Hitler zu wischen.

From the Pentagon to the private sector - In large numbers, and with
few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

An hour after the official ceremony marking the end of his 35-year
career in the Air Force, General Gregory “Speedy’’ Martin returned to
his quarters to swap his dress uniform for golf attire. He was ready
for his first tee time as a retired four-star general. But almost as
soon as he closed the door that day in 2005 his phone rang. It was an
executive at Northrop Grumman, asking if he was interested in working
for the manufacturer of the B-2 stealth bomber as a paid consultant. A
few weeks later, Martin received another call. This time it was the
Pentagon, asking him to join a top-secret Air Force panel studying the
future of stealth aircraft technology.
Martin was understandably in demand, having been the general in charge
of all Air Force weapons programs, including the B-2, for the previous
four years.

He said yes to both offers. In almost any other realm it would seem a
clear conflict of interest — pitting his duty to the US military
against the interests of his employer — not to mention a revolving-
door sprint from uniformed responsibilities to private paid advocacy.

But this is the Pentagon where, a Globe review has found, such
apparent conflicts are a routine fact of life at the lucrative nexus
between the defense procurement system, which spends hundreds of
billions of dollars a year, and the industry that feasts on those
riches. And almost nothing is ever done about it.

The Globe analyzed the career paths of 750 of the highest ranking
generals and admirals who retired during the last two decades and
found that, for most, moving into what many in Washington call the
“rent-a-general’’ business is all but irresistible.

From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star
officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according
to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who
followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998.
In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual
clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and
admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly
90 percent.

And in many cases there is nothing subtle about what the generals have
to sell — Martin’s firm is called The Four Star Group, for example.
The revolving-door culture of Capitol Hill — where former lawmakers
and staffers commonly market their insider knowledge to lobbying firms
— is now pervasive at the senior rungs of the military leadership.
Among the Globe findings:

■ Dozens of retired generals employed by defense firms maintain
Pentagon advisory roles, giving them unparalleled levels of influence
and access to inside information on Department of Defense procurement
plans.

■ The generals are, in many cases, recruited for private sector roles
well before they retire, raising questions about their independence
and judgment while still in uniform. The Pentagon is aware and even
supports this practice.

■ The feeder system from some commands to certain defense firms is so
powerful that successive generations of commanders have been hired by
the same firms or into the same field. For example, the last seven
generals and admirals who worked as Department of Defense gatekeepers
for international arms sales are now helping military contractors sell
weapons and defense technology overseas.

■ When a general-turned-businessman arrives at the Pentagon, he is
often treated with extraordinary deference — as if still in uniform —
which can greatly increase his effectiveness as a rainmaker for
industry. The military even has name for it — the “bobblehead
effect.’’
“We are changing the perception and maybe the reality of what it means
to be a general,’’ said retired General Robert “Doc’’ Foglesong, who
retired as the second-ranking Air Force officer in 2006.
“The fundamental question,’’ he said, “is whether this is shaping the
acquisition system and influencing what the Pentagon buys. I think the
answer is yes.’’

A postretirement business  - Some members of Congress who served in
the military said the system needs much stricter disclosure rules.
With few exceptions, all the Pentagon requires now is for retired
officers to wait one year before directly advocating for a contract
before the specific military branch they served in. “A lot of these
guys earn two to three times their retirement money,’’ said Senator
Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and West Point graduate. “If you
are deriving a significant portion of your nonpension income from
defense companies actively engaged in contracting — especially if you
are also involved in these advisory panels — that should be disclosed.
“When I was an officer in the 1970s, most general officers went off to
some sunny place and retired,’’ he added. “Now the definition of
success of a general officer is to move on and become successful in
the business world.’’

Representative Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, a retired three-star
admiral, said that when he was in uniform he saw firsthand the
influence retired admirals have when they are brought in to advise the
Navy. “Rank did mean something. The principal guy in the room really
drove the thing. There is a hesitancy to question them,’’ he said. “If
there isn’t transparency or knowledge of who they are working for when
they are advising the Pentagon, you are building a military that is
not all it can be.’’

Martin and other generals interviewed by the Globe maintain that their
postretirement consulting business is ethical and beneficial for
America’s defense. They said it matches private-sector expertise with
crucial Pentagon missions. “Access sounds sleazy, but it brings a
value,’’ Martin said. “I am interested in doing things that I think
the Air Force or [Department of Defense] might benefit from.’’
Martin and Northrop Grumman declined to discuss the details of his
activities on behalf of the company. Martin said his ongoing role as
chairman of the Air Force Studies Board is mostly limited to deciding
what to study, not making specific recommendations.

“I do not substantially influence the findings of studies that could
help my clients,’’ Martin said. Yet judging the validity of such
assertions is difficult. Even fellow participants in the two-year
stealth aircraft study, for example, said they were not told of
Martin’s industry clients. Seth Bonder, a member of the National
Academy of Engineering who also participated on the panel, said, “I
never knew what Speedy was doing elsewhere. I don’t inquire what he
has in terms of industry connections.’’ Bonder said disclosure of
potential conflicts would be desirable, to prevent confidential data
from reaching contractors at an early stage. “You get privied
information,’’ he said.

Clear potential for conflict  - There was a clear sense of urgency as
top Army officials and advisers converged on the National Defense
University’s campus on the banks of the Potomac River for a high-level
meeting in June 2009. Their goal: develop ideas for the Army’s next
ground combat vehicle. The Army badly needed to get a new tank program
rolling after its previous effort resulted in an embarrassing, $14
billion flop. A veil of secrecy surrounded the event. The Army did not
publicly disclose the guest list for the meeting. It required
participants to sign nondisclosure agreements. And to block potential
bidders from gaining an unfair advantage, defense contractors were
pointedly excluded.

Yet, defense contractors had a robust presence inside. At least six
retired generals invited by the Army were also consultants or
executives of defense companies that would bid on the new tank
contracts, according to a meeting roster obtained by the Globe. The
roster did not list their private-sector affiliations. Each was listed
by the Army only as “distinguished participant.’’ Contacted by the
Globe, several generals said they disclosed their potential conflicts
of interest to the Army, on ethics questionnaires, before arriving at
the meeting.

The Army refused to comment on the ethical issues raised by the
generals’ presence and declined to release copies of the ethics
disclosure forms, citing privacy concerns. It confirmed, however, that
no one was disqualified from participation based on their responses.
A look at some of those attending suggests that there was ample
potential for direct conflicts. Retired Army Lieutenant General
William H. Campbell oversaw all of the Army’s information systems
before leaving the service in 2000. Since 2002, he has been employed
as a senior vice president at BAE Systems, one of the Army’s primary
weapons suppliers and a major bidder for the new ground combat
vehicle.

Campbell said in e-mail responses that he did not have a conflict of
interest because he works in the electronics division of BAE, not the
ground combat division, which is bidding to build the new tank.
Campbell and BAE declined to say how much, if any, of the electronics
system in the new tank might be produced by Campbell’s division at
BAE. But Campbell suggested that other generals at the meeting may
have been skating closer to the edge. “I think there is a danger of a
real or perceived conflict of interest when an individual who is
working on a defense program provides external advice to the military
on the very same program, in either an official or unofficial
capacity,’’ he said. Campbell did not name names.

BAE had another representative in the meeting room: retired Lieutenant
General Joseph L. Yakovac, formerly the top deputy to the Army’s
senior acquisition official, who was advising BAE on the ground combat
vehicle as a private consultant. It was Yakovac who had overseen,
while in uniform, the failed, $14 billion “future combat system’’
program. And the office he once ran was in charge of devising the new
combat vehicle. Some of the active-duty officers now running the unit
previously worked for Yakovac, including Major General John Barley.
Nevertheless, Yakovac said he was assured by Army lawyers he could
offer advice without running afoul of any ethics rules.
The new system is considered a separate contract by the military,
freeing him to take an advisory role. As a rule, Yakovac said, he does
not seek to influence former Army colleagues on matters involving his
private defense clients. And he said he provides clients with advice
that is based solely on publicly available information.
“You spend 35 years in an ethical place,’’ he said. “You don’t leave
that at the door.’’

Another retired general at the session was General John H. Tilelli,
who was the vice chief of staff of the Army before retiring in 2000.
He now runs Cypress International, which has a consulting agreement
with Science Applications International Corporation, another bidder on
the ground combat vehicle program, confirmed Melissa L. Koskovich, a
corporation spokeswoman. Retired General William S. Wallace, who ran
the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command before retiring in 2008, said
he was not representing one of the prospective bidders at the time of
the meeting. Like the other participants, however, one of the ethics
questions he was asked to answer, according to a blank copy, was
whether he intended to consult in the future for a client that may
have a direct interest in bidding on the new tank.

Wallace declined to say how he answered that question. Wallace
confirmed that he is now a consultant for General Dynamics Land
Systems Division, which is seeking to win the ground combat vehicle
contract. But he insisted he does not use his Army contacts to further
the business interests of his clients. On this point, the public is
essentially left to trust the word of Wallace and other retired
generals that they do not improperly trade on their influence and
access. That’s because they are almost never required to divulge their
clients, or say how much they get paid. The few rules that do guide
the Pentagon influence trade prohibit only a narrow range of sales
activities.

Navigating ethical issues  - The one-year “cooling off’’ period
prohibits a retired general or admiral from directly making a sales
pitch to their former military branch. For two years after retirement,
the Pentagon prohibits them from participating in “particular
matters,’’ meaning ongoing contracts greater than $10 million that
were under their command. New editions of older weapon systems — like
the new ground combat vehicle — are not considered “particular
matters.’’
“Even if restrictions apply, ‘behind the scenes’ work is permitted, so
essentially they can assist a new employer as long as they don’t place
the call or show up at meetings,’’ said Scott Amey, the general
counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group.
The generals who navigate these ethical minefields said they are
capable of managing potential conflicts without oversight, because of
their own integrity.

“You have to have a firewall in your head,’’ said industry consultant
and former Vice Admiral Justin D. McCarthy. But a number of retired
generals contacted by the Globe said they are uncomfortable with the
laxity of the system and refuse to use their Pentagon contacts to win
private clients. Air Force Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Eickmann, who
frequently dealt with defense contractors when he was on active duty,
is among them. “I always felt uncomfortable dealing with former
generals working for those companies,’’ said Eickmann, who retired in
1998 and is now a senior fellow at the Energy Institute at the
University of Texas. “Sometimes I felt like they were relying on a
past friendship to get me to do something.’’

William “Buck’’ Kernan, a retired Army four-star general who recently
left Military Professional Resources, Inc., a company that provides
training, logistics, and other support to the military, believes
trading on such access and influence raises difficult questions.
“I didn’t like people doing it to me when I was a four-star, a three-
star, even a two-star — using a previous relationship as an entree to
selling me something,’’ he said. “The perception from the outside of a
previous superior now dealing with a previous subordinate can cause
all kinds of questions.’’Navy Admiral William J. Fallon said he turned
down consulting offers after learning that defense industry clients
were seeking “tactical’’ information from inside the Pentagon. Said
Fallon: “I didn’t want to be a walking Rolodex.’’

Humvee lobbying pays off  - The Humvee is perhaps the most visible
icon of modern warfare — bulky, tough, and ubiquitous on battlefields
in Afghanistan and Iraq. But this year the Army said it would build
them no more. Instead, it proposed shifting half a billion dollars in
money for new Humvees to a program of fixing up old models, which Army
officials determined would be more cost-effective.
Whether or not it was a good move for the Army, it was a looming
debacle for the Humvee’s exclusive manufacturer. The firm — AM
General, of South Bend, Ind. — fielded a trio of former military
leaders with major Beltway clout, including retired Army General Jack
Keane, to try to reverse the plan.

A commanding presence at 6 foot 5, Keane, 66, turned in his fatigues
seven years ago for a pinstriped suit. He is now one of the most
influential retired generals in Washington, holding a seat on a high-
level Pentagon advisory panel, the Defense Policy Board, and counting
among his defense industry clients McAndrews and Forbes, the New York
holding company that owns AM General. Keane contacted Army General
Peter Chiarelli, as vice chief of staff the Army’s second-ranking
officer, to make the case that the service should continue buying new
Humvees, Keane confirmed in an interview. He said he told Chiarelli
that he believes the Army needs to maintain a “strategic partnership’’
with AM General, whose relationship with the military dates back to
building Jeeps during World War II. Chiarelli declined through a
spokesman to be interviewed for this article.

Keane also helped AM General make its case to influential members of
Congress, according to a former defense industry official with direct
knowledge of the discussions. Keane was involved in the effort on the
Hill even though he is not a registered lobbyist. He maintained in an
interview that he was not required to register because he does not
spend more than 20 percent of his time contacting Congress, as the
lobbying disclosure laws stipulate. He said he only helps clients
reach the right decision makers in the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill. In
addition to Keane, AM General was paying the Spectrum Group, a defense
consulting firm with a roster of retired generals, about $20,000 a
month to help arrange access to key decision makers, according to a
former Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the contract.
According to a former AM General executive, the AM General account at
Spectrum was overseen by retired Army Lieutenant General John
Caldwell.

Caldwell’s last job before retiring in 2004 was as the deputy to the
service’s top acquisition official. Before that he served as commander
of the Army’s Tank-Automotive Command, the Michigan-based unit that is
responsible for acquiring Humvees and all other ground vehicles in the
Army. Spectrum did not return several calls for comment.
A third retired general helping AM General was General Paul J. Kern, a
member of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, an official military
advisory panel. Kern, who declined a request for an interview, retired
in 2005 as the chief of the Army Materiel Command and was previously
the service’s top acquisition officer. Kern, who served as president
of AM General from 2009 to 2010, is also an associate at The Cohen
Group, the consulting firm that includes a number of high-profile
retired generals and admirals. All that muscle appeared to pay off for
AM General, which did not respond to a request for an interview. In
July of this year, Congress denied the Army’s request to shift more
than $500 million to the refurbishment of Humvees and ordered the
service to use the money to keep buying new ones.
Tom Christie, a former senior Pentagon acquisition official, said the
Humvee debate is a prime example of how defense companies gain by
deploying retired generals. “They are very useful in opening doors.’’

A convincing proposal  - As envisioned by Northrop Grumman, the Fire
Scout — a nimble, remote-controlled surveillance helicopter — would
help troops pinpoint enemies hiding beneath a jungle canopy. With
hovering capability, it could peer into places a Predator drone could
not. But before Northrop could get to work building Fire Scouts, it
first needed to convince the Army the project was a good idea. For
persuasive assistance, it turned to Burdeshaw Associates Ltd.
Burdeshaw was founded in 1979 and is one of the oldest “rent-a-
general’’ consulting firms. It has a reputation for zealously guarding
the identity of its clients, and even its headquarters seems
deliberately low profile, housed above a Safeway grocery store in
suburban Bethesda, Md.

To get the Fire Scout off the ground, Burdeshaw did more than just set
up meetings with key Army decision makers. It was hired by Northrop
Grumman to write a “concept of operations’’ for the aircraft,
according to retired General William Richardson, a former commander of
the Training and Doctrine Command and an adviser to Burdeshaw.
The concept of operations is an official document that is a crucial
step in defense procurement. It lays out exactly how a weapon is
supposed to work and what its mission will be, and provides the
justification for pursuing its development. After the Army adopted the
concept, it gave Northrop a 10-year deal and paid the firm $109
million to build eight Fire Scouts. But they are still sitting at
Northrop Grumman’s Mississippi plant, unused. With little explanation,
the service decided earlier this year that it didn’t need the aircraft
after all.

The Army would not respond to questions about why it canceled the Fire
Scout. Notifying Congress early this year that it was killing the
program, it said it was focusing on other priorities. Burdeshaw’s
chief executive, retired Army General William Hartzog, who until 1998
commanded the Army Training and Doctrine Command, did not respond to
repeated requests to discuss his company’s business.
An official at Northrop Grumman’s Aerospace Systems Division who was
not authorized to speak publicly disputed Richardson’s
characterization of Burdeshaw’s work, saying the firm’s consultants
crafted a series of briefing papers that helped make the case for the
project, not an official concept of operations. Northrop Grumman
declined to comment on the record about Burdeshaw’s work on the Fire
Scout program.

The Army Aviation Center in Alabama, which is responsible for all Army
aircraft, did not respond to several requests to comment on how the
documents provided by Burdeshaw were used. Retired officers frequently
help industry and the military branches develop the concept or
justification for weapons, according to interviews with military and
industry participants. In other cases they try to influence weapons
projects more indirectly: by passing along “white papers’’ and other
documents drafted by their clients that question the rationale for
awarding contracts to their competitors. Wallace, the Army four-star
who retired in 2008 as the commander of the Training and Doctrine
Command, said the phenomenon has grown in recent years. He cautioned
that the Army should only use such private-industry analyses as a
starting point for further work. “I hope [the Army] wouldn’t just take
it and put an Army logo on it and say it’s ours,’’ said Wallace, who
now consults for General Dynamics on the ground combat vehicle
program, among other companies. “Doesn’t sound like a good idea to
me.’’

Tapping a niche market  - The Four Star Group certainly lives up to
its name. The heavyweights on its consulting roster, all retired from
the Air Force, served as chief of staff; deputy chief of staff; chief
of the Space Command; head of the Materiel Command (Martin); and
commander of the Air National Guard. The newest adviser for the group
is former Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters.

What sets these retired generals apart in the military consulting
world — aside from the blatant way their brand touts their old command
authority — is their market niche. They are using their influence and
knowledge of the Pentagon to build a business in equity investing.
The partners in the Four Star Group have an exclusive arrangement with
a $3 billion private equity firm in Los Angeles, the Gores Group,
which awards them an equity stake in companies that Gores acquires
based on their advice. What Gores gets in return is knowledge about
which companies are drawing attention from key Washington decision
makers, or are developing technologies that will be in demand by the
Pentagon. Through their relationship with Gores, the generals own
shares, or could own shares in the future, in firms that make
communications devices for soldiers, blast-resistant glass for
embassies and military installations, and radar equipment.

The Globe identified several other equity firms with defense expertise
that also are deploying retired generals as part of an investment
strategy. Critics say this emerging line of retirement business for
generals raises thorny questions about their access to privileged
Department of Defense information. “The big question is should they be
using their contacts in the military to benefit their new
investment?’’ said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for
Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “At what point
does your fidelity to the military dissipate or go away? Do the
contacts they have in the military benefit their new operations?’’

But Bill Patton, a former corporate executive who helped set up The
Four Star Group and is its chairman and chief executive, said the
firm’s principal owners scrupulously avoid trading on privileged
information.
“I think this is how a company of ethical retired generals should
operate,’’ he said. The generals’ role, he said, is limited to acting
as “assisters, advisers, and introducers.’’

The demand for the generals who can guide investment decisions is
expected to grow in the future, say observers of the trend.
Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark, who now works as a lobbyist and
investment banker for companies seeking alternative energy contracts,
believes the growing hunger among private equity firms and Wall Street
investors to enlist retired generals is a consequence of a broader
phenomenon: the increasing importance of the military to America’s
industrial base.

“It is the militarization of the economy,’’ Clark said in a recent
interview.