Ganley and McEvaddy Working for the Yankee Dollar

Friday April 25th 2008

Self Serving US Military Agenda of Messrs Ganley and McEvaddy - Creighton

Should the Pentagon Decide on the Future of Europe?
Fine Gael European Affairs Spokesperson, Lucinda Creighton has today questioned whether the motivation for Ulick McEvaddy and Declan Ganley's opposition to the Lisbon Treaty is their central involvement in the provision of US military equipment and intelligence. She asked whether their financing of the No to Lisbon campaign in Ireland is less to do with concern for our sovereignty or any other high-minded ideals and more about their personal economic interests in the United States military.
She stated: "The trenchant opposition of these two men to the Lisbon Treaty is perfectly logical. It has nothing to do with high aspirations and ideology. In reality, the two men are as pragmatic as one would expect of two such successful businessmen. Messrs Ganley and McEvaddy's own personal economic and military interests in the US must be directly informing their own positions in opposing the Lisbon Treaty."
Mr. McEvaddy stated in an interview with the Sunday Business Post on January 21st 2007 that: "I have huge connections with the U.S. military and, if it came to using them, I would."
Deputy Creighton said: "Messrs Ganley and McEvaddy have major business interests in the US (Omega Air - McEvaddy; Rivada - Ganley)**. US foreign policy has traditionally been opposed to EU integration. The US supports the EU as an economic bloc but nothing more. The idea of a politically strong EU, acting as a check or counterbalance on the US does not sit well with our transatlantic friends. This policy has long been evident in NATO, where the US has consistently opposed the expansion of NATO to the new EU member states. And now as stronger political union becomes likely, these two figures with close links to the US military are trying to derail the process.
"The businesses of both Ulick McEvaddy and Declan Ganley are heavily dependent on contracts from the State Department, the Pentagon and US Government Agencies. I believe that these men are a lot less concerned about Irish sovereignty and the wording of the Lisbon Treaty than they are about the potential hit to their own personal business interests.
"The disingenuous arguments of Messrs Ganley and McEvaddy in relation to the Lisbon Treaty debate deserve to be exposed. It is time Declan Ganley and his friends admitted that their resourcing of the No to Lisbon campaign may simply and solely be about personal economic self interest, not about protecting the interests of the people of Ireland."
ENDS
**Check websites:
http://omegaaviationservices.com/wst_page2.html
"From the beginning, Omega Air has identified a market for both military and commercial applications for the Boeing 707, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and various other airframes. Omega is the world's largest trader in B707 aircraft and the largest single suppliers of B707 aircraft to the U.S military, having supplied in excess of 35 aircraft to various tanker and Joint STARS programs with 99% dispatch reliability."
http://www.rivada.com/about/index.htm
"Rivada Networks' communications and information technology solutions enable governments and their first responders to rapidly, efficiently and effectively execute homeland security and defense missions"

Hi Kev. Have you got a link to Creighton's statement ?

"McEvaddy wouldn't discuss any rendition-related overtures"


Irish Investor Hopes To Make Big Mark On US Tanker Market

By Rebecca Christie
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
July 13, 2006

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A pair of well-heeled Irish investors are taking on
big defense companies in the race to sell flying gas stations to the U.S. Air
Force.

Irish investor Ulick McEvaddy has little U.S. name recognition, but he is one
of the richest men in Ireland and a well-known developer there. He and his
brother Des are active in Irish politics - sometimes controversial - and were
recently involved in efforts to build a new terminal at Dublin International
Airport.

The brothers also own Omega Air. Officially based in the U.S., the company
owns a fleet of cargo, passenger and military aircraft, including a Boeing Co.
(BA) 707 tanker on lease to the U.S. Navy. Last month, they announced plans to
make a bigger play for U.S. business with a pledge of up to 60 modified DC-10s.

Ulick McEvaddy says he doesn't see Omega in direct competition with Boeing Co.
and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), which want to sell the Air Force new planes.
Instead, Omega wants to offer fuel by the gallon as an "interim solution," and
free up military-owned aircraft for other missions.

Air Force officials have been skeptical that civilian-owned aircraft can fit
in with a combat force. But Omega already has bought 20 DC-10s for the project,
in a gamble that its terms will be too good for the Pentagon to refuse.

"We're building it on risk. If they like it, we think they'll use it,"
McEvaddy said during a recent visit to Washington.

Omega's business model is to buy, own and operate its tankers, and it aims to
sell the Air Force tanking services for at least a decade. The planes would be
dedicated to the Pentagon, avoiding the complications of part-time use, and
Omega plans to hire ex-Air Force pilots and crew.

Air Force Concerns

However, senior Air Force officials say they have yet to see how the planes
would save money. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said the Air Force should
weigh whether hiring tanker services could hurt the military's flexibility and
training opportunities.

McEvaddy says the Air Force's concerns are misplaced and that the Omega DC-10s
will be very similar to its own larger KC-10 fleet, and that it would have the
option of using its own pilots and crew. Citing a Defense Science Board study,
McEvaddy said he expects the Air Force would pay about $10 to $12 per gallon for
Omega's tanking services, compared to the $17.50 per gallon cost of using
military crews.

Many of Omega's ex-Air Force staff may choose to stay in the Air Force's
reserves and could be called up as needed without even changing planes, McEvaddy
said. He said the planes could support combat missions even using civilian
personnel.

"The old bogey is always how do we know we can rely on you in war?" McEvaddy
said. "Nations don't go to war without the public anyway. If you look at the
historic scenarios - Vietnam, Korea - there were as many civilians in theater as
there were soldiers."

To illustrate this point, McEvaddy recalled a phone call from his brother, an
accomplished lawyer and pilot who never served in the military, during the first
Gulf War. When queried on how to handle an incoming scud missile attack,
McEvaddy offered the following advice: "I said, make sure the airplanes aren't
in the same place on the ramp and get into the bunker, Des!"

Unsolicited Bid

Omega has significant experience with the unsolicited bid. The company won its
Navy contract after volunteering a proposal, and it also has offered planes to
the U.K. in case the Ministry of Defence's main tanker plan doesn't work out.
Industry insiders say the company has even approached U.S. intelligence agencies
about tanking services for detainee transfers, to reduce dependence on foreign
air fields.

McEvaddy wouldn't discuss any rendition-related overtures. But he did serve as
an intelligence officer during 10 years in the Irish Army.

Omega Air established itself by dealing in used Boeing 707s, a passenger plane
that is a close cousin of the Air Force's aging KC-135 fleet. But McEvaddy has
been planning a tanker push for many years, based around the idea of a cargo
plane that could load fuel pallets when needed and head off to war.

The first Omega DC-10 tanker is scheduled to make an appearance at next week's
Farnborough International Airshow in England. In the long run, McEvaddy hopes
Omega's tanker services will appeal to the NATO alliance and other U.S. allies,
but the planes can be converted back to cargo planes if there aren't takers.

McEvaddy has been courting the Pentagon steadily. The company sold the U.S.
military used 707s for its Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, a
Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC)-designed spy plane commonly known as Joint STARS.

Also, the U.S. Navy recently announced plans to renew the tanker-services
contract it launched with Omega five years ago. Navy pilots say the Omega plane
has been reliable and easy to work with, and Omega is now preparing a second
plane to join the project.

To make further inroads, McEvaddy has met with staff from Sen. John McCain's
office to discuss the tanker project. McCain, R-Ariz., has been a longtime
critic of the Air Force's tanker hopes, and his approval is seen as an essential
element of any successful tanker plan.

When the Air Force asked aerospace companies for tanker information in late
April, in the first stage of seeking bids, it invited a wide variety of
proposals. The Air Force solicitation asked for information on new planes,
tanker services and also possible overhauls of the existing fleet.

U.S. Alliances

Omega and U.S. engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, part of United Technologies Corp.
(UTX), have said they could join forces on a re-engineering proposal for the Air
Force's current tanker fleet. Pratt & Whitney acknowledges the alliance, but
says it is willing to work with the Air Force on its own as well.

"If Omega does get into the tanker business, we would be interested in working
with them, depending on what airplanes and what engines they need," said Bill
Begert, a retired four-star Air Force general who is now Pratt & Whitney's
vice-president for business development and international programs.

While Begert says there aren't any teaming arrangements at present, Omega and
Pratt & Whitney do have a standing relationship. The two companies hope to
secure a long-sought contract to re-engine the 19-plane Joint STARS fleet, and
it won an initial competition.

The project was shelved during a budget debate, but the team now appears on
track to secure its victory at long last. The Air Force wouldn't name its
prospective winner, but a spokesman said the service has a candidate in mind and
will offer a sole-source contract this summer unless it receives another
proposal at the last minute.

If the Air Force warms to Omega's tanker offering, the company will buy
another 40 DC-10s to add to its bid.

Financing won't be an issue, McEvaddy says, citing the brothers' long-term
banking relationships. The brothers also aren't overly concerned about
short-term returns on their aircraft investments. "We don't have shareholders to
worry about where the bottom line is the most important thing. We can take
long-term views," McEvaddy said.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hi Kev. Have you got a link to Creighton's statement ?

Will check and see.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hi Kev. Have you got a link to Creighton's statement ?

I've read this previously on Lucinda's website, but last time I looked for it I couldn't find it.

In my personal view there isn't a consensus on the American right about the EU. There are elements that would like a weak, Rumsfeld EU-lite version, with defence privatised out to Halliburton, too insubstantial to offer any counterbalance to the US as world military power but good at buying arms and equipment. This would be my feel for what Libertas would like. There are other US views that would prioritise a strong EU, Lisbon style.

France has announced today the intention of rejoining NATO after an absence since 1966. I posted an excellent article on the France-NATO thread that illustrates how some US interests want to see a strong militarised EU as a buffer beside Russia and the Middle East. The EU is best understood historically as an ideological and trade block developed in order to hold territory threatened by the Communist Parties (particularly in France) after WWII. From this point of view the US has always supported a strong, integrated and centralised EU.

Hidden post.

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hi Kev. Have you got a link to Creighton's statement ?

I've read this previously on Lucinda's website, but last time I looked for it I couldn't find it.

In my personal view there isn't a consensus on the American right about the EU. There are elements that would like a weak, Rumsfeld EU-lite version, with defence privatised out to Halliburton, too insubstantial to offer any counterbalance to the US as world military power but good at buying arms and equipment. This would be my feel for what Libertas would like. There are other US views that would prioritise a strong EU, Lisbon style.

France has announced today the intention of rejoining NATO after an absence since 1966. I posted an excellent article on the France-NATO thread that illustrates how some US interests want to see a strong militarised EU as a buffer beside Russia and the Middle East. The EU is best understood historically as an ideological and trade block developed in order to hold territory threatened by the Communist Parties (particularly in France) after WWII. From this point of view the US has always supported a strong, integrated and centralised EU.

Afternoon Prickly Flower,

Did you not catch the advice of the wonderful man who was Bush's boy at the UN?
John Bolton, hawk of hawks, was in Ireland last week encouraging a NO vote. (Ref Irish Times page 9 Monday before the referendum.)
Bolton told us we should vote No because any possible future EU Rapid Intervention Force or military bloc would undermine the power of Nato i.e. the US in Europe.
Thinking there was no point preaching to what I felt were the more converted, I posted a reference to the Bolton piece on politics.ie. It was met with a sceptical response i.e. 'if this was true we would know about it.'
So I uploaded the article. But those open minded patriots at Libertas lleft the article up there for all of 80secs. It then reappeated edited for "copyright" reasons. Curiously all relevasnt quotes backing what I stated had gone. What was left merely backed up the allegations that I was some sort of crank.
[b]

P.S. CACTUS

That statement is there now.

Kevin.

Hidden post.

Kev Bar wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hi Kev. Have you got a link to Creighton's statement ?

I've read this previously on Lucinda's website, but last time I looked for it I couldn't find it.

In my personal view there isn't a consensus on the American right about the EU. There are elements that would like a weak, Rumsfeld EU-lite version, with defence privatised out to Halliburton, too insubstantial to offer any counterbalance to the US as world military power but good at buying arms and equipment. This would be my feel for what Libertas would like. There are other US views that would prioritise a strong EU, Lisbon style.

France has announced today the intention of rejoining NATO after an absence since 1966. I posted an excellent article on the France-NATO thread that illustrates how some US interests want to see a strong militarised EU as a buffer beside Russia and the Middle East. The EU is best understood historically as an ideological and trade block developed in order to hold territory threatened by the Communist Parties (particularly in France) after WWII. From this point of view the US has always supported a strong, integrated and centralised EU.

Afternoon Prickly Flower,

Did you not catch the advice of the wonderful man who was Bush's boy at the UN?
John Bolton, hawk of hawks, was in Ireland last week encouraging a NO vote. (Ref Irish Times page 9 Monday before the referendum.)
Bolton told us we should vote No because any possible future EU Rapid Intervention Force or military bloc would undermine the power of Nato i.e. the US in Europe.
Thinking there was no point preaching to what I felt were the more converted, I posted a reference to the Bolton piece on politics.ie. It was met with a sceptical response i.e. 'if this was true we would know about it.'
So I uploaded the article. But those open minded patriots at Libertas lleft the article up there for all of 80secs. It then reappeated edited for "copyright" reasons. Curiously all relevasnt quotes backing what I stated had gone. What was left merely backed up the allegations that I was some sort of crank.
[b]

Now , Kev Bar, I'm not one for name callin but you did start two threads within a couple of minutes on a very similar topic with particular men in your sights

Hidden post.

I apologise for opening two threads simultaneously. I forgot i was not dealing with Cochrane and those wonderful liberal humanists at politics.ie and did so hoping that one would last longer while they distorted the other.
Apologies again.


McEvady refuses to deny he is involved in mid-air rendition refueling
by Kev Bar Today at 4:16 pm

"McEvaddy wouldn't discuss any rendition-related overtures"


Irish Investor Hopes To Make Big Mark On US Tanker Market

By Rebecca Christie
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
July 13, 2006

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A pair of well-heeled Irish investors are taking on
big defense companies in the race to sell flying gas stations to the U.S. Air
Force.

Irish investor Ulick McEvaddy has little U.S. name recognition, but he is one
of the richest men in Ireland and a well-known developer there. He and his
brother Des are active in Irish politics - sometimes controversial - and were
recently involved in efforts to build a new terminal at Dublin International
Airport.

The brothers also own Omega Air. Officially based in the U.S., the company
owns a fleet of cargo, passenger and military aircraft, including a Boeing Co.
(BA) 707 tanker on lease to the U.S. Navy. Last month, they announced plans to
make a bigger play for U.S. business with a pledge of up to 60 modified DC-10s.

Ulick McEvaddy says he doesn't see Omega in direct competition with Boeing Co.
and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), which want to sell the Air Force new planes.
Instead, Omega wants to offer fuel by the gallon as an "interim solution," and
free up military-owned aircraft for other missions.

Air Force officials have been skeptical that civilian-owned aircraft can fit
in with a combat force. But Omega already has bought 20 DC-10s for the project,
in a gamble that its terms will be too good for the Pentagon to refuse.

"We're building it on risk. If they like it, we think they'll use it,"
McEvaddy said during a recent visit to Washington.

Omega's business model is to buy, own and operate its tankers, and it aims to
sell the Air Force tanking services for at least a decade. The planes would be
dedicated to the Pentagon, avoiding the complications of part-time use, and
Omega plans to hire ex-Air Force pilots and crew.

Air Force Concerns

However, senior Air Force officials say they have yet to see how the planes
would save money. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said the Air Force should
weigh whether hiring tanker services could hurt the military's flexibility and
training opportunities.

McEvaddy says the Air Force's concerns are misplaced and that the Omega DC-10s
will be very similar to its own larger KC-10 fleet, and that it would have the
option of using its own pilots and crew. Citing a Defense Science Board study,
McEvaddy said he expects the Air Force would pay about $10 to $12 per gallon for
Omega's tanking services, compared to the $17.50 per gallon cost of using
military crews.

Many of Omega's ex-Air Force staff may choose to stay in the Air Force's
reserves and could be called up as needed without even changing planes, McEvaddy
said. He said the planes could support combat missions even using civilian
personnel.

"The old bogey is always how do we know we can rely on you in war?" McEvaddy
said. "Nations don't go to war without the public anyway. If you look at the
historic scenarios - Vietnam, Korea - there were as many civilians in theater as
there were soldiers."

To illustrate this point, McEvaddy recalled a phone call from his brother, an
accomplished lawyer and pilot who never served in the military, during the first
Gulf War. When queried on how to handle an incoming scud missile attack,
McEvaddy offered the following advice: "I said, make sure the airplanes aren't
in the same place on the ramp and get into the bunker, Des!"

Unsolicited Bid

Omega has significant experience with the unsolicited bid. The company won its
Navy contract after volunteering a proposal, and it also has offered planes to
the U.K. in case the Ministry of Defence's main tanker plan doesn't work out.
Industry insiders say the company has even approached U.S. intelligence agencies
about tanking services for detainee transfers, to reduce dependence on foreign
air fields.

McEvaddy wouldn't discuss any rendition-related overtures. But he did serve as
an intelligence officer during 10 years in the Irish Army.

Omega Air established itself by dealing in used Boeing 707s, a passenger plane
that is a close cousin of the Air Force's aging KC-135 fleet. But McEvaddy has
been planning a tanker push for many years, based around the idea of a cargo
plane that could load fuel pallets when needed and head off to war.

The first Omega DC-10 tanker is scheduled to make an appearance at next week's
Farnborough International Airshow in England. In the long run, McEvaddy hopes
Omega's tanker services will appeal to the NATO alliance and other U.S. allies,
but the planes can be converted back to cargo planes if there aren't takers.

McEvaddy has been courting the Pentagon steadily. The company sold the U.S.
military used 707s for its Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, a
Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC)-designed spy plane commonly known as Joint STARS.

Also, the U.S. Navy recently announced plans to renew the tanker-services
contract it launched with Omega five years ago. Navy pilots say the Omega plane
has been reliable and easy to work with, and Omega is now preparing a second
plane to join the project.

To make further inroads, McEvaddy has met with staff from Sen. John McCain's
office to discuss the tanker project. McCain, R-Ariz., has been a longtime
critic of the Air Force's tanker hopes, and his approval is seen as an essential
element of any successful tanker plan.

When the Air Force asked aerospace companies for tanker information in late
April, in the first stage of seeking bids, it invited a wide variety of
proposals. The Air Force solicitation asked for information on new planes,
tanker services and also possible overhauls of the existing fleet.

U.S. Alliances

Omega and U.S. engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, part of United Technologies Corp.
(UTX), have said they could join forces on a re-engineering proposal for the Air
Force's current tanker fleet. Pratt & Whitney acknowledges the alliance, but
says it is willing to work with the Air Force on its own as well.

"If Omega does get into the tanker business, we would be interested in working
with them, depending on what airplanes and what engines they need," said Bill
Begert, a retired four-star Air Force general who is now Pratt & Whitney's
vice-president for business development and international programs.

While Begert says there aren't any teaming arrangements at present, Omega and
Pratt & Whitney do have a standing relationship. The two companies hope to
secure a long-sought contract to re-engine the 19-plane Joint STARS fleet, and
it won an initial competition.

The project was shelved during a budget debate, but the team now appears on
track to secure its victory at long last. The Air Force wouldn't name its
prospective winner, but a spokesman said the service has a candidate in mind and
will offer a sole-source contract this summer unless it receives another
proposal at the last minute.

If the Air Force warms to Omega's tanker offering, the company will buy
another 40 DC-10s to add to its bid.

Financing won't be an issue, McEvaddy says, citing the brothers' long-term
banking relationships. The brothers also aren't overly concerned about
short-term returns on their aircraft investments. "We don't have shareholders to
worry about where the bottom line is the most important thing. We can take
long-term views," McEvaddy said.

[quote="Kev Bar"]I apologise for opening two threads simultaneously. I forgot i was not dealing with Cochrane and those wonderful liberal humanists at politics.ie and did so hoping that one would last longer while they distorted the other.
Apologies again.

None required

We're not stuffy here, Kev Bar, start threads to your heart's content but I would imagine that if you did it on a specific site that was promoting an opposite view of yours, they'd want to screw with your posts

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

We're not stuffy here, Kev Bar, start threads to your heart's content but I would imagine that if you did it on a specific site that was promoting an opposite view of yours, they'd want to screw with your posts

Go díreach, Seathrún. Akrasia abused me in the ISEQ thread, but do I change it? No. That would be a perversion of free speech, something which Mods should keep to the forefront in their duty.

Kev Bar needs to get out more.

I'd be very interested to know if that luverly pair has any links to M16, or the Tories

Their agenda would suit those people too..

expat girl wrote:

I'd be very interested to know if that luverly pair has any links to M16, or the Tories

Their agenda would suit those people too..

You're a sharp one, expatgirl.

cactus flower wrote:

expat girl wrote:

I'd be very interested to know if that luverly pair has any links to M16, or the Tories

Their agenda would suit those people too..

You're a sharp one, expatgirl.

I'd be surprised if they hadn't. I wouldn't trust either as far as I could throw them