« Top Defense Contractors Experience Another 'Boom' Year | Main | Morning Smoke: Who Should Regulate Systemic Risk? »

Jul 23, 2009


Mandy Smithberger

Mr. Thompson, thank you for your comment, and your candor. Unfortunately, your comments still underscore the problems with the integrity and impartiality of "independent" advice. So long as think tank research is funded by defense contractors with a financial stake in the analysis, it will never be a resource that can be relied on to be impartial.


Mr. Thompson,

Your statements are sickening! Maybe I don’t understand think tank funding sources, but why take any money from those with an interest in the outcome of your truths. Did you take money from EADS and Northrop? To me this is just another example of money talking and biasing government thinking. You might want to think twice about your work; the words pawn and prostitute come to my mind.


Loren Thompson

I do not understand why you have cited me in this posting without making some attempt to contact me and get the facts. The facts are that I decided the Bush Administration was right in opposing the alternate engine, and I adjusted my position accordingly. So supporters of the alternate engine terminated their funding to Lexington and opponents discovered we were worthy of a grant. There was no net gain in funding. I just changed my mind.

Also, I did not get in "hot water" on the tanker competition. I just told the world the truth about why Boeing had lost. I thought that's what think tanks were supposed to do.


"Didn't we learn anything from the F-22?"

Yes. We learned that any amount of yellow journalism can swing the vote anyway you want it.

The comments to this entry are closed.