DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » The Tanker Tango » Boeing Dives into the Blogosphere

Boeing Dives into the Blogosphere

KC-767_2.jpg

Now Boeing’s gone all “new media” on us, putting together a web log that focuses on its Tanker Deal protest.

Good on ‘em for recognizing that blogs like DT and Ares and The Dewline are a force to be reckoned with in shaping the debate and often cross-reference within the blog world. But I’ve always found it kind of pathetic when “big business” tries to blog.

I mean, isn’t the appeal of Defense Tech and our other blog friends the fact that we’re not tied to any corporate interests in the defense world? That’s what blogs are for; and the idea that Boeing — or NorGrum/EADS, for that matter — can pump out investigative insights on the subject instead of market-tested bullet points is preposterous. There won’t be any candor. There won’t be any objectivity.

While we have our protest in with the GAO, we wanted Americans to know that the KC-X acquisition process was flawed and clearly understand our reasons for protesting. Boeing firmly believes that changes were made to the bid requirements and evaluation criteria that led the Air Force away from a highly capable, mid-sized tanker and pushed them into selecting a less capable, less survivable tanker.

With a GAO decision on the protest due in twelve weeks, we will continue to tell our story throughout the country in order to leave no doubt that Boeing offered the most capable tanker, at the lowest risk to the warfighter and taxpayer.

Mark McGraw Vice President & Program Manager 767 Tanker Programs.

Oh well.

But that’s okay. Since the blogosphere is open to everyone, everyone seems to think they need a presence in it. We’ll take the info for what it’s worth and move on.

Let’s just keep an eye on the internet jockeying and where it lands.

– Christian

Share |

March 27th, 2008 | The Tanker Tango | 275643 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/03/27/boeing-dives-into-the-blogosphere/Boeing+Dives+into+the+Blogosphere2008-03-27+13%3A39%3A20Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Cyber Defense — and Attack | Corporate Blogs » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Jimbo Jones says:
    March 27, 2008 at 9:05 am

    i’m guessing the Boeing blog will about as biased as this blog is, perhaps less so as we won’t have any loony leftist Kos kiddies posting up on the Boeing blog.…

    Reply
  2. daskro says:
    March 27, 2008 at 9:19 am

    While I can’t speak to the demographic audience of defense tech, I’d imagine that most of us are connected to the corporate interests of the defense world, be it as customers or suppliers. The very nature of this industry, namely the sensitivity of either proprietary or classified information, creates at atmosphere of dialog of “Here is my opinion, but I can’t explain to you why apart from corporate PR statements, Jane’s articles and John Pike references as evidence.” If a corporate blog discloses more information, regardless of how propagandized it may be, than what the public domain currently holds, I think it’s beneficial for the dialog. Many of us are employees of these very corporations and can sort it out accordingly.

    Reply
  3. Kevin says:
    March 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

    It would be hard to be less objective than some of the people they let post here.…

    Reply
  4. SMSgt Mac says:
    March 27, 2008 at 11:18 am

    My beef with Boeing’s ‘blog’ and other ‘faux blogs’ like it (see http://​www​.flightglobal​.com/​b​l​o​g​s​/​g​r​a​h​a​m​-​w​a​r​w​i​c​k​/​2​0​0​8​/​0​3​/​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​t​a​n​k​e​r​-​w​a​r​-​b​e​w​a​r​e​-​b​o​g​u​s​.​h​tml) is that they really aren’t blogs at all, but just another outlet for company marketing or political agendas. I still don’t know if “americasnewtanker​.com” from an earlier DT article is a blog, because the site isn’t up for public consumption yet (I get a login popup)or if it ever will be. All I know right now about it is that it is “Pro” KC-45 because it has started spamming my inbox (although with some fairly factual messages), but it still P*s me off, because it won’t help their cause if they go around spamming people. Its bad manners.
    Compare Boeing’s faux blog with a little place like mine: I posted on how their ‘commercial data rejection’ complaint very much appears to be baseless and provided boring detailed information supporting my argument, and anybody with a Blogger account can comment if they want to disagree. (One reason I use blogger is that it allows somebody to reuse a login from elsewhere– I hate it when little sites make you register for ‘just’ their place.)
    Now look at Boeing’s site where they just regurgitated the same complaint on their blog as in the protest and it is STILL without any supporting material (probably on advice of Counsel). Now add to what is essentially a PR release, the fact that they are moderating all comments. What are the chances of ANY dialog involving info contrary to the protest assertions getting exposure on their website? Maybe over time they can gain some credibility, but Boeing’s site is almost certainly a here-today-and-gone-tomorrow drive-by propaganda mill.
    Remember, Boeing is trying to ‘manage reality’ and I think the KC-45 team is just now waking up to the scale and nature of Boeing’s asymetrical warfare.

    Reply
  5. irtusk says:
    March 27, 2008 at 11:28 am

    > the fact that they are moderating all comments. What are the chances
    > of ANY dialog involving info contrary to the protest assertions
    > getting exposure on their website?
    all my comments have made it so far
    just be sure not to include any links

    Reply
  6. SMSgt Mac says:
    March 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

    BTW: Boeing’s ‘we were mislead’ on tanker size argument is low hanging fruit on the Debunking Tree. I’ll get around to it AFTER I expose them on the ‘we were better because we had more ‘major and minor discriminators’ trope, but here’s a morsel on the topic for now.
    Both the Sep06 and Dec 06 draft SDD Statement Of Objectives (SOO) as well as the Final SDD SOO have the work ‘size’ in them in exactly one place, and that is in the section dealing with parts packaging.
    It is a good thing the acquisistion proces was so transparent and open, otherwise we in the public wouldn’t have access to all this information, would we?

    Reply
  7. SMSgt Mac says:
    March 27, 2008 at 11:32 am

    correction: word ‘size’ not work ‘size’.
    Christian: Can DT get some spell check feature for the few of us non-typists? ;-)

    Reply
  8. SMSgt Mac says:
    March 27, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Hi Irtusk:
    I still have several issues with their site.
    First: Your comments may make it, but how do you KNOW anyone else’s supporting comments do as well? They are exercising the same editorial license as a newspaper editor on the opinion page (where i’ve been burned before). They can control and shape the dialog overtly or covertly and you’d never know.
    Second: I also have a problem with the possibility of their site being a direct feed into their management and legal brain trust. If they want to know what I’m thinking they’ll have work for it.
    Third: If I’m commenting there, I’m not spending my commenting time elsewhere where it could reach more non-Boeing types. They could be using their site as an attractor: like moths to the flame. 90+% of the people posting on non-trade sites will get something off their chest, feel like they’ve done something, and move on with their life and never think about it again. DT and sites like it get read by a wider audience that includes policy makers = better time spent.
    .…and thus my lunchtime is spent, Drat! To the vending machines!

    Reply
  9. Edward says:
    March 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Remember, Boeing is trying to ‘manage reality’ and I think the KC-45 team is just now waking up to the scale and nature of Boeing’s asymetrical warfare.
    Ahh, 21st-century warfare.

    Reply
  10. Joe says:
    March 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    FYI The old media gatekeepers of information are being destroyed by the Internet, not replaced.
    This will make you sound less pompousness in the future.

    Reply
  11. Harlequin says:
    March 27, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Somewhat related but of more interest:
    Today the UK signed for there A330 based tankers — now the question is ; will these be built in the USA on the soon-to-be-constructed production line in alabama , thus securing MORE , US jobs for a european tanker being flown by the UK
    ironic it would be.

    Reply
  12. Ann O'Nymous says:
    March 27, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    irtusk,
    Indeed it would be embarrassing to have Boeing’s disproven claim on their blog. However, that is near 0% probability as Boeing’s claims are strong and valid.

    Reply
  13. Lugo says:
    March 27, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    For “strong and valid”, substitute “lies, hypocrisy, and infantile Euro-bashing”.

    Reply
  14. SMSgt Mac says:
    March 27, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    RE: Earlier exchanges–
    Me:

    Reply
  15. irtusk says:
    March 28, 2008 at 12:48 am

    > Me now: Hardly. The program I’m working now is
    > in the trade and gov’t news constantly . Every
    > week management reviews a spreadsheet with every
    > news reference to the program, including foreign
    > language sources AND in the last year– major
    > blogs as well. The only thing tougher than getting
    > a contract is keeping it and keeping the program sold.
    the point is that Boeing already knows the weaknesses in their protest, you’re not going to show them anything they don’t already know
    those who do need the rebuttal are the general public or the media who visit the official boeing site
    in general, the wider rebuttals are spread, the lesser chance Boeing has of overriding a technical/legal decision with a political decision

    Reply
  16. irtusk says:
    March 28, 2008 at 8:28 am

    > And…try this. ;)
    > 1. the modifications to the commercial A330 aircraft that turn
    > it into NG/EADS KC-X contender are ‘minor’?
    as i understand it, EADS/NG did give full pricing data (which Boeing refused to do)

    Reply
  17. an engineer says:
    March 28, 2008 at 9:21 am

    FWIW my reason for reading defense blogs: I’m an engineer who spent 30-plus years as a defense contractor, and I’ve seen spin, dishonesty, self-interest, corruption, incompetence, and a lot of wishful thinking. And it happens on the corporate side too;-) But the theme of the big, bad corporations and the politics of contracting has zero interest for me. I read the blogs to know what’s going on in the minds of those thinking about tactics, strategy, technology, and systems, mainly so that I can see where my ideas might fit into military needs.

    Reply
  18. pfcem says:
    March 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    irtusk,
    Thanks for continuing to demonstrate you do not understand the procurement process &/or timeline. Last I checked October 2007 was well AFTER the final RFP…
    ***
    SMSgt Mac,
    Do you have a copy of the final RFP? Unfortunately the pdf file I have is currupt & no longer readable.

    Reply
  19. pfcem says:
    March 29, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    SMSgt Mac,
    Like I said thanks for continueing to demostrate you do not understand the process or the timeline. :)
    Final RFP was Jan 2007. The USAF had commended Boeing for the “unprecedented” levels of data it had supplied & that it was satified with the commercial cost data Boeing had provided AFTER the final RFP was issued! So your theory does not hold any water — aka it is BS. Plus since this was supposed to be a “fair & transparent” competition, what justification is there for the USAF commending Boeing for the “unprecedented” levels of data it had supplied & that it was satisfied with the data Boeing had provided it (as late as November 2007) if the information Boeing had provided would not be given credit or credibility during the final selection process…Better yet how could Being have “scored” satisfactory in cost/price if the data it provided was unsatisfactory?
    And yes, BOTH Boeing & NG/EADS voiced concerns throughout the entire process. BUT on both the cost data & the performance criteria (& who knows what else — even I do not know what all was contained in the full 133 page protest) the USAF has assured Boeing “that they were good” & had no need for concern.
    Where was the request for better data?
    What Boeing is saying on the “scores” is that while NG/EADS is claiming that the competition was not even close the summary “scorecard” shows the two teams as receiving IDENTICAL scores in Mission Capability/Proposed Risk but that when you look at the details the “scores” should NOT have been identical & that the KC-767AT was actually superior.
    It also points out its perceived errors in the other “scoring” as well.
    I agree that more detail is needed to get a true indication on how the two bids actually faired & I suspect that greater detail IS included in the full 133 protest which we obviously have not seen.

    Reply
  20. irtusk says:
    March 30, 2008 at 1:01 am

    > you DO NOT commended them for unprecedented levels of data & that
    > you are satisfied with the data they had provided.
    we don’t know exactly what was said, but it is very possible that this was taken out of context
    for instance the person dealing with the pricing on the military components (the boom and stuff) found it unprecedented while the person dealing with the ‘civilian’ components found it inadequate
    i’m not saying that’s what happened, just giving an example of how both the ‘unprecedented’ and ‘inadequate’ statements could both be true

    Reply
  21. SMSgt Mac says:
    March 30, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    RE: Part of your problem is that you are looking at what is basically a SUMMARY of Boeing’s protest & failing to realize that it is just a summary.
    Read the thread front to back again: we covered this ground. You are ‘do looping’.
    My problem is I used to BE a designated acquisition official and I know how this process works. I know that there are errors or misundertandings in EVERY aquisition because there are always humans involved. I know historically it is exremely rare for someone to cobb things up to the extent the process is materially corrupted on the government side and I also know that with shrinking defense budgets (%GDP) and fewer programs, the threshold for litigation and dissolution of contracts is being lowered faster and farther than ever before. Boeing’s machinations in this case seems to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one. My cost/price guy is on the Boeing protectionist side of the argument and even he is aghast at this facet of Boieng’s plot.
    Don’t think I don’t appreciate the exchanges though, because it helps me hone my future posts.

    Reply
  22. pfcem says:
    March 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    SMSgt Mac.
    How could Boeing possibly have a plot “to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one” when THAT already happened YEARS ago (& not by Boeing)… ;)
    And don’t forget that BECAUSE OF the problems with the cancelled tanker lease & the resulting “demands” for a “fair & transparent competition” such misundertandings were NOT supposed to happen.

    Reply
  23. irtusk says:
    March 31, 2008 at 12:03 am

    > they are obligated in the interest of being “fair & transparent“
    > of making sure the that the necessary parties are informed of the
    > “problem” & given the opportunity to correct it.
    the story is that they were told several times that what the provided was unacceptable, yet they flat out refused to provide the cost buildup data the AF wanted
    ie it wasn’t a surprise that the AF rejected it, it was just that Boeing and the AF didn’t agree on what was required
    > What REALLY sets off a red flag on the cost issue for me is that
    > BOTH teams received the same “score” on Cost/Price for reasonableness,
    > realistic & balanced offer. Such scores are IMPOSSIBLE with “insufficient
    > cost data”.
    it was possible because the AF bumped up the Boeing bid by $4.2 billion dollars to account for that risk

    Reply
  24. Lugo says:
    March 31, 2008 at 8:40 am

    “How could Boeing possibly have a plot “to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one” when THAT already happened YEARS ago (& not by Boeing)… ;) “
    You mean it wasn’t Boeing that plotted to subvert the normal acquisition process back in 2001, and replace it with a purely political (and criminal) effort to get the USAF to lease 767s at vastly inflated prices? Hmmm. Is there some _other_ tanker leasing scandal besides the Boeing one?

    Reply
  25. pfcem says:
    March 31, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Lugo,
    Thats right it wasn’t Boeing. Boeing was just the manufacturer of the chosen aircraft…It was not Boeing’s (no the USAF’s) idea to lease them — nor do so at that particular time. And contrary to what you & those like want people to believe scandalous activity IS NOT all that uncommon…
    It was also not Boeing (no the USAF) who then demanded that the program be recompeted (as apposed to renegotiated) which forced the USAF to change the criteria JUST SO THE ONLY OTHER COMPETITION (which had already lost) COULD/WOULD COMPETE.

    Reply
  26. Lugo says:
    March 31, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    “Thats right it wasn’t Boeing. Boeing was just the manufacturer of the chosen aircraft…It was not Boeing’s (no the USAF’s) idea to lease them — nor do so at that particular time.“
    I have addressed and refuted your preposterous claims about this at length in the other thread. The leasing scandal was a Boeing scandal, and only a Boeing scandal, from end to end, period. You want to blame it on Congress for some absurd reason, but sorry, that just doesn’t fly. (As if Boeing’s lobbyists had NOTHING to do with the FY02 legislation that mandated a lease — yeah, right, pull the other one.)
    “And contrary to what you & those like want people to believe scandalous activity IS NOT all that uncommon…“
    Contrary to what you seem to believe, ONLY Boeing has been caught and punished trying to bribe Darleen Druyun, and ONLY Boeing is guilty of trying to screw the taxpayers and the government by “leasing” tanker aircraft at grossly inflated prices.
    Even if it is true that “everybody does it” (and I will point out that you have not specifically cited what other companies are guilty of “scandalous behavior”, and if this behavior is so common you should be able to give many examples), contrary to what you want people to believe, this IN NO WAY excuses Boeing or diminishes Boeing’s guilt.
    “It was also not Boeing (no the USAF) who then demanded that the program be recompeted (as apposed to renegotiated) which forced the USAF to change the criteria JUST SO THE ONLY OTHER COMPETITION (which had already lost) COULD/WOULD COMPETE.“
    Actually, yes, it was Boeing that forced a recompete (which was not truly a recompete but a competition in the first place as opposed to a Boeing sole-source screwjob). If Boeing hadn’t been so greedy and criminal, there would have been no “recompete”. Boeing has nobody but itself to blame for the fact that the government insisted on a tanker competition.

    Reply
  27. pfcem says:
    March 31, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Lugo,
    Itis YOUR refuted & preposterous claims that just don’t fly.

    Reply
  28. Lugo says:
    April 2, 2008 at 12:32 am

    You haven’t refuted anything. As more than one person has said, you just keep repeating the same things over and over. No matter how many times you say them, it doesn’t make them true.

    Reply
  29. lansdale life insurance says:
    August 7, 2008 at 5:36 am

    Boeing Airplane Co. last week supplied a sad example of how jittery the stock market is these days, especially in reaction to offhand remarks of Administration officials.

    Reply
  30. security systems says:
    August 8, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Newhouse introduces a fleet of issues: international sensitivities, cost overruns, governance structure, missed deadlines, the U.S. airline crisis, purchase negotiations, engine mechanics, government subsidies, the economics of plane size, the composition of airplane wings.

    Reply
  31. Brendan P. says:
    December 22, 2008 at 2:50 am

    Even sports

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Blog Note
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Do you know General Mattis?
      David
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      …FER CRYING OUT LOUD….JUST BRING BACK...
      Sandy
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      How does this get us closer to giant humanoid battle...
      Alex`
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The real issue is not what type of plane but trying...
      Bill
    • Paris Hilton: Patriot
      Omg! You can find her pictures and video here...
      WebWarez
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Marine Air Light? Wait…don't they...
      LtCol Ben
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Except its really not that stealthy… The...
      chaos0xomega
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Is an F-22 capable of landing even on a big deck carrier,...
      joe
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      From a national security perspective we should do all we can to keep...
      mike
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Please define what is "best". Boeings plane is cheaper and...
      Curt
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage