Bernie Sanders and F-35, the Trillion-Dollar Warbird

Bernie Sanders has been flogged for accepting support from, presumably, Lockheed Martin in exchange for support of the F-35 jet fighter program.  (RSN:  Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion)

Here is his explanation:

Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending the other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”  

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”


The extreme view is this indicates a pattern of corruption identical to the others so he is just the same as they.  And that's why we throw out extreme views.

In fact, his points are valid and he is probably right to say the F-35 is unstoppable since the Pentagon has been proud to throw zooks dollars down that rathole since not long after 1997.  Therefore, Bill Clinton must have authorized the Pentagon in sending out RFP's (Requests for Proposals) to build it.  George Bush signed off on the selection of Lockheed Martin and the first F-35 was delivered in 2006, although ten years later it is far from operational.  All three of the last Presidents own a piece of that lemon.

(Ed:  spreading the blame?)

No, stating the facts.

Bernie Sanders had a specific reason for authorizing the F-35 and, sure, that was a political act as he would have been a non-pol if had voted against jobs for Burlington, Vermont, and that's exactly what a no vote would have cost him.

That's a case study in pork barrel politics but it is not sufficient to warrant a charge of lifetime corruption as we have seen ample evidence of how he has lived his life (e.g. marching with Martin Luther King right from the start).

Where we would cheerfully take off Sanders' skin is if he were to support the Son of B2 program for which the Pentagon has already put out requests for builders.  That expenditure can still be stopped as Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, etc have not had time to put infrastructure in place to use it to bribe governors and senators to continue their pork barrel game.

When I protested the Son of B2 won't ever be used for its actual purpose (i.e. extremely long-range nuke bomb runs) without everyone dying, I was advised, no, no, no, that's not how it will be used.

It doesn't occur to anyone from that question:  if it won't be used for that purpose then why fucking build it at all.

Note:  the pitch is it will be used instead for tactical applications in local conflicts.  Feel free to call BULLSHIT with a twenty-megaton amplifier.

In summary, no, I don't like the vote in support for the F-35 but I accept the rationale.  This does not indicate, without further evidence, any pattern of corruption in his record.  To expect his record to be absolutely immaculate is to expect the Second Coming and he's a good guy but he ain't that good.  So far, only one was.

The secondary justification is so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning that relative to the other pols he's a prince and relative to Hillary Clinton, he's Prince fookin' Charming ... well ... relative to any of the others, he's Prince Charming.

So, here at the Rockhouse, we see a demerit in this for Bernie Sanders but we still see him as the best hope America has got.