Among the lawmakers who have threatened to block the contract is Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Because of his powerful post, Murtha could hold up the $35 billion deal.

And presidential candidate Barack Obama, campaigning in Wilkes-Barre, said of the defense contract: "We should have identified a U.S. company that could do it."

But it would be wrong to stop the contract based solely on the involvement of a foreign manufacturer. These days, many large contractors are multinational. The Air Force says it awarded the contract to a partnership of Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles and the European-based Airbus because their bid was lower and better met the aircraft specifications.

Northrop Grumman/Airbus was in competition with Chicago-based Boeing to build the next generation of tankers, which are used for mid-air refueling. Boeing came to this bidding process with a black eye. The last time the Air Force sought to replace its tankers, one of its procurement officials got caught arranging for a job with Boeing after the contract was awarded.

The cozy deal was exposed when Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, complained about it. The Air Force official and a Boeing executive went to jail, and Boeing's CEO resigned.

The deal with Northrop/Airbus could save taxpayer money - its bid was about $35 million lower. That's small compared with the long-term costs, which could reach more than $100 billion.

The Air Force also rated the Airbus A330 superior to the Boeing 767 in fuel capacity, storage space, and room for personnel.

More than 60 percent of the work on the tankers would be performed in the United States, creating about 25,000 jobs here. Two Pennsylvania firms are involved in the contract: Carpenter Technology of Reading and SPS Technologies of Jenkintown, both supplying engine subassemblies.

Boeing is appealing the Air Force's decision with the Government Accountability Office, arguing that the bidding process was flawed. Boeing contends, among other things, that the Air Force adjusted the tanker specifications during the bidding to keep Airbus' larger plane in the running. Boeing officials also say their plane is more fuel-efficient and, thus, will cost taxpayers less over the life of the contract.

The GAO, an arm of Congress that reviews contract disputes, has until June 19 to issue its decision.

If the GAO finds the bidding process was unfair, that's a valid concern. But this huge contract shouldn't be decided on jingoistic rhetoric that isn't supported by the facts.