They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.
Even the people at f-16.net appears to like Gripen more. The consensus seems to be that F-16 is a better at carrying loads at long distances but Gripen in better in direct combat or situations where maneuverability is of importance. In any training missions where both planes were used Gripen came out ahead.
The thing is that the designs are different for a reason. Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes. The F-16 have sacrificed some of this ability to make it more usable as a medium range offensive unit.
So if you want to take out tanks in Iraq, go for F-16. If you want to defend yourself against F-16, use Gripen.
I don't know what you mean with "over here" but I'm pretty sure you don't mean over at Boeing.
Nonsense. Both aircraft are roughly equal in capabilities and performance. The F-16 is older but has a more powerful engine. This translates into faster acceleration and a higher ceiling for the F-16. The F-16 is slightly more versatile than the Gripen due to 40% more takeoff weight and can handle 31% more external stores than the Gripen. The Gripen can out turn the F-16 and has a greater combat radius. Personally, I would take both the Gripen and F-16 over the F-18 Hornet. Here is a comparison between the two aircraft. http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/92292.aspx