Rummy's North Korea Connection

[subgenius]

What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?
FORTUNE
Monday, April 28, 2003
By Richard Behar
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

The company is Zurich-based engineering giant ABB, which signed the contract in early 2000, well before Rumsfeld gave up his board seat and joined the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, the only American director on the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001, has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. Nor could FORTUNE find any public reference to what he thought about the project. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, the Defense Secretary's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at any time."

Rumsfeld declined requests by FORTUNE to elaborate on his role. But ABB spokesman Bjoern Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project." And other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. "A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware."

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,447429-1,00.html

Iraq and North Korea. This guy knows how to make work for himself on both ends.
Just a little free enterprise.

[corplinx]

There is always the possiblity that he doesn't bring this up because he doesn't believe in burning bridges.
Or is that too simple an explanation?

[Mr Manifesto]

He doesn't bring it up because it would reveal what a hypocrite he is. He has helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons for the sake of a few dollars.

In other articles it has been said that there were a few billion-dollar contracts going at the time so the $200 million one may have escaped Rumsfeld's attention. And I'm the Second Coming of Christ.

[a_unique_person]

I think the new reactors were supposed to be the type that can't be used to develop nuclear weapons, and these were to be used to replace the ones that can. But he is still a hypocrite, I can just imagine if a democrat was involved in a contract to build the new reactors, not that they have actually been built yet, which is part of the reason NK is raising merry hell at the moment.

[Mr Manifesto]

I thought I read that the reactors could be used for weapons grade material but I am probably wrong.

[Cain]

FORTUNE magazine plays a key role in the leftist matriarchial media -- a point we cannot simply gloss over without noting.

Nearly everything is profit-driven or profit-related, an elementary fact that goes unacknowledged in the elite media (though it's an ingrained assumption that becomes second nature to all properly trained economists).

The narrative goes as follows

Why did France oppose bombing Iraq? Because they had lucrative contracts.

Russia? Same reason.

All countries, except the United States, England and other members of "coalition of the willing" were interested in their pocket books.

Brent Sowcroft, James Baker, and Scott Ritter -- all diehard liberals -- opposed war because of money.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush, though, are motivated by an over-riding humanitarian concern.

Why does China enjoy most favored nation status? Forced abortions, show trials, and depotism are the norm -- and far exceed the terror inflicted by Saddam Hussein (most of it helped along with U.S. support).

Now there's controversy about human rights violations in Cuba. But there's hardly a drop of ink is spilled over a U.S. client state like, say, Turkey, which our corporations supply with torture devices.

We should only be surprised if Rumsfeld lobbied the board against this gainful contract.

(The light-water reactors negotiated could not be used to produce nuclear weapons. It's a U.S. bribe/Korean extortion against WMD ).

[crackmonkey]

For the life of me, I can't see how this is newsworthy, or even noteworthy. ABB competed for and won a contract to build light-water reactors. Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB. Rumsfeld has never talked about the issue.
Yes.... and....?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
For the life of me, I can't see how this is newsworthy, or even noteworthy. ABB competed for and won a contract to build light-water reactors. Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB. Rumsfeld has never talked about the issue.
Yes.... and....?

Well, it just doesn't look good. It is all to do with appearances. That is, you want to make it look impossible to have done something wrong. Not, prove I did something wrong. The legal requirement to prove a crime is not the same as the standards for holding public office. He is perfectly entitled to work for ABB or stand for office, but not both.

[subgenius]

Its really hard to understand how someone cannot possibly imagine how this is at least noteworthy.
A bit overly defensive.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He is perfectly entitled to work for ABB or stand for office, but not both.

He doesn't work for them anymore. He divested a bunch of board positions after accepting his appointment.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


He doesn't work for them anymore. He divested a bunch of board positions after accepting his appointment.
We of course knew this already, that's a given, you can't legally do both at the same time. No one said that, but thank you.

This type of cozy arrangement between contractors and government and the revolving door between the two has been a problem for a long time. The backscratching goes on unabated to the detriment of the taxpayers and integrity.
Its not new, not limited to this particular gang, and not a good thing.

[DrChinese]

Cool article. And now I know how Bush selected the members of the axis of evil. He simply asked Rumsfeld where he had done business lately...

Start looking for the Iran connection now! He probably sold to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, his business connection with Saddam is old news.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

We of course knew this already, that's a given, you can't legally do both at the same time. No one said that, but thank you.



"He is perfectly entitled to work for ABB or stand for office, but not both" -AUP

Sub, I like your posts and all, but lately you've been downright intolerable.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


"He is perfectly entitled to work for ABB or stand for office, but not both" -AUP

Sub, I like your posts and all, but lately you've been downright intolerable.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Don't know what's "intolerable" about that.
Don't get your straw all bent out of shape.
"I love everybody, especially you"--Lyle Lovett