I'm Donald Rumsfeld: May I Arm You?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Hello. I am Don Rumsfeld and I am both corrupt and a hypocrite. I don't like North Korea any more than I liked Saddam.



Happily for me, I helped to arm them both. I am a pathological dictator-armer. Somebody stop me!



Source: that evil liberal rag Fortune magazine.



Quote:

FORTUNE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: DONALD RUMSFELD'S NORTH KOREA CONNECTION



New York, April 25, 2003

Three days after Sept. 11, 2001, North Korea, a nation identified as a state sponsor of terror, was celebrating the launch of a U.S.-sponsored nuclear plant-and was doing so thanks to ABB, a company on whose board of directors Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, once sat. FORTUNE investigative reporter Richard Behar probes the secretive deal behind the plant and raises new questions about Rumsfeld's involvement, and his refusal to discuss it or 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. "Rummy's North Korea Connection" appears in the May 12 issue of FORTUNE and at www.fortune.com.



According to FORTUNE, Rumsfeld, the only American director of the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001-and usually vocal about his disdain for the Communist regime in North Korea-has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the $200 million contract to provide the design and key components of two light-water reactors, which according to experts can be used to build weapons-grade material.



When confronted with Rumsfeld's role as ABB board director, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at anytime." But FORTUNE interviews with current and former ABB officials suggest otherwise. ABB spokesman Björn Edlund told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project," and other company officials contend that there is no way such a large and high-stakes project would not have come to the attention of the board. In addition, a former ABB board member recalled being told that Rumsfeld was asked "to lobby in Washington" on ABB's behalf in the mid-1990s. "This was a major thing for ABB" the former director said, "and extensive political lobbying was done." Goran Lundberg, a former head of ABB's power-generation business, told FORTUNE he was "pretty sure that at some point Don was involved," but other top executives don't recall Rumsfeld's involvement.



The 1994 agreement received public criticism by many people close to Rumsfeld, including former presidential candidate Bob Dole, for whom Rumsfeld served as campaign manager and chief defense advisor. Yet according to FORTUNE, Rumsfeld has not spoken out about the reactors and there is no evidence that he-despite a keen interest in the company's nuclear business and the fact that he attended most board meetings-made his views about the project known to other ABB officials.



"Given the Republican outcry over the nuclear reactor deal, Rumsfeld's public silence was nearly deafening," writes Behar.



I'll lobby for deals with all of the world's brutal dictators. It's good business. I have the ear of the government.



Oh wait. I am the government.



I will probably go to hell, but it's OK because I sold them pitchforks and sulphur.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Did he lobby for it? Sounds like from reading the article he didn't.



    Interesting story, thanks for posting it.



    Feel free to extrapolate more than is presented as fact and run crazy with it like a Vince Foster assassination.
  • Reply 2 of 27
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Did he lobby for it? Sounds like from reading the article he didn't.



    He won't admit to lobbying for it at least. He's only ever said that he didn't know his company was bidding for the project which, according to others working there, was an impossibility.
  • Reply 3 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    So if involvement in this deal is something to be ashamed of... shouldn't we be roasting Clinton's guts?



    Just wondering how extensive this is...
  • Reply 4 of 27
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    So if involvement in this deal is something to be ashamed of... shouldn't we be roasting Clinton's guts?



    "Given the Republican outcry over the nuclear reactor deal, Rumsfeld's public silence was nearly deafening," writes Behar.



    What are you talking about? Given the Republican outcry over the deal, when they did roast Clinton's guts, why is there no outcry against Rumsfeld? Why is he now considered a saint in the administration?



    This isn't about the decision to build a reactor being good or bad. Keep your partisan crap out of here or go start a thread about the decision itself.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    Like Bill Hicks said...

    Quote:



    "I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the ****ing arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.



    "Pick it up."



    "I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."



    "Pick up the gun."



    "Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."



    "Pick up the gun."



    (He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)



    "You all saw him - he had a gun."



  • Reply 6 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I love Bill Hicks. A true Texan.



    Quote:

    What are you talking about? Given the Republican outcry over the deal, when they did roast Clinton's guts, why is there no outcry against Rumsfeld?



    Apparently there is outcry against Rumsfeld... or maybe we're not actually posting in this thread because it doesn't exist if there is no outcry.



    Hmmm...



    I only bring Clinton up because I fail to see the real import of the scandal if the original post ignores the main author of the scandal who was President of the United States at the time.



    Is this really about nuke factories in NK or is this just a blind partisan jab?



    Quote:

    Why is he now considered a saint in the administration?



    Is he?

    Straw-man.



    Quote:

    This isn't about the decision to build a reactor being good or bad. Keep your partisan crap out of here or go start a thread about the decision itself.



    If it's not about the actual decision to build a reactor, how the hell is it anything BUT partisan?
  • Reply 7 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat



    I only bring Clinton up because I fail to see the real import of the scandal if the original post ignores the main author of the scandal who was President of the United States at the time.




    A good point.



    However, Clinton wasn't recieving a salary close to $200,000 for sitting on the board of the company that did the deal. Rumsfeld's objections to North Korea seem to be a recent phenomenon. When his company stood to make a very huge sum of money he said nothing. He trousered his paycheck and went on to be Defense Secretary.
  • Reply 8 of 27
    Secondly, Clinton's deal with the North Koreans - which we're certainly entitled to object to - was made with the stipulation that arms inspectors should be allowed in and was for light water reactors because it was believed that it was more difficult to extract weapons-grade plutonium from them and that they would get fast breeder reactors from someone else anyway.



    I'm only defending the deal as far as to point out that it was made for reasons of diplomatic leverage rather than profit, which was all ABB were concerned with.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Hassan:



    Quote:

    However, Clinton wasn't recieving a salary close to $200,000 for sitting on the board of the company that did the deal.



    Yeah, he was only paid nearly as much to be President, including every want met (even sexual gratification from the staff) and he is responsible for there even being a deal in the first place.



    How the hell can you try to make Rumsfeld out to be more of the moral bad-guy than Clinton on this deal? It makes zero sense.



    Quote:

    Rumsfeld's objections to North Korea seem to be a recent phenomenon. When his company stood to make a very huge sum of money he said nothing. He trousered his paycheck and went on to be Defense Secretary.



    Well that's a perfectly valid gripe, but it's a fairly weak one, certainly not worthy of I will probably go to hell, but it's OK because I sold them pitchforks and sulphur.



    Rumsfeld didn't sell North Korea anything as far as this case is concerned.
  • Reply 10 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Yeah, he was only paid nearly as much to be President, including every want met (even sexual gratification from the staff)



    You don't like Bubba, I know, but what happens to the President's penis is entirely irrelevant to his foreign policy, unless it's broadcast from the Oval Office with Tariq Aziz on the handheld.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat





    How the hell can you try to make Rumsfeld out to be more of the moral bad-guy than Clinton on this deal? It makes zero sense.




    Because Rumsfeld did it for profit and Clinton didn't.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat





    Well that's a perfectly valid gripe, but it's a fairly weak one, certainly not worthy of I will probably go to hell, but it's OK because I sold them pitchforks and sulphur.




    This was quite a funny joke. He he.
  • Reply 11 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Hassan:



    Quote:

    You don't like Bubba, I know, but what happens to the President's penis is entirely irrelevant to his foreign policy, unless it's broadcast from the Oval Office with Tariq Aziz on the handheld.



    I fail to see why his blowjobs are off-limits. Why in blue hell is the Monica issue sacrosanct?



    If you can talk about Rumsfeld profiteering from the nuke deal as if it's fact (and it certainly hasn't been shown to be fact) I can mention the very true fact that Clinton got blowjobs. He gets no special pass (from me, anyway).



    Quote:

    Because Rumsfeld did it for profit and Clinton didn't.



    Is there a single shred of evidence that Rumsfeld did profit from the deal? Any at all?



    And even if he did, making money off the deal is worse than telling North Korea they could have two nuclear reactors free of charge?



    I am in awe of the reasoning that would come to that conclusion, it's truly delusional.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I fail to see why his blowjobs are off-limits. Why in blue hell is the Monica issue sacrosanct?





    Eh? Clinton's blowjobs aren't 'off-limits' any more than the colour of his underpants, his star-sign or his shampoo. None of these things have the slightest monkey's bell-end to do with his foreign policy and for the life of me I can't see how you think they do. Please explain.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat





    If you can talk about Rumsfeld profiteering from the nuke deal as if it's fact (and it certainly hasn't been shown to be fact) I can mention the very true fact that Clinton got blowjobs.




    Rumsfeld was a director of the company that did the deal. His company got paid to provide the equipment. His company pay his salary. He didn't object at the time.



    And yes, Clinton got blowjobs. Hooray for Clinton's penis.



    Hooray for all irrelevant obfuscations everywhere.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    And even if he did, making money off the deal is worse than telling North Korea they could have two nuclear reactors free of charge?







    The current Defense Secretary did not raise a peep as long as his company was doing good business. The Clinton deal was done to lever in arms inspections. There is a difference.
  • Reply 13 of 27
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    But yes, Clinton did get a blow job in the White House. I grant you that.
  • Reply 14 of 27
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB IN THE WHITEHOUSE!



    There.
  • Reply 15 of 27
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,792member
    I think Hassan is missing the point.



    Clinton's escapades in the White House with an intern is one of the most blalant examples of poor decision-making at the highest levels of government.



    Another example of very poor decision-making would be like, oh...giving away nuclear reactors to a non-democratic country run by despots.
  • Reply 16 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Hassan:



    Quote:

    Eh? Clinton's blowjobs aren't 'off-limits' any more than the colour of his underpants, his star-sign or his shampoo. None of these things have the slightest monkey's bell-end to do with his foreign policy and for the life of me I can't see how you think they do. Please explain.



    You brought up recompense, I mentioned Clinton's recompense. Unless you think his presidency and the blowjob were unrelated...



    I never said he made the decision because of the blowjob or vice versa, let's not try to rewrite the past, eh?



    Quote:

    Rumsfeld was a director of the company that did the deal. His company got paid to provide the equipment. His company pay his salary. He didn't object at the time.



    And if his company didn't do the deal would that have affected his pay at all? Did the deal make any difference at all in Rumsfeld's pay? Did he gain anything from it?



    Quote:

    Hooray for all irrelevant obfuscations everywhere.



    I hope you're counting the very first post in the thread in that condemnation!



    Quote:

    The current Defense Secretary did not raise a peep as long as his company was doing good business. The Clinton deal was done to lever in arms inspections. There is a difference.



    Yeah, one person took direct action that guaranteed a greater nuclear threat from North Korea and the other may or may not have had a hand in a part of the building of that threat.



    Not to mention the first one was leader of the nation, elected POTUS and commander in chief of the armed forces and the second was a private citizen working on a contract that the first person (who you are working your ass off to defend) brought in the first place.



    There is a difference, indeed.



    Rumsfeld is the bad guy here, no doubt.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat





    Yeah, one person took direct action that guaranteed a greater nuclear threat from North Korea and the other may or may not have had a hand in a part of the building of that threat.



    Not to mention the first one was leader of the nation, elected POTUS and commander in chief of the armed forces and the second was a private citizen working on a contract that the first person (who you are working your ass off to defend) brought in the first place.




    Are you deaf/blind? No defense necessary. This isn't a thread about if we should or shouldn't have agreed to make the reactors. Start a thread about that if you like. Quit trying to change the subject.
  • Reply 18 of 27
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
  • Reply 19 of 27
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    This isn't a thread about if we should or shouldn't have agreed to make the reactors.



    The entire premise of the thread hinges on that very question, of course it's about that.



    If it wasn't a questionable action why would *anyone* care about it?
  • Reply 20 of 27
    colanderofdeathcolanderofdeath Posts: 1,261member
    I used to think Clinton should be shot for his taste in women. Then Mike Price came along. I mean, no one would want to bang her and you'd need extra shocks and struts to avoid bustin your bed spring but Porky McPig can't hold a candle to Horsey McHo on the ugly tree scale.



    Anyway, perhaps if we can cum to an agreement on the bone of contention that Clinton is as bad as Rumsfeld then maybe we can agree on a solution. Perhaps neither Clinton nor Rumsfeld should be allowed to have a job in US govt administration again. I'm OK with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.