I already had reservations about Romney's candidacy, but after reading about his business ties to Iran, I feel that this man is unfit to be president of this country. I hope the MSM and alternative media really start pounding him on this issue. Romney is nothing but a hypocrite and a liar, and should be exposed as such.

thanks for clarifying, lestatdelc, I sent a similar lte to the O and the Tribune this weekend. this madness has got to stop. enough war. isn't two enough?

The justifications for invading Iraq proved false, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the administration knew it. Yet they made the best public case they could, weak as it was. So there must have been an unstated reason we went to war, something the administration will never acknowledge. What could it be? And why aren't Democrats and the media digging it out?

This question is really important, because the people who brought you the war in Iraq are doing it again, recycling false pretenses from 2002. Wyden has to be fully aware of this and has chosen to join the herd, even though most experts predict that the consequences will be even more disastrous than Iraq.

I have to agree with lestatdelc.

While the rest of the "candidates" are out shouting "me, me", my favorite General is working to stop the insane occupants of the White House from starting a war with Iran.

Stop Iran War.com

Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

Although I disagree somewhat with the phrase "resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran?", when describing Iran, as lestatdelc stated they have every reason to be resentful.

He is just back from the Jeddah Economic Forum. "Walking the walk."

Speakers have been carefully chosen to focus on the subject and the Forum’s Academic Partner the London Business School will produce a Report on the conclusions and recommendations that come out of the sessions. The Report will be published later in the year.

A remarkable platform of outstanding global Speakers has been assembled to speak and take part in the Panel / Audience moderated discussions.

Among the Speakers so far announced are H.E. Minister Liu Jian Feng and high level representatives from China who will lead the Opening Session, joined by H.E. Hashim Yamani from KSA.

The afternoon of Sunday February 25th will bring together former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal, Baroness Symons, UK Chair of the Saudi British Business Council and the Vice Chairman of the Chevron Corporation, Peter Robertson.

Her Majesty Queen Rania of Jordan will deliver a Keynote Speech and take part in a discussion with Moderator Alastair Stewart.

The third session, on the morning of Monday 26th February, focuses on People and Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility.

European Commissioner Peter Mandelson will give a Keynote Address and Peder Wallenberg from Carpe Vitam in Sweden, Mark Goyder, Director of Tomorrow’s Company in the UK, and Asya Al-Ashaikh of Tamkeen will also participate.

Senior Government Officials will lead session four Monday afternoon on Economic Reform and Legal Structure.

Prime Minister Erdogan from Turkey, Justice Minister Luc Frieden from Luxembourg, Trade Minister Emma Bonino from Italy and former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien are among the Speakers.

The McKinsey Report will feature in the Tuesday morning session, February 27th entitled “Changing the Global Energy Paradigm”.

International Experts will join Sue MacGregor of the BBC in assessing a new Global Vision for Energy.

The final session of the Forum on Tuesday afternoon, February 27th, focusing on Privatisation, will feature, among other Speakers, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mohammed Abdul Razak, Khaled Almolhem, Director General of Saudi Arabian Airlines and London Business School Professor Zeger Degraeve.

The Forum will conclude with a Keynote Address from Lech Walesa, former President of Poland.

All,

A few follow up points.

1. The Iranian Threat Like most commenters here, I'm worried about the Bush administration's drumbeat for war with Iran. As I've written before, we've been down this road of packaging dubious intelligence before:

"Fool Me Once: Bush and Iran."

That much said, the Iranian nuclear program is a major security challenge that the U.S. must address. But before triggering a conflict where Iran can inflict serious pain on U.S. interests through its proxies, we have to move to direct diplomatic talks.

1. Clinton's Role in Trade Rules As the full piece over Perrspectives, it was Bill Clinton who put in place the prohibitions on trade and finance with Iran during the 1990's. (Bush later extended these.)

"In 2004, the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes detailed the Iranian business dealings of Cheney's former company, Halliburton. Despite the prohibitions signed into law by President Clinton with his 1995 executive order and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Halliburton continued to reap the profits of business with Iran through its non-U.S. subsidiaries. While U.S. law bans virtually all commerce with the rogue nations, Halliburton was able to jump through its major loophole: the rules do not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans."

1. U.S. - Iran Conflict in the 1990's It is worth remembering that the United States almost took military action against Iran in response to the Khobar Towers bombing. As Richard Clarke detailed in "Against All Enemies," the U.S. instead undertook a campaign of covert action against Iran rather than the full invasion which Bill Clinton was prepared to launch:

"While the administration did probe the more moderate Iranian president Khatami elected in May 1997 regarding a thaw in relations, Clinton's preparation for covert action and war went forward.

As it turned out, an American invasion in response to terrorist provocations by the Iranian secret services was not necessary. During the same NSA sessions regarding Iran war planning, the Clinton team decided to proceed with a large covert action campaign against the Iranian secret services while preparing to move on to direct military confrontation if necessary. As Clarke noted (p. 129), the U.S. proceeded with the covert campaign. Iranian-sponsored attacks against American interests came to an end."

Romney is a bozo and even my right-wing-nut friends (I have a few) view Romney as a splatted bug on the windshield of American politics.

As to the other part of this post, I do not understand Wyden's suddenly hawk-ish position on Iran. I don't want Wyden giving bipartisan cover to the Bush-Cheney agenda of attacking Iran. I would prefer the US not sell arms to anybody, but that is not going to happen in my lifetime. As long as we continue to sell bombs and guns and land mines and airplanes and spare parts to every dictator with a few extra bucks, why does Wyden choose this particular moment to introduce a bill to stop selling spare parts to Iran? This looks like some sort of pro-Israel play by Wyden. As far as I know, even if Iran gets the bomb within the next four years, their delivery system is pretty much limited to strapping the device to the back of a camel, and nobody has identified a realistic threat to the mainland US.

Senator Wyden,

Don't legitimize the efforts of you bellicose colleagues.

Instead, put your energy into a Department of Peace HB 808.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0226-22.htm

Kari, I am sensitive to the argument that we should not sell our future combat opponents the ammunition to shoot back. My father had a huge scar on his neck courtesy of the Japanese army and my father always assumed that the Japanese obtained the metal for their mortar shells from some scrap iron dealer in the USA. Today's Chevrolet is tomorrow's bullet.

But as to Wyden's bill, why NOW? If Wyden had been a life long opponent of the US arms export industry then I could and would understand, but I don't believe that is the case.

Nobody is picking up on my serious (and hopefully non-racist) question. Is this a play by Wyden to gather support from the Israel lobby? God knows Hillary has been kissing up to them lately, and I suspected that perhaps Ron was joining the club. I hope not, as I am pro US and highly skeptical of the political motives of everybody else.

At this point the Iranian nuclear weapon is nothing more than a hypothetical, future threat--a red herring. Iran has ample reason for wanting to develop nuclear power: they are running low on refined oil products and would like to their reduce consumption and redirect oil to exports.

With extremely large energy reserves, Iran also has very good reasons for wanting defend itself against the increasingly voracious appetite of the world's number one oil guzzler--the United States. Nuclear deterrence provides a potent defense. Before that happens, however, there are a lot of other things that have to happen, none of them trivial from an engineering standpoint. They must figure out how to enrich uranium to the grade required for a bomb. They must get enough of it to build a bomb. They must build the bomb. They must weaponize it. And they have to build a delivery system. Once they have the bomb, you have to make a gigantic leap of faith, which the Bush administration often does, and assume that they would use it, thereby assuring their own annihilation. Nobody has ever used a nuke except the US, and we weren't risking nuclear retaliation when we did.

The problem is not Iran. The problem is the United States, which wants a quisling regime that gives it hegemony over the oil and natural gas fields and pipeline routes from the Caspian.

The US could get everything it claims to want by offering the existing government a security guarantee but refuses to consider it. It won't say what it really wants, preferring to create false pretenses for invasion. The unstated agenda is the real sticking point. Iraq redux.

Wyden could do us all a favor by talking about the real problem, not the made up one.

I wrote Wyden an email on Iran once and I got a letter back on Israel.

No doubt an intern's mistake, but it would be nice to see Wyden be a little less cute. Now is a critical time for the relationship between Iran and the US.

Fine to point out hyprocrisy, but beyond that, we need a new way of relating to Iran.

Wyden held a town hall meeting in Grants Pass last Friday, and I asked him about DeFazio's resolution requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before attacking Iran. Wyden said he agreed with DeFazio, and I was stoked, because that was the only time that guy has ever answered any of my questions. I would have asked Wyden why they don't just impeach Bush already, but that would have been in bad taste......