If only John McCain had won the GOP in 2000, the world would be a much better place.

[manu1959]

Hey, give Clintona break. He blew up a tent and two camels ......

sorry, it is difficult to aim straight when you are getting your cigar smoked

 

[Gunny]

sorry, it is difficult to aim straight when you are getting your cigar smoked

LMAO. Yeah, he was quite focussed on shooting missiles that day.

 

[jAZ]

Once again, the previous administration gave him the trapping of responsibility and none of the actual implementation. The next gave him implementation but didn't give him the trappings. The responsibility was not given to another, but was given an actual voice. The idea was to 'take it to the terrorist', Clarke's actual plans were now coming to fruition rather than sitting stagnant on a back burner while they placated him with Top Level meetings. That he now had to work with the level below the principals was what really galled him, not the fact that none of his ideas were meeting with success and implementation.

That's about as bogus a descrption of history as I've ever heard.

Look, Clinton didn't implement everything that Clarke wanted, but he did much of it, and he was supportive of efforts to do something.

Bush didn't do anything!

It wasn't until it sirens were blowing up because they'd being going off so long that Bush even agreed to hear the proposals. The notion that Bush started actually doing ANYTHING prior to 9/11 is Republians damage control.

They picked up on 9/10 (or whenever they met with Clarke) where Clinton left off on 1/1.

 

[MtnBiker]

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.

By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.........


But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

 

[jAZ]

He didn't, he was changing the face of the fight. From law enforcement mentality to a war mentality, even before attacks were made. That actual action was being taken is even notable in articles that are derogatory toward the administration. That those ideas sat stagnant in the previous administration was made apparant in his book, that they were finally being implemented was apparant in the anti-Bush propaganda.

That's the post-911 talking point that helps justify a papertrail of inaction. But it's nothing more than a empty talking point.

They didn't understand the threat our nation faced, and they felt they could put it on the back burner and not take action. They might have desired an ideological change, but that change was the precursor to invading Iraq.

They effectively put fighting terrorism (in the near term) on hold while they made a case for what they believed (foolishly) was a long term solution of a democracy domino theory in the ME starting with Iraq.

That "war" was Iraq.

Your description (the GOP talking points) are a bunch of frilly obfuscation about hiding the fact that Bush didn't understand the treat of Bin Laden and instead wanted to deal with Saddam from day 1. After the fact they decided to call that "changing the approach to a war mentality".

However no one ever mentions that the "war" in question was Iraq.

It wasn't until 9/11 delayed the plans that he was forced to follow-through with the Clinton-Clarke plan of going after Afganistan.

 

[no1tovote4]

That's about as bogus a descrption of history as I've ever heard.

Look, Clinton didn't implement everything that Clarke wanted, but he did much of it, and he was supportive of efforts to do something.

Bush didn't do anything!

It wasn't until it sirens were blowing up because they'd being going off so long that Bush even agreed to hear the proposals. The notion that Bush started actually doing ANYTHING prior to 9/11 is Republians damage control.

They picked up on 9/10 (or whenever they met with Clarke) where Clinton left off on 1/1.

This is one of the most inaccurate statements I have ever heard. Even anti-Bush propaganda talks about the fact that he was implementing Clarke's innovations. Also Clinton's book talks about he left them on the table judging that there wasn't time to implement them and that the extensive briefs included the fact that these innovations would need to be implemented to have an effective action against terrorism.

It wasn't Bush that had done nothing, he had implemented Clarke's innovations in less than 8 months, the same innovations that Clinton said couldn't be implemented in over two years that he had left in office. This is simply hero worship in the face of actual evidence. It is more than inaccurate, it is directly in the face of given information dragged to the front from largely anti-Bush reporting and propaganda efforts. Information that has always been available, if not for the Kool Aid drinkers willing to believe anything that makes their view of the world more accurate. Even direct lying...

I'm not even a fan of Bush, but I can read between the lines and understand implementation over talking about implementation and doing actual nothing.

I do not approve of going to war without declaration, I did not approve of going to war in Iraq over WMD alone as a reason. I don't like 'compassionate conservatism' and think Bush spends way too much money. I think he missed a fantastic opportunity to shed special interest and to create a great aim for the nation to end dependence on oil as our mainstay in energy. There is much I dislike about Bush, but even with that I can read between the lines in Propaganda and get the actual information.

I posted that article that talked about how the ideas were being implemented before 9/11. Imagine how far we would have been had Clinton believed he could implement those same ideas in less than two years, his own book says he didn't.

Bush did a fine job preparing for a new way to fight terrorism, an idea he had to start from scratch...

 

[jAZ]

This is one of the most inaccurate statements I have ever heard. Even anti-Bush propaganda talks about the fact that he was implementing Clarke's innovations. Also Clinton's book talks about he left them on the table judging that there wasn't time to implement them and that the extensive briefs included the fact that these innovations would need to be implemented to have an effective action against terrorism.

Once again it goes back to your willingness to gloss over the details to make your point.

There is the "Clarke Plan" that was implemented after 9/11. That was in fact left on the table by Clinton as you described above. I don't dispute that and if you go back and re-read my prior posts, I don't blame Bush for failing to implement that plan either. It involved invading a soverign nation (afganistan) preemptively. As I said before, neither Clinton nor Bush could have implemented that plan before 9/11. The public wouldn't support such a war.

However, there was activity and Clarke suggested and Clinton implemented including a hunt to kill bin Laden. In fact Clarke asked Clinton to launch the "no war for monica" missles. Clinton acted.

Bush on the other hand failed to keep up that hunt. Failed to respond in ANYWAY to the Cole, and didn't actually implement Clarkes "plan" until after 9/11.

It wasn't that he didn't implment the "clarke plan" its that he didn't do all of the upkeep on the any of the ongoing counter terrorism efforts.

He gave up and focused on Nukes and Iraq until it was way too late.

 

[no1tovote4]

Once again it goes back to your willingness to gloss over the details to make your point.

There is the "Clarke Plan" that was implemented after 9/11. That was in fact left on the table by Clinton as you described above. I don't dispute that and if you go back and re-read my prior posts, I don't blame Bush for failing to implement that plan either. It involved invading a soverign nation (afganistan) preemptively. As I said before, neither Clinton nor Bush could have implemented that plan before 9/11. The public wouldn't support such a war.

You keep mentioning this one idea as if it was the whole of the plan. However gloss over actual details in Clinton's own book. He left these on the table saying there wasn't enough time to implement them. That Bush implemented the more aggressive fight in less than 8 months was nothing short of miraculous considering his Cabinet positions weren't even filled completely until August of that year.

However, there was activity and Clarke suggested and Clinton implemented including a hunt to kill bin Laden. In fact Clarke asked Clinton to launch the "no war for monica" missles. Clinton acted.

Clinton didn't implement such a hunt, twice he was offered bin Laden and twice he refused. Instead he bombed a pill factory and a camel.

Bush on the other hand failed to keep up that hunt. Failed to respond in ANYWAY to the Cole, and didn't actually implement Clarkes "plan" until after 9/11.

Garbage, Bush introduced a new Sec of Def that was implementing a fast attack military to work towards this very goal. To make them more effecient and better able to take the attack to terrorists. He also implemented all of the ideas of Clarke except pre-emptive warfare, believing rightly that pre-emptive warfare could not be politically expedient. I recognized that and mentioned it earlier. However most of Clarke's ideas remained on the table, at least according to Clinton himself in his book as well as Clarke's book. To be implemented by the next administration. Clarke's book even mentioned that his ideas had not been implemented by Clinton in the over two years before that he had brought them to the table. You are ignoring actual history to attempt to give me more propaganda.

It wasn't that he didn't implment the "clarke plan" its that he didn't do all of the upkeep on the any of the ongoing counter terrorism efforts.

He gave up and focused on Nukes and Iraq until it was way too late.

Once again, you are ignoring what was being done. Clarke's plan wasn't just to go to pre-emptive war, it was to, in his own words, 'Take the fight to the terrorist', and it took a major rebuilding, a transition to a whole new effort. One that Clinton admitted would be necessary but felt it better to leave to the incoming administration. This was effectively done. One point that was implemented after 9/11 that Bush didn't want in the Clarke plan was the Department of Homeland Security, however the plan to make our forces aggressive instead of reactive and to take a war stance rather than a law enforcement stance was the effective difference.

Unfortunately we were attacked at the end of the transition period. However saying Bush did nothing is simply factually incorrect to the point of directly lying to make your point.

As I added to my previous post (read it there was more added after you had pressed quote) I am not much of a Bush fan. I do however prize truth over propaganda.

I am going to bed now. (Just so you won't think you've 'won' when I don't answer immediately, so many n00bs claim victory too early...) I'll get back to this later.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Those are two of the worst examples of arugments that McCain isn't a conservative (or a Goldwater conservative) I've ever read.

The NewsMax one says two things:
* First, McCain/Feingold is an anti-individual (and pro-big gov't), when in reality the purpose is to empower individuals to have greater influence on the election process.
* Second, McCain whatever McCain's personal motivations might have been on this Vietnam Vet issue (I know nothing about it), clearly reducing the size of the Parks Service is not EXPANDING government. It's reducing it. The issue has nothing to do with conservatism at all.

The WorldNetDaily article says one thing:
* Reagan was elected by Christian Conservatives, McCain doesn't have their support. Well duh, that has nothing to do with Goldwater Conservativism. Goldwater wasn't a Religous Conservative. Religous Conservatives aren't typically upholding traditional conservative values. They adopt liberal policies that support thier cause, and adopt conservative ones that support thier cause. Religious Conservatives are all about state regulation as long as the regulation agrees with their beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even mention Goldwater. Shocking huh?

You'd think there are more substantial issues that define conservatism that he'd be violating other than Religous Conservatism (Not At ALL a Goldwater issue) and attempting to reduce the influence of corporate lobbying and returning influence back to the individual.

Like I said before, people's definition of what it means to be a "conservative" has changed radically. Liberals and the media have actually moved to the right by a TON. However, the Republican party has moved 2x the speed to the right. They are also (smartly) framing their move to the right as a move by everyone else to the left. That's got the media on their heels and it has the public blaming people like Hillary Clinton for being a radical liberal when she and her husband were 2 of the most conservative Dems ever to hold influence in the WH.

Liberals haven't been moving to the right by a "TON". Only fake politicians like Hillary appear to do so occasionally. If anything both parties have moved to the left.

We got a taste of McCain and "how much a better place the world would be" with his campaign-finance bill. You claim that McCain is a Goldwater conservative. Goldwater supported smaller government and free speech. McCain pushed a bill through that had the opposite result--basically imposing a federal speech code complete with jail terms and LOTS more government intervention. As a result we now have the FEC preventing people from expressing their political opinions before elections. That's "conservative"? The greater result was to push us further to the left. Either McCain was intentionally pushing for bigger/more controlling government or else he was a total muck-up. Either way, not exactly a Goldwater conservative or a successful presidential type.

 

[Avatar4321]

Those are two of the worst examples of arugments that McCain isn't a conservative (or a Goldwater conservative) I've ever read.

The NewsMax one says two things:
* First, McCain/Feingold is an anti-individual (and pro-big gov't), when in reality the purpose is to empower individuals to have greater influence on the election process.
* Second, McCain whatever McCain's personal motivations might have been on this Vietnam Vet issue (I know nothing about it), clearly reducing the size of the Parks Service is not EXPANDING government. It's reducing it. The issue has nothing to do with conservatism at all.

The WorldNetDaily article says one thing:
* Reagan was elected by Christian Conservatives, McCain doesn't have their support. Well duh, that has nothing to do with Goldwater Conservativism. Goldwater wasn't a Religous Conservative. Religous Conservatives aren't typically upholding traditional conservative values. They adopt liberal policies that support thier cause, and adopt conservative ones that support thier cause. Religious Conservatives are all about state regulation as long as the regulation agrees with their beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even mention Goldwater. Shocking huh?

You'd think there are more substantial issues that define conservatism that he'd be violating other than Religous Conservatism (Not At ALL a Goldwater issue) and attempting to reduce the influence of corporate lobbying and returning influence back to the individual.

Like I said before, people's definition of what it means to be a "conservative" has changed radically. Liberals and the media have actually moved to the right by a TON. However, the Republican party has moved 2x the speed to the right. They are also (smartly) framing their move to the right as a move by everyone else to the left. That's got the media on their heels and it has the public blaming people like Hillary Clinton for being a radical liberal when she and her husband were 2 of the most conservative Dems ever to hold influence in the WH.

McCain-Fiengold does not empower the individual. How on earth does silencing us from placing ads criticizing public officials in power 60 days before an election empower individuals?

How does strengthening the so called special interest groups and weakening the party's ability to check those interests empower the individual?

How does advocating greater speech control empower the individual?

The man says that all politicians are corrupt and lie, including himself, and he suggests that we solve that problem by creating legislation that entrenches encumbants in power and this is good for the American people?

These aren't conservative positions. These arent taking government out of peoples lives. You want to take government out of peoples lives? You want campaign fianance reform? Let anyone donate as much as they want as long as they announce publically that they are doing so. No anonymous donations. That way if a politician favors a specific group giving him money. The people know and if they dont like it they vote him out.

Its called Democracy. Try it sometime.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unfortunately we were attacked at the end of the transition period. However saying Bush did nothing is simply factually incorrect to the point of directly lying to make your point.

Shhhhh! Don't you realize that its alright to lie if it hurts Bush?

 

[Avatar4321]

I know others have said this, but I dont really feel like it's been addressed.

If McCain has such great ideas, why doesn't he write up legislation? He is a Senator. It isn't as though he has absolutely no power. Other than the Incumbent protection act and his campaign against free speech. What has he done as a Senator that speaks to his ideas and the leadership abilities he would have as President?

 

[MtnBiker]

He was defeated in the 2000 primary and he goes on Meet The Press alot.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

That's about as bogus a descrption of history as I've ever heard.

Look, Clinton didn't implement everything that Clarke wanted, but he did much of it, and he was supportive of efforts to do something.

Bush didn't do anything!

It wasn't until it sirens were blowing up because they'd being going off so long that Bush even agreed to hear the proposals. The notion that Bush started actually doing ANYTHING prior to 9/11 is Republians damage control.

They picked up on 9/10 (or whenever they met with Clarke) where Clinton left off on 1/1.

I don't know of anything Clinton did that was productive when it came to terrorism. Read "My FBI" by Louis J. Freed, the Director of the FBI under Clinton. Some disturbing stuff.

After a terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Freed went through two years of frustration just trying to get someone from the Clinton administration to simply bring the subject up. Nothing. After one meeting with President Bush and Condi Rice, the wheels started turning.

 

[jAZ]

I don't know of anything Clinton did that was productive when it came to terrorism. Read "My FBI" by Louis J. Freed, the Director of the FBI under Clinton. Some disturbing stuff.

After a terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Freed went through two years of frustration just trying to get someone from the Clinton administration to simply bring the subject up. Nothing. After one meeting with President Bush and Condi Rice, the wheels started turning.

Did Freeh mention any of this? Note all but one of these are from after Kobahr Towers. Including the GOP stonewalling. Nice huh?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/30/clinton.peres.am/
Clinton, Peres sign counter-terrorism accord
April, 1996

"The United States will supply Israel with $100 million in equipment, training and aid under a counter-terrorism accord signed Tuesday at the White House by President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES
October, 1996

"Washington -- The counter-terrorism measures signed into law by President Clinton October 9 constitute a broad-based strategy ranging from increased security at federal buildings to tighter scrutiny of aircraft cargo."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996

"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."

http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/Responding.shtml
Responding to Terrorism
1997 Annual Defense Report

"Combating terrorism requires patience, courage, imagination, and restraint. Perspective is essential. Overreaction and bombast play into terrorist hands. Good intelligence, a professional security force, and a measured response are necessary. Most important for any democracy in its struggle against terrorism is a public that is informed and engaged, and understands the nature of the threat, its potential cost, and why the fight against terrorism is its fight too. It is how well the United States meets this challenge that will determine the winners, the losers, and the price paid by each."

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199808/IND19980820o.html
President Clinton's Speech on Terrorist Attacks
August 20, 1998

"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_516000/516805.stm
FBI reorganises to combat terror
November 12, 1999

"The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests."

http://www.potomacinstitute.org/press/Moscow.htm
The Moscow Summit and Nuclear Terrorism
June 7, 2000

"The headlines surrounding the Moscow summit meeting between President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin focused primarily on the growing but inconclusive dialogue over mounting a defense against ballistic missiles launched from rogue states. Only scant media attention has been paid to concrete agreements related to the threat of nuclear terrorism.. "

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/18_blumenthal.html
"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton's Efforts to Fight Terrorism

"...that details how the Republican Congress and former FBI Director Louis Freeh (who allied himself with the anti-Clinton forces) undercut Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism. The excerpt also touches upon how after the impeachment trial, pseudo-scandal mongering by the media -- including the New York Times -- helped deflect public attention from President Clinton's struggle with terrorism."

http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/adm-anti-terror-otl.htm
Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative

I. Actions Already Announced by the President

(1) Pass the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995
(2) Provide more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism
(3) Conduct terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country within the next 60 days
(4) Direct GSA to replace the federal building in Oklahoma City.
(5) Direct the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and the National Security Adviser to prepare a Presidential Decision Directive authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign and domestic terrorism.

II. New Legislative Proposals

(1) INVESTIGATIONS
(2) PROSECUTION
(3) PENALTIES

 

[jAZ]

Ya gotta love Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

 

[theHawk]

You also gotta love things not widely reported in the Media. Like the fact that the base commander of the Khobar Towers was demanding better barricades to protect the towers since anyone could just park..say a truck full of explosives right next to an airmans dorm. Washingtion ignored the request.

Of course after the blast, they blammed the commander for not protecting his troops -

Brig. Gen. Terryl J. Schwalier, commander of the 4404th Wing (Provisional), was already packed, ready to leave after the change of command ceremony planned for the next day. Then came the blast. At approximately 9:50 p.m., a truck bomb exploded, throwing the force of more than 20,000 pounds of TNT against the concrete structure of Khobar. By the next day, the Air Force knew the worst. Nineteen Americans had died in the line of duty.

Intelligence Failure?

Initial reports from the scene strongly suggested an intelligence failure was to blame for the terrorist attack. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry declared, "Our commanders were trying to do right but, given the inconclusive nature of the intelligence, had a difficult task to know what to plan for." "We will pursue this," President Clinton pledged. "Those who did this must not go unpunished."

In Washington, officials launched investigations of the Khobar Towers incident specifically and military force protection policy in general. Within three days, Perry had chartered a retired Army officer, Gen. Wayne A. Downing, to do a fast, unvarnished review of the facts. In Congress, the House National Security Committee organized a fact-finding team and had it on the ground in Saudi Arabia within two weeks. Rep. Floyd D. Spence, the South Carolina Republican who heads the House National Security Committee, soon claimed that his staff study found "intelligence failures" at Khobar Towers.

Then, in late August, came Downing with his report, which singled out Schwalier for not protecting the wing. Downing's report took DoD and the entire chain of command to task for failings in its force protection policy. Then the report went on to charge that "it appears that the 'fly and fight' mission and 'quality of life' took precedence over force protection" at Khobar Towers and that Schwalier "did not adequately protect his forces."

Downing's decision to point the finger at Schwalier made light of the idea that there had been an intelligence failure or shortcomings in military-wide policy. "Intelligence did provide warning of the terrorist threat to US forces in Saudi Arabia," Downing said. "As a result, those responsible for force protection had both time and motivation to reduce vulnerabilities."

Ultimately, Downing's accusation

http://www.afa.org/magazine/june1998/0698khobar.asp



Way to go Clinton

 

[Bonnie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_oil

McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil

WASHINGTON - A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's populist president.

Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said recent action by "Mr. Chavez" and by Iran's leaders make it clear that the United States will be vulnerable as long as it remains dependent on foreign energy.

"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.

"We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy, and our very lives, have when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela," said McCain, who challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, with the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Mideast.

Chavez, a frequent U.S. critic, accuses foreign oil companies of having looted Venezuela. He has promised that his socialist "revolution" is freeing the country from "imperialist" interests and restoring its sovereignty.

Actually Canada has oil reserves that dwarf that of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other countries they just need more help in refining it.

But solar power is a great alternative as well.

I take it then that if McCain runs for office in 2008 you will be supporting him over Hillary?

 

[jAZ]

I take it then that if McCain runs for office in 2008 you will be supporting him over Hillary?

It would be hard not to. I respect him and his indepence from the far-right GOP.

However, I've learned my lesson in the last 5 years.

Gridlock and division of power is a very good thing. McCain would be better than Bush over the last few years, however if the Dems don't take back one of the houses of congress in 2006 (or look to be able to take them in 2008), then I would be forced to vote for the opposing party almost no matter who they run.

Things run amuck when parties get absolute power. That goes for both parties.

 

[jAZ]

You also gotta love things not widely reported in the Media. Like the fact that the base commander of the Khobar Towers was demanding better barricades to protect the towers since anyone could just park..say a truck full of explosives right next to an airmans dorm. Washingtion ignored the request.

As they say, it's better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all. I'll take Clinton's record over Bush, anyday.