ELEZIONI PRESIDENZIALI USA 2004 - OFFICIAL MEGATHREAD

[GioFX]

E' ovvio che Bush cresca tatrat... la convention, spece una populista come questa, porta sempre consensi nell'immediato... il lungo termine è sempre quello incerto, invece...

dì un pò, hai letto le speeches, allora? che ne pensi di quello di Cheney, eh?

[tatrat4d]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
E' ovvio che Bush cresca tatrat... la convention, spece una populista come questa, porta sempre consensi nell'immediato... il lungo termine è sempre quello incerto, invece...

dì un pò, hai letto le speeches, allora? che ne pensi di quello di Cheney, eh?

Più che letto ho sentito. Penso che abbia fatto bene a puntare sulla maggiore debolezza di Kerry, l'avere cambiato troppe volte idea sulle questioni di sicurezza nazionale. Poi, io sono tra quelli che credono che un Kerry presidente potrebbe benissimo difendere gli USA (di Carter ne esce uno ogni 50 anni, ancora per un po' hanno già dato). Però il vantaggio di Bush è di averlo fatto, mentre Kerry può solo promettere di farlo. Del resto sulle questioni di difesa Kerry non è mai stato preferito anche quando era davanti nei sondaggi generali.
Ciao.

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da tatrat4d
Più che letto ho sentito. Penso che abbia fatto bene a puntare sulla maggiore debolezza di Kerry, l'avere cambiato troppe volte idea sulle questioni di sicurezza nazionale. Poi, io sono tra quelli che credono che un Kerry presidente potrebbe benissimo difendere gli USA (di Carter ne esce uno ogni 50 anni, ancora per un po' hanno già dato). Però il vantaggio di Bush è di averlo fatto, mentre Kerry può solo promettere di farlo. Del resto sulle questioni di difesa Kerry non è mai stato preferito anche quando era davanti nei sondaggi generali.
Ciao.

IMHO, quello che ha detto Cheney è quanto di pegigo abbia mai ascoltato, assieme a quell di Miller.

Bush può dire di aver fatto cosa? Ma dico, se manco il Berlusca gli da ragione riguardo la maggiore sicurezza del mondo attualmente? Bush ha chiuso la convention raccontando per l'ennesima volta che oggi il mondo è più sicuro di prima, grazie alle guerre in Afghanistan e in Iraq... ma dove?

[porny^n]

Originariamente inviato da zuper
ok ci credo attendo scansioni... ma non come quelle del lotto di porny!!!

se ti interessa ho postato più volte le fatidiche bollette.. vai a cercarle...

[GioFX]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm

Bush > 47.6%

Kerry > 46.4%

[GioFX]

Graham book: Inquiry into 9/11, Saudi ties blocked

By FRANK DAVIES


WASHINGTON - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources -- including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders -- were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was ``looking troubled'':

``Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.''

''Excuse me?'' I asked.

''Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,'' he continued.

Graham concluded: 'Gen. Franks' mission -- which, as a good soldier, he was loyally carrying out -- was being downgraded from a war to a manhunt.''

Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against al Qaeda terrorism.

He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Rep. Porter Goss, nominated last month to be the next CIA director. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.

Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.

Al-Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation that jumped from $465 to $3,700 in March 2000, after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar -- two of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, just before they began pilot training.

When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.

The administration and CIA also insisted that the details about the Saudi support network that benefited two hijackers be left out of the final congressional report, Graham complained.

Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. ``It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.''

Saudi officials have vociferously denied any ties to the hijackers or al Qaeda plots to attack the United States.

Graham ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination and then decided not to seek reelection to the Senate this year. He has said he hopes his book will illuminate FBI and CIA failures in the war on terrorism and he also offers recommendations on ways to reform the intelligence community.

On Iraq, Graham said the administration and CIA consistently overplayed its estimates of Saddam Hussein's threat in its public statements and declassified reports, while its secret reports contained warnings that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was not conclusive.

In October 2002, Tenet told Graham that ''there were 550 sites where weapons of mass destruction were either produced or stored'' in Iraq.

''It was, in short, a vivid and terrifying case for war. The problem was it did not accurately represent the classified estimate we had received just days earlier,'' Graham wrote. ``It was two different messages, directed at two different audiences. I was outraged.''

In his book, Graham is especially critical of the FBI for its inability to track al Qaeda operatives in the United States and blasts the CIA for ``politicizing intelligence.''

He reserves his harshest criticism for Bush.

Graham found the president had ''an unforgivable level of intellectual -- and even common sense -- indifference'' toward analyzing the comparative threats posed by Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

When the weapons were not found, one year after the invasion of Iraq, Bush attended a black-tie dinner in Washington, Graham recalled. Bush gave a humorous speech with slides, showing him looking under White House furniture and joking, ``Nope, no WMDs there.''

Graham wrote: ``It was one of the most offensive things I have witnessed. Having recently attended the funeral of an American soldier killed in Iraq, who left behind a young wife and two preschool-age children, I found nothing funny about a deceitful justification for war.''


Fonte: Miami Herald

[GioFX]

Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

Tue Sep 7, 6:29 PM ET
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the nation faces the threat of another terrorist attack if voters make the "wrong choice" on Election Day, suggesting that Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

"John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it," Edwards added.

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.

[GioFX]

This crap is really embarrasing. November needs to get here ASAP. Cheney is the Antichrist. I would cross the street if he was walking towards me on the sidewalk.

Darth Cheney's fearmongering is yet another example of the need for regime change in Washington.

This is ridiculous. Scaring the less intuitive portion of the American public into thinking that their bedroom will be suicide bombed if they don't agree with Bush is the ONLY way they've been able to keep such high (high for a complete fuck up) approval ratings. This is no different. 'Vote for us, or die'.

[SaMu]

Gio, sveglia.. a Novembre vince Bush, forse è ora che cominci a fartene una ragione.

[majin mixxi]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu
Gio, sveglia.. a Novembre vince Bush, forse è ora che cominci a fartene una ragione.

contento eh? in effetti tu saresti il supporter perfetto per uno come lui

[SaMu]

Originariamente inviato da majin mixxi
contento eh? in effetti tu saresti il supporter perfetto per uno come lui

Per me le cose cambiano poco, l'America è terra di libertà chiunque la governi.

Ma il gusto di vedere Gio passato dalla sicurezza della vittoria di Kerry al 4 more years per Bush, dove lo mettiamo?

[-kurgan-]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu
Per me le cose cambiano poco, l'America è terra di libertà chiunque la governi.

beh, non è un gran complimento per gli usa.. si spera che i due contendenti abbiano programmi differenti

[SaMu]

Altrochè se è un complimento.. riescono a scegliere tra due strade diverse nella giusta direzione.

[-kurgan-]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu
Altrochè se è un complimento.. riescono a scegliere tra due strade diverse nella giusta direzione.

azz.. quindi non cambierà mai nulla, un pò come con la democrazia cristiana

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu
Per me le cose cambiano poco, l'America è terra di libertà chiunque la governi.

la libertà!

Ma il gusto di vedere Gio passato dalla sicurezza della vittoria di Kerry al 4 more years per Bush, dove lo mettiamo?

Sicurezza di Kerry vincitore?!? quando mai l'avrei dichiarata?

Sicurezza di Bush vincitore? Perchè il motto dei delegati RNC era Four more years?!?

[SaMu]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
Sicurezza di Kerry vincitore?!? quando mai l'avrei dichiarata?

Sfortunatamente la ricerca arriva solo fino a Luglio.. qualche amministratore potrebbe ricercare i thread "GioFX" + "Kerry" nell'ultimo anno e postare i link per favore?

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu
Sfortunatamente la ricerca arriva solo fino a Luglio.. qualche amministratore potrebbe ricercare i thread "GioFX" + "Kerry" nell'ultimo anno e postare i link per favore?

No ho mai pensto nè scritto che Kerry sarebbe stato sicuramente il nuovo Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America.

Trovamelo e ti darò ragione.

[Amu_rg550]

curiosità:

Il resto del mondo non vuole Bush alla Casa Bianca - sondaggio

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gran parte del mondo vuole che il presidente Usa George W. Bush lasci la Casa Bianca, secondo un sondaggio che indica 30 Paesi su 35 favorevoli al candidato democratico John Kerry.

Kerry piace in particolare agli storici alleati degli Stati Uniti e batte Bush mediamente con un margine di due a uno, del 46% contro il 20%, rivela il sondaggio della società di ricerca GlobeScan, e dell'Università del Maryland.

Lo studio su cosa il resto del mondo pensa di Bush contrasta con i sondaggi negli Usa che indicano l'elettorato americano diviso e l'attuale presidente in leggero vantaggio dopo la convention repubblicana di questo mese.

Bush ha lanciato la campagna militare a guida Usa in Iraq lo scorso anno tra le obiezioni di molti governi, inclusi alcuni alleati, suscitando disapprovazione in molte persone attorno al mondo.

Kerry ha annunciato che porterà avanti forti alleanze internazionali se vincerà la corsa presidenziale.

"Solo uno su cinque vuole vedere Bush rieletto. Sebbene non sia molto noto, Kerry vincerebbe di gran lunga se la gente che si trova nel mondo votasse per il presidente degli Stati Uniti", ha dichiarato Steven Kull, direttore del programma universitario sui comportamenti politici sul piano internazionale.

Gli unici paesi dove Bush è in vantaggio nel sondaggio che ha ascoltato 34.300 persone tra luglio e agosto, sono Filippine, Nigeria e Polonia. India e Tailandia sono divise.

http://it.news.yahoo.com/040909/58/2xk62.html

chiaramente ha scarso valore, ma fa notare come il gradimento per la politica di bush nel mondo sia bassa, persino nei paesi storicamente alleati.

[ni.jo]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu
Henry si riferiva credo ad una campagna sullo specifico fatto dei Bin Laden volati via dall'America.

Se si tratta di un complotto ordito dal governo repubblicano, complice della famiglia del nemico pubblico numero uno, ci si aspetterebbe che i democratici lo portino fino alle estreme conseguenze parlandone in ogni dove, in ogni quando, sempre e comunque.

Henry voleva suggerire credo che il fatto che non ne parlino, che per i democratici non sia un argomento, è la prova provata che su quello specifico fatto non esiste alcun complotto, e che chi pensa che esiste è più realista del re (democratico, che avrebbe il massimo interesse a metterlo all'indice).

No, io mi riferivo al fatto che l'attuale amministrazione abbia dimostrato di non essere particolarmente efficente e che Kerry dice di poter fare meglio anche in quel campo, e lo dice.
Quello che non può dire, per questioni di tattica elettorale, è che ci sono stati intrallazzi e complotti; perchè non nè ha le prove e sarebbe un suicidio elettorale, in quanto verrrebbe visto come un attacco personale al presidente in carica.

p.s./o.t.
l'altra sera c'era un servizio sulla morte di kennedy...a parte il taglio della trasmissione (voyager ) si sono mostrati contributi interessanti su testimoni spariti, morti, cia, LBJ. e killers professionisti...nonchè facoltose famiglie petrolifere texane in difesa dei propri privilegi...

[GioFX]

Da Nytimes.com:

Bush Record: New Priorities in Environment

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: September 14, 2004

Every fall, after raising their young near Teshekpuk Lake and the Colville River, tens of thousands of geese and tundra swans leave the North Slope of Alaska for more southerly shores. Some end their journey at the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in the flatlands of North Carolina.

Both habitats could be transformed if current Bush administration initiatives come to pass. The birds would have oil rigs as neighbors in Alaska and be greeted by Navy jets simulating carrier takeoffs and landings in North Carolina.

That such projects could bracket the birds' path is not surprising in light of the priorities of the administration. Over the last three and a half years, federal officials have accelerated resource development on public lands. They have also pushed to eliminate regulatory hurdles for military and industrial projects.

From the start, Bush officials challenged the status quo and revised the traditional public-policy calculus on environmental decisions. They put an instant hold on many Clinton administration regulations, and the debates over those issues and others are intensely polarized.

The administration has sought to increase the harvesting of energy and other resources on public lands, to seek cooperative ways to reduce pollution, to free the military from environmental restrictions and to streamline - opponents say gut - regulatory and enforcement processes.

In a recent interview, Michael O. Leavitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, summed up the Bush administration's philosophy. "There is no environmental progress without economic prosperity," Mr. Leavitt said. "Once our competitiveness erodes, our capacity to make environmental gains is gone. There is nothing that promotes pollution like poverty."

The administration's approach has provoked a passionate response. Asked about his expectations in the event of President Bush's re-election, Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent who is the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote in an e-mail message: "I expect the Bush administration to continue their assault on regulations designed to protect public health and the environment. I expect the Bush administration to continue underfunding compliance and enforcement activities."

Mr. Jeffords concluded, "I expect the Bush administration will go down in history as the greatest disaster for public health and the environment in the history of the United States."

For many environmental groups, Mr. Bush's legacy was assured in his first year, thanks to highly publicized decisions that effectively repudiated Clinton administration positions. Mr. Bush backed off a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide and abandoned the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. Then the administration pushed, unsuccessfully, for a law allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It scrapped the phaseout of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park and briefly dropped a Clinton proposal to cut the permissible level of arsenic in drinking water by 80 percent.

The cumulative effect was striking. The decisions sought to reverse environmental action for which there was broad support. Polls by The New York Times in mid-2001 and late 2002 consistently showed public opposition to drilling in the Arctic refuge. A CBS poll in the same period showed that, by ratios of better than two to one, those polled said that environmental protection was more important than energy production.

The outcry ensured that some Bush administration initiatives favorable to the cause of environmental groups received little notice. They include the E.P.A.'s decision to force General Electric to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to remove PCB's in the Hudson River, a cleanup that has been delayed; legislation speeding the cleanup of urban industrial sites known as brownfields; increases in financing for private land set aside for conservation of animals and their habitats; and the first limits for diesel emissions in trucks and off-road vehicles.

The diesel regulations, said James F. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, would have as much impact on air quality as the rules that eliminated leaded gasoline. The clamor over the reversals, he said, "grossly overshadowed the accomplishments, which in scope and scale were of far greater consequence to environmental protection and natural resource conservation than anything people were complaining about."

The administration contends that free markets often provide the best solution to pollution. That belief underlies regulatory proposals to allow power plants that exceed their goals in reducing pollutants to sell cleanup credits to plants that fall short.

The failed "Clear Skies" act, incorporating this approach, was in many ways reborn in a pending regulation that Bush officials say would offer significant pollution reductions and that critics dismiss as a retreat from the mandates of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Leavitt called the reasoning simple. "Rather than spend decades and millions litigating" to ensure power plants' compliance one at a time, "let's require everyone to do it essentially at the same time," he said. "And create incentives for them to do more as opposed to incentives to try to avoid."

Mr. Jeffords countered, "The relaxed Bush approach will produce more illness, disease and premature deaths than simply putting the federal government's full resources into achieving compliance with the Clean Air Act and pushing the development of cleaner, more efficient electricity generation."

The recent proposals for Alaska and North Carolina reflect some of the themes of the administration's overhaul of environmental policies.

In 1998, Bruce Babbitt, President Bill Clinton's interior secretary, opened to oil drilling four million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. That is 87 percent of the landmass of the reserve's northeast quadrant. The 580,000 acres held back, including Teshekpuk Lake, were considered crucial wetlands habitat for molting and nesting fowl - swans, geese, peregrine falcons and other species - and for caribou and the hunters who live off them. But geological surveys show that large volumes of oil lie beneath much of that area. In June, the Interior Department proposed opening the lake and most of the remaining acreage to drilling, because, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton said recently, "that's where the resource is."

Well before that proposal, a panel of the National Research Council, a private, nonprofit institution, issued a mixed report on the cumulative effects of 40 years of oil development on the North Slope. Bird populations, it found, dwindled as the numbers of predators like foxes and brown bears grew unnaturally large. The predators were drawn to the area by oil-field garbage.

Edward Porter, research manager for the American Petroleum Institute, said the situation was unlikely to recur around Teshekpuk Lake because the exploration envisioned would have few permanent facilities.

At the birds' other way station, in North Carolina, the prospective disturbances would be the latest F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet jet fighters, which would touch down and take off from a new airfield 31,650 times each year.

A Fish and Wildlife Service advisory in March raised concern; the noise of a jet taking off is two to four times greater than the level that startles such birds into flight. During their winter sojourn, the birds accumulate the fat that fuels their next migration. The more jets startle them into flight, the more they burn fat needed for the journey.

The Navy's review concluded that the birds "would not be affected." Navy officers also argued that the risk of collisions between birds and planes - which is estimated to be higher than at any other airfield in the country - could be mitigated.

When local North Carolinians and the Audubon Society went to court to block the project, the administration closed ranks, and the Interior Department, the parent agency of the Fish and Wildlife Service, supported the Navy. A United States District Court judge has temporarily blocked the Navy from proceeding.

In many ways, the issues in the birds' neighborhoods speak to the aims, tactics and results of the Bush environmental strategy as much as the better-known inventory of decisions, like the scuttling of the Clinton ban on new roads in 58.5 million acres of roadless national forests.

Environmentalists, for example, accuse the administration of trying to pressure or ignore its scientists, from those of the Pocosin biologists in North Carolina to Environmental Protection Agency scientists working on global warming. In several instances at the agency and at the Fish and Wildlife Service, political appointees aggressively policed agency scientific work that could form the basis of new regulations.

Administration officials, some of whom were lobbyists for the industries they now regulate, say the crucial factors in their thinking are scientific rigor and economic logic. Such priorities were cited in the proposal to expand drilling in Alaska.

The effort to offer the set-aside section of the Alaska petroleum reserve for leasing parallels moves across the West. Bureau of Land Management offices and their land-use plans have been re-engineered to streamline leasing and drilling decisions. From the beginning of the fiscal year, the number of drilling permits has increased to 5,222, the bureau reported. If that pace continues, the annual total will be more than 50 percent higher than the average in the previous three years.

Ms. Norton says that "less than one percent of the surface acres of the Bureau of Land Management have any disturbance for oil and gas production." With new safeguards for wildlife and technologies allowing several wells to branch underground from one well pad, both energy and environmental needs can be satisfied, she said.

The means by which energy development accelerated, like the revamping of land-use planning guidelines, is pretty dry stuff. So are procedural questions; for example, when a local office should clear decisions with headquarters. In the Bush years, officials have relied more on less-visible administrative action than on legislation to advance their agenda. For instance, local Army Corps of Engineers offices have been instructed to check with headquarters before taking jurisdiction over wetlands slated for development, a process that critics say discourages wetlands protection.

The administration had developed a draft proposal to curtail federal wetlands jurisdiction but had to back off after it was disclosed last fall and conservative hunters and fishermen blanched. At a White House meeting, leaders of fishing and hunting groups argued that the plan would degrade large tracts of wetlands and diminish nearby wildlife. Mr. Leavitt quickly repudiated the draft. Last Earth Day, President Bush, standing by salt marshes in Maine, called for a net gain in wetland acreage.

Last fall, Mr. Leavitt, the former governor of Utah, took over from Christie Whitman. She had resigned as E.P.A. administrator after two years as what Secretary of State Colin L. Powell called a "wind dummy" - a reference to the buffeting she took for the administration's unpopular initiatives.

The portfolio of issues Mr. Leavitt inherited is not in the same stage it was in in January 2001, at the start of the Bush administration. Many of the administration's environmental policies have laid a foundation for more comprehensive actions in a second term. Critics are convinced that efforts to increase oil and gas drilling on federal lands will accelerate, as will efforts to change laws like the Endangered Species Act.

Ms. Norton acknowledged that the issue of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example, would resurface because "that it is our largest prospect for onshore oil." She added, "There will be extensive environmental protections."

Asked if she would have done anything different in the last few years, she said: "I would have spent more time talking about our successes. Because we've accomplished a lot more than we've ever gotten credit for."