On May 2, Sen. John McCain criticized Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's positions on Iraq during a town hall event at the Robert E. Loup Jewish Community Center in Denver, Colorado, saying that their proposals "would lead to catastrophe and chaos, and that we would have the whole region -- including the country -- in such turmoil that we would be required to come back to the region." McCain then added: "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East, that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East" [emphasis added]. A search of the Nexis and Factiva databases shows that the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal have yet to report on McCain's statement, which suggests a very different justification for the United States' initiating war in the Middle East than that given for the Iraq invasion.

McCain's traveling press secretary Brooke Buchanan reportedly explained the comments by asserting that McCain was referring to the first Gulf War. However, ABCNews.com's Bret Hovell noted in a May 2 post on the Political Radar blog that McCain "did not mention the first Gulf War during his town hall meeting in Denver," adding: "His comments then came in the context of a conversation about the latest Iraq struggle, and how his plans for Iraq differ from that of his Democratic opponents, who want to begin withdrawing troops quickly from Iraq." Moreover, in a May 2 post on MSNBC.com's First Read blog, Adam Aigner-Treworgy reported that -- at a press conference in Phoenix -- when McCain was "asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was 'thinking about the first Gulf War,' he said no."

McCain's initial comments and subsequent attempt to explain them suggest several pertinent questions for the print media to ask McCain if they decide to cover the story:

• In your comments at a town hall in Denver, Colorado, you said, "I will have an energy policy that ... will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will ... prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." Later, in seeking to clarify those comments you said, "if we're dependent on anything outside the United States of America, it has to, it has to enter into any calculations that we make. I mean if we're dependent on something from some part of the world, then that has to be part of our calculation that we make." The AP reported that you also said later, "The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction." Notwithstanding your subsequent clarification, don't your original words literally mean that our dependence on foreign oil was the reason we went into Iraq?

• If our presence in Iraq is related to our need for oil, why didn't you give that as a justification for invading Iraq before the invasion?

• If our presence in Iraq is related to our need for oil, why have gas prices skyrocketed since the war began?

• When later clarifying your remarks, you also said, "I was talking about that we had fought the first Gulf War for several reasons." But when the Associated Press asked, "That comment that you made in the town hall meeting which is why you came back to talk to us. That was, what was in your mind, was [sic] you were thinking about the first Gulf War?" you reportedly responded, "No." Were you or were you not referring to the first Gulf War?

• In clarifying your comments, you said:

I was talking about that we had fought the first Gulf War for several reasons. One of them was Saddam Hussein's invasion and that's just not something that's acceptable, although countries have invaded other countries in other parts of (inaudible.) But also we didn't want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil. And it's more important than in any other part of the world. But what my point is that the 10 or 15 years from now we will not have to send our troops to fight in the Middle East. That's what we want to be sure of.

If eliminating our dependence on foreign oil means "we will not have to send our troops to fight in the Middle East," in the context of the first Gulf War, are you suggesting that you would have opposed military action against Iraq in 1990 had Saddam Hussein invaded a non-oil producing country, as opposed to Kuwait?

• With both your initial comments and your later clarification -- that upon achieving energy independence "10 or 15 years from now we will not have to send our troops to fight in the Middle East. That's what we want to be sure of" -- did you intend to convey that no other rationale might exist in the future for "send[ing] our troops to fight in the Middle East"? If not, what other future rationale might justify "send[ing] our troops to fight in the Middle East"?

• In your comments at a town hall meeting in Denver, you said: "I just want to promise you this, my friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." Can we assume from that statement that upon achieving energy independence, you will withdraw all combat troops from Iraq?

CNN aired a clip of McCain's comments. From the May 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

McCAIN: Senator Obama and Senator Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That's what they want to do, is get everybody out. I believe that that would lead to catastrophe and chaos, and that we would have the whole region -- including the country -- in such turmoil that we would be required to come back to the region.

And I just want to promise you this. My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

From a May 2 post by Adam Aigner-Treworgy on MSNBC.com's First Read blog:

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF MCCAIN'S DEFENSE---

ABC:
It was just a new way of hearing you talk about it. I mean one of the things, you obviously have talked about why we went in, and weapons of mass destruction.

McCain:
Yeah, yeah. The congressional record is very clear, I said we went to war in Iraq because of Weapons of Mass destruction. Yeah.

ABC:
Phrased as you did today, making it sound like we would never have to fight a war again, well you said we would never have to fight a war again. Well the flip side of that coin is that we had to fight a war now...

McCain:
No no, I was talking about that we had fought the first gulf war for several reasons. One of them was Saddam Hussein's invasion and that's just not something that's acceptable, although countries have invaded other countries in other parts of (inaudible.) But also we didn't want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil. And it's more important than in any other part of the world. But what my point is that the 10 or 15 years from now we will not have to send our troops to fight in the Middle East. That's what we want to be sure of.

NBC:
You've referenced other threats in the Middle East that might require U.S. presence there military presence there. So going beyond that, you linked your energy policy to saying that we would never have to send troops into the Middle East again.

McCain:
Yeah Because we will not have dependency on foreign oil, we will have independency of foreign oil and we will not have to have that as a factor in any conflict that we have to engage in. I mean, look, it's very clear why I supported the war in Iraq. And if the word 'again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons. That's what I was saying. And that's all I mean. And that's all I mean. And so to put any other interpretation on it, except that our national security will not be threatened because of our dependency on foreign oil is a misinterpretation of any of my remarks. I want to make it clear. We will not have to go into a conflict in the Middle East because of our national security being threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. I don't have anything to elaborate on.

AP:
That comment that you made in the town hall meeting which is why you came back to talk to us. That was, what was in your mind, was you were thinking about the first Gulf War?

McCain:
No, I was thinking about, it's not hard to, we will not, by eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won't be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That's what my remarks were.

Go ahead and follow up if you want to.

NBC:
No I understand, as I was talking to Brooke, it came on the heels of your discussion of the 100 years comment, and

McCain: Oh yeah

NBC: how your presence in Iraq had been misinterpreted.

McCain: Oh, I can see that. I can see how that --

NBC: Right on the heels of that comment, it didn't make sense to me when I was writing it, that you were referencing a previous war.

McCain: And I'm sorry if there was a, I'm sorry if there was a misconception of that. And I hope that I cleared it up and I want you to have a nice weekend and we will continue our conversations Saturday and Sunday. But I really want to be clear, I don't want us to have to be dependent on foreign oil which is our, which would then threaten our national security, because of our dependency on it. That's one of the major reasons why we have to have energy independence.

NBC:
More so than just the money we spend on gasoline going to terrorist groups, which you have linked on countless occasions.

McCain: Yeah

NBC: But this is a different sort of link, you're saying that we don't want to have to be dependent on protecting our oil in the Middle East again.

McCain:
No, I don't want us to have to be dependent on foreign oil. I want us to be energy independent. So any decisions that are made, they're not influenced by dependency on foreign oil.

ABC:
Do you think any decisions have been made in recent years that were about our, relating to our dependency?

McCain:
I think that if we're dependent on any thing outside the United States of America, it has to, it has to enter into any calculations that we make. I mean if we're dependent on something from some part of the world, then that has to be part of our calculation that we make. But I, it's obvious that we are dependent on oil from the Middle East and that is something that we have to become independent of, because it's very unstable part of the world.

ABC:
I just think, that that point, which you have made before, or which you made today, is not that short a leap to say then well, we got into Iraq and if that was part of our calculations then that is

McCain:
No, I don't believe we got into Iraq, as I've stated, and I made the debates, and the debates and the discussions a thousand times since then. We went to Iraq because we believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to use them. That is a very, the congressional record is replete with that and for me to change my view, how many years later, I mean would, just wouldn't be logical.

NBC:
Just one quick follow up then. After you said that the major combat mission was over, once the sort of regime had been overthrown in Iraq: was oil any part of the thought process as to why we needed to stay in Iraq to secure or prevent any sort of chaos in the region, was oil part of that decision.

McCain:
No, we had to conduct it right, not stay. We had to do it right. We did it wrong. Fiasco, Cobra II, read any book about how it was terribly mishandled. It had nothing to do with dependency or non dependency on oil. It had to do with how we handled the post combat phase, which was terribly mishandled for nearly four years, which I fought against and argued against. But we don't want to be dependent on the Middle East for oil, for very obvious reasons. The vagaries of the supply is one of them. And so I hope that there's no confusion about my support for the war in Iraq, and it wasn't to do with oil, it had to do with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.

I hope it clears it that up. I'm sorry that the word 'again' somehow caused a, an upheaval.

I look forward to seeing you guys.