Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_beastie]

Some of you sure have a lot of faith to insist there’s no way we’d attack Iran. Who would have thought, for example, that the man who once said this, in 1994....

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
CHENEY: No.
Q: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off -- part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

...would later be one of the main proponents of invading Baghdad after all? Cheney knew what invading Iraq would mean, he knew it.

This is why, for me, unless a given leader admits that invading Iraq was a mistake, that indicates a capacity to deny reality and a risk of repeating history. The drumbeat is sounding for Iran, just as it sounded for Iraq.

Pipe dream. I've served tours in both. Different approach, different environment, different military footprint. Afghanistan could use 5-6k more troops, but nothing like the amount of boots on the ground in Iraq. That being said, could you point out which divisions were originally earmarked for Afghanistan, and switched to Iraq?

Misleading question. They were planning on Iraq all along, so the diversion didn’t have to consist of units being “switched”. It had to do with planning for les military and less money because of the costs of Iraq. Do you really deny this? Do you really think that if we had not invaded Iraq, we would not have invested more military and money into Afghanistan????

Beastie’s original comment:

Afghanistan has been neglected and is now screaming for attention. The hard fact is that, aside from the incompetency of the Bush administration, we simply don’t have the means to deal with BOTH arenas simultaneously with a high degree of success. And you think we can add Iran on to that mess????

scip’s response

Another pipe dream. I've been to both, and the amount of success is measurable, particularly in Iraq.

Please, don't let some type of Bush derangement syndrome obscure those facts. It smacks of partisan hackery.

I never said there was “no measurable success”. I said a “high degree of success” – you know, what we were once promised.

Your source of this "vast majority"?

You do live in the US, don’t you? I’m serious, because it seems unfathomable to me that someone who lives in the US with their eyes open could actually question that the vast majority of US citizens want their government to provide a certain level of social services. This is obvious due to the fact that this is what our politicians deliver to us. You really think that if the populace didn’t want to preserve social nets that Bush would have had to beat a hasty retreat from his original ideas to dismantle social security? You really think that if the populace didn’t want even more social nets that health care would be such a hot topic today? You really think that if the populace didn’t want not only social services, but even more – fed money for their communities – that politicians wouldn’t deliver exactly that??? Is this just some plot on the part of evil politicians, to force social nets and services down the throats of citizens who don’t really want those things??? Are you serious? But in case you are, and you really think that the majority of US citizens agree with Droopy’s, and perhaps yours, libertarian “wet-dreams”, then you have a big job explaining the failure to elect mass numbers of libertarians who will enact those wet-dreams at the federal level.

You know what’s really funny? It’s coming out now that even Mayor Palin did a bang-up job delivering exactly what her town wanted her to deliver – federal funds. Palin delivers the goods

Yeah, yeah, I’m being told I’m a nutcase if I really believe McCain might support invading Iran. I bet people who imagined Cheney might once invade Iraq were told they were nutcases, too.

I just do not trust anyone who is not able to see what a disaster the invasion of Iraq has been for our country to make sane decisions for our future.

[_beastie]

Senator Obama is for infanticide (it becomes infanticide once a baby survives an abortion). As stories like the one above continue to circulate and gain momentum Catholics, Conservatives, and the swing vote will, once again, go Republican. THAT along with energy are the real issue that will sway this election, not Iraq.

This is just one more back-door attempt to ban abortion.

Infanticide is the killing of viable infants. This was already against the law in Illinois.

Factcheck

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

I have no doubt that many people will turn out to vote for McCain because they oppose Roe V. Wade, and because they don't want gay people getting married. That's been a big turnout in the past, it will continue to be in the future.

[_moksha]

Yeah, yeah, I’m being told I’m a nutcase if I really believe McCain might support invading Iran. I bet people who imagined Cheney might once invade Iraq were told they were nutcases, too.

I just do not trust anyone who is not able to see what a disaster the invasion of Iraq has been for our country to make sane decisions for our future.

Yeah McCain will keep us in the disaster zone. I am wondering if dartangan is hoping that in a fit of temper, McCain might even escalate attacks in the middle east. That could help explain his vehemence against Obama.

[_beastie]

Yeah McCain will keep us in the disaster zone. I am wondering if dartangan is hoping that in a fit of temper, McCain might even escalate attacks in the middle east. That could help explain his vehemence against Obama.

I do believe there are some people who would be very happy to see that happen - people who either believe that nukes are the best way to deal with the mid-east problem, or people who believe that wide-scale mid-east violence heralds Armageddon, and Jesus' return. Now this really sounds nutty to say, but I do believe there are quite a few people out there who think just this way, and I have long wondered if George W Bush is one of them. My parents, faithful Mormons, however, firmly believe that Bush's faith is showcase only, meant to manipulate believers into supporting policies against their own best interests.

[_dartagnan]

Some of you sure have a lot of faith to insist there’s no way we’d attack Iran. Who would have thought, for example, that the man who once said this, in 1994....

Um, duh!? That was in reference to the first gulf war, in which America's objective was to liberate Kuwait. The mission wasn't to topple Hussein. That initiative came to fruition after Saddam made a mockery of UN demands over a 12 year period and more light was shed upon his numerous genocides; oh yea, there was that WMD issue to boot. Saddam did a good job of convincing several international intelligence agencies he had them; even his own generals thought he had them.

Cheney knew what invading Iraq would mean, he knew it.

This is where you deserve the dunce cap again and should be placed in your reserved corner. Do you really not understand context? The type of war we experienced in Iraq over the past five years wasn't even imaginable in 1994. 15 years ago we thought if we went into Baghdad, we'd be fighting the Iraqi military along with its citizens. When we invaded Baghdad, that isn't what happened. The military immediately surrended, its citizens welcomed us with open arms, and Saddam was captured, tried and hanged by his own people. The casualties from this debacle has more to do with piss poor planning, and allowing armed Islamic insurgents to enter the country and make a mess of things. The whole thing was a bugança if there ever was one. People were getting killed by friendly fire because the thing was so disorganized. Helicopters backing into each other, etc. It was an embarrassment. The military never had control because the commanders didn't know how to take control. It wasn't until the recent surge that things calmed down to the level that was expected since their military surrendered.

This is why, for me, unless a given leader admits that invading Iraq was a mistake, that indicates a capacity to deny reality and a risk of repeating history. The drumbeat is sounding for Iran, just as it sounded for Iraq.

Israel will attack Iran, we won't need to. But if you want to play this flip flop game, just look at the dozens of democrats who supported the war in Iraq operating under the assumptions that 1. Saddam was trying to build WMDs and 2. he would use them against other nations. The first was wrong and the second was just a logical conclusion based on his history of attacking other nations. With Iran, these two are slam dunk givens. We know for a fact that they are persuing this agenda and their leader has already stated quite explicitly that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. So using the same logic and rationale by which democrats supported attacking Iraq, they would have no choice but to support an attack on Iran. Of course we wouldn't invade Iran, we'd just neuter their nuclear capabilities using long range weapons. That's what we did with Libya and Iraq the first round..

Do you really think that if we had not invaded Iraq, we would not have invested more military and money into Afghanistan????

Once we lost bin Ladin across Pakistani border, and once the Taliban was demolished, and once the Afghans established their own democratic government, understandably, focus had shifted to Iraq and a troop presence was minimized in Afghanistan.

I have no doubt that many people will turn out to vote for McCain because they oppose Roe V. Wade, and because they don't want gay people getting married.

Anyone who thinks abortion will be illegalized in the near future is naïve. I doubt it will ever be, and I tell other pro-lifers the same thing and most seem to agree. I doubt a significant number will vote along abortion lines. I think they won't vote for a pro-choice candidate on moral grounds, not because they really think abortion will be illegal if they elect a pro-life President. It takes much more than that to pass a law of this magnitude.

Yeah McCain will keep us in the disaster zone. I am wondering if dartangan is hoping that in a fit of temper, McCain might even escalate attacks in the middle east. That could help explain his vehemence against Obama.

My vehemence towards Obama is based on his stupidity. He's gotten far enough on his skin color. I'm not ready to hand over to him the most powerful position in the free world, just because he has a gift for speaking, and makes Oprah cry her eye lashes off. . Nobody here wants to defend his stupid remarks about how we should solve our energy crisis? Has he demonstrated that he knows what he's talking about, about anything?

McCain is a diplomat and will not start a new war, nor is he for an open ended war. He supported the war because he was convinced Saddam had WMDs (as did other intelligence agencies), but he never would have gone to Iraq as Bush did. Bush planned the Iraqi invasion before he ever became President.

What you liberals can't seem to grasp is that the "time-table" controversy has everything to do with showing the enemy your cards. Why the hell would we, in the middle of a war, tell the enemy when we are withdrawing? I think they are on the verge of withdrawing as it is. The surge is working, so be happy about that. We're not seeing the casualties we used to see every week. And does anyone here really think Obama is more experienced in handling military matters, than McCain? McCain was for the surge alla long, and we should have listened to him back in 2004, the results might have been the same.

I do believe there are some people who would be very happy to see that happen - people who either believe that nukes are the best way to deal with the mid-east problem

Who? Not me. I say we get the hell out of there. It is funny you guys accuse McCain of wanting to start another war when it is in fact obama who has stated on numerous occasions that he supports invading Pakistan!!

Why? So he can get credit for getting Osama bin Ladin. Pakistan is a nuclear power on the verge of take over by its own radical faction. They absolutely hate America, and Obama wants invade their country to hunt down someone they revere!!! Gee, talk about a recipe for disaster.

We made our presence in the Mid-East because we decided to rely on Saudi oil for most of our energy. Why piss off the tree hidding faction of the left when we could just kiss Saudi ass and buy as much oil as we wanted? That was a big mistake. But the liberals wouldn't let us drill anymore and forced us to shut down all future plans for nuclear power, so we really made our own bed on this one. I wish we would get the hell out of the Mid-East, stop trying to be the global police for ever corner of the globe, and start become self-sufficient. We've got all the resources here, let's use them.

or people who believe that wide-scale mid-east violence heralds Armageddon, and Jesus' return.

Shut up. You and your backdoor attacks on religion. Nobody here thinks that, at least not that I can see.

[_beastie]

You’d think someone who’s main goal appears to be to call other people stupid idiots as many times as possible in one post would be more careful with his comments.

Um, duh!? That was in reference to the first gulf war, in which America's objective was to liberate Kuwait. The mission wasn't to topple Hussein. That initiative came to fruition after Saddam made a mockery of UN demands over a 12 year period and more light was shed upon his numerous genocides; oh yea, there was that WMD issue to boot. Saddam did a good job of convincing several international intelligence agencies he had them; even his own generals thought he had them.

Um, duh? What portion of this statement changed in the interim?

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off -- part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Cheney was talking specifically about cost of “getting Saddam”. He was talking specifically about why Iraq would be difficult to manage, once having toppled Saddam. And you pretend that his statements aren’t pertinent to W’s war? Please. Maybe you think that by slinging around “stupid”, “idiot”, and “dunce” you make your arguments appear more persuasive than they actually are. It doesn’t work. The problems in your argument are still apparent.

This is where you deserve the dunce cap again and should be placed in your reserved corner. Do you really not understand context? The type of war we experienced in Iraq over the past five years wasn't even imaginable in 1994. 15 years ago we thought if we went into Baghdad, we'd be fighting the Iraqi military along with its citizens. When we invaded Baghdad, that isn't what happened. The military immediately surrended, its citizens welcomed us with open arms, and Saddam was captured, tried and hanged by his own people. The casualties from this debacle has more to do with piss poor planning, and allowing armed Islamic insurgents to enter the country and make a mess of things. The whole thing was a bugança if there ever was one. People were getting killed by friendly fire because the thing was so disorganized. Helicopters backing into each other, etc. It was an embarrassment. The military never had control because the commanders didn't know how to take control. It wasn't until the recent surge that things calmed down to the level that was expected since their military surrendered.

See above. Tell me what’s changed in the scenario Cheney laid out.

by the way, we’re still fighting Iraqi citizens.

Israel will attack Iran, we won't need to. But if you want to play this flip flop game, just look at the dozens of democrats who supported the war in Iraq operating under the assumptions that 1. Saddam was trying to build WMDs and 2. he would use them against other nations. The first was wrong and the second was just a logical conclusion based on his history of attacking other nations. With Iran, these two are slam dunk givens. We know for a fact that they are persuing this agenda and their leader has already stated quite explicitly that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. So using the same logic and rationale by which democrats supported attacking Iraq, they would have no choice but to support an attack on Iran. Of course we wouldn't invade Iran, we'd just neuter their nuclear capabilities using long range weapons. That's what we did with Libya and Iraq the first round..

Oh, I’m well aware that the vast majority of Democrats supported the war – which is exactly why Obama was taking a risk by opposing it, contrary to your assertion here. I have clearly stated, more than once, that I expect people who supported the war to now have enough decency and sense to admit that they made a grave error. If they are incapable of recognizing and admitting this, I don’t trust them with our future.

So how will Israel manage to vanquish Iran without our help?

Once we lost bin Ladin across Pakistani border, and once the Taliban was demolished, and once the Afghans established their own democratic government, understandably, focus had shifted to Iraq and a troop presence was minimized in Afghanistan.

And how has that worked out?

Anyone who thinks abortion will be illegalized in the near future is naïve. I doubt it will ever be, and I tell other pro-lifers the same thing and most seem to agree. I doubt a significant number will vote along abortion lines. I think they won't vote for a pro-choice candidate on moral grounds, not because they really think abortion will be illegal if they elect a pro-life President. It takes much more than that to pass a law of this magnitude.

LOL! Talk about naïve!!! Why do you think the Christian right is so concerned about supreme court justices?

My vehemence towards Obama is based on his stupidity. He's gotten far enough on his skin color. I'm not ready to hand over to him the most powerful position in the free world, just because he has a gift for speaking, and makes Oprah cry her eye lashes off. . Nobody here wants to defend his stupid remarks about how we should solve our energy crisis? Has he demonstrated that he knows what he's talking about, about anything?

To be brutally frank, you act as if everyone on this board, with very few exceptions, who opposes your opinions is stupid. One thing is clear, and that is you are a very bad judge of intelligence.

McCain is a diplomat and will not start a new war, nor is he for an open ended war. He supported the war because he was convinced Saddam had WMDs (as did other intelligence agencies), but he never would have gone to Iraq as Bush did. Bush planned the Iraqi invasion before he ever became President.

He would never have gone to Iraq “as Bush did”, meaning as incompetently, or he would never have gone to Iraq, period? Because I don’t recall him ever saying that invading Iraq was a bad idea in general.

What you liberals can't seem to grasp is that the "time-table" controversy has everything to do with showing the enemy your cards. Why the hell would we, in the middle of a war, tell the enemy when we are withdrawing? I think they are on the verge of withdrawing as it is. The surge is working, so be happy about that. We're not seeing the casualties we used to see every week. And does anyone here really think Obama is more experienced in handling military matters, than McCain? McCain was for the surge alla long, and we should have listened to him back in 2004, the results might have been the same.

Who said anything about the time-table controversy? Someone needs to tell Bush he’s showing the enemy our cards

Who? Not me. I say we get the hell out of there. It is funny you guys accuse McCain of wanting to start another war when it is in fact obama who has stated on numerous occasions that he supports invading Pakistan!!

Why? So he can get credit for getting Osama bin Ladin. Pakistan is a nuclear power on the verge of take over by its own radical faction. They absolutely hate America, and Obama wants invade their country to hunt down someone they revere!!! Gee, talk about a recipe for disaster.

We made our presence in the Mid-East because we decided to rely on Saudi oil for most of our energy. Why piss off the tree hidding faction of the left when we could just kiss Saudi ass and buy as much oil as we wanted? That was a big mistake. But the liberals wouldn't let us drill anymore and forced us to shut down all future plans for nuclear power, so we really made our own bed on this one. I wish we would get the hell out of the Mid-East, stop trying to be the global police for ever corner of the globe, and start become self-sufficient. We've got all the resources here, let's use them.

Well, at least here you said one or two things I agree with.

Shut up. You and your backdoor attacks on religion. Nobody here thinks that, at least not that I can see.

I bet you majored in debate in college, didn’t you? You had to learn your “dunce”, “idiot”, and “shut up” maneuvers from the best.

I never said anyone “here” thinks that, and if you think that there isn’t a group of Christians that thinks exactly that, you are fooling yourself.

[_antishock8]

Beastie,

Just so you know... I'm pro-choice. I don't think there's enough abortion, frankly. However, that being said there isn't going to be an overturn on Roe Vs. Wade. Even the Bush appointee, Chief Justice Roberts thinks Roe Vs Wade has been decided, and he's not going to overturn it.

That being said, there are enough infants that survive the abortive process, that if given proper medical treatment would survive. They're no different than "premies". The only difference is they're not wanted by the mother. That's infanticide, and THAT is going to be a very strong issue amongst the swing voters, Conservatives, and whomever else will be swayed by the imagery of a "premie" that survived the abortive process. Sticking a baby in a closet so it dies "naturally" IS barbaric. I mean, if we're going to support killing fetuses and babies (ie, fetuses that have made it out of utero alive) then we have to be honest about it.

That, and energy, are two issues that directly affect Americans. Wars that are far away and financed on credit aren't issues that Americans feel immediately. Do the math, Beastie. The ground reality is the Democrats, in order to obtain political power, are on the wrong side of the issue. But alas... They have their ideals...

edit: And it's not like people can't adopt, either. My atheist, pro-choice girlfriend, who believes in the death penalty adopted a kid. Frankly, I think mandating birth control or getting one's tubes tied in order to receive public assistance is a better alternative to killing a baby. I know Leftists don't like to call a spade a spade, since it's so... Well, it's unsettling... But the bottom line is they're killing life. They're killing a human, or a potential human. Kind of ironic since most of them don't believe in the death penalty, and are against hunting. On the flipside, the "pro-lifers" love to kill the criminals and love to kill the animals. So.. Yeah... Funny positions on life, abortion, the death penalty, and whatnot Americans have...

[_dartagnan]

Cheney was talking specifically about cost of “getting Saddam”. He was talking specifically about why Iraq would be difficult to manage, once having toppled Saddam. And you pretend that his statements aren’t pertinent to W’s war? Please. Maybe you think that by slinging around “stupid”, “idiot”, and “dunce” you make your arguments appear more persuasive than they actually are. It doesn’t work. The problems in your argument are still apparent.

Nowhere does Cheney describe "W's war" as it exists today, which is to essentially remove Hussein and police the state until the citizens are able to construct their own form of government. Cheney was talking about the idea of just removing Saddam and then leaving, hence his comments about the country being left to other countries. That isn't what we see today because in "W's war" we're sticking around to make sure that doesn't happen. That's the only reason we're still there. To make sure the Iraqi people are organized enough to stabilize Iraqi society and ensure their own economic future. I mean who the hell are we at "war" with in Iraq anyway? Certainly not the Iraqis. We're at war with any internal or external radicals who continue to terrorize. Their presence has been minimized substantially since the surge, which Obama was against. If Obama had his way we would have simply left Iraq shortly afterwards and all that collateral damage Cheney referred to in 1994 would become a reality.

See above. Tell me what’s changed in the scenario Cheney laid out.

See above.

by the way, we’re still fighting Iraqi citizens.

That is a misleading statement and you know it. Sure, like any country, Iraq has criminals, and technically some of the radical extremists have Iraqi citizenship. But it is false to assert in general terms, that we are at war with the citizens of Iraq. This is liberal spin.

Oh, I’m well aware that the vast majority of Democrats supported the war – which is exactly why Obama was taking a risk by opposing it

How was he taking a risk? He wasn't even in congress or the senate at the time. So where is the backfire for him to say he wasn't for it? He had nothing to lose. He was a nobody at the time.

contrary to your assertion here.

What assertion? Obama said he would invade Pakistan if President He doesn't care what the Pakistani government or its people have to say about that.

I have clearly stated, more than once, that I expect people who supported the war to now have enough decency and sense to admit that they made a grave error.

But it wasn't necessarily a grave error. It was poorly executed, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. I suppose only time will tell. It really depends on how Iraq develops. If it becomes a terrorist state, then you will have a point. On the other hand, if it becomes a genocide free country, free from radical Islam, and more friendly to western culture, then you'd have a hard time making this argument. Time will tell, and right now its too early for premature dogmatic assertions.

So how will Israel manage to vanquish Iran without our help?

Israel already has nukes and the best air force pilots on the planet. What else do they need to demolish Iran?

LOL! Talk about naïve!!! Why do you think the Christian right is so concerned about supreme court justices?

No less concerned than EA and his rowdy atheists on this forum.

To be brutally frank, you act as if everyone on this board, with very few exceptions, who opposes your opinions is stupid. One thing is clear, and that is you are a very bad judge of intelligence.

That is demonstrably false. I only called comments stupid, when they are. People oppose my opinions all the time, but not all of them make stupid comments.

He would never have gone to Iraq “as Bush did”, meaning as incompetently, or he would never have gone to Iraq, period? Because I don’t recall him ever saying that invading Iraq was a bad idea in general.

I don't think he would have gone period. The Iraq war was Bush's baby. He had it planned before entering office. I doubt anyone else was even dreaming of it.

[_beastie]

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.
SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him..

Meet the Press

[_dartagnan]

Is there supposed to be a point in there?

I nevers aid McCain didn't agree with Bush on Iraq. I said I don't think McCain would have initiated the war.