Good point. And if one takes the context out of it - that's what it sounds like.

It can be seen as simply as "why not wait for the next cycle before we do anything major?" - just like in about every issue in life.

But in this case - we have someone who is (or was at that point anyway) running on the platform against the war, claimed troops withdrawl in first 100 days in the office, and actually tried to get the troops back in early 2007. Throughout his campaign (again - until that time (now the issue is Palin or Economy)) he ran on a "End the war" platform making it sound like he genuinely believed it. Based on the article - it seems he only wanted to use the end of the war as a political tool - not something he really believes in. If the issue was small - no big deal - but considering this is what he ran on - feels like he is just saying feel good things without meaning them.

I would feel the same way - if McCain who ran on winning the war in due time was having secret side conversations on lets withdraw troops right now. In other words, if he was truly against the war - I would have expected him to discuss this issue entirely differently (e.g. can we start to withdraw troops right now? how would that impact you?, etc.).

In every situation - in life - in politics - everything can be argued in three "paradigms." And more often then not - people disagree because two sides are thinking about different paradigms. Quantitive Analysis (i.e. why make this choice?), Qualitative Analysis (i.e. is this the best choice?), and Comparative Analysis (i.e. how does this compare to my next best choice?).

Of course people disagree on the same paradigms as well - but those are probably the cruicial fundamental differences.