Here's the rest of it:  See what I mean, she could've killed an entire school with her lies:

PALIN: "As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever hegoes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not amember of the permanent political establishment."

1999: Campaigning In San Francisco, CA, McCain Said "I Would Not Support Repeal Of Roe v. Wade." In August 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain said he "would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade": "I'd love to see a point where (Roe vs. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." [The San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99]

· McCain Said Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. McCain said,"I do not support Roe v. Wade. I think it should be overturned." [New York Times, 2/24/07]

At A Private Meeting With Hispanic Community Leaders, McCain "Assured Leaders He Would Push Through Congress Legislation To Overhaul Federal Immigration Laws If Elected." "Republican presidential John McCain assured Hispanic leaders he would push through Congress legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected, several people who attended a private meeting with the candidate said Thursday.Democrats questioned why the Arizona senator held the meeting late Wednesday night in Chicago. But supporters who were in the room denied that McCain held the closed-door session out of fear of offending conservatives, many of whom want him to take a harder line on immigration. … 'He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans.And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics,' complained Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic and conservative Republican who attended the meeting. Pulido, who heads the Illinois Minuteman Project, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, said she thought McCain was 'pandering to the crowd' by emphasizing immigration reform in his15-minute speech. 'He's having his private meetings to rally Hispanics and to tell them what they want to hear,' she said. 'I'm outraged that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative.'" [AP, 6/20/08]

· During GOP Primary Debate At Reagan Library, McCain Said HeWould Oppose the Legislation He Authored With Kennedy. McCain co-authored the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration bill which wasdescribed in 2006 by the Miami Herald as "the most generous of the bills now before Congress." The legislation "would legalize as many as11 million undocumented immigrants" and "grant temporary work permits to illegal immigrants and then after waiting six years and paying a$2,000 fine, it would enable them to apply for green cards." During aRepublican presidential primary debate held at the Regan Library,McCain was asked whether he would vote for the this immigration legislation that he previously sponsored. When pressed, he eventually replied, "No, I would not." [Miami Herald, 2/24/06; CNN GOP Presidential Debate, 1/30/08]

PALIN: "But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill,and clear convictions…"

REALITY: PALIN UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

Former State Official Accused Palin, Palin's Former Chief of Staff andCurrent Ted Stevens Campaign Manager and Palin's Husband Of PressuringHim to Fire Trooper. In July 2008, former state official Walt Monegan accused Palin, Palin's former Chief of Staff and current Stevens'campaign manager Mike Tibbles and husband Todd Palin of pressuring him to fire Palin sister's ex-husband Mike Wooten. [Anchorage DailyNews, 07/18/08]

July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate PalinAbuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister. The legislator's intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11,07/28/08]

PALIN: "We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers."

Palin Responded Favorably to Obama's Energy Plan. According to a news release from her office, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-AK, said she was"pleased" by Obama's energy plan. "I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska's natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs," she said. "The steps takenby the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we areready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs." The press release said that "in a speech given in Lansing, Michigan,Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gaspipeline, stating, 'Over the next five years, we should also leasemore of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.'" [Palin press release, 8/4/08]

PALIN: " But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

REALITY: OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SWEEPING REFORMS SINCE WATERGATEIN BOTH THE ILLINOIS AND US SENATES, AMONG OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Obama Helped Pass The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travelon corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and partycommittees. In January 2007, the Washington Post wrote in aneditorial that "…Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bushsigned a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades…Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. who had pushed for the bundlingprovisions and was one of four lawmakers who participated in a Democratic conference call to reporters said the measure marks "themost sweeping ethics reform since Watergate." [S. 230, 110thCongress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07;TheWashington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

Obama Passed Illinois State Gift Ban Act "Heralded As the MostSweeping Good-Government Legislation in Decades." In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban that prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The Chicago Tribune wrote, "Gov. Jim Edgar signed into law Wednesday anethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good-government legislation in decades." The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raisedmoney could be spent. Obama said, "I have seen a general cynicism from taxpayers about government. They believe they have no influence on the process since they don't have the money of special interest groups. With the gift ban and the ban on Springfield fund-raisers that are contained in this legislation, I think at least some of thisconfidence will be restored." [HB672, 3R P 52-4-1, 5/22/98; PA90-0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98]

Ø Illinois Ethics Bill Most Far Reaching Since Watergate,Product Of Bipartisan Work. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote ofObama's bill, "The ethics restrictions would be the most far-reaching since the Watergate-era campaign financial disclosure law. They are the product of months of negotiations among two lawmakers of each party, other state officials and Mike Lawrence. He is an aide toformer Sen. Paul Simon, a Democrat, and used to be an aide to Edgar, a Republican." [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/24/98]

Obama And Lugar Passed Law Boosting U.S. Efforts To Keep WMDs AndOther Dangerous Weapons Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. In 2006,Obama and Lugar introduced The Cooperative Proliferation DetectionAct, which was passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committeeunanimously on May 26, 2006 and was eventually incorporated into the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 and signed into law onJanuary 11, 2007. According to a Senate Foreign Relations Committeereport on its legislative activity in the 109th Congress, "The committee passed S. 2566, The Cooperative Proliferation Detection,Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006by unanimous consent on May 26, 2006. The legislation authored by Chairman Lugar and Senator Obama enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles aroundthe world; and (2) the United States' ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation, which garnered 26 co-sponsors (including 8 committee members), sought to energize U.S.programs to secure lightweight anti-aircraft missiles…The initiative was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. The legislation was signed into law on January 11, 2007, as a part of H.R. 6060, theDepartment of State Authorities Act of 2006." [P.L. 109-472, 1/11/07;House Report 109-706, 9/3/06; S. 2566, 109th Congress; S.1949, 109th Congress; Senate Report 110-40, 3/29/07]

Ø Lugar Said It Was Accurate That Said Obama Reached Out To HimAnd They Passed Legislation To Lock Down Loose Nuclear Weapons."Republican Sen. Dick Lugar (IN) today said an Obama campaign ad which features him is 'accurate.' The ad makes the point the Obama previously 'reached out' to Lugar to 'help lock down loose nuclear weapons.' Lugar is widely considered one of the most knowledgeable in the area of nuclear weapons proliferation and the coauthored of the1991 Nunn-Lugar Act on cooperative threat reduction. 'He did' reachout, Lugar said. He explained that in 2005, Obama asked if he couldjoin Lugar on a trip to Russia and other countries to visit sitesunder the Nunn-Lugar program. 'After that, we had legislation that we cosponsored together which passed' dealing with dangerous missiles.'So I am pleased we had that opportunity to work together,' Lugarsaid. 'I'm pleased we had the association Sen. Obama describes.' But Lugar made clear up front that while the ad was accurate, and he's comfortable with the association, 'There is no chance I will consider running with Barack Obama.'" [MSNBC, 7/15/08]

Obama and Coburn Passed A Bill Creating A "Google-like" Database ForThe Public To Search Details About Federal Funding Awards. In 2006,Obama and Coburn co-authored a bill to create a "Google-like" database of information on federal spending. The bill requires the OMB byJanuary 1, 2008, to make available to the public a searchable, freewebsite that includes the (1) amount; (2) transaction type; (3)funding agency; (4) North American Industry Classification Systemcode or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number; (5) programsource; (6) an award title descriptive of the purpose of each fundingaction; (7) the name and location of the recipient and the primary location of performance; and (8) a unique identifier of the recipient and any parent entity. The site must allow users to conduct separate searches that distinguish between awards that are grants, sub-grants,loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and awards that are contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. [S. 2590, Passed by Unanimous Consent,9/7/06; Became PL 109-282, 9/26/06]

Obama Passed Law Ensuring That Wounded Veterans Recovering In Military Hospitals Do Not Have To Pay For Their Meals Or Phone Calls To FamilyMembers. In 2005, Obama sponsored and passed an amendment that to the2005 emergency supplemental appropriations act ensuring that wounded veterans recovering in military hospitals do not have to pay for theirown meals or phone calls to family members. The amendment was then passed in each of the following Congresses. Prior to passage of the amendment, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals. Obama's amendment required the military to provide free meals for service members in militaryhospitals undergoing recuperation or therapy as a result of wounds sustained in Iraq or Afghanistan. The amendment was retroactive toJanuary 1, 2005 in an effort to provide those injured service memberswho received bills for their meals with some relief from those costs.The amendment became law. [S. Amdt. 390, Passed by unanimous consent,4/14/05 to H.R.1268, Signed by the President, 5/11/05, Became PublicLaw No: 109-013; Obama Press Release, 5/11/05]

Obama Proposals Providing Improvements In Health Care For RecoveringSoldiers Were Passed Into Law, Including Requirements For Post-Deployment Mental Health Screenings And National Study On The Needs OfIraq War Veterans. H.R. 976, passed by the Senate on August 2, 2007,includes several provisions from bills originally sponsored by Senators Obama and McCaskill. The provisions would improve healthcare services and health care tracking for service members, and would require post-deployment, face to face mental health screenings for returning service members within 30 days. The bill also adopts other Obama-McCaskill legislation, the HERO Act, which would launch a major national research endeavor into the readjustment needs of returningservice members, veterans and their families. The bill also included measures to improve and reform the disability rating process. [Vote307, H.R. 976, Passed, 68-31, 8/2/07; S. 713, 110th Congress; S. 1271,110th Congress; Obama Press Release, 7/25/07; H.R. 4986, Became PublicLaw No: 110-181, 1/28/08]

Obama Worked With Republicans To Pass Legislation, Which Became Law, Improving And Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans. In 2006,Congress passed a Veterans Affairs Committee bill which includedseveral provisions originating in Obama's SAVE Act (S. 1180) and Homesfor Heroes Act (S. 3475). "The legislation…includes a number of proposals from legislation Senator Obama had previously introduced (S.1180, the SAVE Act and S.3475 the Homes for Heroes Act) to expand and improve services for homeless veterans. The bill permanently authorizes and increases funding to $130 million per year for a competitive grant program to provide homeless services to veterans. It greatly increases a successful program to provide rental vouchers tohomeless veterans. The legislation extends programs to providing treatment for veterans with mental illnesses and other special needs.And it permanently extends VA's ability to transfer property it owns to homeless shelters." Obama worked with VA Committee RepublicansCraig and Burr on the committee legislation that eventually became law. [S. 3421/P.L. 109-461; S. 1180, 109th Congress; S. 3475, 109thCongress; Obama Press Release, 6/26/06]

Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care CoverageTo 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. As a state senator,Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded andmade permanent Illinois' KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race,the State Journal-Register wrote, "Obama brings similar common-senseviews to improving health care in America - for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assiststhousands of children of the working poor." The bill was sponsored inthe state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican and passed 42-13. [93rdGA, SB 130, 3R P 42-13-2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93-0063; ChicagoDaily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal-Register,10/29/04]

Obama Passed A Bill Creating $100 Million Earned Income Tax Credit AsA Member Of The Minority Party In The Illinois Senate. In 1999, Obamawas the lead sponsor of a bill making Illinois the 11th state to adoptan earned income-tax credit. The bill provided that each individualtaxpayer is entitled to a credit against the tax imposed by the Act inan amount equal to 5% of the federal earned income tax credit allowed.Then-Gov. George Ryan opposed the move, but an unlikely politicalalliance – including Republicans and Democrats – formed to reduce thetax burden on working poor families. The AP wrote, "The new law, whichoffers about $105 million in tax breaks over the next three years,gives a state income tax credit equal to 5 percent of a similarfederal tax credit. For the average working family making less than$30,580, that amounts to about $55 a year, or 15 cents a day. Themaximum credit for families with two or more children is $191 ayear." [91st GA, HB 3939; 4/14/00, 3R P; 59-0-0; P.A. 91-0700,5/11/00; Chicago Tribune, 4/10/99]

Obama Passed Near-Unanimous Death Penalty Overhaul Package. Obama wasthe chief co-sponsor and voted for bill creating the CapitalPunishment Reform Study Committee Act. The proposal, which wasapproved on a 57-1 vote, was virtually identical to reforms pushed in2002 by then-Gov. George Ryan. If passed by the House and signed intolaw by the governor, the bill would let judges rule out a deathsentence for someone convicted solely on the testimony of a jailhouseinformant, accomplice or single witness; let the state Supreme Courtoverturn a death sentence that was "fundamentally unjust.; Reduce thecrimes eligible for the death penalty by focusing on "inherentlyviolent" offenses; Expand defendants' access to genetic evidence usedagainst them; Ban police officers from the police force if theycommitted perjury in a murder case; and Require juries to consider adefendant's history of abuse or mental illness when deciding whether to impose the death sentence. Obama said, "As far as the Bill goes, it doesn't address whether the death penalty is applied fairly to allraces and in all regions of the state. And it doesn't appease those who want capital punishment eliminated." [93rd GA, SB 0472; 4/3/03,3R P; 57-1-0; 5/29/03, HA1 SC; 56-3-0; 11/5/03, OAV P; 58-0-0; P.A.93-0605, 11/25/03; Pantagraph, 4/4/03; Associated Press, 4/24/03]

PALIN: "America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it."

REALITY: Obama has expressed support for a bipartisan compromisethat would cut tax breaks for oil companies, invest in alternative energies, and allow for limited new offshore drilling

Obama Said He Would Be Open To Offshore Drilling If We Come Up With "AGenuine Bipartisan Compromise" To Get To Energy Independence."Senator Barack Obama said Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels. At the same time, Senate Republicans appear to have dropped their insistence on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Mr. Obamahas until now opposed any offshore drilling. But in a news conferencehere, he noted that there had been 'very constructive' talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats on this issue in recent days,applauding a plan unveiled by a group of Republican and Democratic senators to permit drilling while supporting an effort to convert most vehicles to using alternative fuels in 20 years. 'If we come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, where I have to accept some things thatI don't like in order to get energy independence,' Mr. Obama said,'that's something I will have to consider.' Still, he cautioned thathe was not yet 'ready to sign off on any approach.'" [New York Times,8/3/08]

Ø Tapper: "This Strikes Me As Not A Complete And Utter Reversal"But Rather "A Recognition That Energy Legislation RequiresCompromise." "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, now says he'd be willing to consider legislation including expanded off-shore drilling if part of a larger package, despite his long-time opposition to the idea. I'mwith my friend Marc Ambinder -- this strikes me as not quite a complete and utter reversal, but certainly a shift in tone andlanguage, indicating a softening of his opposition and a recognition that energy legislation requires compromise. Not unlike Sen. JohnMcCain's statement that when it comes to Social Security reform, everything must be on the table, even though he personally opposes tax increases. (Though the back-peddling on that was confounding.)." [ABCNews, 8/2/08]

Ø Ambinder: "This Strikes Me As Less Of A Shift And More As AGesture Of Sorts To The Reality That The Major Cap And TradeLegislation Next Year…Requires The Participation Of And CompromiseFrom The Industry." Marc Ambinder wrote, "In an interview yesterday, Obama said that he'd be willing to accept additional domestic oil exploration as part of a bipartisan compromise on energy reform. Thisstrikes me as less of a shift and more as a gesture of sorts to the reality that the major cap and trade legislation next year thatCongress will mark up -- legislation that will be introduced regardless of who's president -- requires the participation of and compromise from the industry. The oil industry has two cards, basically, in the negotiations. One: that windfall profits taxes would disincentivize further exploration somehow... two: that, as the staple source of energy, oil companies ought to have more land/water to figure out where oil is and then tap those pools. Democrats are more likely to compromise on the second, rather than the first. Notethat Obama is still opposed to expanded drilling off the coasts of Florida." [The Atlantic, 8/2/08]

Ø Stoller: Obama Supported A "Real Compromise" On Energy. Obama's position on drilling is "actually a real compromise…the compromise put forward by Obama would in fact move us forward onsustainable energy while raising taxes on the oil companies. Sinceopening up new areas to oil companies is more about financial manipulation of oil leases than actually drilling, this is calling the oil company's bluff." [Open Left, 8/5/08]

Ø Pelosi: Obama Position On Gang Of Ten Compromise WasPresidential. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "What SenatorObama said is what we want a president to say…Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply, protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single-shot thing that does none of the above." [Washington Times, 8/4/08]

PALIN: "Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit."

REALITY: BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTSAGREE THAT DRAWING DOWN ONE TO TWO BRIGADES A MONTH IS NOT ONLYPOSSIBLE BUT SAFE

McCain Said He Thought 16 Months Is A Pretty Good Timetable ForWithdrawal >From Iraq. McCain was asked, "So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?" McCainr esponded, "He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should --or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions onthe ground." [CNN, 7/25/08]

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki: "Obama Is Right When He Talks About 16Months." "Asked in an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel of when he would like to see American forces leave Iraq, Maliki said:'As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned.' He then added that'Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.'" [The Hill, 7/19/08]

Maj. Gen. Anderson Said Current Capacity to Remove 2 ½ Brigade CombatTeams a Month. "The military has been redeploying troops for years,and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, 'We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out.'" [ABC News, 7/11/08]

4/8/08: Petraeus, Asked By a McCain Ally Whether A Brigade a MonthCould Be With Drawn From Iraq, Said It Could Be "Doable." In a Senate Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), asked General Petraeus what would happen if one brigade per month was withdrawn beginning in January 2009. Petraeus responded, "It clearly would depend on the conditions of that time. If conditions were good, quite good, that might be doable." [Senate Hearing before Senate Committee on Armed Services, 4/8/08]

9/07: Larry Korb Wrote "A Phased Military Redeployment From Iraq OverThe Next 10 To 12 Months Would Begin Extracting U.S. Troops FromIraq's Internal Conflicts Immediately And Would Be Completed By TheEnd Of 2008." Lawrence J. Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, along with Max A. Bergmann, Sean E.Duggen, Peter M. Juul, wrote for a Center for American Progress Report, "A phased military redeployment from Iraq over the next 10 to12 months would begin extracting U.S. troops from Iraq's internal conflicts immediately and would be completed by the end of 2008.During this timeframe, the military will not replace outgoing troops as they rotate home at the end of their tours and will draw down force and equipment levels gradually, at a pace similar to previous rotations conducted by our military over the past four years. According to a U.S. military official in Baghdad involved in planning,a withdrawal could take place safely in this time period." ["How to Redeploy: Implementing a Responsible Drawdown of U.S. Forces fromIraq" September 2007, Center for American Progress]

7/13/07: Pace Said US Forces Were "Designed Right Now To Be Able ToIncrease Or Decrease About One Brigade Per Month." General Peter Pace, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "On the logistics side,the system itself is designed right now to be able to increase or decrease about one brigade per month. Can you surge U.S. military andcommercial capacity beyond those numbers? Sure. But for a normal planning factor, we're looking at either adding or subtracting about one brigade a month." [DoD Media Roundtable with Secretary Gates andGen. Pace, 7/13/07]

12/6/06: Iraq Study Group Report Said "All Combat Brigades NotNecessary For Force Protection Could Be Out Of Iraq" By the FirstQuarter of 2008—15 Months. The Iraq Study Group's independent assessment, released Dec. 6, 2006, found that, "By the first quarterof 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." [Iraq Study Group Report]

PALIN: "Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay… he wants to meet them without preconditions."

REALITY: REPUBLICANS AGREE WITH DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

Defense Secretary Gates: We Need To "Sit Down And Talk" With Iran."The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gatessaid yesterday. 'We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. Wecan't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.'" [Washington Post, 5/15/08]

Henry Kissinger Said That The U.S. Should Negotiate Directly WithIran. "Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues. 'One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran,' Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger,84, responded: 'Yes, I think we should.'" [Bloomberg, 3/14/08]

Hagel: The United States Should Actively Pursue Direct, Unconditional,And Comprehensive Talks With Iran. Hagel said, "Now is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. We cannot afford to refuse to consider this strategic choice any longer. We should make clear that everything is on the table, our issues and Iran'sissues." [CNN, 11/8/07]

Lugar: Direct Talks With Iran "Would Be Useful." "The United Statesneeds to pursue direct talks and other diplomatic avenues with Iran about its disputed nuclear program before considering a military option, lawmakers from both parties said yesterday. 'I think that would be useful,' said Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when asked on ABC's 'This Week' about having direct talks. 'The Iranians are a part of the energy picture,' saidLugar, a Republican from Indiana. 'We need to talk about that.'" [AP,4/17/06]

Former H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker: "It's Not Appeasementto Talk to Your Enemies." James Baker said, "I can't make that judgment here this morning because I don't know what other elements are involved in it. I will say just generally as I've been saying since I've been on this book tour that I believe in talking to your enemies. I don't think you restrict your conversations to yourfriends. At the same time, it's got to be hard-nosed. It's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies. There ought to be some way. I mean, I point out the fact that I made 15 trips to Damascus back in 1991 when they were on our list of countries of state-sponsored terrorism and they changed 25 years…"["This Week," ABC NewsTranscripts, 10/8/06]

Arlen Specter: It Seems Unrealistic That We Say To The Opposite PartyThat As A Precondition To Discussions We Want The Principal Concession We're After. Republican Senator Arlen Specter said in a hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, "Now, the position taken by the Secretary of State has been we won't talk to Iran unless, as a precondition, they stop enriching uranium. It seems to me that it is unrealistic to try to have discussions but to say to the opposite party, as a precondition to discussions, we want the principal concession that we're after. Do you think it makes sense to insist on a concession like stopping enriching uranium, which is what our ultimate objective is, before we even sit down and talk to them on a broader range of issues?" [Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee ofthe Senate Appropriations Committee, 5/20/08]

Rice: I Am Prepared To Meet My Counterpart At Any Time If Iran Suspends Its Enrichment and Processing Activities. Condoleezza Rice said, "I am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian representative at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. That should be a clear signal." [AP, 2/25/07]

PALIN: "Government is too big … he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much … he promises more."

REALITY: IT IS MCCAIN'S BUDGET PLAN THAT WILL BREAK THE BANK

Analysts Say McCain's Plan Would Increase The Deficit More ThanObama's. "Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit, and that neither man has adequately explained how his proposals would be paid for. But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain's plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking." [NewYork Times, 6/11/08]

McCain's Tax Cuts Will Either Explode The Federal Deficit Or Require "Unprecedented Cuts" In Federal Spending On Domestic Programs. "Sen.John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs. Once thought ofas a deficit hawk, the near-certain Republican presidential nominee is now putting more stress on the traditional Republican orthodoxy of taxcuts." [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08]

New York Times: McCain's Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To TheDeficit Per Year. "The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this,and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain's stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more." [New York Times, 6/18/08]

Tax Policy Center Report Said That McCain's Budget Plan Would Add $5Trillion To The Debt Over The Next Decade. "Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion." [Los Angeles Times, 7/24/08]

· Ten Percent Corporate Tax Rate Cut Would Cost $100 Billion AYear. "The proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%would cost about $100 billion a year." [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

· Full Repeal Of The AMT Would Cost Over $150 Billion A Year.According to the Wall Street Journal, altering the Alternative Minimum Tax for middle class families at $91 billion annually. Eliminating the AMT for up-incomer earners would be an additional $60 billion per year. [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

· Gas Tax Holiday Would Cost $10 Billion. An Arizona Republic editorial questions McCain's summer gas tax holiday proposal, asking "do we really want to extract $10 billion from the nation's woefully underfunded transportation infrastructure?" [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 4/16/08]

Doubling The Dependent Tax Exemption Would Cost $65 Billion A Year."Doubling the dependent exemption would cost $65 billion a year." [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

April 2008: McCain "Changed His Position" On Balancing The Budget,Said Economic Conditions Made It Unrealistic. John McCain had previously said he would balance the budget in four years, but changed his position in April saying that "economic conditions are reversed" and it would instead take eight years. [New York Times, 4/16/08]

PALIN: "Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

REALITY: OBAMA TAX PROPOSAL WILL NOT RAISE TAXES AND WILLPROVIDE A BIGGER BREAK FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES THAN MCCAIN'S PLAN

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain's Ad Attacking Obama's PlansThat Would Increase Taxes And Bring On "Years Of Deficits" And "Billions In New Government Spending" "Puts Another Stitch In WhatWe've Call His Pattern Of Deceit On Obama's Tax Plan." "McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward 'painful tax increases on working American families' and that they will bring about 'years of deficits,' 'no balanced budgets' and 'billions in new government spending.' The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama'seconomic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for 'years of deficits,' exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt bytrillions." [FactCheck.org, 9/2/08]

Washington Post Editorial: "McCain Campaign Insists on Completely Misrepresenting Mr. Obama's Plan" on Taxes – Under McCain's Plan,"Wealthiest Taxpayers Make Out Terrifically." "Instead, the McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. Thead opens with the Obama-as-celebrity theme – 'Celebrities don't have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do,' says the female announcer. 'We're paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement.' Then she sticks it to.