The US legal position in Iraq now is that we are guests - invited by the UN acting at the request of the Iraqi soverign Government we stay as long as the Iraqi government petitions the UN to allow our occupation.  When the iraqis stop petitioning the UN to allow this occupation and inform the US most our forces must leave we will do just that. We built billion dollar bases in saudi arabia - we were told to abandon them less than a decade after their construction and we left them.  We had no say.  we will have no say in leaving Iraq either.  We are making very expensive lines in sand that our enemies erase swiftly.
From CNN:
In January 2002, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told CNN that Saudi officials had asked the United States to reduce its military presence there. "I think it's in the long-term interest of both countries," Card said.

Exiled Saudi Osama bin Laden has cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a core grievance in his self-proclaimed holy war against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. government.

In addition, anti-American and pro-bin Laden sentiment has been strong in some parts of the kingdom, home of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/
 

Mum on terror directed aginst US personnel in this agreement.  That is a chilling raproachment of all parties with the rump Baathists and al Quada agitators directing much of the slaughter.  Bush is bringing one country together it seems..  

While McCain has a veneer of disagreements with Bush after the rancorous 2000 primary most voters can be shown they are basicly cut from the same cloth.  McCain will have to either then alienate his base by claiming big differences with Bush or look to other bases of support.
The voting record will show a ton of support for Bush - he will have to embrace Bush publicly - tout what he did for Bush while McCain is in the primary races - to gain any chance at most GOP votes.  That can be the opening salvo in tying McCain to Bush.  Then in the ad wars in the general election - cite the many times McCain backed Bush in Votes on the senate floor.  An index of voting with Bush - like the NRA's report card on legislators - an index  of voting with them - would be real helpful here and in a lot of races.
Like all Senators the record will contain unpopular votes - for tax cuts for the wealthy and against social programs for instance. Not to mention inconsistencies.  Senators are sitting ducks.

"ideology aside" says the endorsement.
Alito would rule based on his desires to see a more paternalistic, more authoritarian country.  Except for wanting to change the country in horrible ways he's probably a prince.

As with Robert Bork are very high.  Bork was never criticized for his competence.  Nor will alito.  But Alito tried to uphold the right of the state to force a woman to disclose a pregnancy to her husband.  
This is a doctrinaire conservative.  He is as consistently conservative as can be in the intent of the impact of his rulings as any judge ever was - including Bork. Find one ruling by the Judge with any controversial political impact that the editors of National Review wouldn't agree with - regardless of case law - just on the conservative impact of the ruling on the society.
He will be filibustered because, like Bork, he is an ideologue.