President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and that holds that -- if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers -- they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America's friends and America's enemies, and not confuse the two.

Just watching the changing lede on the Times' web site this morning you could see how hard his campaign was working to create an issue out of this.  It's nothing but a win for him.  He gets to act "nomineetorial" (eg, to demonstrate that he's already fighting the general election) while making the campaign about Bush on one issue where Bush and McCain are closely tied to each other.

You can make a reasonable argument that Bush's statement was a veiled reference to Obama but it wasn't explicit.  Good (and fast) work by team Obama turning it into an issue.

My wife's anger at Obama over the "sweetie" incident was somewhat defused when I pointed out how this incident shows the GOP to be far, far more scummy.

ONe of the main reasons I can never vote for Obama is his appeasment policy to Mid east.

Here is a suggestion. Go volunteer to serve your country in Iraq and Afghanistan and then come back and tell me that Barack Obama is going to be an asset in ending any violence. You will be sadly schooled in the ways of the Muslim world.

Obama has been trying to back pedal from his statement that he would meet unconditionally with the president of Iran from the time he made the statement during one of the early debates. (Recently, Susan Rice claimed he didn't say he would meet unconditionally.) He needs to clarify what approach he will take to the Middle East.

There is a famous truism that politics ends at the waters' edge

Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

Clearly, the Israeli people are "naive," and agree with the "appeaser" Obama. Why do the Israeli people hate Israel?

Al Qaeda are more like the Soviets than the Nazis.  That means you need a cold war strategy of selective engagment designed to discredit and cripple rather than conventional war like ww2.

Total fail. Al Qaeda = no infrastructure, no country, no uniformed army, no (thank Christ) nuclear weapons. What is needed is what John Kerry  argued for in 2004. This war should be a police action, run in concert with heavy diplomatic and covert intelligence actions.

Think about it. Why was the Afghanistan War so short? Because there was almost nothing to bomb. Think about this, too. We bomb a terrorist training camp, with, say a $1 million dollar cruise missile or a 1/2 million dollar smart bomb. We go away, as we always do (see Charley Wilson's War), and they rebuild it for $50,000.

Steve M -

This is why I yawn when you try to paint the current version of the Democrats as somehow treasonous.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Not responsible, yes. Encouraging the enemey, yes. Treason, no.

I repeat. The "at the water's edge" comment does not refer to what is said "overseas," but the need for a bi-partisan foreign policy during war time.

The fact that both sides have violated it has nothing to do with the harm caused.

Helenk -

Let's talk about Nazi COLLABORATORS for a moment.

Woops, George, that would be YOUR GRANDFATHER. Maybe you don't want to go there.

Let's talk about Muslims for a moment and men abandoning their children.

Woops, Obama, that would be YOUR FATHER. Maybe you don't want to go there,

Someone ought to point out that Chamberlain declared war on Germany when the Germans rolled into Poland. FDR wanted to help the Polish British and French but the GOP blocked him.

That unsettles Bush's historical point.

The next point to counter it with is this:

The Group News Blog reports that the senator quoted by Bush in his speech was a Republican Senator, William Boria (R) from Idaho.

Although there doesn't seem to be any actual attribution link that points to Boria, so, who knows?

That Bush failed to name the "American Senator" that he cast as a Nazi appeaser made it too easy for people to assume he was speaking about Obama, which leads one to suppose that it was a deliberate failure.

I must say, however, when I heard him at the last presser, he sounded cogent, able to fuse a string of words together. He was wrong and out of touch (he wasn't aware of high gas prices)of course, but nonetheless, he made sense in his own warped sense world.

"Appeasement"? Who's appeasing whom? Who is in such an almighty hurry to show such fealty to a foreign government?

And...does Georgie really want to bring up comparisons with Nazis...when his family benefited so handsomely from associating with them?

In fact, the comment you just responded to says quite clearly that he favors negotiating with Hamas, just not in the same way Obama (supposedly) proposes to do.

What does that even mean?

First, Obama is in favor of direct, presidential, no preconditions talks with Fatah terrorists who hold the presidency of the PA.

Second, what does Obama mean by "engagement"?  That the US should never talk to terror groups at all?  (I don't just mean Obama personally flying out to talk to them, I mean talking to them in general.)  Just about everyone supports political "engagement" with some terror groups, to one degree or another.  If we could talk to al Qaida, and splinter the group by convincing some of them not to come after us, that would be a good thing.

Third, doesn't Sen. Obama want the Israelis to engage politically with Hamas?  They should be talking to each other (in fact, they are talking to each other).  Isn't that a kind of "engagement"?

Fourth, isn't shooting terrorists a kind of "engagement"?

I'd bet the quote Bush gave can be attributed to Albert Gore, Sr.  A strong pacifist in both world wars.

It bodes well for the Fall.

If you think this is a McCarthy-ite attack on Obama, it says a lot more about your worries than about anything else.  

Looking at all the Dems hollering as if in pain, I'm reminded of something my best friend used to say to me:

Are you yelling to convince me, or yourself?