I heard Bush’s speech, and I thought it was aimed squarely at Jimmy Carter, not the Obamessiah.

Methinks B. Hussein Obama “doth protest too much”.

That Obama is every bit the equivocating, old-style politician he pretends not to be. While the Clinton’s were rarely challenged by a sympathetic media about lies they told throughout the 90’s and during the current campaigns, that strategy is not nearly as effective in 2008.

I think Obama gambled on riding a wave of empty rhetoric parroted by a credulous, fawning media all the way to the Whitehouse. This latest incident is just one more example of how he doesn’t understand the power of the internet and alternate media. It took bloggers and reporters all of five minutes to show he’s flat out lying about this.

Whatever is George Bush going to do during this election? I would guess that McCain would prefer he stay in the White House, remain quiet, and try not to stir up too much trouble. Based on this statement I would guess that he is going to want to attempt to save his legacy and will be saying all sorts of interesting things….

1. The willingness to talk to officials of governments is not the same as appeasing or accepting them. Mohandas Gandhi sat across the table in South Africa with the man most responsible for establishing the Apartheid laws. He negotiated with the man, but never gave an inch on his principles. Although Gandhi was not successful at that time, one of his followers who was inspired by his stance was — Nelson Mandela.

2. The Bush Administration has made a lot of hoopla about their “decisiveness” and “toughness” and look where it has gotten us. In North Korea it has gotten us to the point we were at when Bush first was elected. With Iran the situation has even gotten worse. Then there are the wonderful successes with Russia and Iraq.

3. Lastly, Bush’s “Nazi” comment before the Knesset will probably backfire on him.

Is it possible the speech was directed at those that want to pacify, HAMAS and their ilk? I, too, thought it was a general statement regarding those around the world wanting to appease Iran — Jimmy Carter, the UN and others like that. Maybe it was a veiled shot at Obama — but I don’t think so. And although I am not a big fan of W., he’s certainly taken his fair of direct shots — so to have Obama and hs supporters get so upset by such a simple thing certainly says something about the thickness of his skin.

“The willingness to talk to officials of governments is not the same as appeasing or accepting them.”

It is when your adversary laughs behind your back and goes right on doing what you don’t want them to do. Which is exactly what Iran and Syria do the minute a delegation of congressional Democrats and candidate’s staff leave the room. (What are they talking about anyway? They never release the details.) Carter is only one of the most egregious examples. He’d barely left Gaza before Hamas spokesmen directly contradicted his claims they were willing to talk with Israel. Bush’s reminder of American and European’s suicidally naive willingness to believe Hitler’s promises of peace couldn’t have been more appropriate.

Obama said in no uncertain terms during the Iowa debates he would conduct direct, conditionless talks with our enemies. His campaign’s website still says this today. About what exactly, he doesn’t say. I’d bet they’re more than willing to host him as often as he likes.

If Obama wants to insult everyone’s intelligence yet again by claiming he didn’t mean what everyone else clearly understood him to mean, then he should do us all a favor and dump the Candidate of Hopyness and Changitude(TM) act.

I have for years observed a distinct similarity in the political positions and the resulting problems experienced by George W. Bush and by Winston Churchill, mostly before other alleged LEADERS of England finally realized that they couldn’t appease Adolph Hitler and that wearing swastika-styled jewelry wasn’t that great an idea.

That is not to say that Bush is in Churchill’s league, or that Churchill had no faults. It is more of a comment on the gross ignorance of those who faulted Churchill 70 years ago and those who fault George W. Bush now. History will tell.

I find it ridiculous that anyone - left, right or center - thinks that talking to our enemies is a poor idea. Opening a dialogue is not a promise of appeasement, and can ultimately save lives and bring a peaceful solution to a tense situation.

Yes, the willingness to talk with someone is not the same as appeasing/giving into them.

If they choose to ignore the proffered hand of sincere negotiation anbd discussion, that is their problem. It does not mean the person making the gesture is ignorant of their lack of sincerity.

However, someone has to make the offer.

The appeasement of Hitler lay in saying it was okay for him to take the Sudetenland and then Poland in the vain hope that this would be all he wanted. That was an idiotic mistake. It was not the result of diplomatic discussion and negotiation earlier. If you really want to go down this road, be prepared to discuss the Treaty of Versailles and the effect on the German economy prior to the world wide depression of the 1930’s.

The hope of someone like President Carter in sitting down with declared enemies is that the effort will pan out. It is not his fault that Hamas is a snakepit of hatred. However, his belief is a fundamental Christian one, that hatred and fear can only be met with trust and love. Not very realistic, I admit, but it does mean something to some people.

Senator Obama is saying he would not have preset conditions on talks is approximately the same as when President Bush saying that he will leave no option off the table when “defending” America, up to and including use of nukes. The intent is different, but the spirit is the same.

I’m surprised at readers who just can’t recognize dirty politics. It has long been a rule at the highest levels of US government that federal officals do not engage in partisan political sniping from foreign shores. To contrive, unsuccessfully, to blame Obama for Bush’s stupid potshot or to say, “Well, goolllee, I thought he was talking about Jimmy Carter,” shows that many of your writers are not ready for prime-time political discourse.

cheers, everybody

Jamie - an interesting accusation you have made. Where exactly is your proof that President Bush was referring to Obama? I guess I should just expect the same PD partisanship from you as the rest of the PD staff that has endorsed Obama. Great!

Check this out and decide for youself what’s up with this guy:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295659438660017.

Please. The President didn’t even mention Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong’s name. And if he thinks that talking to the head of a country that referred to Israel as a “stinking corpse” is anything other than a complete waste of time than Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong isn’t worthy of being a county councilman, never mind president.

The only error George W made was in NOT saying he was speaking about Hussein Obama. And it would have been so much better if he would have named the other Democratic “pansies” like Daschle, Biden, Kennedy (pre-seizure), and Howard Dean. You foolish people want to talk with Hamas or Al-Quaida, fine, I think I’ll stand over here so when they blow themselves up, enroute to the virgins, they’ll be taking pieces of your appeased body and not mine. How naive and stupid can you be? Whenever I hear politicans say they are “outraged” about this, that or something else, my response is simply, who cares if you are outraged.

Like I am going to change the way the country is protected because some Democratic socialist is outraged.
The more outraged Democrats I can count means I am doing a whole lot of good.