Hello Everyone:

It is my opinion that Bush's comments on talking to our enemies that he made in Israel were very clearly wrong, inappropriate, partisan, and out of line:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/15/acd.01.html

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

California Supreme Court Approves Gay Marriage; Interview With San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom; President Bush on the Attack

Aired May 15, 2008 - 22:00 ET

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "It was an extraordinary moment: President Bush in Israel before their parliament, suggesting Barack Obama and some of his fellow Democrats favor appeasing terrorists, rather than fight them.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.

MALVEAUX: Then going one step further by comparing them to Western leaders who had once appeased Hitler.

BUSH: We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

(APPLAUSE)

MALVEAUX: White House Press Secretary Dana Perino adamantly denied the president was talking about Obama. But White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN, Mr. Bush's remarks were, in part, aimed at the presidential candidate..."

The Democratic response to Bush's comments from this same CNN transcript were absolutely correct in my opinion:

MALVEAUX: "In a statement released by his campaign, Obama said: "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists."

Obama's allies were a bit more blunt.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: This is bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED). This is malarkey. This is outrageous.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: ... is beneath the dignity of the office of president.

MALVEAUX: And this from his rival, Hillary Clinton.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous.

MALVEAUX: Behind all the heated rhetoric is a red-hot political debate over which candidate's approach to national security would make America safer.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

MALVEAUX: Obama has said, unlike Mr. Bush, Hillary Clinton or John McCain, he would be willing to sit down and talk to the leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea, without preconditions, to help ease hostilities with those nations..."

The key to this in my opinion is NOT the fact that we should talk to "the leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea" BUT it is rather the statement Obama is quoted as saying right above which is talking "without preconditions."

This is clearly Obama's position:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/04/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Who Will Win Super Tuesday?; Interview With Illinois Senator Barack Obama

Aired February 4, 2008 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "And explain what your position is, exactly, on meeting with adversaries directly without preconditions, whether Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il, because there has been some confusion. Would you meet unconditionally with these other leaders?

OBAMA: There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.

That does not mean I will meet without preparation. It is very important before any meeting to make sure that there is a list of agenda items that we are going to be talking about..."

Gen. Clark is against Obama's position of talking to world leaders without adequate preparation:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14640#comment-294901

Clark on Obama talking to leaders without adequate preparation:

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 2, 2008 - 11:11am.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/a-jfk-comparison-for-obama-that-is-not-a-compliment/

December 6, 2007, 7:33 am

A J.F.K. Comparison for Obama That Is Not a Compliment

By Mary Ann Giordano

"On Sunday, at a lecture and book signing at Congregation Sons of Israel, a synagogue in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., Mr. Clark had ticked off a dozen reasons why he has endorsed Mrs. Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, starting with the fact that they have known each other for 24 years. But he also reached back in history for a reason why he is not supporting Senator Barack Obama: John F. Kennedy.

Mr. Clark had argued in his lecture about the need for the United States to talk to its adversaries. That very issue of when to talk, and who should do it, has been a key disagreement among Democrats, with Mr. Obama coming under fire for saying that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions. Other candidates, like Mrs. Clinton, said direct talks with the president should be earned.

After the lecture, Mr. Clark said talking to adversaries can work when a president is “speaking with the voice of experience” — something he contends Mrs. Clinton has. But “when you have leaders meeting early without adequate preparation, you can get some adverse outcomes,” he said, referring to Mr. Obama..."

Hillary Clinton is also against Obama's position of talking without preconditions which is a clear policy difference between them:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/18/le.01.html

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Interview With Hillary Clinton; Intreview With John Edwards

Aired May 18, 2008 - 11:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: "But you have confidence in Barack Obama as president would be a strong supporter of Israel?

CLINTON: I would -- yes, I do. I would believe that that would be the policy of the United States, and it's been our policy for 60 years.

BLITZER: Because the criticism he gets from McCain and his supporters -- McCain's supporters -- is that he would be willing to meet unconditionally with the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and given the statements that Ahmadinejad has made about destroying Israel, that doesn't -- that doesn't reassure, let's say, Israel.

CLINTON: Well, I think that's a different issue. You know, I objected when that statement was made back in an early debate, because I don't believe that a United States president should commit to meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue nations. That doesn't mean you don't eventually meet with them under appropriate circumstances, but not without conditions..."

There is no question that Bush's arrogant Neocon philosophy of not wanting to talk with our enemies is very clearly wrong as I have credibly documented:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11756

Why we MUST talk with world leaders we do not like & How this will affect 2008!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 12, 2007 - 4:20pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12414

Bush & his Neocons are causing the world to have a "Diplomatic Heart Attack!"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 18, 2007 - 2:04pm.

However two wrongs and two extremes do NOT automatically equal one right. In any debate, one side will be wrong BUT it is also possible for both sides to be wrong as well.

The bottom line to this in my opinion is that BOTH Bush and Obama are offering false choices of not wanting to talk with our enemies (Bush) and talking to our enemies without preconditions (Obama) which could let them make fools of us. We definitely need to be talking with our enemies BUT it absolutely has to be under the right set of conditions in order to be effective!

It is NOT enough for Obama to just show where Bush and McCain are wrong. Obama has to show specifically where he is right and I have NOT seen that yet in his foreign policy:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15196

Michael Ware called Obama's 16 month troop withdrawal plan from Iraq "ludicrous"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 5, 2008 - 7:16am.

Because this is such an emotional debate and because so much of the media is rooting for Obama right now, I very seriously doubt that the points in this post will ever be seriously covered in the mainstream media which is unfortunate in my opinion!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!