Bush remains the ignorant imbecile he has always been. He, Cheney & Co. have made the world a more dangerous place with their lies and avarice, leaving Israel in even a more precarious place.

I beleive that the President has little need to use inuendo as attack. If he believes that he should say something, then he would have directed it by name. The Pres has not hesitated in the past. So if the BHO people believe that BHO was being attacked and thought it so, well if the shoe fits!

Apparently Senator Clinton�s tactics are having their affect on Senator Obama. Paranoia? He believes that President Bush�s remarks about appeasement are directed at him? He needs to read John Bolton�s book Surrender Is Not An Option. His ego may not be able to sustain it, but the book clearly indicates who the considered �appeasers� are. Senator Obama�s name was mentioned twice in the book but sadly it wasn�t in that regard.

How dare you talk about Barak. How dare you use his middle name. How dare you talk about his spiritual adviser, How dare you talk about his ears.....give me a break. Can Obama stand up for himself...no...he sends out his surrogates with marching orders and false outrage. I think it is funny that the left can refer to Bush as Hitler on a daily basis, but is outraged when Bush truthfully describes Barak's policy...negotiation with our enemies.

What you are seeing today is Obama's immaturity on the issues of the world. It is similar of an elementary teacher returning to her classroom, seeing the cookie jar is opened, and cookies are missing. When quizzing the children, one child cries foul. If Osama wants to say he will negotiate with a terrorist nation led by a known terrorist leader, let him admit that. If others in the leadership of the Democrat party support that position, they too, should admit the weaknesses of their positions.

I HAVE SEEN THE PICTURE OF OBAMA WITH NO HAND OVER HIS HEART WHILE OUR FLAG PASSED AND ALL AROUND HIM HAVE. AS A WW II WHITE VET, HIS ACTIONS MAKE ME ASHAMED OF THE HALF WHITE BLOOD HE HAS IN HIM. HE HAD BEST NOT GET TOO CLOSE TO ANY MARINES, BLACK OR WHITE, IF THEY SEE THAT OR WE MIGHT NEED A NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF RATHER SOON. TOO MANY DIED FOR THAT FLAG WHILE HE ATTENDED A ELITIST SCHOOL AND PLAYED LAWYER AND THEY WON'T FORGET THAT.

In 1972, Kissinger negotiated with Chinese that had the blood of tens of millions of their own countrymen on their hands, plus were arming North Vietnamese who were busily engaged in killing our troops just a few hundred miles to the south. In 1973, Kissinger refused to negotiate with the PLO, who at that point in time had killed perhaps a few dozen Israelis. So, who was wrong, the Kissinger of 1972 or the Kissinger of 1973? Oh, but the stakes with China were so high, some would say. Like the stakes between Israel and the Palestinians are not? Our failure to put pressure on Israel to stop building settlements costs American lives because it inspires Arab terrorism throughout the Middle East. I suppose Bush and company consider American lives to be less valuable than Israeli lives. If you don't negotiate with those who have the power to make a binding commitment, you are a fool. Bush has proven his foolishness many times over on this subject.

I don't support Israel having an unrestricted right to open up new settlements or expand existing ones. I have observed that doing so subjects Americans to being the objects of terror attacks. Now, is that appeasement? No, it is not, it is recognition that support for a sovereign secular state (Israel) is not the same thing as support for a religious ideology (Zionism). The whole Hitler argument is just goofy. If anything, it is the Palestinians who could argue that they are the ones in the position of the Poles and that we are the ones who are appeasing the aggressor Israelis instead of being firm with them. I strongly condemn the Palestinians methods, but they do happen to have right on their side when it comes to these settlements. The Palestinians are being their own worst enemy when they shell the Ashkenazi settled areas like Ashkelon, because the Ashkenazim thus far have been the backbone of the pro-peace Labor party. Netanyahu is more likely than not to initiate expulsions. Perhaps Hamas thinks that would ultimately work in their favor. What we, the sensible people of the world, need to do is to see that neither Hamas nor the Netanyahus of the world prevail. The best way to do that is to stop poking a stick into a hornets nest and end these settlements NOW while we still have a few friends left in the Arab world.

Sounds to me that the DemocRATs sound a little guilty. Why didn't Obama just acknowledge that Bush was right? The only reason why he took offense is because of what Obama himself has said in the past about kissing up to terrorists....Obama identified with what Bush said, and thought he was talking about him.....what a gaffe. what a moron. Obama is too stupid and naive to be the President of this great Nation...

Good for President Bush. Regardless of whether he was referring to anyone in particular or not is besides the point! What he said about the attitude of appeasement is right on the mark! If we ( our do-nothing members of Congress - all of them)do not start treating out enemies as such we will find ourselves in another major war which will make the last few look like skirmishes. Among the biggest is ex-president Carter! His voice in world affairs makes me sick with the prospect that some people will actually listen to his anti-America babble. I hope we aren't in the trouble I think we are.

I also think appeasement should end. We should stop appeasing the Israeli hawks and insist that they dismantle outposts and bulldoze over the roads which link the outposts to existing settlement blocks, which should also stop being expanded. We should stop appeasing the Saudis by insisting that they imprison wealthy individuals who support terrorism in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. We should start talking with the Iranians so that they have some degree of confidence that we are not going to try to bring down their government, and then our concerns will carry some weight- as they do now in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I read this and wonder where some of you get your information from and how much you read. Israel has been dismantling settlements and Olmert was even in some trouble with his people for doing so. Israel has reached out countless times to negotiate and every time, the Palestinians fail to live up to their end of the bargain. At what point do we put the pressure on the Arabs & Palestinians to live up to their terms of an agreement? As far as I am concerned, until they show they will live up to their deals, Israel has no need to negotiate with them - there are deals in place, now execute them!
As for the Bush imbecile comment - very mature!! Next you're going to say he's a MEANIE or something like that. I always enjoy name calling instead of explaining why he is wrong (which he is frequently, but not necessarily on foreign policy like all of you think). As to why he is right in this case, well, what is our bargaining chip with terrorists (and yes, Ahmadinejad's government in Iran is a terrorist government, while the Iranian people are generally good people)? What can entice them when they are truly the religious fanatics as opposed to the "religious right" in our country that the Democrats criticize? Put another way, when someone wants you to change everything you do OR die, what is the middle ground to find?
I know war is not fun for anyone but sometimes it is the only course of action to solve a problem and sometimes the world is wrong. WWII is one such instance, which is what prompted Bush's comments as it shows his point. Go read about Churchill and the lead up to WWII. He was called a warmonger, a fool and other not very nice things by the same people who eventually looked to him to lead them when they realized he was RIGHT and fortunately, it was not yet to late!!! Do you want to count on everyone waking up before it's to late with Radical Islam?
Learn history and learn what appeasement does with aggressive peoples!!

There once was senator named Barack, who didn't like our policies in Iraq. And since he will be the democrate presidential nominee, he wants the U.S. armed forces to cower and flee. The leaders of Iran he hopes to appease, for this will bring peace, or so he believes.

Obama is a Marxist. He identifies more with the Iranian Revolution, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and Che Guevara than he does with America. I don't know why he wants to be President of the United States. He should be running in Venezuela as Chavez' partner in crime.