We know what Mr. Bush said… I posted the quote here [1] yesterday:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush [2] said at Israel [3]‘s 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.
“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush [2] said in remarks to Israel [3]‘s parliament, the Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.”
Now, Obama comes back and says, as quoted by David here [4] this morning:
George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists,
Well, let’s see what Mr. Obama is so upset about. Let’s take a little trip back in time. November 2, 2007, to be exact which is when this report was posted… days after it was filed at the Times. Let’s also make the assumption that the New York Times actually reported this incident accurately:
CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — [5] Senator Barack Obama [6]says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran [7] if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq [8] and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.
In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.
Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.
But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization [9], other economic benefits and security guarantees.
Note, please, the phrase “Without preconditions”. That’s called ‘appeasement’. That’s called giving a group of terrorists a weapon called legitimacy. Talking with them at all, other than giving the criminals an ultimatum, is ” engagement with terrorists” .
David correctly notes in his post that neither Obama nor any other Democrat is issuing anything substantive to the charge that Obama isn’t talking about ” engagement with terrorists” . That’s beacuse in light of the fact that Obama has been making it a centerpiece of his foreign policy on the campaign trail, which was dutifully ballyhooed by the press [10], (And much admired by the Koom-By-Ya leftist moonbats) …he cannot now separate himself from his proposals, without being exposed as the liar he is.
Obama knows this. So does everyone else. The exposure of this is devistating to the Democrats. All of them, not just Obama. Which explains the frenzied frothing at the mouth response of the Democrats, inclduing the of-late-unusual specticle of Hillry Clinton rising to Obama’s defense. … Ya see, they were making similar noises to Obama’s. Obama’s proposal to deal with the terrorists in Iran, nor his denials serve to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel [3].
This is a trap of Obama’s own making, pushed along by Bush Derangement syndrome. THe Democrats decided to make an issue of the war… make it the very heart of their run. Trouble is, they know what Bush has been doing in the region is the right thing to do. They’re now paying the price of coming down on the wrong side of the issue.
And where is John McCain, to point all of this out, and hold Barack Obama accountable for his lie?