How is his statement equal to Bush's fear induced statement?Originally posted by: Queasy
Obama's Official Campaign SiteOriginally posted by: eskimospy
You're missing the problem with Bush's speech. Mainly that it was full of lies. It willfully misrepresented Obama's position in order to try and score cheap political points while addressing an important ally. It was childish and petty. And don't try to say because he didn't mention him by name that he wasn't referring to him... because you know that he was.
This being the Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorist groups across the Middle East like Hezbollah and Hamas.Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.
Again though, Bush was not addressing Obama specifically. Taking in context with his full speech, it was a general warning. It is closer to a criticism of Jimmy Carter who recently met with Hamas than it is to Obama.
Only Obama's thin-skin (and his supporters) about his lack of foreign policy experience and his statement in the YouTube debate that he would meet Iran without precondition is causing this controversy.
Bush's statement doesn't mention anything about diplomacy. All he spouts is rhetoric that "some people" want to appease. Meeting without preconditions is just the opposite of the Bush ideology of diplomacy. You know, the one where he states "If you don't meet all of our conditions while knowingly accepting that we will do absolutely nothing in return, then you are a terrorist and I will openly label you as part of an imaginary axis and then take my ball and go home."
Meeting with != appeasing.