Obama responds to Bush accusations of 'appeasement'
Democrat Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing dictators.
The Democratic presidential candidate interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that the comment was in any way directed at Obama.
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said that "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 ... We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Responding with a statement, the Obama campaign seized on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom Bush was referring.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.
"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
Obama, citing past U.S. diplomacy with the Soviet Union and China, has said that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran and offer economic incentives and a chance for peaceful relations if Iranian leaders would forgo their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their support of terrorists. At the same time, he has said he would strongly reject Iran's development of nuclear weapons, its anti-Semitic rhetoric and terrorist support.
Robert Gibbs, communications director of the Obama campaign, similarly told CNN's John Roberts, "This is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It is, frankly, sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack."
Gibbs noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was quoted just yesterday as saying of Iran, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." He decried Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" for having made Americans "much less safe" and pointed out that Bush's refusal to talk to North Korea has simply given them eight years to increase their nuclear stockpile.
"I don't think that what Senator Obama said was that controversial," Gibbs concluded. "We can put our heads in the sand and hope some of this stuff never happens, or we can sit down with strong, principled diplomacy."
(with wire services)
This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast May 15, 2008.
Download video
Transcript via closed captions
:: as nazi tanks crossed into pole fland 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.
:: we are following breaking news this morning. in his speech to israel's parliament today, president bush took a not so failed shot at barak obama suggesting that the senator favors the policy of appeasement toward terrorists. joining me is robert gibbs, the communications of the barak obama campaign. robert, good to talk to you.
:: good morning, john.
::
:: let me lay out the initial quote prior to his world war ii reference. the president said "some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals as if some ingenuous argument would persuade them that they have been wrong all along." he seems to be taking a shot at senator bow bam ma's statement that is he would sit down with the leader of syria, iran and north korea to try to work out some sort of negotiation. what's your response to what the president said?
:: john, obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. it is quite frankly sad and astonishly that the president of the united states would plit size the 60th anniversary of israel with a false political attack. i assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in the "washington post" yesterday saying we -- "we need to figure out a way to find leverage and sit down and talk with them," them being iran. we have come to expect and seen from the administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. we've come to expect it, but over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were. ronald reagan once asked americans whether they were better off than they were four years ago. i think people are going to ask themselves in this election are we safer under this president and i think the answer is going to be a resounding no.
:: what senator obama said so many months ago was fairly controversial because he said that he would sit down with the leaders of these countries without precondition. senator clinton has said sitting down without precondition is not a great idea. you need to start it first of all at a diplomatic level, then before you get anywhere near the leader level. so for president bush to say that leaping immediately to the leader level might not be a policy the united states wants to follow, does he have a point there?
:: no, john, let's not confuse precondition with preparation. obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. but we're not going to sit down and engage iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program, how are we going to sit down with them to get them to give up their nuclear weapons program? let's take the example of north korea. when the bush administration came in our intelligence estimates are that they had enough material for maybe one or two nuclear weapons. right? we have ignored the north koreans and outsourced our diplomacy to the europeans. now it's revealed that they have enough material for eight to 12 weapons and it's likely that that estimate will soon be revised upward. this is the kind of again cowboy diplomacy, head in the sand type diplomacy that we have come to expect from the bush administration. this has made us far less safe. i don't think what senator obama said was that controversial. if you look at some of the leading foreign policy minds throughout this country and the world, again president bush's own secretary of defense, just yesterday in the "washington post" said we need to sit down and engage the iranians, we can put our heads in the sband hope some of this stuff never happens or we can sit down with strong principal diplomacy and force these countries into giving up the exact program that is we think threatened not just the united states but alis throughout the middle east and stalwart allies like israel.
:: clearly this was aimed at jewish-american voters, some of whom may be suspicious of obama and his intentions. what does he say to those voters this morning to counter the argument that president bush is making?
:: look, i think we have a strong a record as anybody in this race when it comes to jewish issues. obviously israel is our greatest ali in -- one of our greatest alis in the world. our principal pal ally in the middle east. we have to have a strong relationship with them. it is unfortunate that an american president those fly halfway across the world and make a political attack instead of honoring the tremendous accomplishment and achievement of the 60th anniversary of the birth of israel.
:: robert, thank you for calling in this morning. appreciate it.
:: thank you, john.
| 
