Senator Obama acuses President Bush of making a "false political attack" in his speech earlier today at the Israeli Knesset. What is false, exactly, about the President's statement. Bush said:"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Hasn't Barack Obama specifically suggested face-to-face negotiations with iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? And isn't Ahmadine-wack job a "terrorist and radical?" If Iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism (and it proudly is) doesn't that make the president a terrorist?

And even if you resist the idea of classifying the President of Iran as a "terrorist," surely he counts as a radical, doesn't he?

In what sense, then is, the controverisal passage a "false attack."?

Obama, of course, welcomes a confrontation with the President of the United States -- it enhances his own stature, and President Bush is considerably less popular right now than Barry's real oponent, John McCain.

But concerned citizens ought to look behind the posing and think about the substance of these words -- and how well they really do apply to Senator Obama (even thought Mr. Bush was gracious enough never to mention him by name).