On the 60th Anniversary of Israel's independence, President Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset about Iran:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 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."

Not known for being either clever or subtle, Bush is clearly trying to make a distinction here for Jewish American voters between McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and the Democratic presidential candidates.

Let's analyze this statement. Engaging in preliminary/tentative diplomatic relations with an existing State that has not invaded another country (but has indeed professed its undying hatred for it) is akin to Western Europe's inertia during Hitler's blitzkrieg throughout Central and Eastern Europe (which, of course, included the murder of 6 million Jews).

The President's statement was more than a little inflammatory, don't you think? Not to mention, perhaps, a mischaracterization of intent. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton propose engaging in diplomatic relations with Osama bin Laden or Hamas. Moreover, their approach to Iran is one of limited diplomacy. Granted, Obama has agreed to speak possibly, personally with President Ahmadinejad, but he isn't talking about inviting him to the White House for tea in the Rose Garden for God's sake. On the other hand, how can we positively influence Iran if we are not communicating we them? (You may recall the Oslo Accords were brokered with the PLO when they also denied the right of Israel to exist.)

But Bush didn't stop there. For the American who doesn't care about the state of Israel (and you know who you are), Bush began this feel good media campaign with a televised interview with the Politico and Yahoo News. Here Bush proclaimed that his biggest worry was that we would withdraw troops from Iraq too soon and, as a result, be attacked in the United States again. Of course, we all know the only way the U.S. is going to withdraw troops from Iraq (in the next four years) would be¦

... by electing a Democrat!

Given the state of affairs today, I can certainly understand the President's concerns about another internal attack on the U.S. He must be reading the same reports that I have. First, the General Accounting Office issued a report in July of 2007 finding that government agencies were equally unprepared for another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 despite having experienced the collapse of the twin towers.

Then there was an independent report commissioned by Congress and released in January of 2008 that found the National Guard lacked the equipment and training necessary to meet the demands of a catastrophic attack on our country as a result of our continued use of reserve forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And most recently, Army Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April that the current demands of Iraq and Afghanistan are not only depleting the military's human and mechanical resources, but they are also preventing it from preparing for other emergencies:

Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army�s ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.

In short, an attack on the U.S. right now would be really, really bad. Of course, our inability to comprehensively handle an attack today comes after eight years of leadership under a Republican Commander-in-Chief and five years in Iraq. Yet President Bush has begun campaigning for McCain to convince us that in order to maintain our strength and security as a nation, we need to CONTINUE doing what we have been doing, which is the very thing that has, potentially, compromised our ability to defend our homeland?

How does that make sense?

The fact is we are paying almost four dollars a gallon for gas. Iraq is no closer to political reconciliation and stability than it was when we first liberated it and violence continues to ebb and flow for our soldiers. Our economy is in a recession. Osama bin Laden is somewhere along the Afghani-Pakistan border while the new Pakistani government pursues peace talks with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

But we are all supposed to believe that we will be a nation at risk if we decide to change our course of action in Iraq and/or choose another party for the Executive Branch. McCain is trying to distinguish himself from Bush in many ways, criticizing him on several issues, but on national security, they are on the same page. So McCain is, essentially, an extension of the Bush Administration, is he not?

Do we want four more years of that? Can we afford four more years of that?

At what point do we decide that a policy pursued is flawed or a direction followed is wrong? Personally, I am tired of being told that if I don't support X, the boogie man is going to get me. Fear got us into Iraq. What is going to get us out?

Then I was watching cable news this morning and they were going on and on about the Republican Party (and thus McCain's) advantage in the area of foreign policy. That is when I realized it was all about fear. It is the politics of fear. And you know what? I am SO over it.