If you read the text of the speech (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news... ) you'll notice Bush didn't accuse anybody of anything.  He said, "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals."  No mention of Obama.  No mention of Democrats.  Wasn't it Mr. Obama himself who once said that words mean something?  It was the Obama campaign who picked this fight.

Obama:  We are now entering our sixth year of war in Iraq.  We were supposed to be going over there for weapons of mass destruction which we never found.

That we never found WMDs is not true.  We found hundreds of them. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0... )  It is true that we didn't find the massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that were thought to exist in Iraq, but we found evidence of weapons programs that could quickly be restarted should sanctions have been lifted.

This is not to say that there were not intelligence failures - there were - but Republicans and Democrats alike going back to the Clinton administration are on record as professing a belief that Saddam held WMDs, and the vote in Congress to authorize the war reflects this.  Thus, for Senator Obama to have opposed entering Iraq from the start indicates he either a) had intelligence in the Illinois Senate that the rest of the country wasn't privy to, or b) didn't believe a Saddam possessing WMDs was a sufficient enough threat to do anything about - which reflects directly on how an Obama administration might handle a nuclear Iran.    

Obama:  We have not been made more safe.

We haven't?  We have not suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, and under the leadership of President Bush the United States has gone longer without suffering an attack than at anytime in the last thirty years. (See http://img171.imageshack.us/my... ) Thus, in terms of civilian deaths due to terrorism we are certainly safer.

Obama: Al-Qaeda's leadership is stronger than ever.

Stronger than ever?  On April 30th of this year, the State Department released its annual report on terrorism  in which it said "AQ's organizational strength is difficult to determine in the aftermath of extensive counterterrorist efforts since 9/11, but several thousand members and associates comprise the AQ-associated movement. The arrests and deaths of mid-level and senior AQ operatives have disrupted some communication, financial, and facilitation nodes and disrupted some terrorist plots." (See  http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/... ) The Associated Press says that State Department counter terrorism coordinator Dell Dailey "stressed that al-Qaida is still weaker overall than it was before Sept. 11, 2001." (See http://ap.google.com/article/A... )

Obama:  Hamas now controls Gaza, a Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority.

Is Senator Obama inferring here that democracy is only a good thing when the outcome can be controlled?  

Obama:  That's the Bush - McCain record on protecting this country...They're not telling the truth.

They're not the only ones!

Obama:  I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy...That's what Ronald Reagan did when dealing with the Soviets.

Consider the following from Charles Krauthammer on how Reagan was treated while he was president:  "These were the twin themes: Reagan was stupid, and his stupidity made him dangerous. Those too young to remember the 1980s would be astonished to know how common the notion was of Reagan as a warmonger.  In the early '80s, the West experienced a nuclear hysteria -- a sudden panic about imminent nuclear destruction and a mindless demand to "freeze" nuclear weapons. What had changed to bring this on? Reagan had become president. Like George W. Bush today, the U.S. president was seen as a greater threat to peace than was the enemy he was confronting."  (See  http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )

Obama:  Understand George Bush's Secretary of Defense suggests that we talk directly to Iran.  

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said."  (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )  Notice the part about leverage.  This is how Reagan handled the Soviet Union.  He built up our military, actually increased our weaponry, such that we would have leverage by which to negotiate.  Senator Obama has said he would meet with Iran "unconditionally".  To be fair, he did say in the Austin debate on February 21st that there would have to be "preparations".  

Obama:  It's time to present Iran with a clear choice.  If it ends its nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations.  If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid...
Iran recently announced it is tripling its number of centrifuges to 9,000.  It takes 3,000 centrifuges one year to develop the enriched uranium necessary for an atomic weapon.  Has Senator Obama (or anyone considering voting for him) considered that we (and/or Israel) might not have time enough for an increase in sanctions to have their intended effect on Iran?

Obama:  But in the Bush/McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their foreign policy is (an) appeaser.

Now let's be fair.  Bush only accused those who would negotiate of appeasement, and he didn't name names.  If agreeing to sit down unconditionally is not negotiation, then Obama has no reason to take offense.  However, the question must be asked:  If an Obama administration will only "present Iran with a clear choice," what would be the point of a President Obama sitting down with Iranian leadership?  Typically, that stature is reserved for negotiations.