“Barack Obama said Friday that President George W. Bush's policies in the Middle East have served to benefit U.S. foes Iran and Hamas”. By Reuters

Did Obama understand the speech in the Israeli Parliament, when he retorted, accusing the presumed Republican presidential nominee and the White House of "bombastic exaggerations and fear-mongering" in place of "strategy and analysis and smart policy"?

Did anyone hear Bush mentioning the name of Obama?  Why did Obama jump and react without checking first? Did his two delegates, who attended the President’s speech in the Israeli Parliament, induce him to do such a gaffe?

What alternative solution has Obama introduced when he was sitting in the Senate?
It is easy to criticize Bush or McCain now when he does not have any responsibility.
It is easy to talk in town halls or in any other place when he is surrounded by supporters who are either intellectuals, or students who are happy to be part of any movement which presents any change, or  African Americans, or public servants, many of whom served under President Clinton, or finally, those who believe that they have nowhere to go, and simply take a gamble with Obama, with Clinton, or with McCain. 

But we should not forget to credit the Bush administration that since 9/11 we didn’t have any other attack.

Obama talks about strategy. In what army has he served?  It is not enough to be a senator or even a professor to understand the battlefield.

Obama is lucky that many good Americans believe him without even knowing who he is.
Since thirty five years in the country, I came to know a little of our fellows Americans. When the day of election arrives, everyone votes his conscience.  Who wants to negotiate with Iran, when its surrogate, the Hezbollah conquers Beirut in order to give free access to Iran to the Mediterranean Sea?  If we have to wait until next year for any new President, the Iranians can meanwhile put us in front of a fait-accompli, harsher than the one we know.