Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your case, it only makes you look self-important.

Terrorists murder for a living; that's their job. Had you ever been involoved with the War on Terror, you'd know the difference between an insurgent and a terrorists. Terrorists are almost never taken alive because of their demonic hatred of life. Osama once said that the difference between us and Americans is that we love death.

(Experience has a way of snapping you back to reality.)

Getting back on topic, maybe...

'...not only was Obama's remark not naive; it reflected a more instinctive understanding of the post-Cold War world than either of his opponents seem to possess.' Is Barack Obama Too Naive To Be President?

Here are snippets being used in an RNC ad:

“This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer”
- Sen. Joe Biden, ABC’s “This Week,” 5/18/08

“I would not say that we would meet unconditionally — of course there are conditions”
- Former Democrat Sen. Tom Daschle. CNN’s “America Morning,” 5/20/08

“I’ll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders — with terrorists rather — and those that lead rogue nations without some conditions.”
- Democrat Leadership Council Chairman Harold Ford: NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 5/18/08

Are these quotations correct? If so, are these guys also wrong to suggest that we should not conduct Presidential level negotiations without preconditions?

I guess, maybe, it's a common sense kind of thing. Of course Obama wouldn't just turn up at an airport and ask to see the head of state, or whoever. There would have to be some kind of preparation or agenda-setting - that's implicit in the idea of high-level talks.

Was Obama's policy thought up on the fly?

'Barack Obama has always been an independent thinker. He of course opposed the war in Iraq, and he’s built a team of national-security advisers who disproportionately took the same, then-unpopular antiwar view. But as a presidential candidate articulating what he might do in office, his real break with convention may have begun with a gaffe...

...the crux of his approach is a certain fearlessness in asking questions, a refusal to dismiss any option as simply taboo. Why not talk to the leaders of Iran and Syria?'
The Accidental Foreign Policy

'America's top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces...

...He added: "My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilising factor in the region.

"But I'm convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure."

He called for dialogue between the US and Tehran.' US admiral urges caution on Iran

'The US is planning to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a remarkable turnaround in policy by president George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office...' After 30 years, US to send diplomats to Iran

Now that was interesting news; Obama and Bush seem to be trying to be more like one another these days!

I honestly do not know what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish, but we'll see how it works.