ProgressOhio

Bush's recent foreign policy remarks about refusing to hold discussions with Palestinians reminds me of a Red Rover game gone awry. My preschool children had better negotiating skills.

What is the harm in talking to people?

If the answer to that question involves religion, you've lost me. As an American citizen, I'm entitled to freedom from religion, and I certainly don't want any part of armed conflicts fought over religious beliefs. No, you better have a better reason than that. (We atheists proudly point out that no wars have ever been fought for the cause of Atheism.)

I couldn't agree more with Sen. Obama: "I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder."

A more legitimate reason not to hold discussions with a quasi-government or political entity would be human rights violations. Like, say, Saudi Arabia, where women are virtual prisoners in their homes, can't drive or be examined by doctors, and routinely are beaten or killed for supposed crimes of harlotry. The current regime doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

Bush not only talks to Saudi Prince Abdullah, he literally holds his hand and metaphorically kisses his ass.

My point is, if we're going to invite oily human-rights abusers like the Saudis to the table, we certainly have to accept others as well.

Now, wash your hands, kids, and we can all sit down to a wholesome meal and have a nice, civilized chat over dessert. Let's just skip grace, OK?