It's true, like you say, that Bush has been saying this stuff forever.  Every single Republican these days uses 1938/Munich/Chamberlain/etc. against every single Democrat.  But in this case, with Obama being the new standard bearer of the party, naturally Bush was primarily referring to him. 

1) If there is a Czechoslovakia today, it would be Lebanon after the Hezbollah attempted putsch. And the actual US president has done nothing except for promise to train a lebanese army that would not fight to prevent a Islamic Supremacist coup in Beirut. So who's the Chamberlain?

2) I listened to the entire speech, a beautiful and heart felt tribute to the Jewish people and the Jewish state, and I really didn't think he was trying to take a shot at Obama, but rather making a larger point about renewed European pressure and domestic opinion to meet with Hamas.

3) Obama's defenders really live for these kinds of moments. How dare they swift boat us. To be a democrat today in part is to embrace the dirty and tough tactics of the talk radio right as necessary self defense. Hence the whole Jamie Rubin fakery, the lie about the lie about WMDs, the character assassination of John Bolton, the specious nonsense about John McCain in the center-left journals calling him a modern imperialist and on and on. I'm just saying conservatives have no problem justifying their eye gauging on the merits of the case against the left, but Democrats need a pretext in order to distort the records of Republicans. They do it in self defense.

4) The meetings with Iran question is the dumbest political football in foreign policy right now. Obama has said he would meet with Iranian leaders. But he has also said he would do so to prevent them from building a nuke and end support for terrorism. So he's not standing shoulder to shoulder with the dignity promotion set who really think iranian proliferation and support for terrorism are more right wing lies to launch a new war. Also Bush has offered to meet with iran as soon as they stop enriching uranium. in the mean time crocker meets with their envoys from time to time in baghdad. So the Dems distort Bush's policy, while the Republicans distort Obama's. A pox on both houses.

...with you about whether Bush was referring to Obama.  But I guess one can be "credulous" if one so desires. 

The New york times reported that senior administration reporters said the remarks were not aimed at obama.

Sorry, I'm not really buying this.  These days, everything the President of the U.S. says is beamed around the world instantly.  

If you're talking about the difference between a campaign speech and an official address in another country, then maybe there's a difference, but what about (for instance) the State of the Union, or a formal speech in some other major policy setting here in the U.S., vs. speaking to another country's parliament?  What's the difference?  Why is one so much more serious than the other?  

Because when you visit someone else's house you're meant to be on your best behaviour, not dissing your relatives. I wonder if maybe it's a cultural difference to expect there should be a difference in domestic and foreign behaviour/manners - I'm a Brit.

BTW, the Israelis didn't read it as an attack on Obama - they took it as Bush "manfesting the Zionist vision."

Regards, C

First note that it is a long-standing principle of international law that a nation may not intervene in the internal politics of another nation with which it is at peace.  Such an intervention constitutes an attack upon the sovereignty of that nation.  This principle was incorporated in the UN Charter (Article 2, Paragraph 7) and reaffirmed in the General Assembly's 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law.  Of course nations do violate this principle, but usually covertly, to preserve the appearance of adherence to international law.  (E.g., the covert funding of the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign by the Chinese government.)

For a President to address a political attack on a domestic opponent directly to a foreign government is tantamount to an invitation  to intervene in the nation's domestic politics with whatever influence that government might bring to bear.  It betrays a willingness to sacrifice the sovereignty of the nation to partisan advantage, and has thus always been considered a violation of the President's Oath of Office.

...what if a U.S. president attempted to make substantive criticisms of his opposition on foreign soil?  Like the hypothetical scenario I mentioned involving Obama.  If, as most of us around here hope, Obama becomes president and starts drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq, he's probably going to find himself in the position of talking about it on trips abroad.  I wouldn't want the next president to take cheap shots at the current president in any formal setting, but what about actual criticism of him and the continuing policies of the opposition, and on foreign soil?  Wouldn't that be almost unavoidable?

If we can remove consideration of the demagogic nature of what Bush said from the discussion for a moment, which was deplorable no matter where he said it, the criticism he's receiving simply boils down to "presidents shouldn't criticize their opposition on foreign soil."  But is that really a principle worth going to the mat for?  I'm inclined not to think so.

As happens so often, there are so many things wrong with a Bush action that it's hard to tease out general principles, as you are trying to do, Haggai.

Let's say he [Obama] gives a speech there talking about both of those things,
and he argues for why American withdrawal from Iraq is better for
Israel than the policies of the previous administration, including an
argument about why invading Iraq in the first place was not beneficial
to America or to Israel.

Given that Obama is much better at speechifying than George W, he simply wouldn't do this in such a context. There is always a way to say these things that avoids dissing someone. There would be few situations in which that last inclusion would be necessary.

When a head of state does call out the errors of his predecessors in the job publicly, it's a big deal.  Think Khrushchev's speech on Stalin. That was intended to signal a major internal change in the Soviet Union. And it was made in Moscow, not one of the Republic capitals like Tallinn or Tblisi, much less outside the Soviet Union.

The commenters on Washington Monthly sure don't seem too interested in trying to tease out any general principles from this.

But on the other hand, what if (in this hypothetical scenario I'm drawing) Obama was specifically asked, by Israeli reporters on Israeli soil, to explain why he thought the initial decision to invade Iraq was not beneficial to America or to Israel?  It's not too hard a scenario to envision.  Wouldn't he have to respond in a way that directly impugned Bush/Republican policies?

is something politicians learn early. If Obama (or any responsible, adult president) made such a speech, he/she would have answers for questions like that prepared. Or non-answers, if you like. "It turned out badly..." would be one easy theme. Or that he/she preferred to deal with present realities.

Those classic weasel words.

Still, in general, given that we're hoping for the next president to be someone who will take a decisively different approach on a lot of major foreign policy issues from his predecessor and from the opposition party, I think we just need to be at least a little bit careful about what's truly considered out-of-bounds in the realm of criticizing your domestic opposition's foreign policy preferences on foreign soil.  I agree with your point about how there's essentially a way to do it and a way not to do it; that's all I think people should keep in mind in circumstances like this, as opposed to firing rhetorical bazookas about foreign soil, water's edge, etc.

First, I'm clinging to "during an election?"

Second, he can say, "The policy of the US is blah, for reasons x, y, and z".  That doesn't attack Bush directly.  I think he can argue against policies in the historical context without invoking current discussions/discussants.

Third, he can say, "Speaking for myself, I think foo". 

Fourth, he can say, "We're having an active discussion in our country about this, and so I don't care to get into that, but my administration's position is well known - see Sec. of State Clark's remarks the other day."

Of course he can (rather will) do whatever in a mature, thoughtful way. 

Somewhere in there he can satisfy all of us.