America's policy on terrorism is worthy of debate in this year's presidential election. It is not too surprising that the rhetorical clashes have begun.

First, President Bush said in a speech to Israel's Knesset last week that negotiating with leaders of terrorist states is wrong. He likened such an idea to the appeasement of Adolf Hilter before World War II.

Sen. Barack Obama interpreted the remarks as an attack on his pledge to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria and other rogue states "without preconditions" — which he emphasized during one of the Democratic debates last summer.

Mr. Obama responded in Watertown, S.D., Friday, saying: "Now, that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world."

The senator accused Mr. Bush and Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of making "dishonest, divisive" accusations and said that he would welcome a foreign-policy debate with both Republicans. The Democrat mentioned that the Iraq war is in its sixth year, Osama bin Laden is still free, al-Qaida is active and Iran is bold.

Sen. McCain used the dustup over President Bush's speech to charge that Mr. Obama lacks experience. "It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies," Sen. McCain told a gathering of the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky. "But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe."

Mr. Obama said he would not negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist group that "has vowed to destroy Israel and won't recognize them."

Although the White House said the president was not referring to Mr. Obama in his remarks to Israeli officials, the Democrat counterattacked vigorously.

This is the type of discussion America needs and should expect in a presidential election year. We need more of the same.