Chuck Hagel may be crossed off John McCain's Christmas card list. Lately the Republican senator from Nebraska is letting no opportunity go by to heap praise on Barack Obama.

What's worse, Hagel (who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee) is now taking issue with McCain's recent criticism of Obama's promise to engage with Iran. McCain painted Obama as an appeaser, which Hagel says is a woeful -- and all too common -- tactic employed by the GOP. Hagel insisted engagement is the way to maintain peace.

Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential." ...

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

Hagel also criticized the press on Obama's behalf, urging reporters to focus on important policy issues and "not just why Barack [doesn't] wear flag pins on his lapel."

As Sam Stein put it, "Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman."

It's pretty simple, really: Talking to enemies isn't appeasement.



As Chuck Hagel said today, John McCain is smarter than the silly stuff that keeps coming out of his mouth.

h/t: Andrew Sullivan.

Perhaps unsubtly stoking the fires in the U.S. presidential race, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has addressed a letter to U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon declaring the Islamic Republic's desire to open a new round of talks with the West on a broad range of issues from democracy building in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America to nuclear disarmament to illegal immigration. Iran is proposing the talks as a means of gaining international legitimacy as the Bush Administration and the European Union put the final touches on a new package of incentives aimed at getting Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program. Iran's proposal pointedly does not mention suspension of the controversial program.

Talks with Iran have been a major issue in the presidential race in the past week. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, has said that he favors talking with America's enemies and has pledged to meet unconditionally with the heads of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain rejects that notion as a mark of Obama's, "inexperience and reckless judgment," on foreign policy matters. President Bush kicked off the controversy when he remarked to Israel's parliament last week that those who would engage in negotiations with terrorists groups like Hamas and their state sponsor Iran were offering, "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Obama and prominent Democrats bristled at the description, which they interpreted as a direct shot at the Democratic candidate. Iran's offer of negotiations being made public at this time seems intended to keep the controversy alive in hopes of influencing the presidential race.

Time for a reality check. After last week's big political dust-up between President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain about whether talking to Hamas or Iran constituted "appeasement," comes word that Israel, the country who provided the presidential backdrop for the controversy, has itself started talking to Hamas. From Haaretz:

Participants at a recent inner cabinet meeting were listening to details of the Egyptian mediation initiative between Israel and Hamas on a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip recently, when a senior minister reportedly reminded those present that Israel does not negotiate, directly or indirectly, with Hamas. Shin Bet security service head Yuval Diskin interrupted, saying there was no other way to describe the talks.

A letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the details of which were revealed Friday, called for indirect and secret talks with Hamas to be recognized.

So, does this mean that Israel is guilty of Nazi-era-like appeasement? Perhaps McBush are preparing their condemnation for later in the day.

Funny, I thought that McBush said that talking to Hamas and Iran was tantamount to appeasement. Here's McCain less than two years ago:



Read James Rubin's full editorial in The Washington Post here. He's the guy conducting the interview in the clip.

President Bush delivered a speech today in front of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, as part of his visit to celebrate that nation's 60th anniversary. In his remarks, the president commented on critics of his Administration's approach toward dealing with America's and Israel's common enemies, telling the assembled lawmakers, "We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction." The president followed that with some criticism of his own for those who do not share his view.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Those words brought howls of protest from Democrats on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill. Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, interpreted the president's remarks as a thinly veiled shot at his campaign pledge to sit down with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba without preconditions. The White House denies that the president was speaking about any one person, and he did not directly mention Sen. Obama, or the Democratic Party. That did not stop prominent Democrats from condemning the speech. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decried the remarks as "beneath the dignity of the [president's] office." That's advice the Obama campaign should have taken before reacting to the president.