To hear John McCain tell it, Barack Obama is irresponsible for his willingness to engage a state sponsor of terror like Iran. McCain’s attacks have all kinds of substantive flaws, but more importantly, McCain seems to keep running into trouble due to comments he’s made before.<\/p>\n
Earlier, for example, we talked<\/a> about McCain’s 2006 position that the U.S. engage Hamas diplomatically, a policy that the current McCain has no use for. But as it turns out, McCain also supported engagement with Syria<\/a>, despite his belief that the country is a state sponsor of terroris.<\/p>\n After the invasion of Iraq there was much talk among conservatives about invading Syria. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell was heavily criticized for taking a trip to Syria to talk to its leadership. Newt Gingrich said, “The concept of the American secretary of state going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist-supporting, secret-police-wielding dictator is ludicrous.”<\/p>\n What did John McCain have to say about the trip? Despite the fact that John McCain believed that Syria was a “state sponsor of terror,” was “harboring terrorists,” and were sending “Syrians in to fight Americans,” he thought it was worth talking to them, saying that Powell’s trip was “appropriate.” […]<\/p>\n McCain is directly contradicting himself by attacking Senator Obama on his plan to confront Iran at the negotiating table. A pattern is emerging. While McCain claims to be a deep foreign policy thinker with positions carefully developed from his quarter century in Washington, the reality seems to be that his positions — when not outright crazy<\/a> — are often knee-jerk and contradictory — often dictated by what his temperament is at that moment or influenced by how the political winds are moving.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I’m starting to think this just isn’t McCain’s day. Or, given the incoherence of his foreign policy worldview, his year, either. LAUER: Let me ask you about Syria.<\/p>\n Mr. McCAIN: Sure.<\/p>\n LAUER: They have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, they’ve also denied harboring any senior members of the Iraqi leader. The US administration says they have evidence to the contrary. How would you proceed with that situation?<\/b><\/p>\n Mr. McCAIN: I think it’s very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria.<\/b> I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It’s also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was. I think he’s too heavily influenced by a lot of the radical Islamic elements and–and militant groups.<\/p>\n LAUER: Do you think Syria meets the criteria set forth by the president in his post-9\/11 address to Congress that they pose an imminent threat to the US in that they are either sponsoring or harboring terrorists?<\/p>\n Mr. McCAIN: I think they’re–they’re sponsoring and harboring terrorists.<\/b> I think they have been occupying Lebanon, which should be free and independent for a long time, but I don’t think that that means that we will now resort to the military action. We–we can apply a lot of pressure other than military–than the military action. So what I’m saying, we’re a long way away from it.<\/p>\n LAUER: Under what circumstances–under what circumstances would you back military action?<\/p>\n Mr. McCAIN: When we’ve exhausted all other options. And we have a lot of options to–to exercise. And I’m glad Colin Powell’s going there<\/b>, but the Syrians have got to understand there’s a new day in the Middle East.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, let’s review. Yesterday, John McCain insisted that Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rival heads of state reflects “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment<\/a>.” Since then we’ve learned:<\/p>\n * McCain has publicly said he believe the U.S. should engage Hamas diplomatically and recognize Hamas a legitimate government;<\/p>\n * and McCain has publicly said he thinks it’s fully appropriate for the U.S. to engage Syria diplomatically, despite his own assertions that Syria is “sponsoring and harboring terrorists”;<\/p>\n This gets back to a point I’ve tried to emphasize with my ever-growing flip-flop list<\/a>. When McCain said we should talk to state sponsors of terrorism like Syria, he meant it. He wasn’t playing a game, or trying to make some political point, he genuinely seemed to believe that diplomacy with Syria is wise and prudent. Likewise, when McCain said this week that we shouldn’t talk to state sponsors of terrorism, he meant that, too, and was probably sincere when he attacked Obama accordingly.<\/p>\n
\n
\nHere’s the transcript of the April 18, 2003, episode of NBC’s “Today” show.<\/p>\n