Ambassador John Bolton performs the invaluable service of explaining just what’s wrong with Barack Obama’s notion of unconditional talks with the world’s rogue state leaders. I will borrow the observation of my colleague Noah Pollak, who remarked to me that the average voter may not quite see what’s wrong with “talking to our enemies,” as Obama’s position is invariably and misleadingly phrased by mainstream media.

I share Bolton’s view that it is critical to explain why in certain exceptional cases, when no responsible negotiating partner is available and when the precious commodity of a presidential meeting is at issue, that the costs often outweigh the benefits of sitting down with leaders of terror-sponsoring states. But the logic of this position is hardly self-evident. Several of his prominent Democratic supporters don’t agree with Obama’s notion of unconditional, presidential talks with Ahmejinejad and other terror state leaders, but the mainstream media is loath to point that out or explain why even other liberal Democratic Senators don’t buy into his approach. It is therefore incumbent on John McCain to explain why this is so. McCain will need to articulate his own view, which, as Bolton puts it, is not “never talk to adversaries,” but rather “that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time.” Bolton’s column seems an ideal starting point for that discussion.