Don't see the controversy in this statement. If Iran gave up it's centrifuges and agreed to unlimited and unrestricted inspections of the nuclear installations by the IAEA - in other words, a Libyan-like dismantling of it's WMD programs, why wouldn't we talk to Ahmadinejad?
The Soviets had 40K warheads pointed in our direction, but Reagan talked to them everyday of his administration. If we're going to continue ignoring some specific countries irrespective of their actions, just because of some "bad blood", what's their motivation for changing their behavior.
McCain's right on this one.
See, the flaw in your logic is the word IF. Remind me, I forget, just how many times has Iran let the world into inspect their nukes? None? Oh, yeah, that's right. They are like Iraq used to be, promise to let inspectors in then run them around showing them anything but your nuke facilities. These are muslims that feel honor bound to lie to non muslims and consider it their duty to do so.
McCain may be right in theory but he is wrong where the rubber meets the road. Iran has not dismantled anything, they are still working on a bomb, they want a bomb, they want to destroy Israel with the bomb they are working towards having.
Libya only gave up their Nukes when they saw what we did to Iraq, and not before. Iran knows we won't bomb them and they are counting on us keeping Israel(they are wrong there, IMO)from bombing them. This will give them time to make the bomb. McCain is once again talking out of his a**.
Reagan was criticized for not meeting with the Soviets for years after taking office. His response was, accurately, "they keep dyng on me!" Of course we had lower level contacts going on all the time, and do so today with Iran.