"The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview," he said in an e-mail.

"In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally," he said in an e-mail. "If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open, unlike Senator Obama, who has publicly committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office."

But he is unwilling to commit to meeting with the elected leader of Spain?

American blood...no problem.  Cup of coffee at the White House...lemme think about it.

If the explanations of McCain's people are correct I really don't get the outrage with this.

"In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally," he said in an e-mail. "If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance."

iow, "You cheated on me. You gotta send me some flowers, or something, anyway, before we go ahead and sleep together again."

And, yes, invites to the WH are the political equivalent, or close enough anyway, to "sleeping together."

so as Ben asks and everyone should ask

I've got an isolationist streak when it comes to military intervention and deployment, but it doesn't apply to simple dialogue.  The president should talk to anybody who will listen, and listen to anybody who will talk.

Rice was scheduled to arrive just after midday, meeting with Spanish King Juan Carlos before talks and a working lunch with Moratinos, the foreign minister. She planned to meet with Zapatero in the afternoon, followed by the head of Spain's conservative opposition, before departing.

Zapatero is one of the few European leaders not to have been invited to the White House since taking office.

In fact, relations between Washington and Zapatero, who openly supported Democratic challenger John Kerry on the eve of the U.S. elections in 2004, have been frosty since even before the Spanish leader took power.

In 2003, as head of the Socialist party then in opposition, Zapatero did not join other Spanish officials in standing up when U.S. troops marched past a VIP stand during a parade to mark National Day. The next year, as prime minister, he didn't even invite the Americans.

That followed Zapatero's decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, which he did a month after taking office in 2004. The war has been deeply unpopular here, particularly after a terror attack by Islamic militants that year that killed 191 people on Madrid commuter trains. The militants said they targeted Spain because of its participation in the peacekeeping force in Iraq.

Despite these fissures, Spanish and U.S. officials say relations have never been as bad as the media has made them out, and point to frequent ministerial level contacts between the two countries. Trade figures show the political chill has not extended to business.

So I mean, I understand why they would be interested in knowing if McCain plans to follow in Bush's footsteps.  I'm not disagreeing that refusing to meet with a NATO ally is "incompetent and irresponsible" in this case, but it's apparently current U.S. policy!

From what was reported, all that McCain has done is refused, at this particular moment, to make a commitment to meeting with Zapatero.

How is that in any way equivalent to saying that he refuses to meet with him, period? How about the possibility that he simply doesn't want to make the commitment at this moment, because he may or may not regard such a meeting as sufficiently urgent, given current circumstances, to make such a commitment this far in advance?

Isn't it perfectly consistent with this that he may choose to make such a commitment in the future, if the circumstances warrant it?

If someone asked McCain if he would meet with the leader of Lithuania, and he refused to make a commitment at this point, would that be equivalent to saying that he refuses to meet with the leader of Lithuania?

Yes, Spain is in NATO. But does the President really in the ordinary course of things need to have a (presumably separate) meeting with each and every leader of members of NATO? It's not obvious to me how much an obligation that really is, given all the other leaders a President must meet with, or all the other things he must do.