Neither President Bush nor the Democrats come off looking very good in their recent shouting match over the idea of talking with Iran.

The key principle to keep in mind: U.S. leaders should not make concessions that reward terrorism because that will encourage more terrorism.

But talks do not necessarily have to produce concessions; they can be used, for example, to explain to terrorist regimes like those in Syria and Iran the damage that economic sanctions will do to their countries. Bush disingenuously equates merely meeting adversaries with granting them concessions.

But Neville Chamberlain’s mistake was not in meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich; it was that he gave Hitler permission to ravage Czechoslovakia.

Bush’s decision to fuzz up the distinction between talks and concessions was all the more regrettable because he did it in a foreign capital.

If the president would like national and international respect when he travels abroad, he should resist the temptation to use ceremonial occasions like Israel’s 60th birthday to score cheap political points.

The White House then added a ridiculous claim: That when Bush complained of modern-day appeasers, he was not referring to Sen. Barack Obama.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, went so far as taunt Obama as an ego-maniac for treating Bush’s remarks for what they obviously were: a political attack.

The over-the-top Democratic outrage at Bush’s remarks was inappropriate as well. And Obama might want to reconsider the emphasis that he has placed on face-to-face discussions with the likes of Syria and Iran.

Before the current administration, U.S. secretaries of state repeatedly visited Damascus and returned with little to show for it.

As for Iran, European leaders spent years talking to Tehran with no success. The Iranians have run circles around Russian officials as well.

Under the right circumstances, diplomatic talks can serve a useful purpose. But they should not be held up as a sure-fire panacea.