Only two? That's good.

o, that's bad. Because Iran's two preconditions are: "Iran will only hold talks if 'the U.S. moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.'"

That's bad.

No, that's good, because then it gives Junior Less-Than-One-Term Senator Ogullible a plausible excuse for going back and saying that the U.S. should immediately move out of Iraq, and for now saying that the U.S. government should immediately give up its widespread support for Israel — so the U.S. can meet Iran's two preconditions and hold talks.

That's good.

No, that's bad, because it means Jr. <1-term Sen. Ogullible would have to then flip-flop on his promise to be willing to talk to Iran "with no preconditions."

Yes, that is bad.

No, it's good, because then Jr. <1-term Sen. Ogullible could say that what he actually meant to say was that he actually meant that only the U.S. should be the one that's willing to talk "with no preconditions," not the other guy — so he wasn't actually talking about any of Iran's preconditions at all.

Oh. Well, that's good.

No, that's bad, because it actually shows just how gullible and weak Jr. <1-term Sen. Ogullible is when he says that he's actually willing to sit down and talk with any such ruthless dictatorship as Iran "with no preconditions."

You're right. It's bad. Why should Iran be the only one allowed to set any preconditions for those talks, but not us?

No, that's good, because Iran has set only two preconditions.

So that's good then?

(Rinse. Repeat....)

Labels: aided and comforted enemies, clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), Deranged Extremist Moonbat Obdurate Craven Retarded Appeasing Traitorous Slime (DEMOCRATS), Useless Nitwits, World War IV

	7:05 AM

Comments (registered users)