of course on the down side, Ahmadinejad could then reveal the suicide bombers vest under his jacket, that I’m sure every repsectable jihadi wears everywhere he goes…

mmmm stalemate…

That’s what strikes me now whenever I see him, he’s just calling it in. Well the Presidency has ground down better men than him.

Oh yeah DD to BB thats cool but I think D to BBB works better when spoken in the correct cadence. Also I like the word brilliance here in the context of dazzle where they relate well together. Anyway yours looks good in print and it works for me.

Going for the alliteration.

(And no one thinks of brilliance in this context.)

Ahmadinejad thinks he’s got the perfect solution. What could go wrong?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe more delays, more promises to be broken, more chances to to meet with Nancy Pelosi, or the ultimate goal, give them more time to find that guy in the well……..?

If GWB is trying to keep the Iranians off-balance, this may be the strategy.

But I haven’t been able to figure him out since he invited Muslims to speak after 9/11, and kissed the Saudi after 9/11 and called Islam a “peaceful religfion: after 9/11.

Maybe he’s just not keen on the details.

I like Barney, though, and Miss Beasley.

Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:35 PM

That’s a red meat topic just waiting to happen!

Two possible senarios, besides yours.

1) Bush personally will not have bilateral talks with Iran, but Condi et al could.

2) Bilateral talks are not an option between the US and Iran by themselves, but condi can have a side bar type discussion with Iran during the course of the internation conference.

Was GW refering to himself personally as opposed to Condi?

Ahmadinejad thinks he’s got the perfect solution. What could go wrong?

Well, he’ll offend our true leader, Nancy Pelosi. Doesn’t he know he should be speaking with her?

Read the excerpted bit again. It says he initially ruled out “any” contact with Iran. And then, a little while later, he didn’t.

Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Yeah, I get what you’re saying… But who’s interpretting this:

appeared to rule out any contact with Iran

Us… Or the AP? I think it’s pretty clear what he was saying and your guess as to what he meant is on the money. Again, he may not be the smoothest talker, but he means what he says and doesn’t float foreign policy ideas to see which will score the most political points. I think this is a case of deliberately misleading the reader with out of context and limited quotes that don’t indicate the specific questions that were asked.

Pretty clear, no?

It is to me.

“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,”

Sounds like a good strategery to me.

Again, why the post that makes him look like a flipflopper?

Read the excerpted bit again. It says he initially ruled out “any” contact with Iran. And then, a little while later, he didn’t.

Tit for tat
?Kidding.
I’m not one to usually, ahem, jump to his defense, but it sounds reasonable to me.

SouthernDem on April 24, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Not sure if you mean “tit for tat”, or “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” (Seinfeld tangent warning –

George: Alright, I’ll tell you what you do. You call her back and give her the “it’s me”, heh? Pull the old switcheroo.

Jerry: I think that’s a “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

George: What the hell is a gander, anyway?

Jerry (picking up the phone and dialing): It’s a goose that’s had the old switcheroo pulled on it.

Anyway, I just really don’t understand the point of the post and the speculation on “what he meant”, when the opening paragraph of the actual article makes it quite clear.

RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Tit for tat
?Kidding.
I’m not one to usually, ahem, jump to his defense, but it sounds reasonable to me.