Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?
Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.
Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?
Palin: No, abso ... we need to express our rights and our concerns and ...
Couric: But you said never second guess them.
Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe ... that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.
Yeah. It's obvious who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say bad stuff. Saying something bad, a good guy would not be saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys, the good guys and their friends, their allies, in my world, those are the good guys.
FOLKS, If your third grader say that, it's ok. If your high school freshman talks like that, he/she needs to polish the logic in his or her sentences.
What does this good guy/ bad guy thing say about anything? Forget bad sentence structure, what the hell is she talking about? Anyone knows?