podpolia

LGF has a bit of history on Hinchey and the stuff he has said before. Then again, this isn’t really suprising — if somebody is going to say something wacky in public once, it’s likely they’ll be willing to do it repeatedly. And this is just what we’re discovering:
“‘The truth of the matter is that their long-term plan is not to exit,’ Hinchey said. ‘They want to establish several military bases there. Their long-term goal is (to get) the oil.’”
Sounds par for the course circa the Abu Ghraib scandal. Problem is, it’s from an interview with Erin Kelly of the Gannett News Service on February 3, 2005. He even discusses how well the elections went first.
This isn’t particularly suprising. Hinchey joined a lawsuit in February 2003, challenging Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq.
He doesn’t limit his profound pearls of wisdom to foreign policy either (though he seems to prefer it — after all, he did meet with Yassir Arafat in April of 2003 to discuss peace for the Middle East, for all the good that did). On January 20, 2005, Hinchey said, “On the domestic front, I am also deeply concerned by President Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security, which would eventually result in the overall elimination of the program.” This isn’t even getting into his public noises about attempting to impeach Bush, before “deciding that the time was not right,” acoording to the Cornell Daily Sun.

There are times when it’s good to be cynical, and when politicians are shooting their mouths off is one of them.

There are protests in Beirut against Syria’s puppet government in Lebanon, and other developments are looking good for the spread of democracy farther afield in the Middle East, and at the same time handing a stinging rebuke to Syria.

I figure I should put this up here, since this is the most recent scandal in the blogosphere (we really need to come up with a better word than ‘blogosphere’). The shockwaves that seem to ripple through the internet each and every time a liberal moonbat sticks his loafer between his teeth continue to amaze me. There are idiots out there, people, and not just on that side. We can be shocked and outraged, or we can engage in a little humourous moonbattery in response. Not nice; not productive political conversation, but how DOES one have a productive political conversation with someone who regards belief as solid evidence.

This is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time!