Coincidentally...

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/15/hushed-up_news_explodes_with_a_fury_116171.html

Coincidentally, right after the election we heard that Iran had attacked a U.S. drone in international waters.

Coincidentally, we just learned that new food stamp numbers were "delayed" and that millions more became new recipients in the months before the election.

Coincidentally, we now gather that the federal relief effort following Hurricane Sandy was not so smooth, even as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Barack Obama high-fived it. Instead, in Katrina-like fashion, tens of thousands are still without power or shelter two weeks after the storm.

Coincidentally, we now learn that Obama's plan of letting tax rates increase for the "fat cat" 2 percent who make over $250,000 a year would not even add enough new revenue to cover 10 percent of the annual deficit. How he would get the other 90 percent in cuts, we are never told.

Coincidentally, we now learn that the vaunted Dream Act would at most cover only about 10 percent to 20 percent of illegal immigrants. As part of the bargain, does Obama have a post-election Un-Dream Act to deport the other 80 percent who do not qualify since either they just recently arrived in America, are not working, are not in school or the military, are on public assistance, or have a criminal record?

Coincidentally, now that the election is over, the scandal over the killings of Americans in Libya seems warranted due to the abject failure to heed pleas for more security before the attack and assistance during it. And the scandal is about more than just the cover-up of fabricating an absurd myth of protestors mad over a 2-month-old video -- just happening to show up on the anniversary of 9/11 with machine guns and rockets.

The following is for BAC especially... as he has been saying it for quite some time...

The real postelection mystery is why we ever had a secondary consulate in Benghazi in the first place, when most nations had long ago pulled their embassies out of war-torn Libya altogether.

Why, about a mile from the consulate, did we have a large CIA-staffed "annex" that seems to have been busy with all sorts of things other than providing adequate security for our nearby diplomats?

Before the election, the media was not interested in figuring out what Ambassador Christopher Stevens actually was doing in Benghazi, what so many CIA people and military contractors were up to, and what was the relationship of our large presence in Libya to Turkey, insurgents in Syria and the scattered Gadhafi arms depots.

Then of course the most recent....

But the strangest "coincidentally" of all is the bizarre resignation of American hero Gen. David Petraeus from the CIA just three days after the election -- apparently due to a long-investigated extramarital affair with a sort of court biographer and her spat with a woman she perceived as a romantic rival.

If the affair was haphazardly hushed up for about a year, how exactly did Petraeus become confirmed as CIA director, a position that allows no secrets, much less an entire secret life?

How and why did the FBI investigate the Petraeus matter? To whom and when did it report its findings? And what was the administration reaction?

Coincidentally, if it is true that Petraeus can no longer testify as CIA director to the House and Senate intelligence committees about the ignored requests of CIA personnel on the ground in Benghazi for more help, can he as a private citizen testify more freely, without the burdens of CIA directorship and pre-election politics?

It has been less than two weeks since the election, and Obama seems no exception to the old rule that for administrations which manage to survive their second terms, almost none seem to enjoy them.

The sudden release of all sorts of suppressed news and "new" facts right after the election creates public cynicism.

The hushed-up, fragmentary account of the now-unfolding facts of the Libyan disaster contributes to further disbelief.

The sudden implosion of Petraeus -- whose seemingly unimpeachable character appears so at odds with reports of sexual indiscretion, a lack of candor and White House backstage election intrigue -- adds genuine public furor.

The resulting mix is toxic, and it may tax even the formidable Chicago-style survival skills of Obama and the fealty of a so far dutiful media.

Nothing to see in any of the above... all is well... all is well...
 
Look at all the pretty lil parrots today... 'nothing to see here'... move along... seriously, you should all just go ahead and get that cracker... you earned it today.
 
Some assclown on cnbc is all butthurt too, oh strategist say Obama won't be good for the market!
These fools will let dems rake it in for six months hen greed kicks in they start buying like their trailer trash wives at a blue light special!
 
Look at all the pretty lil parrots today... 'nothing to see here'... move along... seriously, you should all just go ahead and get that cracker... you earned it today.

All you did was post a bunch of innuendo and unfounded accusations from sources with an obvious partisan political agenda.

What do you want? A "well done!"?
 
Look at all the pretty lil parrots today... 'nothing to see here'... move along... seriously, you should all just go ahead and get that cracker... you earned it today.


What I like best about you, SF, is the fact that you gleefully regurgitate GOP bullshit and then call anyone who laughs at it a parrot. Self-awareness is not your strong suit.
 
All you did was post a bunch of innuendo and unfounded accusations from sources with an obvious partisan political agenda.

What do you want? A "well done!"?

This is a political message board. A discussion of the content is typically what is looked for. But those on the left refuse to discuss, they instead are fixated on attacking the source. You claim it was all just innuendo, when in reality they are quite accurate.

Which do you think in the first quote box are not correct?

In the second quote box, it was questions the author thinks we should be asking... does it frighten you that people would ask such questions? Do you think we shouldn't be asking them?
 
Coincidentally, this year July [2012] has 5 Saturdays, 5 Sundays, and 5 Mondays. This happens once every 823 years. This is called money bags. So copy this to your status and money will arrive within 4 days. Based on Chinese Feng Shui. The one who does not copy, will be without money. I can not let that person be me.

Everyone take note and pass it on. It worked for me.




(TIC)
 
What I like best about you, SF, is the fact that you gleefully regurgitate GOP bullshit and then call anyone who laughs at it a parrot. Self-awareness is not your strong suit.

Tell us Dung... what of the above is 'gop bullshit'???

Can you tell us that little parrot?
 
Coincidentally, right after the election we heard that Iran had attacked a U.S. drone in international waters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57547213/iranian-jet-shoots-at-u.s-drone-over-persian-gulf/

Nope, can't be that one. It did indeed get reported right after the election, even though the incident occurred the week prior.

Coincidentally, we just learned that new food stamp numbers were "delayed" and that millions more became new recipients in the months before the election.

Nope... this one isn't bullshit... it was indeed delayed and it did indeed show more...

http://rt.com/usa/news/post-election-food-stamps-476/

Coincidentally, we now gather that the federal relief effort following Hurricane Sandy was not so smooth, even as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Barack Obama high-fived it. Instead, in Katrina-like fashion, tens of thousands are still without power or shelter two weeks after the storm.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=weather&id=8885413

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/us/sa...Feed:+rss/cnn_mostpopular+(RSS:+Most+Popular)

yep, tens of thousands still without power

Coincidentally, we now learn that Obama's plan of letting tax rates increase for the "fat cat" 2 percent who make over $250,000 a year would not even add enough new revenue to cover 10 percent of the annual deficit. How he would get the other 90 percent in cuts, we are never told.

Technically we knew this one long ago... at least those who were willing to look at the actual math did. But still, not quite what Obama was telling the masses.

Coincidentally, we now learn that the vaunted Dream Act would at most cover only about 10 percent to 20 percent of illegal immigrants. As part of the bargain, does Obama have a post-election Un-Dream Act to deport the other 80 percent who do not qualify since either they just recently arrived in America, are not working, are not in school or the military, are on public assistance, or have a criminal record?

Like the former, we knew this one going in.

Coincidentally, now that the election is over, the scandal over the killings of Americans in Libya seems warranted due to the abject failure to heed pleas for more security before the attack and assistance during it. And the scandal is about more than just the cover-up of fabricating an absurd myth of protestors mad over a 2-month-old video -- just happening to show up on the anniversary of 9/11 with machine guns and rockets.

So now we finally get the hearings... over two months after the fact. coincidentally after the election.
 
This is a political message board. A discussion of the content is typically what is looked for. But those on the left refuse to discuss, they instead are fixated on attacking the source. You claim it was all just innuendo, when in reality they are quite accurate.

Which do you think in the first quote box are not correct?

In the second quote box, it was questions the author thinks we should be asking... does it frighten you that people would ask such questions? Do you think we shouldn't be asking them?

Nothing frightens me. The continued campaign of innuendo and false accusations floated out their by Fox & its minions (and now you) actually ticks me off. First, it isn't journalism. Second, it's reckless & irresponsible without any facts to back it up. Third, it's hypocrisy of the highest order, given the lack of outrage by the right on incompetence & proven lying by the Bush admin on Iraq, from the disbanding of the Iraq army - which caused far more death than what happened in Benghazi - to a Senate committee confirming that the admin manipulated intel to get us into war.
 
Nothing frightens me. The continued campaign of innuendo and false accusations floated out their by Fox & its minions (and now you) actually ticks me off. First, it isn't journalism. Second, it's reckless & irresponsible without any facts to back it up. Third, it's hypocrisy of the highest order, given the lack of outrage by the right on incompetence & proven lying by the Bush admin on Iraq, from the disbanding of the Iraq army - which caused far more death than what happened in Benghazi - to a Senate committee confirming that the admin manipulated intel to get us into war.

Apparently actually stating what you think is innuendo frightens you. Apparently answering the questions I asked you frightens you. Now you fall back in fear and regurgitate standard left wing nonsense of 'but but but Bush was worse' as if that makes it all better. Pretty low standards you have set there for yourself.
 
So, this right-wing hit piece refers to things that actually happened so all the bullshit innuendo therein is therefore 100% accurate and not bullshit innuendo? Riiiiiight.

Also, too, here's a tip, SF: You should read a newspaper (any newspaper), not just the daily opinion columns posted on RCP.
 
All those irrelevant posts about nothing.....

Not even one attempt to refute the FACTS presented...obviously because they are facts.

Some lame trys at humor, some name calling, some general denials, and of course the ever popular attempt
at attacking the sources.....

So right....nothing to see hear after reading the interesting first post....
 
What I like best about the whole "coincidentally" thing is the idea implicit behind it: that Romney might have won if only. It's awesome.
 
Apparently actually stating what you think is innuendo frightens you. Apparently answering the questions I asked you frightens you. Now you fall back in fear and regurgitate standard left wing nonsense of 'but but but Bush was worse' as if that makes it all better. Pretty low standards you have set there for yourself.

The bolded is serious, unmitigated irony, considering the OP.
 
All those irrelevant posts about nothing.....

Not even one attempt to refute the FACTS presented...obviously because they are facts.

Some lame trys at humor, some name calling, some general denials, and of course the ever popular attempt
at attacking the sources.....

So right....nothing to see hear after reading the interesting first post....

How is your campaign to get the American military involved against Hamas going, anyway?
 
Back
Top