published Thursday, May 9th, 2013

Coming Soon

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

191
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

For those like me who didn't get it at a glance, the current party news story is http://tinyurl.com/clpsb4q (from Clay's facebook; my wife says he often posts a link there to news related to his cartoon.)

Alternative captions: No, it's not about a party at the Kennedy mansion/Kennedy beach house.

May 9, 2013 at 1:04 a.m.
carlB said...

Don't know how often the happens, but I know it happened about 20 years ago to some young party goers on Sigmal Mountain. Never made the Head Lines on the Paper then.

May 9, 2013 at 1:06 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Kids will be kids. Then these kids will be civic leaders and political insiders. Generation after generation of degeneration.

May 9, 2013 at 7:22 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

These schools used to have a one-strike-you're-out policy. I wonder if that is still the case.

May 9, 2013 at 7:24 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

AndrewLohr:

Thanks for the clarification.

May 9, 2013 at 7:33 a.m.
rumrunr said...

now, that's funny.

May 9, 2013 at 8:19 a.m.

Several things bother me about this cartoon and the coverage by TFP. 1)True, drinking under 21 is against the law - even though at 18 you are mature enough to elect city/state/national leaders and give your life for your country. 2)The students were AT A HOME, they were not on the road. Should they have been the priority on a Saturday night, instead of DUIs? 3)To arrest this many people, exactly how many Signal Mtn police and cars did it take? Was the rest of the city unpatrolled during this time that SMP were chasing these "hardened criminals"? 4)WHY does TFP give such ONGOING coverage to happenings on SM? Is there nothing else to write about? Is there no crime, unemployment, gang violence, etc anywhere else in the county? 5)Was this the ONLY party in the county Saturday night where there was underage drinking? Looking at the cartoon, you would think so. You would be led to believe that ONLY Baylor, McCallie, and GPS students were drinking Saturday night. If this had happened ANYWHERE else, to any students other than GPS, McCallie, Baylor, or God forbid, Signal Mountain Students, this would have been a non-issue, unworthy or news coverage, and probably not resulting in arrests. 6)Why focus on the negative? Will the TFP list all the scholarships these students are about to receive? 7)Alternative captions: No, it's not about a party at the Kennedy mansion/Kennedy beach house. Comparing these students to the Kennedy's - REALLY?! Wasn't the Kennedy family one of the most prestigious and well respected political families in the history of our country? Didn't two of them lose their lives while in service to this country? TFP - You are only hurting yourself. When you cover such inane "news events" in a city the size of Chattanooga, you show your pettiness. Clay Bennett - Even this is beneath you, and that is saying a lot. You try to be funny at the expense of others. Businesses and corporations can handle it, they aren't individuals. But when you use your high profile, public position to ridicule high school students, there is something fundamentally wrong with you and the people you work for. And no, I do not have children at Baylor, McCallie, or GPS. I am just a Chattanooga citizen who looks to the TFP for newsworthy material and sees this foolishness on a too regular basis.

May 9, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
Leaf said...

Kids party. Big deal.

May 9, 2013 at 9:03 a.m.
Easy123 said...

I don't believe that Clay Bennett is attempting to ridicule high school students as much as he is trying to expose a trend on Signal Mountain.

2013: http://tfponline.com/news/2013/may/08/17-teen-partygoers-arrested/

2012: http://tfponline.com/news/2012/may/31/21-youths-taken-custody-after-party-signal-mountai/

http://tfponline.com/news/2012/may/18/signal-mountain-high-schools-troubles/

2010:

I doubt any other area in the surrounding counties has had that many underage drinking busts in the last three years.

May 9, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
alprova said...

Someone registered a new name to make that detailed, concise objection to today's subject.

17 kids being arrested for underage, illegal consumption of alcohol, regardless of their location and whether or not they presented a danger to the public, is a local newsworthy event, and it appears to be a problem that is a little more than isolated in nature.

Clearly, the lives of these youths are not damaged for life. They are not likely to be victims of discrimination for what they did, but they did violate the law and when one violates the law, they deserve punishment for it.

The arrest, the prosecution, and the punishment exacted on each and every one of those teens may well have saved their future lives. How?

It will make them think twice about the dangers of alcohol. It will give them pause to decide whether or not alcohol is something they truly need to imbibe.

Criticizing a police department for doing their job is ludicrous.

My question is obvious. How many parents of those kids knew what they were up to on May the 3rd? One would hope that that were totally unaware of their actions and are going to keep a tighter reign on them in the future.

Any one of those kids, had they not been arrested, may have went on to jump into a car later that evening, crashed somewhere, taking their own lives and the lives of others, and we'd be pondering this issue from an entirely different perspective.

I applaud the authorities for enforcing the letter of the law. Lives were likely saved as a result of their arrests.

May 9, 2013 at 9:41 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Ikeithlu,

"These schools used to have a one-strike-you're-out policy. I wonder if that is still the case."

They still do, but they've used discretion before and, being so close to graduation, I have a feeling those schools might let these kids graduate with some stipulations. The GPS Headmaster already stated that the incident will not affect whether the girls cited from his school will graduate.

And, with classes all but over, I think that's probably the right action to take considering they've all likely fulfilled their academic requirements. I'm sure there will be some type of punishment from the school, but I doubt expulsion will be it.

It will probably be a different story for the kids under 18 though. Only time will tell.

May 9, 2013 at 9:47 a.m.
patriot1 said...

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

― Socrates

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

May 9, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
ibshame said...

Any incident such as this one should not reflect badly on the schools rather the focus should be on the individuals who made those bad decisions. Unfortunately, for students at Howard, Brainerd, Tyner and any other public school just the opposite often happens - Bad decisions by a few often lead others to condemn those schools as a whole

May 9, 2013 at 10:41 a.m.

Yes, I did register a new name. I have read the TFP for years and finally decided to speak up - Enough is enough.

"I don't believe that Clay Bennett is attempting to ridicule high school students as much as he is trying to expose a trend on Signal Mountain."

And this "trend" is ONLY on Signal Mountain. . .?

"I doubt any other area in the surrounding counties has had that many underage drinking busts in the last three years."

You doubt, but you don't know, because it isn't deemed newsworthy in any other area.

I'm not saying I approve of underage drinking, only that coverage if/when warranted should be fair.

And it is fairly obvious that Bennett is trying to ridicule these students. And along the same line, was TFP covering the story not enough, did they really have to post the pictures? If anyone was THAT interested, they could have looked them up on Right to Know.

Alprova - I'm glad neither a younger you, nor your children, have ever shown bad judgment. But if you did or they did, I'm sure you would be ok with have pictures posted and having your bad decisions covered in detail in the press.

I have said all I have to say on the matter. I will leave the rest of the discussions to the perfect people with perfect children.

May 9, 2013 at 10:49 a.m.
Easy123 said...

SomeCommonSense,

"And this "trend" is ONLY on Signal Mountain. . .?"

Show me any other small town (6.7 sq miles & ~7,500 people) with 44 underage drinking busts/citations in the last 3 years.

"You doubt, but you don't know, because it isn't deemed newsworthy in any other area."

So you're trying to convince me that 17 kids being cited for underage drinking isn't newsworthy? The TFP writes articles about individual DUI arrests. Don't you think this is a pretty big deal considering the amount of people involved?

"I'm not saying I approve of underage drinking, only that coverage if/when warranted should be fair."

Seems pretty fair considering the TFP did an article on an underage drinking bust in Apison about a year ago and another on Ooltewah HS cheerleaders that were kicked off the team for underage drinking.

"And it is fairly obvious that Bennett is trying to ridicule these students"

Like I said before, I don't believe that Clay Bennett is attempting to ridicule high school students as much as he is trying to expose a trend on Signal Mountain.

I already provided the links.

"And along the same line, was TFP covering the story not enough, did they really have to post the pictures? If anyone was THAT interested, they could have looked them up on Right to Know."

The TFP does this for individual DUI arrests, petty crimes, major crimes, etc.. They always include pictures. It's a newspaper. That's what newspapers do. How can you argue about the TFP including pictures when the pictures are there in the Right2Know section? Most of these kids were 18 years old. Notice they didn't include the pictures of the kids under 18 years old.

Seems like solid, fair, legal reporting to me.

"I'm sure you would be ok with have pictures posted and having your bad decisions covered in detail in the press."

I would. Decisions have consequences. If you break the law, you have to deal with whatever consequences you're dealt with. Maybe having their names up in lights for this will serve as a wake-up call.

Another phenomena that tends to happen around this time of year is car accidents involving soon-to-be high school graduates. Underage drinking is nothing to take lightly and, as alprova said, maybe this bust and publicity saved some of these kids lives.

"I will leave the rest of the discussions to the perfect people with perfect children."

You won't find any of those people here.

May 9, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
Maximus said...

Good call Alprova on a very unpulitzer worthy doodle for Clay. What will the national readers of the TFP think, boring. No, Clay is doing everything he can to distract the reader from the train wreck that is the lame duck lying Obama administration. Four outstanding U.S. Military officers, mostly Army Generals quietly fired or forced to retire after the Benghazi attack, CIA "Contra Like" shipments of weapons to the Al Quaida sponsored Syrian rebels, and the utter arrogance of elected officials regarding the murder of four Americans. Death may be part of life but one thing we do know, quality investigative journalism, especially among the Big Four, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times died a long time ago.

A couple of compelling "investigative" questions the press should be pursuing......Did Obama leave our Ambassador to Libya behind on purpose? Was he expendable because of his past actions or beliefs regarding policy? Did Hillary Clinton's arrogant comments regarding the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he's dead" while laughing motivate the attacks? Whoops! What type of weapons are we currently shipping to Syria? It would be great if our journalists would focus on the real story instead of like Clay picking on kids that made a mistake. Note Clay is also slamming private schools. If the kids had been attending Chatt public schools not only would there have been drinking, but also a coup,e of shootings. Oh yes, the dress would have been different, the boys pants would be sagging below their butt and the Mom would not be present. The woman is actually wearing comfortable shoes. Is that Ike or Mtn Laurel. Oh right....it's Clays saddle wearing, Whole Foods shopping soul mate. :)

May 9, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.
Leaf said...

Look, I have no problem with busting some kids for underage drinking. That's the chance you take and it's not like it will ruin any lives.

Teens will test their boundaries. That's their job. That's how they learn. Adults will hopefully call them on it when they overstep the boundaries. That's our job.

The ridiculous thing is that it is a news story. It wouldn't be a story except a couple of the kids look so sad in the pictures that it's a little bit humorous.

The cops on Signal are doing their job to bust up an underage party. It's not a conspiracy that they go looking for drinking teens. Somebody calls about a loud party, cops arrive, they arrest people breaking the law. That's the way it works.

There's nothing unusual about this thing except that it was apparently such a slow news day that the paper decided to make it a story.

May 9, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
Lost4815162342 said...

Way to go Times Free Press! Just keep bashing and slandering these kids that made a mistake. I get it that they are of “legal” age and you have every “legal” right to publish this information, but they’re still kids. To my understanding, one of them turned 18 about a week ago, while seven of these kids went unpublicized because they are still under the age of 18. I’m having a hard time figuring out the justness of our legal system where seven kids made the same mistake, yet there’s no public consequence due to them being a minor. To me, it tells these kids to drink it up until they’re eighteen and then sober up for the next three years until they’re 21.
You put ten kids’ names in the paper, post their pictures on your website, and now place a cartoon mocking their poor choice.
The newspaper gets away with this calling it news. If an individual kept posting such information, it’s considered harassment/cyber bullying. Even though they’re eighteen years-old, they’re still kids. They made a mistake. They’re embarrassed. Stop humiliating them. Yes, these kids broke the law and there are consequences. Their consequence has already included being arrested, spending the night in jail, having a mug shot, and in the near future they will have to appear in court and probably have to do community service. It’s bothersome that the media keeps kicking these teenagers while they’re down and doesn’t empathize with their emotional and psychological well being.

May 9, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

" indeed, the greatest tragedy in this fiasco was the loss of four brave Americans, in part because this administration ignored and was unprepared for jihadist activity in Libya. But that gross error should not obscure lesser but still important missteps, most especially if they were deliberate efforts to cover up, shift blame and deny responsibility for the underlying tragedy. To claim that career diplomats or underlings in Foggy Bottom are lying or engaging in some misconduct is, well, lower than low. What’s more, it just isn’t true." -jennifer rubin besides, what's a lie or two from our leader?

May 9, 2013 at 11:37 a.m.
jesse said...

I wonder if our prize winning toonist would have done this IF the incident had taken place in East Chattanoog or East Lake??

May 9, 2013 at 11:39 a.m.
Leaf said...

Well, some people love it when those in relatively high positions (and apparently their children) fail.

But seriously, folks. It's not like people who send their kids to these schools are all billionaire robber-barons. They do live in Chattanooga after all. It's no New York. I've noticed that Chattanoogans are hyper-sensitive to class though.

In almost every other town or city in America, there aren't nearly so many private schools per capita. To go to a private school in Chattanooga isn't so much a mark of achievement or indication of social climbing, but rather an indictment of our mostly terrible public school districts.

May 9, 2013 at 11:51 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Following yesterday’s House Oversight Committee Hearing with Benghazi whistleblowers, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.) echoed on MSNBC Hillary Clinton’s infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” line, asking, “What’s the big deal here?” and then there's the plain stupid

May 9, 2013 at 12:09 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/may/07/woman-of-year-charged-with-dui/?local.....

It does seem like a bad week for the signal mountain community. BUt comming on this forum and blaming the police and then the newspaper for doing thier jobs in my opinion does nothing to help your cause. In a couple days this will be old news and someone else will be on the front page. Deflecting blame from the responsable parties or in this case party goers shows a lack or accountability on the part of the deflecters. I am sorry they got caught. I wish no ill will toward anyone. But it happened. Now go to court pay the fine pick up some trash if the judge is so inclined and move on. This will be just a bump in the road for these students and hopefully they will learn to keep it down when they get on the college campus so they don't end up in the busted paper just like all the other weekly arrests for underage drinking on any campus near you.

May 9, 2013 at 12:29 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/5/8/250739/2-Teens-Lead-Officers-On-Repeated.aspx......Don't forget to be upset with the Chattanoogan. That site has went so far as to post the names and adresses of all those involved. So I guess it is a coordinated effort to slander your community!(sarcasm intended)

May 9, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

LOst says......It’s bothersome that the media keeps kicking these teenagers while they’re down and doesn’t empathize with their emotional and psychological well being. ...... I wasn't aware that was the newspapers role in the community. Opinoins are on the back page of the metro section, please feel free to offer the paper an op ed helping with the emotional and psychological well being of the perpatrators. I am sure they will print it if you send it.

May 9, 2013 at 12:47 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Gregory Hicks told the House Oversight Committee that Susan Rice’s lies on the five Sunday shows contradicted the Libyan President about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. As a result of this affront the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI to enter the country to secure the attack sites and conduct an investigation. The 18 days they were delayed allowed critical items to be removed by the locals and evidence to be destroyed.

May 9, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
jesse said...

The cops did their job and the TFP did their job when they reported it BUT what i wonder about is WHY did Bennett feel the need to do a cartoon about it!

Because all them republicans live on Signal Mtn. and sent their kids to privt. schools???( seen a chance to take a cheap shot?)

May 9, 2013 at 12:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

"progressives" angry over Gitmo totally OK with guy being held for a video admin says caused terror attack. what a horrible use of the word "progressive"

May 9, 2013 at 12:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Plain_Jack_Dennis,

"totally OK with guy being held for a video admin says caused terror attack."

The man isn't being held for the video that did cause anti-American protests, riots and other consulate/embassy attacks worldwide.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-ordered-back-prison/story?id=17673952#.UYvU9-Bx6l4

May 9, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
alprova said...

SomeSomeCommonSense wrote: "Alprova - I'm glad neither a younger you, nor your children, have ever shown bad judgment."

I've been guilty of making many bad decisions. None of them were illegal however.

"But if you did or they did, I'm sure you would be ok with have pictures posted and having your bad decisions covered in detail in the press."

I would be fine with it. Embarrassed? Sure. But as the old saying goes...if you're guilty of the crime, you too deserve your very own 15 minutes of fame.

"I have said all I have to say on the matter. I will leave the rest of the discussions to the perfect people with perfect children."

Sounds to me that you have a little more interest in this, other than to be just a concerned Chattanoogan. Was your precious angel busted and his or her picture posted in the paper?

May 9, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Lost4815162342: "Way to go Times Free Press! Just keep bashing and slandering these kids that made a mistake."

Slander? Are you aware of the meaning of the word?

"I get it that they are of “legal” age and you have every “legal” right to publish this information, but they’re still kids."

Kids who broke the law. They deserve to be shamed for what they did. If they truly are ashamed, I'll bet there will not be a repeat performance.

"You put ten kids’ names in the paper, post their pictures on your website, and now place a cartoon mocking their poor choice."

It was more than just a poor choice. It was ILLEGAL. They are criminals.

"They made a mistake. They’re embarrassed. Stop humiliating them. Yes, these kids broke the law and there are consequences. Their consequence has already included being arrested, spending the night in jail, having a mug shot, and in the near future they will have to appear in court and probably have to do community service."

One can only hope that the punishment will be severe enough that not one of them consumes alcohol ever again their entire lives, and if that happens, they won't miss a thing but a life of misery.

"It’s bothersome that the media keeps kicking these teenagers while they’re down and doesn’t empathize with their emotional and psychological well being."

They posted their pictures ONE TIME. If that's enough to screw with their emotional and psychological well-being, then they are in for a rough life ahead.

May 9, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

It is very telling that the two men appointed by Hillary Clinton to investigate the conduct of her own department were unwilling to come before Congress and defend their work. The two men are Former U.N. Ambassador Tom Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen who conducted the whitewash called the Accountability Review Board report on the attack.

They were forced to lay the blame on the State Department due to overwhelming evidence that no other conclusion could be reached. However they somehow neglected to interview Clinton and seemed to find no individuals to be held accountable.

Maybe their hesitancy to testify would be because their report is so weak that the Office of the Inspector General is conducting an investigation of the ARB report’s validity.

May 9, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
alprova said...

Let them spin their wheels investigating anything they so desire. Nothing will come of it, no matter what rocks they attempt to turn over.

Fox News and Matt Drudge dropped their front page coverage, after the firecracker display that was promised, fizzled like a dud.

It's over folks.

Four people in high risk diplomatic jobs died as the result of a terrorist attack and no one could have arrived in time to save them.

They should have been in a safer place on the anniversary date of 9/11.

Want to bet that this coming September 11th, that personnel will not be behind secured walls in dangerous countries?

May 9, 2013 at 1:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"As a result of this affront the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI to enter the country to secure the attack sites and conduct an investigation."

The FBI investigation began on September 13th and investigators were set to arrive in Benghazi by September 21st. The FBI team arrived in Tripoli on September 18th to work with Libyan officials. And, according to reports, the FBI teams delayed arrival in Benghazi was due to security concerns, not Libyan government push-back. The FBI team arrived in Benghazi on Oct. 4th.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/world/africa/libya-fbi-benghazi

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?iref=obnetwork

If the United States Ambassador to the United Nations can say something that serves as an "affront" to the Libyan President, maybe we don't have as good of a relationship with them as we thought. Why would that cause the FBI to be delayed? Wouldn't that be an even bigger reason to let them in there to actually prove who was correct? How does Hicks know to what extent Rice's words had on the FBI investigation?

"The 18 days they were delayed allowed critical items to be removed by the locals and evidence to be destroyed."

Like what?

May 9, 2013 at 1:29 p.m.
Leaf said...

My first teenage drinking experience was during a camping drip. Choked down one and half beers. Probably didn't help that the beers were the cheapest ones money could buy and they had been sitting in a car trunk for a couple of weeks during the summer.

May 9, 2013 at 1:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"It is very telling that the two men appointed by Hillary Clinton to investigate the conduct of her own department were unwilling to come before Congress and defend their work."

Pickering WAS willing to come before Congress to defend the report.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/benghazi-hearing-your-government-at-work/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ambassador-pickering-i-was-willing-to-testify-on

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/08/1207746/-Issa-accuses-Benghazi-commission-chairman-of-refusing-to-testify-then-refuses-to-let-him-testify

"Maybe their hesitancy to testify would be because their report is so weak that the Office of the Inspector General is conducting an investigation of the ARB report’s validity."

Or maybe Darrell Issa just wouldn't let Pickering testify. Which happens to be the case.

May 9, 2013 at 1:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

There has been a lot of accusations by the Democrats that budget cuts by the Republicans lead to an inability to provide adequate security for Benghazi.

Testimony before the House Oversight Committee:

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security: “No, sir.”

May 9, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
jesse said...

Leaf! My first taste was at 12 years old and i did not like it BUT at about 17 i got over that!!

Ya know man disc.fire and 30 min.later disc.B-B-Q AND 30 min after that disc.BEER! Almost makes me believe in a Supreme being!(almost!)

May 9, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

When I see Obama in a cowboy hat, two words: Village People

May 9, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Leaf said...

When I see PlainTruth, two words: Village Idiot.

Bam! Sorry, couldn't resist.

May 9, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"There has been a lot of accusations by the Democrats that budget cuts by the Republicans lead to an inability to provide adequate security for Benghazi."

So you're trying to tell me that the $296 million dollars that was cut from embassy security, construction, and additional cuts in other State Department security accounts from 2011 to 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with the consulate in Benghazi being under specs and under staffed?

May 9, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Mr. Pickering declined the invitation in March, so the hearing schedule was prepared with the understanding he would not testify. Then just before the hearing he says yes he will testify knowing that the schedule was set and they would deny his offer.

There will be further hearings in the next few weeks and he has been invited to testify at one of those. So far he has not accepted. Maybe he will continue this pattern of not agreeing to appear only to reverse himself when it is too late. That way he won’t have to defend himself under oath as all the while he continues to disingenuously claim he wants to do so.

An easy trick to pull off if you have the MSM running interference for you.

Right?

May 9, 2013 at 2:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"Then just before the hearing he says yes he will testify knowing that the schedule was set and they would deny his offer."

Conjecture. You have nothing to base that on other than what you believe Pickering's reasoning was for declining the initial invitation (he claims a scheduling conflict). In fact, the "three-day" rule can be waived. If they wanted the man to testify, they could have very easily waived the rule?

"Hill said it is too late. The Committee still has not received Pickering’s offer to testify and, even if it comes now, the Committee has a “three-day rule” that requires witnesses be locked in three days in advance to give Committee members adequate time to prepare. Hill acknowledged that rule can be waived, but that won’t happen today."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/benghazi-hearing-your-government-at-work/

"There will be further hearings in the next few weeks and he has been invited to testify at one of those. So far he has not accepted."

That's false. He didn't accept the initial invitation in March to the hearing yesterday. There has been no reporting that any invitations have been sent to Pickering regarding any future hearings.

"Maybe he will continue this pattern of not agreeing to appear only to reverse himself when it is too late."

It's never too late. The "3-day" rule can be waived.

"That way he won’t have to defend himself under oath as all the while he continues to disingenuously claim he wants to do so."

Conjecture. You have no insight into the man's motives. The man was ready and willing to participate, but was not allowed. I wonder why? If they wanted his testimony so bad, why wouldn't they waive the "3-day" rule?

"An easy trick to pull off if you have the MSM running interference for you."

You're just making it up as you go along.

May 9, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy said ...

So you're trying to tell me that the $296 million dollars that was cut from embassy security, construction, and additional cuts in other State Department security accounts from 2011 to 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with the consulate in Benghazi being under specs and under staffed?


No I’m not telling you any such thing. I just posted the under oath testimony of the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security that would surely know first hand of those details. Surely she wouldn’t be lying, as giving counter testimony would have covered her and her boss Clinton’s rears. If she had said that the budget cuts did harm the security in Benghazi then they could have shifted the blame to the Republicans. Your pleading against logic if you claim she lied.

May 9, 2013 at 2:11 p.m.
MasterChefLen said...

It has to be a slow news day when the local paper and TV networks report on a teenage party involving underage drinking. Next, they will probably report that teenagers are having sex.

May 9, 2013 at 2:16 p.m.
Leaf said...

Get out your tinfoil hats, conspiracy theorists, here it comes.

May 9, 2013 at 2:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"No I’m not telling you any such thing."

You're surely implying it.

"Surely she wouldn’t be lying, as giving counter testimony would have covered her and her boss Clinton’s rears."

Her boss's rear was covered regardless of what the woman said. Saying budget cuts affected the security at the consulate wouldn't have changed one thing or covered anyone.

"If she had said that the budget cuts did harm the security in Benghazi then they could have shifted the blame to the Republicans."

So you're trying to say that Darrell Issa would have shifted the blame to the Republicans during a witch-hunt hearing about an Obama administration cover-up?

Are you drunk?

"Your pleading against logic if you claim she lied."

I'm not pleading against any logic considering what you claim as "logic" isn't exactly congruent with what would likely happen.

I'm not claiming she lied. I'm just wondering how it would be possible for nothing to be affected by those cuts.

May 9, 2013 at 2:19 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

Jt6, - "No I’m not telling you any such thing."

You're surely implying it.


Your arguments would have more believability if you would keep them consistent and quit moving the goalpost. Earlier it was I was “telling you” and now its “your surely implying”.

Well which is it?

May 9, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Leaf said...

"Next, they will probably report that teenagers are having sex." Good lord, say it isn't so! What's this world coming to?!?! Teen drinking and sex is Obama's fault.

May 9, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"Your arguments would have more believability if you would keep them consistent and quit moving the goalpost."

I've stayed consistent with my arguments the entire time and I have not moved the goalpost.

"Earlier it was I was “telling you” and now its “your surely implying”."

Arguing semantics, eh? And you accuse me of moving the goalpost?

"Well which is it?"

You tell me. What were you trying to say? Let me be more clear: Were you or were you not trying to send that message by using those particular quotes and heading the post as you did?

Well, which is it?

May 9, 2013 at 2:33 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

"Surely she wouldn’t be lying, as giving counter testimony would have covered her and her boss Clinton’s rears."

Her boss's rear was covered regardless of what the woman said.


No it still has “wide” exposure.

If they (Here, the “they” I’m referring to is the Obama administration and more specifically Clinton. This so you won’t again willfully misinterpret who I am referring to.) could have shifted the blame to the budget cuts they surely would have.

May 9, 2013 at 2:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"No it still has “wide” exposure."

Really? Despite nothing new coming out yesterday and absolutely no evidence or proof implicating Clinton whatsoever? Maybe it's just wishful thinking on your part.

"(This so you won’t again willfully misinterpret who I am referring to.)"

I have done no such thing, liar.

"If they could have shifted the blame to the budget cuts they surely would have."

So President Obama and Hillary Clinton could have shifted the blame during a hearing in which they were not present and which was run almost exclusively by Republicans onto those same Republicans?

Right. Keep telling yourself that.

It seems as though the Obama administration is looking for the actual people involved in the attack on the consulate instead of trying to conjure up evidence that simply is not there in order to blame people that had no part in the actual crime.

The "cover-up" is complete fiction. If there were any evidence to the contrary, it would surely be out by now.

May 9, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

"If she had said that the budget cuts did harm the security in Benghazi then they could have shifted the blame to the Republicans."

So you're trying to say that Darrell Issa would have shifted the blame to the Republicans during a witch-hunt hearing about an Obama administration cover-up?

Are you drunk?


I answered this above but you actually though the “they” I referred was Issa.

Really?

I do not drink alcohol or use illegal drugs so I guess you will have to childishly try to get a rise out of me another way. You points would be considered more seriously if they were absent your tendency to address other in such an immature manner.

May 9, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

I'm not claiming she lied. I'm just wondering how it would be possible for nothing to be affected by those cuts.


Well that is the difference between you and her. You’re wondering because you don’t know the facts and she is certain because she does.

Who to choose to believe?

I don’t know. She has the facts and is on the scene and you are posting your doubts on a small town newspaper web site.

May 9, 2013 at 2:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"I answered this above but you actually though the “they” I referred was Issa."

No, I didn't. Darrell Issa was the individual leading the hearing. The only people that could have successfully shifted the blame on Republicans during the hearing yesterday was Darrell Issa and the Republicans of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"Really?"

No.

"I do not drink alcohol or use illegal drugs so I guess you will have to childishly try to get a rise out of me another way."

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. I'm simply asking if it was imbibing that has caused your thinking to be skewed enough to think that the hearing yesterday could have possibly shifted it's blame onto Republicans.

"You points would be considered more seriously if they were absent your tendency to address other in such an immature manner."

I haven't done anything of the sort. What you're doing is called deflecting and moving the goalposts. I'm still waiting on a rebuttal on the content of my posts. Anytime now!

May 9, 2013 at 2:50 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy said ...

I have done no such thing, liar.


Really?

That's the level that you want conduct yourself?

May 9, 2013 at 2:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"Well that is the difference between you and her. You’re wondering because you don’t know the facts and she is certain because she does."

Aren't you the same person that is suggesting that the ARB shouldn't be believed? Why should I take the woman at her word? Why do you feel that you should be able to dismiss credible people based on absolutely nothing. While I can't even wonder if the woman was possibly led by the question or not presenting the entire truth of the situation.

"Who to choose to believe?"

Not you.

"I don’t know. She has the facts and is on the scene and you are posting your doubts on a small town newspaper web site."

Yet she didn't present any facts, numbers, or reasons at the hearing. Any reasonable, logical person would have doubts that nearly $300 million worth of cuts had ZERO affect on embassy security/specs/updates.

May 9, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
Leaf said...

"Her boss's rear was covered regardless of what the woman said."


"No it still has “wide” exposure."


Sir Mixalot approves.

May 9, 2013 at 2:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"Really?"

How many times do you think you could ask this? Yes, really.

"That's the level that you want conduct yourself?"

You must be lying or extremely mistaken considering I haven't done what you've accused me of doing.

Should I say "Well, which is it?" here to keep up the the "smarmy question" precedent you've set?

May 9, 2013 at 2:58 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

"If they could have shifted the blame to the budget cuts they surely would have."

So President Obama and Hillary Clinton could have shifted the blame during a hearing in which they were not present and which was run almost exclusively by Republicans onto those same Republicans?

Right. Keep telling yourself that.


They could have very easily had Ms. Lamb testify that the budget cuts were at fault and then they could have issued that spin to the MSM who would have gladly ran with it. Maybe they did tell her to do so as they have already been caught altering the talking points to fit their untrue narrative. If so she may have not wanted to lie under oath and take the fall for them.

You may want to read some texts on strategy if you truly don't see how Obama and Clinton could have diverted the blame.

May 9, 2013 at 3:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"They could have very easily had Ms. Lamb testify that the budget cuts were at fault and then they could have issued that spin to the MSM who would have gladly ran with it."

No part of that fantasy scenario shifts the blame of the hearing.

"Maybe they did tell her to do so as they have already been caught altering the talking points to fit their untrue narrative."

If they've "already been caught", then why is Jon Boehner asking for the emails that would, potentially, confirm such a claim? No one has been "caught" altering talking points.

"If so she may have not wanted to lie under oath and take the fall for them."

Conjure up another fantasy scenario.

"You may want to read some texts on strategy if you truly don't see how Obama and Clinton could have diverted the blame."

Again, neither Clinton nor Obama could have diverted the blame of the hearing that occurred yesterday. The only people that blamed them were Republicans and conservative media and they have yet to come up with any evidence implicating either one of them.

Why would Clinton and Obama try to divert blame that was never theirs to begin with? What Republican would accept the Obama administration diverting blame onto them? It seems to me that Republicans are the ones trying to divert blame here.

May 9, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

WH Press Secretary Jay Carney held briefing on way to TX today. Reporters asked lots of questions, various topics, none on Benghazi. Of course they didn't. They're WH court eunuchs and they're bad for America...that's some Plain Truth.

May 9, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

It seems as though the Obama administration is looking for the actual people involved in the attack on the consulate instead of trying to conjure up evidence that simply is not there in order to blame people that had no part in the actual crime.


And they are doing a bang up job of it, aren’t they? Eight months and they were forced by criticism of their ineptitude on this case to publish three blurry pictures of men that were in the crowd. They have no idea if these men know anything about the attack much being the leaders.


The "cover-up" is complete fiction. If there were any evidence to the contrary, it would surely be out by now.


That’s “conjecture” on your part but you can keep repeating it over and over if it makes you comfortable about the outcome of the hearings into this administration’s incompetence.

May 9, 2013 at 3:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6,

"And they are doing a bang up job of it, aren’t they?"

Yes, considering the circumstances. It took 10 years to catch Osama Bin Laden. It took almost 6 years to catch Eric Rudolph and he was in North Carolina! I think you can give this investigation a little more time.

You're just grasping at anything you think can be used to hurt the Obama administration.

"Eight months and they were forced by criticism of their ineptitude on this case to publish three blurry pictures of men that were in the crowd."

Is this coming from your insider knowledge? You're making it up as you go along.

"They have no idea if these men know anything about the attack much being the leaders."

They are suspects at this point. One man has been detained. I'm sure they'll know something soon.

"That’s “conjecture” on your part"

No, it isn't. There is no evidence of a cover-up. None. It's been 8 months. Why isn't there any proof? You cannot assume what you are required to prove. My assertion is based on the severe lack of evidence from the folks making the claims.

"but you can keep repeating it over and over if it makes you comfortable about the outcome of the hearings into this administration’s incompetence."

And you can keep acting like there was a cover-up and that some "new" evidence/any evidence at all was presented at the hearing that implicates the Obama administration. You and the House Oversight Committee Republicans still have all the work ahead of you to prove any of the claims you've made of "incompetence" and a "cover-up".

This will turn out much like the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare. You'll make outrageous claims and predictions, but in the end, you'll be left sucking your thumb in the corner.

May 9, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.
alprova said...

Easy...I know I'm guilty of engaging at times with idiots, but you're wasting your time correcting that woman. She's all about arguing any point that opposes one that someone else has made.

It doesn't even have to make a lick of sense. She'll argue with a knot in a tree.

I find myself much more content, letting her comments rot on the vine. She doesn't begin to believe half of what she types.

She just likes to argue.

May 9, 2013 at 3:39 p.m.
alprova said...

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE!!

Barack Obama is still the President.

May 9, 2013 at 3:43 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Leaf lamented:

"When I see PlainTruth, two words: Village Idiot."

I'd opt for Particularly Troublesome or Patenly Trashy or Pedantic Troglodyte...

May 9, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

alprova,

You're right, sir. I'll refrain in the future.

May 9, 2013 at 3:52 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Let them spin their wheels investigating anything they so desire. Nothing will come of it, no matter what rocks they attempt to turn over.


Sounds like someone is whistling past the graveyard. However you did get the part about looking under rocks correct. That's where the Republicans will find the guilty administration members trying to hide their shameless incompetence.


Four people in high risk diplomatic jobs died as the result of a terrorist attack and no one could have arrived in time to save them. They should have been in a safer place on the anniversary date of 9/11.


Blaming the victims. Always a classy maneuver widely employed by “certain” people.


Want to bet that this coming September 11th, that personnel will not be behind secured walls in dangerous countries?


I wonder how many will feel truely safe behind those “secured walls” after the administration left the last group out to dry?

May 9, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

Jt6, - "As a result of this affront the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI to enter the country to secure the attack sites and conduct an investigation."

The FBI investigation began on September 13th and investigators were set to arrive in Benghazi by September 21st. The FBI team arrived in Tripoli on September 18th to work with Libyan officials. And, according to reports, the FBI teams delayed arrival in Benghazi was due to security concerns, not Libyan government push-back. The FBI team arrived in Benghazi on Oct. 4th.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/world/africa/libya-fbi-benghazi http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?iref=obnetwork


From your first link:

Three weeks after four Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in eastern Libya, an FBI team arrived at the site


The crime scene left unattended for three weeks which allowed all sorts of people to alter and loot it as they wanted. Then the FBI shows up and actually pretended to conduct any sort of believable investigation.

What took them so long as it is only about a 10 hour flight. It couldn’t be that the administration lied about the cause of the attack and directly contradicted the Libyan leader which was telling the truth?Maybe their security detail was coming by foot or bicycle.

By the way the attack didn’t occur in Tripoli so were the FBI hanging around the local donut shop there on Sept. 18 and they didn’t get to the actual attack site for another two weeks?

May 9, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Jt6gR3hM, I am sure you are carefully scrutinizing every embassy and consulate attack that occurred 2001-2008 while Bush was in office, making sure that the responses were appropriate and followed procedure to the letter.

May 9, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE!!

Barack Obama is still the President.


It appears that came to you as a great surprise. Its as if you expected that he would have already resigned by now or ran out of town on a rail.

It is very telling of how you actually see this situation playing out.

May 9, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

This is the result of the permissive society that liberals want for us. Don't you dare complain about something when you have done everything possible to make it happen.

May 9, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

This is the result of the permissive society that liberals want for us

??

May 9, 2013 at 9:01 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

lkeithlu said...

Jt6gR3hM, I am sure you are carefully scrutinizing every embassy and consulate attack that occurred 2001-2008 while Bush was in office, making sure that the responses were appropriate and followed procedure to the letter.


Yes and I have yet to find one where American citizens were murdered, by radical Islamists, while they were safe inside their compounds.

Not one where the staff was begging for more security and were denied.

Not one where there was “targeted” intelligence that provided advance warnings and were not heeded.

Not one that lasted long enough for rescue to reach them but was not delivered.

Not one that was lied about as to what happened and the cause of the attack.

Not one where a coverup and stonewalling were employed to keep the public from knowing the truth.

May 9, 2013 at 10:27 p.m.
dude_abides said...

JonRoss has nerve to even post here after showing himself to be a total buffoon. Change your name, man, for God's sake! You're a laughing stock. The Sewer King.

May 9, 2013 at 10:39 p.m.
alprova said...

dude_abides wrote "The Sewer King."

Hilarious!!

A quite befitting title for a man who ladles oodles of poop whenever he posts.

"Jon," has Teddy wrote you any checks yet?

May 9, 2013 at 11:17 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Hillary. Lying to the public is very bad. Lying to Benghazi victim's loved ones while hugging them is low-down.

May 9, 2013 at 11:22 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

"In the closest thing to a coup de théâtre at the hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) revealed a September 12 email from Jones to Hicks, State Department officials Victoria Nuland and Patrick Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton’s personal counsel Cheryl Mills, stating that she (Jones) had informed Libyan leadership that the attack at Benghazi was the work of Ansar al Sharia – one of the world’s most well-known Islamic terror groups." -Roger Simon

May 9, 2013 at 11:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Jt6gR3hM wrote: "It appears that came to you as a great surprise."

No surprise to me sweetie, but yesterday a couple of Obama bashers were predicting that he would be led out of the office in handcuffs after all that "explosive" testimony that Darrell Issa and Fox News had been touting for a week.

"Its as if you expected that he would have already resigned by now or ran out of town on a rail."

I have little doubt that some, like yourself, are wishing for one of those two scenarios to come to pass, however, I felt it my duty to give syuch people a reason to breathe, since it appears that they are typing with blue faces.

"It is very telling of how you actually see this situation playing out."

Such an assumption on your part is the very reason, despite your newfound niceness, why it is pointless to discuss anything with you. You're famous for attributing words to people that they never related.

Benghazi will never produce a scandal that will reach the White House. Nobody will be arrested. Nobody will lose their jobs, with the exception perhaps of more than a few Republicans if they don't start spending a little more time doing what they were elected to do, rather than to spend their days hunting witches.

May 9, 2013 at 11:36 p.m.
alprova said...

I've got to hand it to the President. He's surrounded by Republicans that hate his guts, who find cameras and spout off at the mouth their vitriol, and he never gives them the time of day.

That takes a great deal of self-control. The more he refuses to respond to them, the more ridiculous and outrageous the Obama hating and Hillary fearing Washington Republicans become.

There are several Republicans appearing to posture themselves as Presidential hopefuls, but the more they attack the Obama's and the Clinton's, the less likely they will ever grace the Oval Office.

I hope and pray that all the Obama/Clinton hating Republicans keeps up their efforts to blame them for what happened in Benghazi. I hope they turn it into a campaign point.

Rand Paul has already done so in the last 24 hours, repeatedly. I really hope he runs. It'll be fun to watch him amass a following of groupies, much like his father ever did, but never, ever will he come close to becoming President.

Benghazi aside, there's another issue that threatens to derail the Republicans strides to embrace immigration reform, endearing themselves to Hispanics.

You can't make this stuff up...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/jason-richwine-dissertation_n_3240168.html

May 10, 2013 at 12:17 a.m.
anniebelle said...

I guess jt missed this article. Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?

Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?

Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?

How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?

There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.

Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.

In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.

In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

Notice the dates, all before the Obama administration.

May 10, 2013 at 5:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Don't forget the big one: the attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon. Under Reagan.

May 10, 2013 at 7:32 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Reminder: None of the previous embassy attacks included a cover-up. Large difference.

May 10, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Talking points revised 12 times???........this is just getting started. Stay tuned Alpo and all you "registered republicans."

May 10, 2013 at 9:22 a.m.
patriot1 said...

"Tennessee Lottery to offer new drawing-style game ass"

Check out this headline in the TFP.....some new lottery game?

May 10, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Tu_Quoque reincarnated suggested that there was no outrage due to there being no Americans killed during any of those attacks when GWB was President.

I'm in the middle of doing research into that, and guess what I found? Indeed an American diplomat was killed.

On March 2, 2006, diplomat David Foy was killed in Karachi, Pakistan when a car bomb exploded 20 yards from the American Consulate.

Anyone who does not believe that this ridiculous charade of finger pointing and faux outrage by several Republicans is anything but one of the worst cases of political, partisan posturing, is nothing short of a moron.

I hear crickets starting to chirp already.

May 10, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

TFP staff. You have an obligation to your readers not to let a cartoon about Signal Mountain turn into a Benghazi debate. Please, in the future, remove posts not related to the content.

May 10, 2013 at 9:34 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

The partisan posturing began with Clinton, Rice, & Obama. Story is not over; only just beginning.

May 10, 2013 at 9:43 a.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "Talking points revised 12 times???........this is just getting started."

The intelligence community was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed about the attack in Benghazi.

General David Petraeus testified last November during those hearings that changes were made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the White House.

That really ought to have been the end of it, but as we have all witnessed, it wasn't.

The Republicans are determined to ride their personal merry go rounds, and sooner or later, they're going to have to accept defeat and they will move on to some other "scandal" to attempt to inflict damage to the reputation of any Democrat that threatens to keep the Republicans from achieving or retaining power.

And as can be witnessed by posts contained in this very forum, there will be no shortage of Republican cheerleaders waiting in the wings, clapping their hands in unison.

May 10, 2013 at 9:51 a.m.
alprova said...

Whatsnottaken whined: "TFP staff. You have an obligation to your readers not to let a cartoon about Signal Mountain turn into a Benghazi debate. Please, in the future, remove posts not related to the content."

Waaaaaaaaaaahhhh...Waaaaaahhhhhh...Waaaaaaahhhhhh....

(Sniffle)

May 10, 2013 at 9:53 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Talking points scrubbed "12 times". Open and transparent.

May 10, 2013 at 10:02 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original. The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda....not real complicated, folks.

May 10, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Obama gave 3 immediate orders after Benghazi (1) beef up security, (2) investigate what occurred, (3) hunt down who did this. He is 0-for-3.

May 10, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.
anniebelle said...

PT, no, we didn't have this vicious, anti-American, anti-Obama crowd of nutjobs delving into conspiracy after conspiracy either. After we were attacked on 9/11 this entire country came together to support GWB, even though his approach to the information he received in advance were FUBAR. Nothing different was found in this stupid nonsensical 'hearing'. Do you realize how much money is being wasted on this constant repeat hearings. Talk about beating a dead horse. And by the way, other than outright lies and accusations, there is ABSOLUTELY no proof of any cover-up, just in your brainwashed mind.

May 10, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
Leaf said...

PlainTruth's username makes me think of those people who say, "I'll be honest with you" right before they tell you a lie. Who do they think they're fooling?

May 10, 2013 at 11:01 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

When we say Clinton lied over Amb. Stevens coffin that's not a figure of speech - that's literal truth! and unforgivable

May 10, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
Leaf said...

JonRoss said to anniebelle. . . . "Thought you needed a little education. "

I believe that is the definition of irony.

May 10, 2013 at 11:03 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Persons not seeing any malfeasance in handling of Benghazi must be in vegetative state.

May 10, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.
Leaf said...

vegetative state - good one!

May 10, 2013 at 12:10 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Oh, okay. I get it. Clay posted this to avoid a cartoon about Benghazi.

If there was no incompetence in the handling of Benghazi, according to the administration, then we must also write off the 911 attacks to pilot error.

May 10, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

One of the lead House investigators into the Benghazi terrorist attack called for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify before Congress about information provide by State Department whistleblowers, adding that he would support issuing a subpoena if she refuses.....bless you Jason Chaffetz

May 10, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Hey, does anybody else remember John Kerry spouting off over and over about how Bush had no plan on how to get out of Iraq? He obviously had the same plan as the Obama administration: leave them there to die. Hitler did exactly the same thing with tens of thousands of his troops in Russia and France.

May 10, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Benghazi talking points kind of Etch-A-Sketchish, eh?

May 10, 2013 at 1:24 p.m.
anniebelle said...

JonGross, you are a pathetic piece of human waste. I don't need any 'education' from a brainwashed anti-American vile person such as yourself. President Obama was DULY elected as our President, so quit your white trash talking points. Unlike Bush who was installed by the black robes and was NOT elected by the people. One who lied us into an unholy, inhumane war with a people that did nothing to us and gave us a different answer every day as to why we felt the need to invade this country. You should be ashamed or dimwittedness and not display it here everyday.

May 10, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Tu_Quoque reincarnated suggested that there was no outrage due to there being no Americans killed during any of those attacks when GWB was President.


I did not indicate the fact no American was killed in any of the embassy attacks during the Bush administration was the sole reason for the lack of widespread outrage here in the U.S. I listed it as one of many reasons and it is a fact that the American people are much more likely to even notice foreign deaths from terrorism unless Americans are involved.

Are you wanting to reactivate the offer of the “$5000” bet you previously declined (which is your standard, isn’t it?)


I'm in the middle of doing research into that, and guess what I found? Indeed an American diplomat was killed. On March 2, 2006, diplomat David Foy was killed in Karachi, Pakistan when a car bomb exploded 20 yards from the American Consulate.


It is refreshing that you did “some” research on this subject but your implication is that Mr Foy was killed in the consulate from a car bomb exploded near it. Clever of you that you provided no links or details of how the attack occurred.

However he was not killed in the Consulate and that is the point, is it not? He was killed in his car in the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel beside the consulate.

From NBC News:

KARACHI, Pakistan — A suicide attacker rammed a car packed with explosives into a vehicle carrying an American diplomat in Pakistan’s largest city, killing four people — including the diplomat — ahead of President Bush’s visit to Pakistan.

The American was identified by Pakistan officials as David Foy, Reuters reported. His driver, a Pakistani working for the consulate, and a Pakistani paramilitary trooper in the attack were also killed. A fourth body has not been identified, but police suspect it to be that of a suicide bomber.

The blast ripped through the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel, about 20 yards from the consulate gate, shattering windows at the consulate and on all 10 floors of the hotel. Ten cars were destroyed, and charred wreckage was flung as far as 200 yards.


This is not splitting hairs as the expectation of security inside and outside the embassy or consulate are definitely different.

May 10, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

anniebelle said...

President Obama was DULY elected as our President, so quit your white trash talking points.


Great now its racist attacks. What’s wrong, you couldn’t quickly come up with a Nazi reference.


Unlike Bush who was installed by the black robes and was NOT elected by the people.


The recounts conducted by research groups after the election say otherwise. He was elected in a constitutionally specified manner. I know that conspiracy types will never accept it but it is a fact.

May 10, 2013 at 2:03 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

To: The IRS. From: The Republican Party. THANKS

May 10, 2013 at 2:13 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

After the story broke about Benghazi I heard the words "cover-up" and "conspiracy" from Republicans so much I thought I had missed something. I thought that what had happened was pretty much as I had heard and seen it reported - that 4 Americans had been killed in an attack on the embassy in Benghazi and Obama and his administration at first called it a spontaneous violent response to an anti-Muslim video that had recently aired on Youtube and not due to a planned terrorist attack. So I started doing some more research into the incident to see where or how Obama might have committed such a horrible conspiratorial act. The more I studied it the more I saw that the "cover-up" amounted to exactly when Obama and Hillary and Susan Rice and others were admitting that it was indeed a terrorist attack and not just a spontaneous violent uprising. In other words, the cover-up was based on a categorizing of what they CALLED the incident.

I can see now...Benghazi has conspiracy and cover-up written all over it. My god, the horror of it all! Obama should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on with a steady stream of buckshot peppering his ass. How dare he even momentarily call it a spontaneous uprising and not a terrorist attack! Oh, the semantics of it all! It's abhorrent! Off with his head!

But let me see....I remember shortly after the invasion of Iraq Bush made a great speech and put up a huge sign that said, "Mission Accomplished." What a lie that was! But that's not the same thing, is it? And he sat for 7 minutes in stony silence listening to second-graders read "My Pet Goat" after he got word of the Twin Towers, an attack on our own soil. But that's not the same thing, is it? And I remember that he lied about WMDs and shamelessly deceived us into waging war on Iraq. But that's not the same thing, is it? And I remember Republicans voting in 2011 and 2012 to cut funding (against Hillary's and most Democrats' objections) to embassy security. But that's not the same thing, is it?

Yes indeedy, this Benghazi debacle is a cover-up of epic proportions and we cannot have our commander-in-chief miscategorizing something like this. Phony wars and inept responses to attacks on our own soil are one thing....but miscategorizing something is truly an unforgiveable sin. You go, you teabaggers and Repubs! Do what you do best: form committees and have long, drawn-out hearings, and squander tax dollars until you nail a Dem president to the wall once for all. Obama cannot go unpunished for this heinous, unforgivable sin of misstating something. Our politicians just don't do that and get away with it. Not our Democrat politicians anyway. Not if you Repubs have anything to do with it. Go get 'em! Yeehaw!

May 10, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
Leaf said...

I can only assume that the strategy of the Benghazi conpiracy theorists is to keep talking about it no matter how wacky they sound. They hope that innuendo will suffice when facts are absent. And perhaps they are right. People are pretty gullible.

I think I'll stop feeding the trolls regarding Benghazi.

May 10, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
patriot1 said...

nooga said... "Tic,Toc, it's going to be a long 4 years for you bunch of nut sacs,"

It's going to be a long four years for the nut sac Barry, unless of course he handles pressure and difficult issues like his daddy did. Let's hope not, we sure don't want "Shotgun" Biden.

May 10, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Leaf, you are right about feeding the trolls. They are obviously going to cling to this like a 2 yr.-old to a security blanket.

May 10, 2013 at 2:35 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

anniebelle said...

PT, no, we didn't have this vicious, anti-American, anti-Obama crowd of nutjobs delving into conspiracy after conspiracy either.


Why would some nebulous group of “anti-American, anti-Obama nutjobs” be delving into conspiracy after conspiracy during the Bush administration when that was already being more than adequately covered by the “anti-American, anti-Bush nutjobs”?


After we were attacked on 9/11 this entire country came together to support GWB, (for about two days) even though his approach to the information he received in advance were FUBAR.


It is unbelievable that Bush was given “detailed” information prior to the 9-11 attacks and yet they were allowed to happen and kill about 3000 Americans just so he could attack Afghanistan and Iraq. That is true isn’t it?


Nothing different was found in this stupid nonsensical 'hearing'. (You were certainly hoping that was true) Do you realize how much money is being wasted on this constant repeat hearings. (About the same as being spent to suppress them) Talk about beating a dead horse. (A very odd way to describe the Obama administration) And by the way, other than outright lies and accusations, there is ABSOLUTELY no proof of any cover-up, just in your brainwashed mind. (The smoking gun on that deal has been delivered and noted)

May 10, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

BHO: the Miscategorizer.

May 10, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
chatt_man said...

OK, guys and gals, we kinda flubbed up this last communication. Let's get together on this, by invitation only, and see if we can't spout out something that sticks...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/10/White-House-Benghazi-off-the-record

May 10, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Clay, sorry since you didn't have what it takes to do a Benghazi cartoon, and we had to take this one over.

May 10, 2013 at 2:57 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Leaf said...

I can only assume that the strategy of the Benghazi conpiracy theorists is to keep talking about it no matter how wacky they sound. They hope that innuendo will suffice when facts are absent. And perhaps they are right.


I sure appears that the facts detailing the Obama administration's incompetence and malfeasance before, during, and after the attack have engulf them up to their chin and every day brings more and more. They really should put on their "George Bush did it also" life jackets for any good that will do.


People are pretty gullible.


They sure are and Obama has been counting on that fact until his position has become untenable and the public is waking up to the reality of what happened.


I think I'll stop feeding the trolls regarding Benghazi.


That is certainly the wise tactic when your side is taking “incoming” and you have no realistic defence against it. Disingenuous spin on your part only draws more attention to the weakness of your position.

May 10, 2013 at 3:06 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

chatt_man said...

OK, guys and gals, we kinda flubbed up this last communication. Let's get together on this, by invitation only, and see if we can't spout out something that sticks...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/10/White-House-Benghazi-off-the-record


This just gets better and better every hour and not just every day as before.


From the above link:

In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. (Exactly)

The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi. (But didn’t they just swear that they didn’t do that?)

Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it. (Of course the reporters that would report the truth can’t be trusted to be privy to the administration's latest “revised” talking points)

May 10, 2013 at 3:19 p.m.
whoknows said...

Ok, I haven't visited here or commented in a little over 2 years. It's good to see things haven't changed much. :)

First: How on earth did a cartoon about drunk teens on Signal Mountain turn in to a debate about Benghazi?

Second, to go back on topic for a minute (sorry everyone...) I wanted to respond to one of Alprova's comments: "They posted their pictures ONE TIME. If that's enough to screw with their emotional and psychological well-being, then they are in for a rough life ahead."

These days, it seems like that is more than enough to damage people's emotional or psychological well-being. It's a paradox to me. Everyone shares all the idiot details of their life (no matter how embarrassing) on Facebook and Twitter, but the moment the get caught and it gets broadcast in the news, we hear whining of how that is psychologically damaging to these poor kids who were just trying to have fun...

It baffles me Al. Because apparently that is enough to damage them... according to experts. But will they be in for a rough life? Nah... they will probably be coddled because of it.

May 10, 2013 at 3:34 p.m.
anniebelle said...

The big questions remain. What crime? What cover-up?

It is not a crime to go on the Sunday Talk shows (all of them) and give bad information. If that was indeed a crime, it's possible John McCain would be serving a life sentence by now.

Even more so, as much as we find it unseemly, it's also not a crime to go on the Sunday Talk shows and LIE to the country about policy, decisions, etc. The Sunday Talk shows are not a legal forum wherein interviewees are sworn to tell the truth lest they be held in contempt of court.

But, no one - aside from those on the Right - is even accusing the Obama administration of necessarily telling outright lies on the Sunday Shows. Rather, they're just saying that Susan Rice participated in retelling bad information (at best) or spouting misinformation (at worst) that was quickly corrected by the administration itself.

Is it what we want as a public to have our officials parading bad information, misinformation or lies on television? No.

Is it a crime? No.

May 10, 2013 at 4:08 p.m.
jesse said...

Well Anniebell i think you just let Dubya off the hook for all them W.M.D.'S he dreamed up!!

May 10, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Just think folks, the IRS just hired 16,000 more employees to administrate Obamacare. Can't wait until they get their "loathe those conservative's" marching orders.

And Annie, I'm not so sure how quick the administration itself was to correct that misinformation you mention. Why don't you look into that and get back to me...

May 10, 2013 at 4:58 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

This is what transparency looks like? | WH Press Secretary Jay Carney holds an off-the-record briefing on Benghaz. Jay Carney = Baghdad Bob.

May 10, 2013 at 5:01 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Someone should have at least offered Jay Carney a blindfold and cigarette.

May 10, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Suddenly this thing has legs.....gonna be fun to watch.

May 10, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Man it is quite on this web site.

Looks like a certain type of poster has abandoned the fight.

May 10, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
joneses said...

Two fine examples of liberal mental illness.

A pro basketball player announces where he decides to put his pecker and o"bastard calls and tells him he is a hero and the liberals praise o'bastard.

4 brave servicemen die in Benghazi because of obastard's incompetency and o'bastard does not even call the murdered servicemen's families to offer his condolences. It is amazing that you fools still support o'bastard. He is a POS!

Answer this. Why does Hillary continue to let a pervert like her husband Cigar Bill and a failure of a man occupying the White House named o"bastard continue to send her out to lie for them? And what is really pathetic is some think she would be a good president even though she lets men with no integrity continue to use her. Another example of why liberalism is a mental illness.

May 10, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

lkeithlu said...

If this turns up nothing, I would expect that all the conspiracy theory lawmakers would to the honorable thing and resign.


Now that this story has broken wide open what is your position on certain lawmakers as well as administration members, elected and appointed, doing the honorable thing for once in their lives and resigning?

Crickets chirping?

May 10, 2013 at 7:10 p.m.
rumrunr said...

who really cares about benghazi? any more than the iran-contra scandal,or the "mission accomplished" fiasco, or WMD's or bill's cigar. same crap, different day... let's try to find common ground for a change.

May 10, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Jt sez...."Looks like a certain type of poster has abandoned the fight"

Yeah....how are we gonna know how "registered republicans" are coming down on this.

May 10, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

lkeithlu said...

Don't forget the big one: the attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon. Under Reagan.


I know what you mean.

There was probably intelligence that the attack was likely to occur but security was not provided.

Wait, weren’t these people … the security types? Heavily armed Marines right?

During the attack no back up was provided during the extended period it occurred.

Wait, weren't these Marines … the heavily armed backup types? And the attack lasted a whole 2 seconds from ignition thru shock-wave.

After the attack the Reagan administration swore that it wasn’t an attack at all but the crazy Lebanese that lived next door to the barracks where having an out of control beer bust. They tried to put a whole frozen goat into their deep-fry coat cooker and it exploded, killing everyone in the surrounding area.

Wait, didn’t the Reagan administration actually report the real story of the bomb attack?

For weeks after the attack the Reagan administration apologized to everyone they came in contact with for the fact that our own Marines were the ones that actually got the Lebanese drunk in return for them coming over and getting the Marines’ lawn mower running.

Wait, didn’t the Marines hire out their lawn care to the neighborhood kids that used goat herds for mowing purposes?

Nothing more was ever said about this event.

Wait, didn’t Reagan catch holy he!! over this occurring under his command?

May 10, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

rumrunr said...

who really cares about benghazi? any more than the iran-contra scandal,or the "mission accomplished" fiasco, or WMD's or bill's cigar. same crap, different day... let's try to find common ground for a change.


So you’re cool with the “same crap, different day” deal as long as we can all just “get along”?

I’m fairly sure you had a indecipherable speaking role in the movie Idiocracy. Isn’t that true?

May 10, 2013 at 7:55 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

This is the last day for this toon so everyone will start anew on a different one at midnight.

Come around at about 11:30 to 12:00 and those too afraid to show themselves now and defend this fiasco when they would expect opposition will show up and post some white hot rhetoric attacking their opponents when they think those opponents won't return to counter it.

May 10, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
jesse said...

Time for a Benghazi toon Clay!

Time to stand up and show us who you are!

Bad part is i voted for Obama TWICE!!

First time i believed his B/S ,second time just couldn't bring myself to vote for Mitts!

May 10, 2013 at 8:07 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

The marines in Lebanon were not allowed to keep weapons loaded. The administration was blamed for this. Had they been armed they may have been able to stop the bomber, but the Reagan Admin wanted to keep up the ruse that they were there as peacekeepers, not combatants. Against Pentagon recommendations.

May 10, 2013 at 8:42 p.m.
alprova said...

Jt6gR3hM wrote: "I did not indicate the fact no American was killed in any of the embassy attacks during the Bush administration was the sole reason for the lack of widespread outrage here in the U.S. I listed it as one of many reasons and it is a fact that the American people are much more likely to even notice foreign deaths from terrorism unless Americans are involved."

Really? I point you to your post on April 30th, where you wrote the following;

"Maybe because no American citizens were killed in those attacks and especially not one of our ambassadors."

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/apr/30/mvp-jason-collins-cartoon-chattanooga-times/?opinioncartoons#c225530

"Are you wanting to reactivate the offer of the “$5000” bet you previously declined (which is your standard, isn’t it?)"

Sure... Pay me...

May 10, 2013 at 8:46 p.m.
rumrunr said...

jt6 no, it was only a walk on... s*#t aint gonna change till we start working for the total common good. all the "side shows" are just that, from both parties. no one is serious about fixing anything, so excuse me if i don't get worked up about a paper tiger like benghazi

May 10, 2013 at 9:17 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Obama is Nixon. Nixon is Obama. Unfortunately, the Washington Post of 2013 is not the Washington Post of the early 1970s.

May 10, 2013 at 9:24 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "So where was Barry during the siege ?"

Okay...okay. I'm going to clear the air, once and for all. You deserve to know the truth, and I've got it to tell.

"The Benghazi mission was under attack for 10 hours and no one whatsoever knows where Barry was during that time ?"

Are you sure you want to know? Get ready, cause here it comes...

"No one is talking. That you aholz is one tiny piece of cover-up out of dozens of hidden or ignored questions."

Will you SHUT UP? I'm about to reveal the truth you are seeking to learn.

President Obama was absolutely in the White House. But he was stuck in the Presidential throne with a case of diarrhea. You see, he had eaten some Chimichangas for lunch and those delightful delicacies were eager to make an exit.

As luck would have it, the light bulb burned out while he was in there, and when he finished, he stood up and bumped his head on the side of the medicine cabinet, knocking himself out cold.

So there he was, with his pants around his knees, laying on the cold floor. A Secret Service Agent heard the bump, began knocking on the door to see if he was alright. Unable to get a verbal response from the President, he called for assistance.

Dozens of Secret Service Agents came running to the bathroom door, which was locked tight. Mrs. Obama came running. Agents were frantically attempting to open the door. Nothing worked. One agent suggested shooting off the door knob.

Upon the first shot, the bullet ricocheted off the door knob, bounced off the President's desk, bounced off the bullet-proof window behind his desk, and by that time had lost so much velocity that it was only traveling fast enough to knock the First Lady out when it struck the side of her head.

By now, everyone was in a panic. The First Lady was unconscious, no one was sure what was up with the President, and the Secret Service Agents were all running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

(To be cont.)

May 10, 2013 at 9:35 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova:

Thanks for the selective editing of my post of April 30th.

I was responding to a post of yours where you asked:

“Where was all the outrage when the above lives were lost by all you Republican cheerleaders?”

My response to this poorly structured sentence was to explain why some people could be more outraged by the Benghazi attack versus the attacks during the Bush administration.


Maybe because no American citizens were killed in those attacks and especially not one of our ambassadors.

That none of the sites you referenced were denied the security measures that they begged for to keep them alive.

That while the attacks were underway they were not denied armed reinforcements to save their lives.

That in the aftermath of the attacks many lies were spread to deceive the public about what happened and who was responsible for the loss of life.

Other than that they were exactly the same.

Oh, I forgot we do have a filmmaker in jail so he won’t hurt the feelings of anybody that may have some sort of anger management problems.


You obviously don't remember (willfully?) the terms of the bet and your refusal to accept it. I’ve got to see the color of your money and the proof of your claims.

May 10, 2013 at 9:50 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

JonRoss said...

We will let alprova's comments above stand on their own.


I don't think alprova's comments or what he is engaged in could hardly be classified as standing.

May 10, 2013 at 9:56 p.m.
alprova said...

(cont.)

About this time, the President woke up, heard all the commotion, stood up this time without incident, pulled up his pants, opened the door, saw Michelle on the floor surrounded by White House medical personnel, and he calmly asked what had happened.

"Mr. President, You're alright?." asked an Agent.

"Of course I'm alright. I just bumped my head because the damn light burned out while I was in the bathroom."

About that time, another pang hit the President and he rushed back into the bathroom, locking the door, and the smell coming from the bathroom peeled paint from the walls. It was as if the White House was in the midst of an earthquake. It was so bad, very much like smelling salts would work, Michelle came around and as the aroma of the President's lunch made it's way around the room, everyone began heaving.

It was a mess. People were fleeing the hall like the White House was on fire. Janitors were dispatched. They could not get near without becoming nauseous beyond belief. A case of air freshener was brought up from the supply room. Every can was emptied.

Finally, the clean-up began. Just as the janitorial staff had finished mopping the floor, the President emerged from the bathroom, took one step out the door, and immediately slipped, tripped, and went flying into the wall on the other side of the hall, bumping his head AGAIN, and went out like a light.

Agents, Medical Staff, the works...came running down the hall, all armed with cans of air-freshener, which were promptly discharged like fire hoses. The President was loaded on a stretcher, taken to a room down the hall, where his head was bandaged.

The President was out of it for an hour this time. When he woke, he jumped off the stretcher, hit the floor, and ran for the nearby bathroom, which was one that was also accessible by the public.

(To be cont.)

May 10, 2013 at 10:14 p.m.
alprova said...

(cont.)

He ran for the only open stall, slammed the door shut, and was getting ready to bear down for another round when he heard the ringtone of a phone and then the sound of a voice answering it.

As usual for a cell phone conversation, the voice was exactly 10 decibels louder than he needed to be. And because he wanted to be polite, the President slammed his sphincter shut as tight as a drum.

The ridiculously stupid conversation went on and on. The gentleman was blathering to his wife about the crappy day he had and how lame the White House tour had been, etc..

The President sat there, mere feet away, cramping, miserable, waiting for him to finish and exit the room. As the loud conversation dragged on, the President became angrier and angrier, thinking that I, too, had was having a crappy day, literally.

His bowels were letting him know in no uncertain terms that if he didn't get to the crapping soon, his day was going to be getting even crappier.

Finally, The President's anger reached a point that overcame his desire to be polite. He no longer cared. He gripped the toilet paper holder with one hand, braced his other hand against the side of the stall, and pushed with all his might.

He was rewarded with a poot of colossal magnitude. It was a cross between the sound of someone ripping a very wet bed sheet in half and that of plywood being torn off a wall. The sound gradually transitioned into a heavily modulated low-RPM tone, not unlike someone firing up a Harley. It managed to hit the resonance frequency of the stall, and the walls shook violently.

It was about this time that the President became aware that;

(1) The next-door conversation had ceased;

(2) His colon continued seizing indicated that there was more to come, and;

(3) the bathroom was now filled with a horrible, undenying stench.

It was as if a gateway to Hell had been opened. The foul odor quickly made its way under the stall and began choking the neighbor in the adjoining stall.

"Oh my God," the President heard him utter, following it with suppressed sounds of choking, and then, "No, baby, that wasn't me. You mean you could hear that?"

Now there was no stopping the President. He pushed for all he was worth. The resulting symphony of rips, squirts, splashes, poots, and blasts, at one point actually lifted him slightly off the pot.

The amount was incredible. It sprayed against the bowl with tremendous force. All he could do was hang on for the ride.

The Gentleman next door was frantically fumbling with the paper dispenser as he desperately tried to finish his task. Little snatches of conversation made themselves heard over the President's anal symphony;

"Gotta go...horrible...throw up...in my mouth...not...gonna make it...tell the kids...I love them...oh God" which was accompanied by sounds of suppressed gagging and retching.

(To be cont.)

May 10, 2013 at 10:41 p.m.
alprova said...

(cont.)

Apparently, it is extremely difficult to hold onto a cell phone and wipe one’s hind end at the same time. Just as the President's high-pressure abuse of the toilet was winding down, he heard a plop and splash from next door, followed by string of swear words and gags. His poop-mate had dropped his phone into the toilet.

By now, all was perfectly quiet. The President was finally feeling as if the worst was over. The President could envision him standing there, wondering what to do. A final anal announcement came trumpeting from the President, with a final plop into the water. The President sighed.

That must have been the last straw, for the next thing he heard was a flush, a fumbling with the lock, and the stall door was thrown open. The President heard him running out of the bathroom, slamming the door behind him.

The President gathered himself together, while hearing a great deal of yelling and commotion in the hallway outside the bathroom. He emerged to discover a man handcuffed on the floor, surrounded by Secret Service, bombarding the man with questions.

"Guys...let the man up. He's been through enough," the President said with a slight smile. "Let's go to a phone so you can call your to wife to let her know that you're okay."

The totally shocked man was stood up, he walked with the President down the hall to a phone, picked it up, dialed a number, and said quickly, "Honey...Yeah...I'm okay, but have I got a story to tell you!!"

For the next eight hours, the man was gradually persuaded to not relate what he heard to a soul. The President gave him his own personal IPhone 4 to keep his lips zipped.

So you see, the President was quite preoccupied on that day, and it is obvious that what happened was not something that the President wanted to get out.

Don't expect him to speak about it publicly or to the press.

Oh...and he's sworn off of chimichangas for life. It's veggies from now on...

May 10, 2013 at 10:46 p.m.
alprova said...

Jt6gR3hM wrote: "alprova: Thanks for the selective editing of my post of April 30th."

I did not selectively edit a thing. You wrote it. I quoted it and then supplied the link to prove what you wrote because I KNEW you would deny doing so.

**"I was responding to a post of yours where you asked: "Where was all the outrage when the above lives were lost by all you Republican cheerleaders?"

Yes you did, and you specifically stated that no American lives were lost, which was incorrect.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you've decided to respond with the above crap.

Permit me to do nothing but to shake my head and laugh.

This is exactly why it is a total waste of time to discuss anything at all with you.

May 10, 2013 at 11 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

lkeithlu said...

The marines in Lebanon were not allowed to keep weapons loaded. The administration was blamed for this. Had they been armed they may have been able to stop the bomber, but the Reagan Admin wanted to keep up the ruse that they were there as peacekeepers, not combatants. Against Pentagon recommendations.


When the Marines arrived in Lebanon they were operating under rules of engagement based on U.S. European Command Directive 55-471, "Peacetime Rules of Engagement."

After the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut a revised ROE was developed but for some reason only issued to forces that guarded the diplomatic facilities.

It was assumed that the new directive was also in place at the Marine barracks but they were still operating under the original ROE.

Here is the conclusion from the review that was conducted after the bomb attack at the barracks:

C. Conclusions.

“The mission concludes that a single set of ROE providing specific guidance for countering the type of vehicular terrorist attacks that destroyed the U.S. Embassy on 18 April 1983 and the BLT Headquarters building on 23 October 1983 had not been provided to, nor implemented by, CTF 62.”

“The Commission further concludes that the mission statement, the original ROE, and the implementation in May 1983 of dual "Blue Card" - "White Card" ROE contributed to a mind-set that detracted from the readiness of the USMNF to respond to the terrorist threat which materialized on 23 October 1983.”

I didn’t see anywhere that Reagan had any hand in this mix-up of ROE in Lebanon.

May 10, 2013 at 11:24 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

you specifically stated that no American lives were lost, which was incorrect.


You have yet to provide any evidence that any Americans were killed inside any American diplomatic facility during the Bush administration.

You found one of several Americans that were killed outside of those facilities but that’s not the point now is it? As I stated security expectations external and internal are much different and your strawman example does not qualify for the debate over facility security.

May 10, 2013 at 11:37 p.m.
alprova said...

You idiot, I never stated that Americans were killed INSIDE any diplomatic facility during the Bush Administration.

David Foy was the intended target and he died 20 yards outside the post. His death was intentional and deliberate.

Security is supposed to be in place leading into and out of any diplomatic post. The unbelievable contrast you have attempted to draw, just to try and save face in light of your missing a mark when you made an incorrect statement is hilarious.

You're going to have to change your name again, very soon, because you're complete inability or unwillingness to admit a simple error is astounding, and you're going to be ignored more and more.

May 11, 2013 at 1:10 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Caspar Weinberger warned Reagan that the Marines were at risk in Beirut for the reason I stated, and Reagan blew him off.

May 11, 2013 at 7:57 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.