It's time for an all-new The Scotty Show! Now, a lot of things have happened since the 12.16 press briefing contained herein. One of those things was that Dubya graced reporters with his presence for a press conference of his own today. So look for a special The Dubya Show tomorrow! Guaranteed 50% more fiber than The Scotty Show.
The rest is the usual stuff... we took the press briefing and abridged it. We dumped it into the Bullshit Detector, causing the Bullshit Detector to cry real tears. It eventually spit out what you'll see below.
Press corps comments and questions are italicized for her pleasure.
Scotty's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
Translations are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.
And now... the moment you've been waiting for.
Scott, Senator Specter says that the Judiciary Committee is going to make it a high priority to look into this report that the President authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without warrant on people in the United States. And he says that there is no doubt that this is inappropriate. How do you respond to his characterization of what happened?
Well, we have a responsibility to work with Congress to do all we can, within the law, to protect the American people. And that means preventing attacks and saving lives. And the President made a commitment that he would do everything within his power and within the law to prevent attacks and save lives. He renewed that commitment more than ever after September 11th. He also made a commitment that we would remain firmly committed to protecting the civil liberties of Americans and upholding our Constitution. He is doing both.
We are continuing to do all we can to save lives. That is the President's number one priority. We are sitting here talking about waging the war on terrorism. And the President is going to continue to act to protect the American people, but he'll do so within our laws. And in terms of these issues, there is congressional oversight of intelligence activities, and we will continue to work with members of Congress on those matters.
Let's start off by being clear about something. We eavesdrop on people's phone calls. Pretend like you didn't already know that. Guess what? We read your emails, too. And thanks to a cross-reference between his credit card statements, in-store data tracking and medical records, I know that Ralph Gianni of Queens, in New York buys condoms three to four times a month even as he's taking his wife to a fertility specialist... signifying that he's cheating on his wife. And I know that Denise Zapata of Tulsa, Oklahoma is a lesbian and I also know that she hasn't told anyone in her family, even though she's been seeing her girlfriend Linda for eight months. Pretty much anything there is to know, we know it.
Will the Judiciary Committee be part of that oversight, or is that just the Intelligence Committees?
I'd just say we would continue to work with members of Congress on these matters. This is about protecting the American people.
Committees? Who the fuck said anything about committees? No... I said we would work with members of Congress. Period. Exclamation point. And when I say "members of Congress", I mean Tom Delay and Bill Frist.
Will you cooperate with Senator Specter as the Judiciary Committee looks into this?
I'm not sure there's any request that's been made of us at this point.
What have I told you about making me laugh so hard I shoot milk out my nose?
Is it your position that legal authority is required --
Terry should turn off his phone.
Especially if he doesn't want us to eavesdrop on his phone calls.
Is it your position that legal authority is required for any surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA?
A couple of things. One, I'm aware of the reports that were in the papers this morning.
First, please congratulate me on reading the fucking newspaper this morning.
This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there's a reason why we don't get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening. We are doing all we can to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening. And it could telegraph to the enemy what we are doing. The enemy wants to know exactly what we are doing to go after them and prevent attacks from happening. And we don't want to do anything to compromise sources and methods.
Second, we will spy on people if we want to, and there's nothing you can do about it. We're dealing with terrorists here. And if you think that we shouldn't strip people of the right to free speech; the right to peaceably assemble; the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; the right to speedy and public trials; the right to a jury; the right to not be deprived of life or liberty without due process; the right to have an attorney; the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; among other things... then you're with the terrorists. Because we are removing those rights from people in order to stop the terrorists. The terrorists who hate us for our freedoms.
Right, but all I asked you was whether it's your position that it always requires a court order for surveillance of U.S. citizens.
What it's getting into -- again, let me reiterate. The President is firmly committed to upholding our Constitution and protecting people's civil liberties. That is something he has always kept in mind as we have moved forward from the attacks of September 11th, to do everything within our power to prevent attacks from happening. It's very important to him. We are meeting both those priorities. Those are two important priorities.
Now in terms of talking about the National Security Agency or matters like that, that would be getting into talking about ongoing intelligence activities. And they're classified for a reason, because they go to the issue of sources and methods and protecting the American people. And because they're classified, I'm not able to get into discussing those issues from this podium.
Let me put it to you this way: We could have you killed. Without a court order.
Let me follow with one other question. Is it your position that the congressional authorization for war against al Qaeda in 2001 allows the President to take some steps to collect intelligence?
I just told you why I'm not going to get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities.
That's right. It's because... uh... let's see here... um... September 11 terrorism 9/11 al Qaeda... BOO!
You mean you cannot say whether it's lawful to spy on Americans or not?
We have a Constitution and we have laws.
<flushing sound> Okay, we had a Constitution.
Is it legal to spy on Americans?
We have a Constitution and we have laws in place, and we follow those --
You say you are abiding by the law?
Absolutely. And there's congressional oversight of intelligence activities, there's other oversight of intelligence activities.
We are operating fully within the law, as long as you ignore all those parts that say that the government isn't allowed to secretly spy on its own citizens.
And how many secret orders have been issued by this President?
I think the American people appreciate what we do to work within the law to prevent attacks from happening. The Patriot Act is being debated right now.
The American people LIKE being spied on. They appreciate it. They constantly say, "Thank you so much, Mister President, for monitoring my purchases, my library check-outs, my emails, my video rentals, my telephone calls, the web sites I've visited, the GPS on my car, my medical records, my financial information, my club and organization memberships, and my place of worship! Since I am not a terrorist, and this government is very wise and benevolent and never prone to errors, I know I have nothing to be concerned about!"
It's never been within the law to spy on Americans.
The Patriot Act is something that members of the Senate are debating right now. The House has already acted on it. And the House, in a strong bipartisan fashion, renewed these vital tools for our law enforcement intelligence officers to protect the American people. This law has helped prevent attacks from happening by breaking up terrorist cells in parts of the United States.
And while the Senate didn't pass the vote that they were looking to do right now, their -- the leadership is committed to moving forward on this. They're still in -- there's some more time this year. We urge them to get this done now and pass that legislation. The President has made it very clear that he is not interested in signing any short-term renewal. The terrorist threats will not expire at the end of this year. They won't expire in three months. We need to move forward and pass this critical legislation.
The president demands for the Patriot Act to be renewed so that he may finally ascend to King For Life status. And yes, I realize that answering your question about the legalities of spying on American citizens by responding with Patriot Act talking points pretty much confirms that we think the Patriot Act gives us carte blanche for shredding the Constitution. Which some people have been saying all along.
Scott, two questions. Writing opinion for the year-end issues of India Globe in Asia today, on two subjects. One, on international terrorism. How President will have -- or what kind of message he will have for the world leaders as far as terrorists, terrorism, and terrorists is concerned in the future and coming new year? And what they can do and what President will do to protect other nations?
What message does he have for -- you said terrorists?
Dear Terrorists: THANK YOU!!! If it weren't for you, I would have just been a brief blip on the radar screen of American history, whiling four years away playing with my Gameboy and clearing brush. Now look at me! I've shredded the US Constitution, started an illegal war, killed tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, turned the clock back decades on poverty and hunger, gave rich people huge sums of money, had people tortured and much more! I owe you everything, Love George.
For the world leaders, what they can do, how they can work together to --
Well, we remain engaged in an ongoing war on terrorism, and it's critical that we all work together to do everything within our power and within our laws to protect our citizens. We are making good progress. But this is a long war against a deadly and dangerous enemy, an enemy that wants to strike us again -- wants to strike America again, wants to strike the civilized world, and they have. We must continue to take the fight to them, we must continue to work to spread freedom to bring hope and opportunity to troubled regions in order to prevail in this war on terrorism, and we will win. And the terrorists need to be reminded that they cannot shake our will.
Oh... uh... world leaders need to do whatever we say. They are either with us or against us.
Scott, do you have a reaction to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service's study that rejects the President's frequent assertions that the Congress had access to the same intelligence -- pre-war intelligence that he had? Apparently in this report it says Congress was routinely denied access to intelligence sources, collection, analysis methods, raw, lightly-evaluated intelligence, PDBs.
I don't think it's an accurate reflection.
That Congress does not get the same intelligence the President gets.
We provide the Congress a lot of intelligence information, and they did have access to the same intelligence that we saw prior to making the decision to go into Iraq. And some have chosen to play politics with that now, people that had previously supported the efforts to go in there, and saw the same intelligence, the intelligence that other agencies around the world used. And I saw there was a reference to the Presidential Daily Brief, where the Silberman-Robb Commission already addressed that issue, and said that if anything, the Presidential Daily Brief was less nuanced than the intelligence that members of Congress saw and that we saw, as well.
We all saw the same exact information. Fucking Congress is a bunch of liars, I'll tell you that. See, let me give you an example. A report would come in from intelligence and would land on the President's desk. It would look like this:
We felt it was important for Congress to see this important information, so we rushed it over to them. As you can see, they received THE EXACT SAME report, so those fucking liars need to just shut the hell up right now.
Scott, on budget reconciliation, it looks like there's a snag now over the ANWR drilling provision, and that Senator Stevens is even considering putting that or trying to get it into the Defense bill, Defense spending. Does the White House support ANWR basically at all costs, even if it means budget reconciliation would either be delayed or the Defense bill could be filibustered?
Two things. Congress needs to move forward on the deficit reduction package. That's an important piece of legislation, and we want to see Congress get that done, because it will help us continue to meet important priorities, but it will also provide significant savings to the American people and keep us on track to cut the deficit. The President is strongly committed to that, and it's an important step in keeping our economy growing as strong as it is. The President urges Congress to move forward on that.
"Deficit-Reduction Bill": Cuts $50 billion over five years from food stamps, Medicaid, student loan programs, child support enforcement, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services.
Tax Cut Bill: Gives all of that $50 billion dollars above (plus some) to wealthy investors in dividend tax cuts, and keeps people making around $100,000 per year from having to pay the alternative minimum tax. Also provides relatively low amounts to the Gulf Coast and servicemen overseas.
In other words, the Deficit Reduction Package does nothing to reduce the deficit. It is actually a Give More Money to the Wealthy Package, and that's something the president can really sink his teeth into.
We also urge Congress to move forward and pass the ANWR provision. That's an important provision that will help us build on our efforts to address the root causes of high energy prices.
The American people have been hit by high energy prices year in and year out. And what we need to do is continue to act to address the root causes of why those prices are high. And that's because of our dependence on foreign sources of energy. And ANWR will help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and build upon the comprehensive energy plan that Congress passed at the President's urging just last year, or just earlier this year.
We are addressing the root causes of high energy prices. The root causes of high energy prices is that we are relying on one particular form of energy: a finite natural resource that must be surveyed, located, drilled out of the ground, transported, refined, and transported some more. A resource that will eventually run out. So we are addressing these root causes of high energy prices by devoting time, resources and research to developing solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and other types of renewable energy. Ha ha, just kidding. We're going to fuck up a National Wildlife Refuge in the last true American frontier by drilling for sweet, sweet crude.
And also, a moment ago, you said that the administration has provided a lot of the same intelligence to Congress as they have, but you didn't answer whether you had more intelligence than they had. And I just wondered --
Well I think the issue that -- one issue in that report was the Presidential Daily Brief, and that was something that they cited. And that's why I pointed out what the Silberman-Robb Commission said about that. And, you know, there have been -- we've seen some Democratic leaders who supported the decision to go into Iraq based on the same intelligence that we saw come out and play politics with that recently.
Playing Politics (plā'ing pŏl'ĭ-tĭks)
v.
- To disagree with the Bush administration for any reason.
- Anything Democrats do.
The New York Times -- they sat on a very important story about possible breach of our Constitution for a full year, and they reached an agreement, I guess, with somebody in the White House. I'm wondering if you could give us a tick tock about how the White House reached --
I think I've already said that I'm not going to get into discussing any matters relating to ongoing intelligence activities. And that means not getting confirming or denying such reports.
If the Constitution still existed in any real form, what I am doing right now would be referred to as "pleading the Fifth."
I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that you will, for us, thank the First Lady and the President for that wonderful reception last night, where among the non-White House correspondents I saw talk radio host Neal Boortz of Atlanta, Blanquita Cullum and Laura Ingraham of Washington, and even Scott Hennen of Fargo, North Dakota.
Do you have a question?
Get to the point, nutcase.
You've been attending these parties for five years, and I have since 1974. Have you ever seen so much of talk radio invited before?
I'd have to go back and look at the list, Les, but we try to invite a diverse group from within the media. And we were glad to have everybody here last night. I know the President and Mrs. Bush very much enjoyed it.
This means that the White House recognizes the growing significance of talk radio, even as newspaper circulation and old, liberal TV network viewers are both plummeting, doesn't he?
Yes, Les, we reach out to the American people in a lot of different ways.
Wow, Les, stunning revelation that a right-wing whacko neocon administration would invite a bunch of right-wing whacko neocon radio show hosts to a Holiday Party. Surely your superior powers of deduction and observation are a top reason why such a reputable establishment as WorldNetDaily would want you on their staff.
On the Patriot Act, you said that it's -- these tools are really important for law enforcement to have, they shouldn't be without them for even a moment, I think was your phrase. If that's the case, what's so terrible having a short-term extension so that lawmakers can work out what have been bipartisan concerns about some of the provisions?
Well, we've expressed our views how we believe the provisions should be permanent. Fourteen of the 16 provisions are permanent under the conference committee agreement. And I think what's happening now is that some people are playing politics with this legislation, and our point is that they need to put the American people's safety and security above politics and come together and get this passed. There is no reason why Congress can't act on this now. But you have some that are choosing to filibuster this legislation. They need to end the filibuster.
The terrorist threat, as I indicated, does not expire at the end of this month, and it does not expire in three months. Congress has had plenty of time to work on this legislation. This has been vital to our efforts to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening. I've talked to you about how we've disrupted terrorist cells within the United States because of the tools in this legislation. These are vital tools for our law enforcement and intelligence officials. And they use them every day as they work around the clock to protect the American people.
Look, when the Patriot Act was initially passed, it was rammed through Congress in a rush, during a very emotional period, in the middle of the night, with no time to read all the terrible things that Act did to the Constitution. We need that to happen again.
My question was about a short-term extension while they try and work these issues out. What's so terrible about that?
Well, the Congress has been working on these issues, and the conference committee came together and reached an agreement on these issues, and we think it's a good piece of legislation and that they ought to move forward on that legislation and there's no excuse why they can't. The House passed it. I think it was 251 to 174 -- some 44 Democrats. There was broad bipartisan support. There's no reason why the Senate shouldn't get this done. The American people expect their elected leaders to act, and particularly on -- in priorities that are this important.
A small minority of Democrats voted for the Patriot Act in the House, giving it broad bipartisan support. Of course, a small minority of Republicans voted against the Patriot Act in the House as well, apparently lending broad bipartisan support against the Patriot Act. Basically what it all boils down to is that we are spoiled brats who throw temper tantrums when we don't get our way.
Scott, you spoke before of renewing the Patriot Act in context of the NSA reports. Does this administration believe that the Patriot Act would allow for the use of the NSA to keep tabs on Americans?
Again, this question I think was already asked by someone in the front row here, and I already answered that question, told you why I'm not going to get into discussing national intelligence activities.
And I also pointed out that the President is firmly committed to upholding our Constitution and protecting civil liberties. And that's what he has done; that's what he will continue to do as we move forward to do everything we can to protect the American people.
Yes, exactly.
Should we take away a linkage from that?
A linkage?
The fact that you mentioned -- you brought up the Patriot Act when you were asked about the NSA report.
Well, I think that the report is a separate issue from the Patriot Act.
But let's set the Wayback Machine to "Ten Minutes Ago":
How many secret orders have been issued by this President?
I think the American people appreciate what we do to work within the law to prevent attacks from happening. The Patriot Act is being debated right now.
It's never been within the law to spy on Americans.
The Patriot Act is something that members of the Senate are debating right now.
Which would be the President's priority, protecting life or protecting the civil liberties?
Both. We think we can do both and we have done both.
Neither. We think that it's possible to endanger American's lives by starting illegal wars that kills thousands of American soldiers and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States, while at the same time stripping people of the civil liberties guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
Do you think they never conflict?
I think these are difficult issues that you have to address in a post-September 11th world. Some people go back to a post-9/11 [sic] mind-set now that we're four years after the attacks of September 11th. The President said he would never forget what happened on September 11th. We are going to do everything within our power to prevent something like that from happening again.
The terrorists are determined to strike us. They are dangerous and they are deadly and they are sophisticated. They are going to continue to try to strike the American people here at home. That's why we're taking the fight to them abroad; that's why we're also working to advance freedom in the center of a dangerous region of the world. And that will inspire other reformers in the broader Middle East and help bring about real change in a dangerous part of the world. And so --
Everybody says those founding fathers were so smart. Well, they didn't predict airplanes flying into buildings, now did they? They wrote that stupid Constitution with a pre-9/11 mindset.
Do you think those priorities never conflict with each other?
I didn't say that. In fact, I said that these are difficult issues that you have to work to address and
we believe we have.
I really haven't said much of anything, to be completely honest, but maybe if you ask me the same question a half dozen more times I might slip up and actually answer it.
When they do conflict, which one takes priority?
They're both priorities. And we can meet both.
I was being sarcastic, I didn't mean for you to actually ask me again. That's just silly.
But Scott, the administration did not suggest that life is perhaps more important than liberty, is the question that's being driven at here. If there is a conflict and you can't do both, when push comes to shove, the question is, which is more important: life or liberty?
No, you're asking me, one -- you're asking me, one, to get into hypothetical situations. But what the President has made clear is that we abide by our values, we abide by our laws, and we abide by our treaty obligations. He's made that clear in all that we do. We have a responsibility to protect the American people. And the issue we're getting in today is talking about intelligence. We have made a number of improvements relating to our intelligence in the aftermath of September 11th so that we can connect the dots and prevent attacks from happening -- go after and disrupt plots from happening in the first place.
You're all asking me to get into hypothetical situations, like what would happen if there was a hypothetical threat of terrorism and also the president was hypothetically denying people civil liberties by hypothetically using the NSA to spy on American citizens. And I cannot be dragged down into such hypotheticals.
And the point Ken gets to goes to the law. And our law has protections in place when it comes to -- and our Constitution when it comes to people's civil liberties, and when it comes to privacy. And the point I'm making to you is that those are both priorities to the President, and we can meet both. Now there may be difficult issues that you have to work to address when you're trying to fight a different kind of war and when you're trying to go about preventing attacks from happening here in the homeland.
And if you want to ask me if liberty or life is more important, I will continuously say, "Both", and refuse to answer, because we've come such a long way since "Give me liberty or give me death!" or "Live Free or Die!"
And I'll go back. The Patriot Act helped us break down a wall that existed between law enforcement and intelligence so that they could share vital information to keep the American people safe. That's why it's so critical that Congress moves forward on this act.
But no one's saying these aren't difficult issues to work to address. But that's why there's oversight in place for these kind of matters. Some people suggest that the President is just going off and doing certain things. Well, there's congressional oversight in place, there's other oversight in place, there's our Constitution, there's the laws. And we abide by them.
Yeah, we're just a bunch of law abiding fools: