Okay, after a little while being gone while Scotty mostly gave short, boring press gaggles onboard -- no shit -- a van called Wire Van One/Press Van One (which I choose to imagine resembles the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine van), we are back with an all-new episode of The Scotty Show!
If this is your first time with us, allow me to welcome you and tell you how this works. This is Scott McClellan's 12.13.2005 press briefing. It is (believe it or not) abridged for length and content. Every time Scott says something that's bullshit (basically every time he speaks), a translation is provided.
Quotes from the press corps are in italics.
Scotty's bullshit is in bold.
The translations are in plain text.
And without further ado... The Scotty Show!
The President looks forward to giving the fourth speech in this series tomorrow at the Woodrow Wilson Center here in Washington, D.C. On the eve of an historic election, the President believes it is an important time to take stock of where we are in Iraq,
Up shit creek.
why we are there,
Oil.
why it is important,
Oil.
what the stakes are,
The lives of every Iraqi man, woman and child, our "coalition" partners, and 155,000 American soldiers... just kidding. Oil.
and why we will achieve victory.
We will achieve victory because we define victory. If we decide victory means "turn Iraq into a dangerous power vacuum in the middle of the most volatile region in the world in the midst of a three-way religious and ethnic civil war", then YAY, VICTORY FOR US. Victory is achieved by the person who decides what the definition of victory is. I think Churchill said that. Or else I just made it up.
It has been just two-and-a-half years since the brutal, oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled.
And we replaced it with another regime that tortures and kills Iraqi people. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
This week the Iraqi people will be choosing a permanent representative government.
We will be installing a US-friendly regime under the guise of free elections.
Do you have anything on Gerald Ford's admission to the hospital?
No. I don't have any additional information, other than what his office put out. We wish President Ford well and a speedy recovery.
Many of us were a little shocked to learn that he was still alive in the first place.
Do you think that a successful election in Iraq will point toward an exit for American troops, or show the way, give us some indication of --
Well, that's going to a question of whether or not we should have artificial timetables in place. And the election is another historic milestone in the future of the Iraqi people, but the violence that the terrorists and Saddam loyalists are carrying out against the Iraqi people we expect to continue after the election. We are working with the Iraqi security forces to help train them and equip them so that they can address these threats. And it's important that we continue to stand with the Iraqi people moving forward -- and the President will talk a little bit more about that tomorrow and why it's important that we continue to stay in Iraq until we prevail.
And in terms of troop levels, we all want our troops to come home, but that will be based on conditions on the ground and what the commanders recommend. That's what the President believes those decisions should be based on.
There's still some oil to squeeze out of that Iraqi sand.
How are the talks in the anti-torture amendment going?
They continue. We continue to work with Senator McCain and others to come up with a good solution. We all recognize that these are difficult issues that we have to address as we continue forward in the war on terrorism. The President spoke about it a little bit yesterday. And we will continue working with leaders on the Hill to try to bring this to a resolution.
We have said very clearly many times that we do not torture. Nobody is being tortured by the US. We do not run secret CIA torture prisons. Torture is against the law and it's against our treaty obligations and it's against our values. That being said, we will fight with every fiber of our being to make sure that an amendment against torture doesn't pass. We continue to work with Senator McCain on this issue, and we're thinking maybe some bamboo shoots underneath his fingernails might change his mind. I mean, the guy's been tortured before, he should understand how good torture is and why we need to have it. Even though we won't use it. Yeah, that's the ticket. We won't use it.
What kind of language is acceptable for the President in terms of an exemption for non-DoD personnel?
Well, I think it's best to let those discussions occur with the members. And Steve Hadley has been very involved in this. He's had good discussions with Senator McCain and other leaders on the Hill. The President talked about it yesterday. He talked about how Congressman Hunter was involved in this, as well. And so we want to let those discussions take place and try to come to a good solution.
There are some people who are against torture, and there are some people who are for it. We have found a good compromise. We won't allow soldiers to torture. But we will give civilian mercenaries the green light to sodomize you with a light bulb and cut off your eyelids. I think that's something that everyone can get behind.
How does this speech tomorrow differ from the last three, Scott?
Well, I think the way I described it -- this kind of pulls it all together -- this kind of pulls it all together and talks about why we are in Iraq, why it's so important, and what the stakes are. That's where the President's focus will be tomorrow. And that's why I talked about how it's going to be discussed in the context of the moment. The Iraqi people are going to be going to the polls on Thursday, and the President felt this was a good time to pull together all these speeches he has given and talk to the American people about the importance of what we're working to achieve and why we will succeed.
This time around, the president plans to say "9/11, terror, Iraq, Saddam, 9/11, terrorists, Saddam, Iraq, Iraq, 9/11, war on global terror, Saddam, 9/11, 9/11, terror." In his previous speeches, as you recall, he said, "9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Iraq, global war on terror, Saddam, 9/11, terror, 9/11, Iraq, 9/11, Saddam, terror, 9/11." So as you can see, this speech will be quite different.
Scott, the President said something very poignant in the Brian Williams interview, that he doesn't care what people call him, but don't call him a racist. Is he concerned, still three months after the Katrina relief effort, that there are still some African Americans who may feel that -- the same way as Kanye West, and in these next three years, what can the President do to help turn that feeling around?
Well, what we can continue to do is work with state and local officials and the people in the region to help rebuild New Orleans, and help rebuild the Gulf Coast region and Mississippi and Alabama. There's a large area that was affected by the hurricanes, and the President has talked about this before.
I think what was exposed by the hurricanes was the deep roots of injustice and inequality that have existed. And that's why the President has been acting to address those -- the root causes of that inequality and injustice. And we will continue acting on the policies that we have been pursuing, whether it be the education reforms we have put in place, or reaching out to faith-based and community organizations, or helping lift people out of poverty by moving forward on pro-growth policies. The President has been acting to help people improve their quality of life. And, yes, the question came up yesterday, and I think that there were some that expressed some views that did concern the President. And that's why the President responded the way that he did.
The president is not a racist. The president is a classist, and he resents it when people fail to make this distinction. The fact that the president hates most black and brown people has nothing to do with the fact that they are black or brown, but instead has to do with the fact that many black or brown people are poor.
For the president, there is nothing worse or more inexcusable than being poor. Why, he wonders, should FEMA pick people up off of overpasses and the roofs of their houses when they don't even care enough to have lots of money? Surely if he could get rich, anyone could. He was very disadvantaged... a mentally retarded, illiterate, drug- and alcohol-addled sociopath. But he made it by pulling himself up with nothing more than a C-minus grade point average and the fact that his family had lots of money and his father was a rich CIA director, Vice President, and President of the United States.
But some are saying -- some had been saying that prior to Katrina, and some are saying that Kanye West just exposed the whisperers in the African American community from many years prior to Katrina. What can the President do beyond these steps that you said --
As you point out, there's a deep history of this within the region that was exposed by the hurricanes. And that's why we must continue to act to address the root causes of that inequality and injustice. And that's what the President will continue to do. He will also continue working to bring people together from all walks of life to focus on the priorities that we care most about, and that is making sure that the American people have the opportunity to succeed and prosper.
As I pointed out, Kanye West was very, very wrong in his comments. Bush doesn't care about POOR people. But it's equal-opportunity not-giving-a-shit.
But, lastly, and still back on the question I'm trying to get an answer to, is the President still concerned that there is a pocket of African Americans beyond the people who live in Louisiana that feel that -- that still, I guess, feel what Kanye West has said?
Well, I'm not sure exactly what he said. I don't recall exactly what he said. All I can tell you is what the President is doing --
"The President does not care about black people" --
Oh, okay, that is just outrageous. And I think the President expressed that yesterday in the interview with Brian Williams. It's outrageous to make such a suggestion like that. And it's based on an ill-informed -- it's ill-informed and misguided comments. The President has acted to help people from all walks of life. And all you have to do is look at his record. The President has acted to make sure everybody has the opportunity to learn and succeed through the No Child Left Behind Act. These are historic education reforms. And that's the best way we can help to address these injustices and inequalities that exist.
It is really, really outrageous to suggest that! Look at Condoleeza Rice! The president cares about Condoleeza Rice! And -- Well, and then there's Colin Powell... although the president doesn't care about him... so... Okay, scratch that. Well, like I said, there's Condoleeza Rice. And um, well, I'm sure there are others I could name if I just had some more time! So it is outrageous to suggest that.
Scott, I'm going to preface my question and maybe preempt your answer by saying I know you guys never, ever look at polls. But the bottom line is that you have been -- the President has been doing what you just described out there giving -- tomorrow will be four -- speeches to try to change public opinion, convince Americans that he does have a plan in Iraq. But CNN-USA Today-Gallup's latest poll, which is consistent with others, shows that 58 percent, almost six in ten Americans do not think that he has a plan in Iraq. So what does that say about the hill that you have to climb --
A couple of things. Let me first correct you in terms of saying that we don't ever look at polls. We don't govern based on polls. The President does not govern based on polls. The President governs based on a clear set of principles and a clear set of beliefs. And he believes very strongly in what we are working to achieve in Iraq. He believes very strongly that we must succeed, and he knows that we will succeed because he knows that our men and women in uniform are the best fighting force around the world, and he has great confidence in the outcome of what we're working to achieve in Iraq.
But what the President focuses on is what the American people care most about. That's what he will continue to do. We are a nation at war, so the President is going to continue focusing on our plan for succeeding in the war on terrorism. And Iraq is an important part of that. The President is also going to continue focusing on the economy and the steps we've taken to create an environment for strong job growth and lasting economic growth. And that's what the President will continue to do. We'll let all the polls take care of themselves.
The president does not govern based on what the American people want. The American people can go fuck themselves for all the president cares. The president focuses on what the American people want. Yes, I did just contradict myself. Eat me.
Would you concede right now that it seems pretty clear that the American people don't yet understand what the President's plan is on Iraq?
No, I think the American people want to win in Iraq. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq. And they also want to see our troops come home. And polls are snapshots in time. We'll let you all do the analysis of what the polls say. The President is doing what he believes is right and what he believes will make America safer for the long-term. And that's why it's so important that we continue to work to achieve victory in Iraq, and he knows we will.
Now, there have been some Democratic leaders that have chosen very irresponsibly to say that we don't have a strategy for victory. I think it's becoming very clear to the American people in these speeches and in the document we put out just a couple of weeks ago that we have a plan for winning, and it is the right plan for winning. It's important, though, that within that plan, that you be flexible. The tactics -- that you take the tactics and you be able to adjust those tactics to the circumstances on the ground. And war is difficult. That's why it's important that you're flexible in your approach. But the strategy is clear. And the President is going to continue talking about it to the American people.
God dammit, you people are frustrating. The American people are frustrating. The Democrats are REAL fucking frustrating. Look, WE HAVE A STRATEGY! I keep telling you. Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete. How the hell much more clear do we have to be?
[...]To the extent that the administration, yourself included, has said that there is an expectation that there could be a conditions-based withdrawal, beginning next year, does that rightly or wrongly create a perception in the American public's mind that there is a glide path to a complete exit?
[...T]his gets to the whole discussion here. There are some that think we ought to immediately withdraw, or withdraw completely within a certain amount of time. The President is focused on winning. That's what the American people want. Withdrawing is a strategy for defeat. It's a strategy for retreating in the face of the war on terrorism. We are fighting the terrorists there in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here. And when we succeed there, we will take away any opportunity for them to have a safe haven in Iraq, and we will deal them a significant blow in the war on terrorism.
They understand how high the stakes are. The President will be talking about those stakes tomorrow in his remarks. The stakes are very high in Iraq. It is critical to winning the war on terrorism. And that's why we will complete the mission and we will win.
Withdrawal is a strategy for defeat. We will never be defeated! We will never withdraw!
We are fighting this war on terror until there is no terror! Just like when we fought the War on Hunger, and now there's no hunger! Or when we fought the War on Drugs and now there are no drugs! We vow to be similarly victorious over terror!
You keep talking about, "as Iraqi forces are stood up, U.S. forces can stand down."
That's right.
Whether or not the insurgents are defeated, whether or not there's a civil war, as there are more and more Iraqi security forces, does the U.S. just start pulling out? No matter what the conditions on the ground are.
As they have the capability to be able to protect themselves, not only from external threats, but from internal threats, then we will be able to stand down coalition forces. And that's what the President has talked about at length.
If we could just keep some Iraqi troops alive long enough to form free-standing military battalions, then we could make the impending civil war THEIR problem.
How do you measure the improved security now? I know the President has talked about this some, but particularly in those four provinces, you still have numerous attacks, you still have a lot of loss of life, Iraqi and U.S. forces. How do you measure that? I know --
Well, the Anbar Province is one where there's still a lot of difficulties and challenges that remain, and I think our commanders would talk about that. I think our commanders are the ones that are in the position to talk about that, the ones who are on the ground. And they have a clear understanding of how that progress is being made.
Could you please ask someone else the questions about messy things like dead soldiers?
The President has talked about that, as well. So would you say security has really improved?
[I]t's measured by looking at the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, how more and more are taking the lead in the fight. And I can give you some information on that. I mean, the Department of Defense has talked about this.
We don't measure security by the number of people killed. That would be silly. We have totally different metrics for determining how safe Iraq is. We measure it by the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. Of course, even by that standard, we suck like a Hoover.
Just in the month of November, Iraqi security forces conducted over a thousand combined operations with coalition forces
Arresting every male over 14 years old in town.
they conducted over 400 independent operations on their own.
Getting coffee and donuts for US forces.
And there were only about 220 -- 227 operations that were conducted without Iraqi security forces
Actual battles.
But so the measure of improved security is improved Iraqi security forces...that is the equation for a more secure environment, that the Iraqi security forces are handling the security, not necessarily that security is improved.
That's right, they're controlling more territory, and they're taking the lead in the fight more and more. And that's an important way to measure the progress, so that they're fully capable to defend themselves from external and internal threats. I think that's the way the President has always talked about it.
Sure, doesn't that make sense to you? It doesn't matter if ten Marines die this day or four soldiers die that day. Security is improving in Iraq! As long as you don't measure it by how secure Iraq is!
[A]id to the earthquake victims in Pakistan is not reaching -- that terrorists are attacking aid workers in Pakistan and they are trying to block aid to not reach the people. Also, at the same time, Prime Minister of India and the Defense Minister of India both are saying yesterday that terrorists are attacking also across the border in Kashmir. My question is that how do we deal now with these terrorists in Pakistan now they are trying to block the aid to the victims, and now there's a winter, and also slowing --
Well, I think President Musharraf and his government are dealing with those terrorists. They're going after those terrorists. We have good cooperation with the government of Pakistan. We'll continue to work with them to go after the terrorists that are in Pakistan and that are along that border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And we appreciate the job that they're doing. There's more that we can always be doing, and we'll continue working with them.
How much oil is in Pakistan? And aren't those people brown? And poor? Yeah, that's what I thought. Fuck them.
Thank you. I have two questions, please. Now that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has total control of his country for perhaps the next three decades, does the President believe Chavez may cut off the oil supplies to the United States?
I haven't heard a discussion about that recently with the President, that particular matter. I think that what's important is to look at what's happening there. And we have expressed our concerns about the backing off of some of the democratic principles that are important in that country.
We plan to deal with Chavez through Operation: Pat Robertson. We have nothing further to say about this issue.
Does the administration plan to appeal a federal judge's ruling that Hurricane Katrina victims can remain in their hotel rooms until February? And is the President concerned about the story in the Style section of today's Washington Post, the story that alleges more concern about the Louisiana Governor's personal image than the caring for the hurricane victims?
The President is focused on how we can all work together to help the people in the region. And one of the most important priorities right now is helping those who are in hotels move into some transitional housing. And that is a top priority for the President. The levees are a top priority for the President. He talked a little bit about that yesterday. And we're moving forward to address that issue and we'll be talking more about it soon.
On the issue of housing, the President has made it very clear to people in the administration that we're going to help those who are in need, and that nobody is going to be just put out on the street. There is a lot of help available to people. It is a top priority for this administration to make sure they understand the help that is available. And just the other day FEMA announced that they were extending that deadline. And so they've already been moving to address some of those concerns.
It's very important that those freeloaders get out of those hotel rooms as soon as possible. We will continue to stress the importance of pretending to give a rat's ass about the evacuees, while continuously working behind the scenes to fuck them over. Like, we say that we don't want to leave evacuees homeless, but it takes a class-action lawsuit to keep us from kicking people out onto the streets. That's compassionate conservatism, right there.
Scott, a two-part question. WorldNet Daily's Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein is an American citizen who was denied entrance into Syria because he's Jewish. But I understand our State Department has had nothing to say about this outrage. And my question -- surely the President, as worshiper of a Jew named Jesus, has something to say about this Jew-bating, doesn't he, which I recall was also done to Wolf Blitzer when he was a White House correspondent?
We haven't had a discussion about it, Les. What's your next question?
Les, you are nuttier than squirrel shit.
Since Iran's President Ahmadinejads says that Israel should be moved to Europe, and a U.N. ceremony in New York included a map of, "Palestine in place of Israel," does the President believe that we should support eliminating Iran as a sovereign state, and returning that land to its legal owners, the Mongols?
What the President believes is that the international community needs to continue to address the concerns we have highlighted about Iran, particularly when it comes to nuclear weapons. We have a number of concerns about the regime in Iran, and the President of Iran's comments only further underscore the concerns that we have, particularly when it comes to their pursuit of nuclear weapons. We must continue to stand firm in the international community and prevent Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons. That's why we're so supportive of the Europeans' efforts to resolve this matter, and that's why you see more and more in the international community expressing their concerns about Iran's behavior and about their statements that have been made by the president.
Yeah, Les. There's a shitload of Mongols demanding their homeland of Iran back. But you'll have to start addressing those questions to the new press secretary, Lies Like Buffalo, after the successful transfer of power to our new president, Dancing Antelope.
What did he think of the U.N. map that has Palestine and eliminates Israel?
What the President is working to do is to support the advance of freedom in the Middle East, because by advancing freedom in the Middle East, we'll be advancing our own security. And I think he'll talk a little bit about this in his remarks tomorrow. We're supporting the Israeli people and the Palestinian people as they move forward to the two-state vision that the President has outlined. We'll continue to stand with the Palestinian people who want to have a free and democratic state. That will help bring about greater security in the region.
It's also important that we continue to support the Iraqi people. Both those can serve as an inspiration to reformers throughout the Middle East. And free societies are peaceful societies.
Please stop coming to these press briefings without taking your Thorazine.
Scott, Senator Frist today said he doesn't think the Congress is going to be able to finish its work on the Alternative Minimum Tax until '06, Congress is going to have to come back and finish it next year. The consequence of that is that 15 million households might face a $30 billion tax increase under AMT. Does the President have any reaction or comment on that?
I spoke a little bit about this last week. We continue to work with Congress. What we want to do is make sure that it doesn't hit more middle-income Americans. And we want to make sure that the tax relief that we provided and that they're realizing is not taken away. The President acted and led on tax relief to get our economy growing and to get or create an environment where jobs would be created. And it's important that we keep that tax relief in place. It's important that we continue to work to address this issue, as well.
I need to clarify this for those of you who might not fully comprehend this point yet: there are three types of people in this country. There are poor people, who don't pay AMT. The president does not give a shit about them. There are the obscenely rich people, and the president cares about them very much. Then, there are the people in between. Some of them may face higher taxes this year because of this AMT business. The president doesn't give a shit. The president is against tax increases FOR THE WEALTHY. Everyone else can get bent.
Scott, I understand I'm addressing the lesser McClellan on this particular issue and I'll try anyway. This morning in Springfield, the President acknowledged that the Medicare Part B sign-up process is daunting for some. In retrospect, did it have to be this way? And what are the advantages people will realize of a system that is proving so daunting for people to sign up for?
Well, I think that the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid has talked about the process that has been put in place, and there is a very easy way for senators to go and learn -- for seniors to go and learn more about the prescription drug benefits that are available, and the other modern medicine that is available to them under this benefit. They can go to the Medicare website, Medicare.gov, they can call 1-800-Medicare, and learn more about the options that are available to them now -- options that they didn't have previously.
[... long spiel filled with Medicare talking points.]
We understand that it may be difficult and extremely confusing for seniors to understand the sign-up process. Luckily, your 86-year-old grandfather can learn more simply by getting out his 3.2 GHz Pentium "M" laptop with high-speed wireless connection through his cable broadband router, going to www.medicare.gov/help/confusing/seniors/%1663092005/signup/medicareplanb/ and then locating "Medicare Plan B, Subsection 43", then clicking on the link in that paragraph while holding down the CTRL, Shift, and Home keys, then typing in any 23-digit PIN that will be easy for them to remember, then going to the menu bar and selecting "Tools", the "Medicare", then "Seniors", then "Plan B", then "Sign Up", then right-clicking on "Process", then pressing the F9 key, then typing the PIN that they selected earlier. Finally, they must fill out the on-screen form three times, print it out, take it to a notary public, get it notarized, and mail it to our PO Box using -- this is important -- a first class stamp. We will let them know within 16 weeks if it was done correctly, and if not, they can repeat the process. This is simple shit, folks.
Was there no way to accomplish this without winding up with a process that is proving so daunting to so many?
Well, we're making it easier for seniors to be able to understand what is available to them. And I think the point the President was making is that he understands that these are new options and choices that are available to America's seniors, and what we want to do is talk to them about what is available to help them make an informed decision. And I think seniors are trying to go about making an informed decision. And what they're going to realize is better benefits and significant savings.
Sure, there were ways to do it, but I think the American people understand that confusing old people was more fun.
And what's the best plan for my mother in particular? Can you save me some time here? (Laughter.)
I'm not the expert on that.
But we expect her to become one.
Isn't the White House concerned that these discussions to nuance a ban on torture would send the wrong message to the Iraqis that currently are engaging in these practices?
We already have a ban on torture. The President has made it clear we don't torture. And I think what you're seeing now is that if people engage in that conduct under -- someone in the American government engages in that kind of conduct, they're held accountable. We go in and investigate, we hold people accountable. And what you're seeing now in Iraq is something that stands in stark contrast to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. That was a cruel and brutal regime that systematically engaged in torture. And you have heard from the Iraqi government that the reports of abuse and mistreatment of detainees runs counter to their policy. And they have made a commitment to fully investigate these matters.
The way our current system works is fine. Here's a basic overview.
Dick Cheney says, "Grrrrr. Let's torture some people."
Then Don Rumsfeld says, "Should we torture some people? I think that we should. Can we do it? I believe we can arrange that. Do I like asking myself questions and then answering them? I think that's been fairly well established."
Then, a top military commander says, "Order to torture brown people received, sir! Operation Electric Genitals in effect!"
Then a British newspaper or al Jazeera discovers the torture and puts it in the headlines.
Then, I'm back up here in front of all you reporters going, "Aw, shucks... looks like that enlisted private first class was a bad apple. We are shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- to find torture in this establishment."
Scott, will the President take questions tomorrow?
I was pointing to her.
Aw shit.
That was my question, too.
Same question.
It's scheduled just for remarks tomorrow. I don't -- I don't know of any discussion that there's been on that, but I'll keep you updated tomorrow.
Very doubtful. The president is kind of -- I don't know if this will surprise you -- he's kind of a dipshit. Answering questions isn't really his thing.
And who is the audience there?
It's people from the Woodrow Wilson Center. It will include some of the scholars and staff of the Woodrow Wilson Center, members of the Board of Trustees, members of the Wilson Council and the Wilson Alliance. There will be some members from the Diplomatic Corps there. I think you have some think tanks that will be represented there with various officials.
Paid Republican plants. Duh.
How did the President feel after taking questions yesterday?
Well, the President frequently takes questions, Dana, as you're well aware, in a variety of different formats.
Like, sometimes he answers questions in the format of he has Karl Rove feeding him answers into a receiver in his ear. And sometimes he answers questions in the format of we provide you with the questions on index cards in advance.
Doesn't he like to take questions?
Absolutely. He enjoys it.
As long as they're scripted.