Well we sure missed Scotty! But he's back now, fresh and rested from his Boxing Day celebrations, so it's time for us to dry our eyes and let him regale us with brand new bullshit (DISCLAIMER: Bullshit not actually new.) The press apparently missed Scotty too, because several of them chewed him up and shat him out, not that our good ol' Scotty let that deter him from saying the talking points he came to say.
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...
Scott, I'd like to begin on the ongoing debate over the surveillance. James Comey, who was then Acting Attorney General, reportedly opposed the continuation of the eavesdropping program in 2004, because he felt that it needed a kind of audit after it had been in place for a couple of years. And one of the criticisms leveled at the President is that whatever powers he deemed necessary to employ after 9/11, that after a couple of years since the attacks, he never felt it was appropriate to reexamine some of these issues, bring Congress into the debate at all.
Do you think that's a fair criticism, that whatever presidential powers he may believe existed after 9/11, that it's appropriate as time moves on to reexamine the tactics employed by the administration?
They are. They are carefully reviewed on a regular basis by the highest officials within the Department of Justice, by the White House Counsel's Office, by the National Security Agency.
The Executive Branch re-examines the Executive Branch's tactics all the time! And if the Executive Branch discovers anything wrong with what the Executive Branch is doing, then the Executive Branch will address the issue in a way that the Executive Branch deems appropriate! You people act as if there is no oversight.
And Congress has been briefed on the intelligence activities that we're engaged in under this authorization.
And besides, we also told a small handful of members of Congress what we were up to, although they couldn't stop us and they were sworn to secrecy and they had basically no say in the whole matter. But we told them! Like, a dozen times.
This is a vital tool in our efforts to save lives and prevent attacks from happening. It is very limited in nature.
It is very much limited only to peace activists, labor unions, political action groups, homosexuals, our political opponents, former government officials, people investigating this administration, environmentalists, minorities, and non-Christians.
We are a nation that is at war. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and after the attacks of September 11th, he made a very firm commitment to the American people that he was going to do everything within his power to prevent attacks from happening and save lives. And that's exactly what we have been doing.
Goddamn I missed saying "September 11".
First of all, all of those checks that you mentioned are not checks; it's all within the executive branch. There's no check from another part of the government.
No, that's in the legislative branch, as well.
Like, the Justice Department, they're legisla -- oh, they're not? Executive, you say? Well surely the National Security Agen -- really? Executive, too, huh? Well, what about the four people in Congress that we told about this program while forbidding them to stop us or to raise public objections or really to do any damn thing to stop us from shredding the Constitution under penalty of treason charges? Huh, what about them?
Well, but you say you briefed members of Congress. What you did is you pulled them into a room and said, this is what's happening, now thanks and don't tell anybody. I mean, that's not --
More than a dozen times on the activities conducted under this authorization.
Yeah, jeesh, people. Sure, we pulled them into a room and said, "This is what's happening, now thanks and don't tell anybody." But we did it more than a dozen motherfucking times, people!
But wait a minute. Even if they said it's a bad idea, what were you going to do, say, okay, well, we'll take that under advisement.
I think that, clearly, the American people strongly support the efforts that we're undertaking to save their lives.
I'm going to change the subject now from whether or not what we did was wrong to whether or not the American people clearly strongly support it.
But you don't know that, and I'm not asserting whether that's the case or not.
Well, I think there actually was a poll last week that showed more than the 60 percent of the American people support --
Oh, now you embrace polls. Okay, I'll tell -- I'll note that for the record. (Laughter.)
[M]ore than 60 percent of the American people support the actions that the President is taking to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. That's what this President is committed to doing. This is about saving lives. We face a dangerous and determined enemy, an enemy that wants to inflict even greater damage than they did on September 11th here at home. And we've got to use every lawful tool at our disposal to help save lives. Now, the President --
Policy shift! We now think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. We think that our position on Social Security sucks! Scooter Libby is guilty! We ass-raped the Katrina response! Not to mention our bungling of Iraq! And in general, things are going bad in this country and Bush has us on the wrong track! So many things are changing now that we govern by the polls.
But the question of legality is an issue here, though.
Well, the President talked about that the other day. He has clear authority under our Constitution. We provided the legal analysis to members of Congress, and that's available to you all, as well. The Justice Department has talked about the legal analysis that justifies the use of this tool to help us and --
The actions taken by the Executive Branch are completely legal! The Executive Branch has even said so itself! What more proof do you need?
Well, perhaps the judicial branch will make a determination about that.
Let me finish, because this is about detecting and preventing attacks. It's very limited in nature.
Please, stop talking and allow me to repeat a talking point which is completely irrelevant to the question you asked.
I know that. I mean, you're asserting something that's lawful that you're not in a position to --
But it's also -- you asked your question, let me respond. This is important.
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to interrupt you there and point out that this is limited in nature. It's about detecting and preventing attacks. We are a nation at war. The terrorists want to strike us again. This is limited in nature. It's about preventing attacks. We are at war. We are at war. This is limited in nature. We are at war.
I know, but you're --
No, it's important, because what we're talking about is looking at international calls involving known al Qaeda members or affiliated organizations. That's what we're talking about here. And you bet the American people, I think, want us to know what those calls are about, because those calls go directly to protecting their lives.
Ladies and gentlemen... it's time for an exciting episode of: "If They Worked Like the Administration"!
IF POLICE DEPARTMENTS WORKED LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION
POLICE CHIEF: Listen up, everybody! There are drug dealers in town! We must apprehend him!
COP: Where are they?
POLICE CHIEF: We don't know. But we know they're out there.
COP: So how do we catch them?
POLICE CHIEF: We must search every house in town and arrest any drug dealers we find.
COP: I don't think that's legal.
POLICE CHIEF: We are the law!
COP: Okay, but don't you think we should get approval first?
POLICE CHIEF: You're right, you're right. (Gets on phone) Yeah, Robbery/Homicide? The chief here. We're gonna go search every house in town and arrest all the drug dealers we find. You cool with that?
R/H COP: Yeah, chief, sounds good to me.
POLICE CHIEF: Great.
COP: That wasn't exactly what I meant, sir. I mean, shouldn't you tell someone who ISN'T a cop? Like a city council member or even the mayor or something?
POLICE CHIEF: Okay, okay. (Gets on phone) Councilman? This is the police chief. Yeah, I'm doing good. Anyway, we're gonna go house to house and search everyone and arrest all the drug dealers.
COUNCILMAN: I must strongly object to this... I think it's highly illegal and --
POLICE CHIEF: Shut the fuck up, Councilman. I wasn't asking permission, I was just telling you what we're doing. Now if you say anything, I'll have you arrested.
COP: Man, this is so fucked up.
POLICE CHIEF: Hey, the people are always saying that they don't want any more drug dealers in town. They clearly support having their houses searched. If they don't have anything to hide, then there won't be a problem.
A number of members of Congress do not agree that the President has the authority to do what he did in that case.
Well, previous administrations have cited similar authority.
And by "similar authority", I mean it involved the NSA.. But other than that, it was dissimilar in every way.
And on that note... another episode of "If They Worked Like The Administration"!
IF CHILDREN WORKED LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION
TEACHER: Holy shit, little Johnny! You just fucking killed six of your classmates!
LITTLE JOHNNY: Yeah, so?
TEACHER: That's horribly wrong and evil!
LITTLE JOHNNY: Little Frankie did a similar thing.
LITTLE FRANKIE: What the fuck are you talking about?
LITTLE JOHNNY: Remember that time that you took two cookies at lunchtime, Little Frankie?
LITTLE FRANKIE: Dude, I fucking got permission. The lunchlady said it was okay.
LITTLE JOHNNY: Oh. Whoops.
And they want to have hearings, and those hearings are supported by many on both sides, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, because they don't believe that this is within the scope of the President's authority.
And what's your question?
And my question is, does the White House take this into account, will it try to talk to them, will it participate in the hearings?
Like I said, and the President has said we've briefed members of Congress on more than a dozen occasions.
It's time for another exciting game of: "Ask Me a Question and I'll Respond With Random Talking Points That Are Probably Irrelevant to the Question You Asked"! Starring our host, Scott McClellan!
CONTESTANT #1: Uh, yeah, Scott. Will the president cooperate with Senate hearings about his spying program?
SCOTTY: We are a nation at war! The American people want us to be victorious!
CONTESTANT #2: Why does this White House claim it is reducing the deficit when it is still passing massive tax cuts for the wealthy that exceed the deficit reduction prompted by slashing funding for children, the elderly, and the poor?
SCOTTY: We met with Congress! More than a dozen times! He had Constitutional authority!
CONTESTANT #3: In light of your newfound respect of polls, and the fact polls show that about two thirds of the country is adamantly opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade, and revelations that your Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito actually would overturn Roe v. Wade, will the president ask Judge Alito to remove his nomination?
SCOTTY: Our troops will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up! We will not cut and run. That would be deeply irresponsible!
But that's not what they're talking about.
And in terms of discussions about this, the President talked about this at his end-of-the-year news conference. We shouldn't be talking about intelligence activities, particularly in a time of war, in a public way. This is a highly classified authorization --
List of things this administration will not talk about:
- Ongoing investigations not involving Tom DeLay
- Investigations that might take place
- Timetables for Iraq withdrawal
- Programs that are classified
- Programs that are no longer classified
- Things that the president has done
- Things that the president has not done
List of things this administration will talk about:
- Bunnies and kittens
- How Democrats are single-handedly destroying the country from their position of power in
the White House the House Leadership Senate Leadership cable news channels talk radio the Supreme Court the mayor's office in Shepherdsville, KY.
- The president's suitability for beer and barbeque-related program activities
Has the President signed any other orders that affect the daily lives of Americans, intruding on their privacy, and so forth, that are still secret?
The President believes we must act in a way that protects our liberties and save lives, and that's what we are committed to doing.
Well, if you're asking if we sneak into your home in the middle of the night and conduct anal examinations to see if you're hiding explosives in your rectum on behalf of the terrorists -- yes, we do that. And I think the American people appreciate our efforts to keep you from blowing them up with your VDB (very dirty bomb).
[P]eople who are against the surveillance, as well as the Patriot Act are citing --
I don't think people, if they're not talking to people overseas that are al Qaeda members or related to terrorist organizations, they have to worry. And I think the American people understand that.
I, frankly, don't know what those dumbass Founding Fathers were thinking of when they decided to give people civil liberties against searches and seizures anyway. I mean, if you got nothing to hide, what's the big hairy deal?
Because again, the Patriot Act, you could just be an innocent person and have a conversation on the street with someone --
Well, remember the inspector general more than six times at the Department of Justice has looked into this and found no abuse under the Patriot Act.
The Executive Branch has fully investigated the Executive Branch and has found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Executive Branch.
Can we go on to Iran? Iran said today that they're resuming research and development into nuclear fuel production. Do you know anything more about that? Does that concern you?
Well, we've expressed our views on the matter very clearly. And we continue to support the European 3's efforts to resolve this in a peaceful and diplomatic way. We've made our views very clear, that Iran needs to abide by the Paris agreement and its international obligations. They need to come clean and cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Let's review the Axis of Evil.
NORTH KOREA:
Nuclear WMD? Yes.
Action? Fuck it, that's China, Japan, and Russia's problem.
IRAN:
Nuclear WMD? Getting there.
Action? Fuck it, let Europe deal with them.
IRAQ:
Any kind of WMD? Nope.
Action? Let's blow them clear to fuck.
Scott, last year in the State of the Union, the President mentioned tax reform and Social Security reform as his top two priorities. This morning you mentioned responding to Katrina and keeping the economy strong, but notably absent was any mention of either Social Security, tax reform. And I just wondered, does the administration in all likelihood expect either of these not to be addressed until --
Well, tax reform remains a priority. We have not received the report from the Secretary of the Treasury yet, in terms of the recommendations that he will be making to the President.
Okay, just because we don't SAY "shift tax burden from wealthy to poor people" is one of our top priorities every single time, don't assume that it isn't so. It's been five years now, people. It should just be assumed by now that we will screw the poor people, okay?
In terms of the President's 2006 agenda, the President has made it very clear that he's going to continue working to build lasting peace abroad
LASTING
PEACE
ABROAD
and extend prosperity at home.
Scott, I have a two-part. World New Daily reports that Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt has now gone without food for two weeks in his protest of the Navy's ordering him not to mention Jesus in public prayer, and he's hoping very much for an executive order from the President. My question, how in the world can the President, as a devout Christian, allow the Navy, of which he is Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this suppression of the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion?
A couple of things. One, someone brought this question up earlier. I haven't had a chance to check into it fully. I will check into fully, so let me take your question. But I think this is a matter probably best addressed to the Department of Defense. But let me take a look into this specific matter.
Don't worry, Les. We're doing everything in our power to fully combine our brand of Christianity with the military to form an ultra-powerful Army o' Christ. You guys are just moving a little too damn fast for us is all.
In a full-page ad in The New York Times, the ACLU quotes the President on April the 20th of 2004 as saying, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." And my question: Did the President say that, on that date? And what is your reaction to the ACLU charging that the President, "lied to the American people and broke the law"?
A couple of things. I addressed this question previously. The President addressed this question again just the other day. That speech was on the Patriot Act, and the President was talking about roving wire taps in the context of the Patriot Act, so we've already addressed that.
The ACLU -- this is one of the special interest groups that Democrats in the Senate are trying to appease because they want to weaken and undermine the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is vital to saving lives, and the President is going to hear about how the Patriot Act has helped save lives. It has also met an important commitment to protect people's civil liberties.
Yeah! Those Democratic special-interest-group coddling sissies. Always tryin' to please some mamby-pamby group that cares about dumb things like Constitutional Rights, Freedom, Liberty, Justice Under the Law, and Everything This Country Was Built On. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that gays should have the right to vote. Or that the President shouldn't have the right to have you executed without a trial!
Doesn't he think the ACLU is very irresponsible?
Well, I think some of the statements that they make -- that they are making sure are.
One of these days Les, I swear, I'm going to put you up on top of this podium and tongue-kiss you in front of the entire White House Press Corps. I'm serious. You keep asking me questions like that, and I will be licking your tonsils, I swear to God.
FUN INTERMISSION
Scott, may I follow up on that for a moment?
You've had your question, let me go to the back. I'll try to come --
I want to follow up --
Well, I'll try to -- I'll try to come back to you, Paula.
I have a follow-up, Scott.
Wait, Victoria has a follow up. Let's have some order. Sometimes David gets the room out of order. That's okay.
May I ask why so many people in the front row have so many follow ups?
You specified --
Go ahead. You may, when I come to you.
You specified a couple of minutes ago that the warrant-less wiretaps involved international calls. So would the President view it, then, within his lawful power to give permission for warrant-less wiretaps for domestic calls between Americans --
-- anything like that discussed. That question was asked earlier. Go ahead. There are authorities under the Patriot Act. Go ahead.
A moment ago you said that opponents of certain sections of the Patriot Act --
Oh, why they got follow ups? Because they were important questions, that's why they got follow ups. Now you have an important question, so go ahead.
Thank you.
Scott --
No, no, Paula is going.
A moment ago you said that opponents of certain sections of the Patriot Act are putting politics over national security. But my understanding is that those that are opposed to certain sections, and possibly the amendment of this Act, are concerned about unchecked invasions of privacy, because certain warrant-less surveillances were done without having any contact whatsoever within 72 hours of the secret court that was established by law. And that is what my understanding is --
Well, I think they're just engaging in politics.
They're engaging in politics! POLITICS, people! Boogity-boogity!
pol*i*tics (pŏl'ĭ-tĭks)
n.
The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
THOSE DEVIOUS MOTHERFUCKERS. Engaging in the art or science of government or governing. And I bet they thought the American people wouldn't notice.
My understanding is, their concern is that the administration did not abide by existing law by not contacting this secret court within 72 hours as required by law.
Well, there is oversight in place. And as I pointed out, the Inspector General has looked into this and has found nothing to substantiate any allegations of abuse.
And time for another episode of... "If They Worked Like the Administration"!
IF BANK ROBBERS WORKED LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION:
ROBBER #1: Everybody, freeze! This is a hold-up!
ROBBER #2: Give us all your money!
BANK MANAGER: Robbing a bank is against the law! You'll be caught!
ROBBER #1: Against the law? I don't think so!
BANK MANAGER: It's a federal felony to rob a bank.
ROBBER #1: Robber #2, I'm going to rob this bank. What do you think? Is that legal?
ROBBER #2: Yeah, it's like 110% legal.
ROBBER #1: That's what I thought.
BANK MANAGER: Well, at first I was sure it was illegal to rob a bank, but now I see that I was wrong.
The issue is not oversight, it's abiding by the law, which requires this administration to contact the Supreme Court within 72 hours of a warrant-less surveillance. And I would like to know --
Well, that's one of the issues that's been addressed in the negotiations and in the discussion as the conference committee was moving forward. So I reject your characterization.
Um... uh... September 11! The terrorists want to strike us again! We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up! We will not comment on ongoing investigations! Look, a gorilla!
I would like to know why you're depicting this as politics --
Because that's what it is. Because we heard the Senate Democratic leader boast to his political supporters that Senate Democrats had "killed" the Patriot Act. Those were his words, not my words. Those were his words, because they're beholden to special interests. They want to undermine and weaken the Patriot Act. And the Patriot Act has been a vital tool to saving lives. And that's why the President looks forward to meeting with these U.S. Attorneys and hearing about how they have used the tools within the Patriot Act to disrupt plots and break up terrorist cells. And I cited three specific examples.
Let's break it down. What I'm asking you to understand is very simple.
- There are terrorists who want to attack this country.
- They are preparing to strike again as we speak.
- The Patriot Act will stop the terrorists and will not undermine any civil liberties.
- Republicans are brave, strong and courageous
- Republicans just want to stop the terrorists while respecting all civil liberties
- Democrats just want to make special interests happy even if that means that we all die in nuclear explosions
- Put this on, it will protect you from the ACLU's thought-control waves
What special interests?
Well, the ACLU was one that was mentioned earlier.
Those freedom-protecting bastards!
As Iraq moves forward, does the United States feel that naming Ahmed Chalabi as the oil minister is the right person for that job, given his credibility problems? His offices were raided --
It's not up to the United States; it's up to the Iraqi people to make those decisions, and it's up to their government that is elected by the Iraqi people to make those decisions.
And we had nothing to do with the fact that our golden boy -- who did everything in his power to help Bush lie us into the Iraq war in order to steal billions of dollars in oil revenues -- became oil minister. Total surprise to us.
Is the White House pleased with that announcement that he will be the oil minister?
We're pleased that Iraq is moving forward on democracy and building the foundations of peace for generations to come. It's vital to our national security interests that we succeed in Iraq, because it will help transform a dangerous region of the world.
We are just absolutely furious that we managed to install our corrupt ally in a position that is in charge of Iraq's oil and is in a perfect position to help us continue to steal oil from Iraq long after we're supposedly no longer there.