Scott McClellan is back after wussing out and not having a press briefing on Friday (leaving that relatively boring gaggle to Trent Duffy).
As a quick aside, those wanting on a Scotty Show notification mailing list may send an email. Benefits of getting on the list:
- Name won't be sold, traded, gifted, or cursed
- Receive instant notification of new Scotty Show episodes
- Be on our "friend's list" when we take over the planet
- Be the envy of your neighborhood
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.
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to begin with a preview of tomorrow's remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars here in Washington, D.C.
The remarks tomorrow are part of a continuing -- well, I would say the remarks are part of continuing the dialogue the President initiated with the American people in December. In those series of speeches, as you recall, the President talked in greater detail about our strategy for victory in Iraq.
And don't even try to say that we don't have a strategy for victory in Iraq because we do and it's pretty and it has bullet points and it's on our web site and we just made it up and it has three prongs and it has an executive summary for if you need to achieve victory in Iraq but you're an executive and you're too busy to read the whole thing.
He gave a series of speeches in December that described the nature of the enemy we face
They are "very bad people".
our strategy to defeat them
"Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete."
and how we have adapted and learned from experience.
For example: when transporting prisoners to be tortured in secret CIA torture prisons, falsify the flight manifests. When discussing a plan to bomb a civilian news network, make sure to ensure the silence of the limey British bastards who took the transcript. When torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, think about banning flash photography. BONUS POINTS: Learn to pronounce "Abu Ghraib".
Tomorrow the President will also discuss what to expect in Iraq in 2006 in key areas. 2006 will be a time of more testing and sacrifice.
More death! More destruction! More torture camps! More melting the skin off children!
Scott, does the President think that it would be a good idea for Vice President Cheney to release his medical records to clear up any questions about his health?
Well, I think that the President believes that the Vice President's Office has, over the course of the last few years, provided the appropriate information regarding his health.
EXCLUSIVE!! Leaked page from Cheney's medical records:
So the appropriate information, you don't think it requires a more complete disclosure, like the President does, with a -- when he has his health, physical -- that he gives a pretty elaborate read-out?
I think the Vice President's Office takes the appropriate steps to provide information to the public about his health, and his doctors do, as well, through the Vice President's Office.
Since Cheney is an evil robot from the bowels of hell, his medical records are mostly irrelevant.
Can you tell us what the pre-existing foot condition is that the Vice President has?
Well, the Vice President's Office talked about that last week. And I'm sure if there's more information to share with you, they will do so.
It was an injury he obtained while listening to Toby Keith music and then trying to put his foot in the ass of the Statue of Liberty.
Do you think that the Vice President's Office should disclose what the foot condition is?
I think that they're appropriately taking steps to disclose information.
No, dammit! It is the position of this White House that it is none of your damn business what lame-ass fake reason we are using to kick Cheney to the curb and install Jeb as Vice President.
Scott, from this podium -- and the President in his remarks went out of his way to call on Congress to conduct dignified hearings for Judge Alito. And what's implicit in that is somehow that the attacks against Alito, the questions that have been raised prior to this hearing may veer toward the undignified. So what specifically is undignified about the discourse and the questions that have been raised about his record so far?
Well, I think you've seen there have been a lot of dishonest attacks and misrepresentations about Judge Alito, primarily from groups that are outside the mainstream. These are groups that want to inject partisan politics into our judiciary, and the President believes that our judiciary should be above partisan politics.
Look, it's like this: partisan politics should not be injected into our judiciary. Now all the president wants to do is to install a partisan Republican who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, make it illegal to be gay, give the president unlimited powers, and rape workers in favor of big business. Now the president just wants dignified hearings, by which he means "Shut the fuck up Democrats", and he just wants an up-or-down vote, by which he means "an Up vote".
[Y]ou just said that there have been partisan attacks, people are trying to bring political or partisan views into the confirmation process. What's undignified about that? I mean, in other words, it sounds like this is kind of a chilling effect that the President is attempting -- which is, don't try to rough this guy up, or else we're going to brand you as being somehow, you know, foul-mouthed senators.
No. In fact, the Senate has a very important role to play in confirmation hearings --
For example, they get to ask questions so long as they are not about any hot-button issues, and as long as they do not relate in any way to any particular legal case which are either pending or which the nominee might have to decide at some point in the future. That leaves many fascinating questions, such as, "What is your favorite food?" and "Wasn't Ronald Reagan a great man?" Then, after all that, they get to vote in favor of him. So they play an important role.
So what is undignified about the discourse?
It will provide an opportunity for a vigorous and healthy debate about our judiciary and the proper role of judges in our judicial system. And the President has simply said that he hopes that the hearings are respectful and civil and dignified.
HEY KIDS! It's The Scotty Show home game!
Here's how it works: Whenever someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, just answer by making a statement relating to one of the words in the question, while completely ignoring the question itself! It's easy! Let's try it now!
MOTHER: Have you cleaned your room today?
YOU: Today is January 10, 2006!!!
MOTHER: Yes, but are your clothes hung up in the closet?
YOU I have clothes which I wear for school and also clothes I play in. Plus, clothes for when I have to dress up.
MOTHER: I know that. Have you at least gotten your homework done?
YOU Homework is basically the same as schoolwork, but which is taken home. Sometimes it is assigned by the teacher for the express purpose of being done at home. Other times, it is just shit I didn't finish in school.
MOTHER: Hey! You can't say "shit"!!!
YOU Shit is one of the seven dirty words that you can't say on television, according to comedian George Carlin. The others are: fuck, piss, cock, cunt, motherfucker, and tits.
You're not responding to what has been undignified about the discourse so far.
Well, there are some that have tried to raise questions about his integrity. Judge Alito is someone of the highest integrity. He is someone who is widely respected by those who know him best -- not only for his judicial temperament, but for his integrity and his character. And the American Bar Association, in their unanimous -- they gave him its highest rating, unanimously well qualified to serve on the bench. And they said that -- in their language that the nominee, "meets the highest ethical standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."
And how dare they raise questions about his integrity. We have stated that he is someone of the highest integrity -- therefore the issue is closed and we will brook no dissent in the matter. Just because he was a proud member of a group that tried to exclude women and minorities from attending Princeton, and now he's all like, "What do you mean? A group to exclude women and minorities? Whatever could you be talking about? I don't recall that, and if I do recall that, I'm sure I wasn't involved, and if I was involved, that was a long time ago, and even if I hated women and minorities then I'm sure they deserved it," that doesn't mean that he lacks some amount of integrity.
Therefore that shouldn't be part of a hearing -- questions about his character and integrity should not be part of his hearing?
No, there are some groups that have --
Okay, you're clouding my responses here -- I have clearly stated that it's okay to include questions about character and integrity in this hearing as long as the question is something like, "Judge Alito, I think you have a lot of character and integrity. Wouldn't you agree with that assessment?"
You want to set parameters for what should and shouldn't be asked in his hearings; is that what the President is saying?
I'm just using -- no, that's what you're saying.
Am not, poopy-head!
I have two questions. One, you speak of a dialogue. It's not a two-way street when the President keeps promoting his own point of view on the war. It's not a dialogue, is it? And, also, the President --
I think you're ignoring the fact that the President has been sitting down with bipartisan members of Congress, he's been sitting down with former key administration officials from previous administrations and listening to their views, as well as talking about our strategy that's in place.
What more do you people WANT from us? Look, the president lied us into a war, okay? Now some of you mamby-pamby sissies are going to say that was bad. Get over it! That was 2003! This is 2006! And now the president is fist-fucking any chances that Iraq will not devolve into an enormous geopolitical nightmare.
So what do you want him to do about it? Fuck. I mean, he's already allowing Democrats to go and sit in the same room as him. IN THE VERY SAME ROOM! And they get to hear his strategy for victory. He sits down with them. It's cozy. They sip hot cocoa. Sometimes, there are pillow fights. It's effective.
But nothing hits home with him, in terms of the opposition.
No --
Okay, how can you expect any criticism to hit home with a man that is never wrong? You're being ridiculous now, Helen.
And, also, the President --
-- I encourage you to go back and look at exactly what he has said about the opposition. I think there's a difference between --
I think he has said something to the effect that they can go fuck themselves with a rusty barbeque fork, but I can get you the exact quote after the press briefing, if you'd like.
I thought he gave -- conceded that they had the right to dissent --
I imagine this may be one thing he touches on tomorrow. There's a difference between loyal opposition that has a different view, and those who are advocating a defeatist approach that sends the wrong message to our troops and the enemy.
No, Helen, you stupid whore. That's not what he conceded. He conceded that the opposition has the right to dissent AS LONG AS they dissent in a way which the president approves of. Let's look at the chart:
POSITIONS ON THE IRAQ WAR: A POCKET GUIDE
Bush's Position on the Iraq War:
We had to invade Iraq before there was a mushroom cloud in a major US city
We had to invade Iraq because they have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
We must invade Iraq because they had something to do with 9/11
We must invade Iraq because they provide support for al Qaeda
We must liberate Iraq from a man who kills and tortures Iraqi civilians
We must spread Democracy to the Middle East
Good American Position on the Iraq War
No matter what his reasons, President Bush was right to invade Iraq. The world is a better place now that Saddam is not the leader of Iraq, and the United States is a safer place. By fighting the war in Iraq, we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. We are bringing democracy to the Middle East and that will make this us all safer. We must stay the course, since bringing the troops home now would be cutting and running and would boost terrorist morale and make us less safe.
Approved Dissenter Position on the Iraq War
Although I initially disagreed with going to Iraq, I have to admit that the world is a better place now that Saddam is not the leader of Iraq, and the United States is a safer place. By fighting the war in Iraq, we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. We are bringing democracy to the Middle East and that will make this us all safer. We must stay the course, since bringing the troops home now would be cutting and running and would boost terrorist morale and make us less safe.
Terrorist-Sympathizing Anti-American Traitor Position on the Iraq War
Bush lied and manipulated intelligence to get us into war with Iraq in order to enrich himself and his oil buddies. Since we have gone into Iraq, it has been one long clusterfuck, killing entirely too many US troops and innocent Iraqi civilians while providing no discernable benefit to American security. Indeed, we are all less safe from terrorist attack than we were just four years ago.
We've had about two dozen American troops killed in Iraq in the past week. Doesn't that undercut your argument that progress is being made there?
No. In fact, the President talked about how, as the Iraqi people continue to move forward on the political process and continue to move forward on reconstructing their country, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists will do everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy.
Au contraire! The more American soldiers die, the more that just proves that we are winning!
Scott, when you talk about Iraq being an example for the region -- we have a crazy man in Iran who's ready to develop nuclear weapons and blow Israel up. We have --
I point out that that, as you said, "crazy man," that he does not represent the people in Iran. The people in Iran want to live in greater freedom, and we support their desire to live in greater freedom.
And if that sounds at all familiar it's because we said the same thing about Iraq.
I mean, in Saudi Arabia, they're exporting a very violent form of the Muslim religion, and they show no signs of stopping. Syria is -- you know, I've talked to Marines, Syria is shooting across their border at our Marines in Iraq. It seems like this good example has to happen sooner rather than later. I mean, what's the timetable for having a --
Two thousand five was a year of great advance for democracy in the world. The President began the year by -- in his inaugural address talking about the cause of freedom and the importance of supporting the advance of freedom. And we've even seen in the broader Middle East -- in Afghanistan, where democracy is taking hold, and they're continuing to make significant progress, and elections have been held. We've seen it in Lebanon, where the people there have rejected Syria's interference in their internal affairs. We see great progress being made. We see countries taking steps. They might just be small steps, but they are steps toward a more open and democratic system.
And what Iraq can do is help inspire reformers in places like Syria and Iran. Those who want to live in freedom, we believe -- the President believes very strongly that freedom is a universal right, that all people want to live in freedom. And it's up to those people to determine the type of democracy that meets their culture and their traditions. It won't be based on our own democratic system; it will reflect their own values and traditions and cultures. But there is important progress that has been made, and Iraq can serve as an example and help really transform what is a troubled region of the world.
Yes, Iraq is serving as an example that will really transform what is a troubled region of the world.
Insofar as the Iranian government appears now to be recruiting potential Shiite militants from Iraq and training them in Iran, what does the United States plan to do about Iraq?
I'm sorry, repeat that? Insofar as training of Iraqis?
There are reports now that the Iranians are training Iraqi Shiite militants in Iran and then shipping them back to Iraq to create violence. What does the administration --
I saw a report earlier today. I'm not in a position to verify the authenticity of those reports, but I think when you read those reports, it only further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran. The regime in Iran continues to move in the wrong direction of the rest of the Middle East. We've made it very clear that countries like Iran and Syria need to play a positive role when it comes to Iraq and they need to change their behavior, and they should not be interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq.
Well, at least SOMEONE is training Iraqi troops.
Two questions. One, in the past month or so, President has been making a number of encouraging statements on war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. The original war on terrorism started from al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And according to President Karzai, terrorism still -- or al Qaeda terrorists are still there and they are trying to destabilize the government. And also now, he made a statement yesterday that he's inviting al Qaeda leaders, including number two and Osama bin Laden, to come from hiding and reconcile. What do you --
Who is inviting?
I'm sorry, who? Osama? Karzai? Afghanistan? Are you making these words up? I've never heard of any of them.
President Karzai. He said, come out of hiding and reconcile. What do you -- what President has --
I haven't seen those comments. But Afghanistan is now an ally in the war on terrorism. We have a partner for peace in the broader Middle East. And that's what we're working to build in Iraq, as well, transforming that country into a democracy that will be a partner and an ally in the global war on terrorism.
We continue to go after the al Qaeda leaders. We have captured or brought to justice in other ways a number of top al Qaeda leaders. We continue to pursue others wherever they may be. And we work closely with the government of Afghanistan and others in the region to pursue those terrorists. And one thing that's important to note is that because of the progress that's been made in Afghanistan, on the political front and the security front, now our forces are able to spend more of their energies and focus looking at where those terrorists are and going after them.
NATO is playing more and more of a role within the security of Afghanistan -- that was discussed last week at some length. And so that enables us -- much like in Iraq, too, as Iraqi security forces step forward -- to focus our efforts on going after the terrorists and preventing them from carrying out attacks, and bringing them to justice. There's a lot of operations we've undertaken in both countries to do so, and there have been great successes, many of those you don't often hear about.
Okay, first of all, you need to understand that Afghanistan is soooooo 2002. Get with the times. Second of all, we cannot be bothered with going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan when we are trying to fight a war on terror. We must focus on fighting the people responsible for September 11 -- the insurgents in Iraq!
Scott, what is the President's reaction to Congressman DeLay's stepping down for good as House majority leader?
We respect Congressman DeLay's decision. This was a decision where, clearly, he was putting the interest of the American people, the Congress and the party first. Congressman DeLay is someone we have worked closely with, as well as other leaders in the House, to get things done for the American people and to build a safer and more prosperous America. And we respect his decision.
I think we can all agree that Congressman DeLay is incredibly, incredibly brave for stepping down as leader of the Republican party in the House of Representatives after being mixed up with Jack Abramoff's dirty money, bribery and kickbacks, circumventing election finance laws, and being indicted on money laundering conspiracy charges.
I think that's an example of moral courage that we can all aspire to.
Was there any signal sent from the White House?
No, this was Congressman DeLay's decision.
Yeah, we fired warning shots straight at him.
But, politically, was it the right move for DeLay to step down?
Well, this was his decision. We respect his decision.
We are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to get DeLay to step down.
Scott, on the Alito issue, the real concerns that senators have said are really very much in the mainstream. It's the issue of the checks and balances that have been built into this republic. You've got, on the one hand, a White House which is concerned with increasing and enhancing the powers of the presidency, as was indicated most clearly by Vice President Cheney and his comments in the Middle East on Plame. And then they're looking at Judge Alito, how that's going to affect the composition of the Supreme Court in terms of this particular issue: enhancing the powers of the presidency. And, obviously, in his public record, he has made some specific statements to that regard.
Relating specifically to executive authority. Some have taken it and misrepresented it beyond that.
Okay, the fact that we have picked a nominee for Supreme Court Justice that wants to basically decommission the Legislative Branch of this country and turn this retard into Emperor for Life is not a concern that is very much in the mainstream. Let's go to the chart:
Well, there is a concern that there is a move towards an imperial presidency in which the Congress, again, does not, because of the two other branches ganging up to change the nature of the game with regard to the powers of the presidency, then kind of puts Congress in a much different position. And this is --
I don't know the concern you base it on. There may be a relatively small number of some on one side of the fence that have those concerns.
I personally cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would have a problem with the judicial branch and the executive branch teaming up to basically eliminate the legislative branch and then giving all of the power to the president who then pretty much would have to answer to no one. What kind of crazy-ass left-wing moonbat would have a problem with such a proposition?
Scott, back to the Vice President, does the latest health problem that he has had, does that not give the President any concern about the Vice President's ability to complete his duties --
The Vice President is a very valuable member of this team. He's doing a great job for the American people, and the President looks forward to continuing to work with him to get things done on their behalf.
He'll be gone by March.
Do you know of any other time in American history when a President has supported for reelection to his former governorship of a man who is running against his Press Secretary's mother -- (laughter) -- and does he expect you to go with him to Texas when he campaigns for Governor Rick Perry against your mother? (Laughter.)
I always enjoy spending time in Texas with the President -- and my mother. (Laughter.)
There are many benefits to being the president's press secretary as he helps someone campaign against my mother. For example, if I say that "Carole Keeton Strayhorn does not represent the values of Texas", she can't just say, "OH YEAH!? Well, your MOTHER!" like other people do. Also, unlike most supporters of campaigns we run against, hers can't call me a "son of a bitch".
You're going to campaign against your mother?
No, look, of course not, Les. (Laughter.) I already addressed that question last week. She has my full support. She is someone who --
She has your full support?
She is someone who cares deeply about the state of Texas. I've made that very clear.
My mother has my full support all the way up until the time that I have to stand at this podium and say, "How the hell is Carole Strayhorn supposed to lead the great state of Texas when she could not even spawn any offspring who was not a total waste of human flesh?"
Scott, is there a particular reason why the Vice President's foot condition is a secret?
I think that if you look back, his health -- his doctors and others have discussed his health situation over the last few years. So I don't know that I would agree with the characterization.
His doctors have discussed his health situation, including his heart problems, over the last few years. Now they are refusing to talk about a FOOT problem. You are not supposed to find this weird. Nothing to see here. Please move on.
But we can't find out from you what the foot condition is, and apparently, not from the Vice President's Office, either.
The Vice President's Office is the appropriate place to ask those questions. I don't have more information on it than what they are providing.
This is top-secret double-classified information. Unlike, say, the identity of a covert CIA agent, for example.
After Les's question about your mother, this should be easy. (Laughter.) Given the fact that when the North Koreans broke through the seals on their nuclear program roughly three years ago this month, that there was no penalty that they suffered other than engaging in what's been three years of talks, what disincentive do you think that there is to the Iranians at this point to not participate in the kind of --
Well, kind of what I touched on, they further isolate themselves from the rest of the international community. A growing majority of the international community is making it clear to Iran that they expect them to come into compliance and abide by their agreements, and to negotiate in good faith about the way forward. Russia has been supportive of trying to provide some assistance to help move the negotiations forward, efforts that we have said could be helpful. And the Iranian regime only further isolates itself while it continues moving in that direction.
Well, it all depends. If Iran does not have any nuclear weapons right now, then they are in a shitload of trouble. We'll probably invade them. Right now there is some support for the United States among the young people in that country. We can fuck that up pretty quickly, I think, by bombing the living shit out of them. The Shias in Iran can create an insurgency similar to the Sunnis in Iraq, and the Shias in Iraq will probably help them out while the Kurds take advantage of the situation and immediately take control of a number of oil-rich cities in Northern Iraq, prompting Kurds in Turkey and other neighboring Middle Eastern countries to create an independent Kurdistan by taking a chunk out of Iraq and Turkey, prompting a civil war in Iraq and probably a regional war involving Iran and Turkey as well.
If they DO have nuclear weapons right now, then we will hold our breath and get really mad and jump up and down until our faces get red. Then, whoever ends up being the permanent Prime Minister in Israel will preemptively nuke the shit out of Iran, causing Iran to nuke the shit out of Israel, prompting a massive religious World War in the cradle of civilization, which will prompt Jesus to descend from heaven and Rapture up only the Evangelical Christians and Leave Behind all the other sinners to suffer for a thousand years of hell.
Of course, we're just guessing here.
But, Scott, you said the same thing three years ago, or the White House did, about the North Koreans when they did something extraordinarily similar, and further isolation does not seem to have greatly affected their lives.
Let me point out, when it comes to North Korea and the six-party talks, that there was an agreement on important principles at the last round of talks. Now we want to see progress made on moving forward on those principles. So we're working to confront both threats and both issues, and to move forward on them, working in a multi-lateral way.
And the Europeans have our full support in their efforts to negotiate a way forward and to resolve this in a diplomatic way. We continue to support that. If those negotiations run their course, and Iran does not act in good faith and does not come into compliance, then there is no other option for the international community but to look to the Security Council.
Okay, but North Korea actually HAS nukes, and they are crazy enough to use them. So, there's another difference.
Just a last one on DeLay. You say you respect his decision, and that he's clearly putting the interests of the party and American people first. The President has said there's a presumption of innocence -- actually he said a lot more than that about innocence. Why is it best for the party and the American people?
Well, this is a decision that Congressman DeLay made, and he spelled out his reasons for coming to that decision.
It almost brings a tear to your eye, the selfless sacrifice that Congressman DeLay made for the good of the country. I mean, just because he accepted bribes and was corrupt and laundered money and rigged elections and misappropriated Homeland Security resources for purely partisan political purposes and was indicted for conspiracy -- people want to act like he was a bad guy. And that's unfair.
Okay, everybody... well, that's it.
Well, almost.
See, some of you may have seen the approximately 822 diaries in the past 48 hours talking about how it's now against federal law to be anonymously annoying on the Internet.
Almost immediately after learning of this news, I got the following letter:
I'm not sure what to do about it. Ideas?