Hey folks! Did you miss me? I hope so, because the Scotty Show is coming back, although it will be a more limited run than before. I used to be able to post a Scotty Show every single time the dude had a press conference. I just don't have that kind of time anymore. However, starting with this Dubya Show, we will have weekly installments of the Scotty Show. I need your feedback though. Would you guys prefer a "Best of Scotty" type show, where we feature the best exchanges from all the press conferences in the past week, or just pick a good press conference from the previous week and do one whole press conference front-to-back?
As usual:
Press comments and questions are italicized for her pleasure.
Bush's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
Bullshit detector comments are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.
And be sure to stay tuned after the show for an important announcement!
Iraq's Interim Prime Minister said Sunday that violence is killing an average of 50 to 60 people a day, and that, "if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Do you agree with Mr. Allawi that Iraq has fallen into civil war?
I do not. There are other voices coming out of Iraq, by the way, other than Mr. Allawi -- who I know, by the way, and like, he's a good fellow. President Talabani has spoken. General Casey, the other day, was quite eloquent on the subject. Zal Khalilzad, who I talk to quite frequently. Listen, we all recognize that there is violence, that there's sectarian violence. But the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war...
Look, I've got a way to solve all of America's problems. It's called the "Look At Every Situation The Way George W. Bush Looks At Situations" Initiative. How does it work? I'm glad you asked!
But I see progress. I've heard people say, oh, he's just kind of optimistic for the sake of optimism.
Yeah, people are always going around saying, "Golly, that George W. Bush! He's just kind of optimistic for the sake of optimism. That rascal!" With all the wars and lying and spying and corruption and bad policies, the complaint that he's hearing is that he's just so danged optimistic. For the sake of being optimistic.
You describe Iran as a threat, yet, you're close to opening talks with them about Iraq. What would be the objective in these talks if they are not negotiations? And is there a risk of getting drawn into the nuclear issue?
...It is very important for the Iranians to understand that any relationship between Iraq and Iran will be negotiated between those two countries. Iraq is a sovereign government. They have a foreign policy. And when they get their unity government stepped up, they will be in charge of negotiating with the Iranians their foreign policy arrangement. And so this is a way for us to make it clear to them that -- about what's right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq.
Behold the awesome foreign policy of Republican administrations! Overthrow the popular, secular Prime Minister of Iran, install the Shah, watch Iran collapse into a fundamentalist Islamic regime, negotiate back-room deals with Iran over hostages, provide aid to Iraq to attack Iran, including weapons of mass destruction, use those same weapons of mass destruction as justification to invade Iraq, install a Shiite government friendly to Iran, and sit back and watch as Iran and Iraq align themselves into a powerful unit against the United States.
It's important for our citizens to understand that we have got to deal with this issue diplomatically now. And the reason why is because if the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could blackmail the world. If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate. This is a country that's walking away from international accords; they're not heading toward the international accords, they're not welcoming the international inspections -- or safeguards -- safeguard measures that they had agreed to.
Man, this sure is easy work for the speechwriters.
Helen. After that brilliant performance at the Grid Iron, I am -- (laughter.)
You're going to be sorry. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let me take it back. (Laughter.)
Please don't hurt me.
I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --
Yeah, don't you remember how the UN and Saddam Hussein and France and Russia and Germany and everyone in Congress and the American people were all like, "WAR! We want WAR! Give us some fucking war!" And I was all like, "No, guys... Come on. Let's be rational and just let the weapons inspectors do their jobs!" You don't remember that? Oh.
Everything --
Hold on for a second, please.
Shutupshutupshutupshutup... Cut her mike!
Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war.
1 - No president wants war.
2 - Saddam Hussein was the President of Iraq.
3 - Therefore, Saddam Hussein did not want war.
4 - We went to war with Iraq "pre-emptively".
5 - Pre-emptive war implies that the other party wants war.
6 - We have proven #3.
7 - Therefore, #4 is a lie.
8 - Therefore, we are dicks.
Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life.
Yeah, I remember September 11 very vividly. All the news channels all had the same story blazing across the screens. "BREAKING NEWS: We have just learned that killers can destroy innocent life. More shocking revelations to follow."
And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --
Let me make sure I've got this straight... fifteen Saudis, one Egyptian, 2 citizens of the United Arab Emerites, and one Lebanese, working for a terrorist organization run by a Saudi from somewhere in Afghanistan, crash planes into buildings in New York and Washington -- and that's your explanation for why you invaded Iraq? Seriously? Not that this is the first time I've heard this idiotic lie, but I am just stunned that it's still being repeated.
They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.
Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --
Wait... the Taliban was in Iraq? Seriously?
I'm talking about Iraq --
Helen, excuse me.
Pardon me, Helen, but you're interrupting my totally irrelevant bullshit point about how we went to war with Iraq because the Taliban harbored al Qaeda... um, in Afghanistan.
That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
George W. Bush -- where the "W" stands for WHAT THE FUCK.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm
They did.
disclose
They did.
or face serious consequences --
And we fucked their shit up anyway.
Um, I mean... er... No president wants war.
-- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors
Actually, we're the ones who kicked inspectors out.
when he chose not to disclose
Actually, he turned over a 11,807 page declaration and 12 CD-ROMs of data in 2002 in response to US demands, but that apparently wasn't good enough.
then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Really? Which part of the world? Madrid? London? BAGHDAD!?
Thank you.
You're welcome. (Laughter.) I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it. (Laughter.)
You know what always puts me in a jovial, joking kind of mood? Talking about illegal invasions.
Secretary Rumsfeld has said that if civil war should break out in Iraq, he's hopeful that Iraqi forces can handle it. If they can't, sir, are you willing to sacrifice American lives to keep Iraqis from killing one another?
I think the first step is to make sure a civil war doesn't break out. And that's why we're working with the leaders there in Baghdad to form a unity government. Obviously, if there is difficulty on the streets, the first line of defense for that difficulty will be the Iraqi forces, which have proved themselves in the face of potential sectarian violence, right after the bombing of the mosque in Samarra.
"Difficulty" on the streets. "Difficulty". Difficulty defined as:
The forces are -- part of our strategy for victory is to get the forces the skills and the tools and the training necessary to defend their own country, whether it be against Zarqawi and the killers, or whether it be those who are trying to spread sectarian violence. And they have proven themselves.
And so our position is, one, get a unity government formed, and secondly, prepare the Iraqi troops, and support Iraqi troops, if need be, to prevent sectarian violence from breaking out.
This is part of our ongoing mission known as "Operation: Every Chessboard Needs Pawns".
Mr. President, I'd like to ask you for your reaction on the latest insurgent attack in Baghdad: 17 police officers killed and a bunch of insurgents freed. I spent a fair amount of time in front of that hotel in Cleveland yesterday, talking to people about the war and saying you were there to talk optimistically. And one woman who said she voted for you, said, "You know what, he's losing me. We've been there too long; he's losing me." What do you say to her?
I say that I'm talking realistically to people. We have a plan for victory and it's important we achieve that plan. Democracy -- first of all, this is a global war on terror and Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Mr. Zarqawi and al Qaeda, the very same people that attacked the United States, have made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can plan, plot, and attack America again.
They can't do that from anywhere but Iraq? Really?
That's what they have said; that's their objective. I think it is very important to have a President who is realistic and listens to what the enemy says.
I may not listen to what you, the American people say about this war, but I'm damn sure going to listen to what al Qaeda wants me to do.
Secondly, I am confident -- I believe, I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. And that's important for the woman to understand.
What this total bitch needs to get through her head is that the lives and safety of our troops is directly dependent on my ability to accurately assess dangerous situations.
Good morning, sir. Mindful of the frustrations that many Americans are expressing to you, do you believe you need to make any adjustments in how you run the White House? Many of your senior staffers have been with you from the beginning. There are some in Washington who say --
Wait a minute, is this a personal attack launching over here?
No, that's called a "question". It's when someone asks you something. A personal attack would look something like this:
George, you are a total greasy bean of shit squeezed out of Ann Coulter's colon and dangling from the hairs in her ass crack.
Notice the difference there?
Some say they are tired and even tone-deaf, even within your party who say that maybe you need some changes. Would you benefit from any changes to your staff?
I've got a staff of people that have, first of all, placed their country above their self-interests. These are good, hardworking, decent people.
Whoa, where have we been keeping THOSE people? Maybe they could take over the jobs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove, Rice, and Chertoff. Fuck! Why haven't they told me that we've been keeping good, hardworking, decent people around here? I've been using these assclowns all this time.
And we've dealt with a lot. We've dealt with a lot. We've dealt with war
That I started.
we've dealt with recession
That I plunged us headfirst into.
we've dealt with scandal
Because nobody in this administration can be a decent, normal, honest, moral human being for half a fucking minute.
we've dealt with Katrina.
And fucked it up but good.
I mean, they had a lot on their plate. And I appreciate their performance and their hard work and they've got my confidence.
Heckuva Job, Administration Staff! Heckuva Job!
And I understand -- Washington is a great town for advice. I get a lot of it -- sometimes in private, from my friends, and sometimes in public. There are those who like to stand up and say to the President, here's what you ought to be doing. And I understand that. This isn't the first time during these five-and-a-half years that people have felt comfortable about standing up, telling me what to do. And that's okay. I take it all in and appreciate the spirit in which it's delivered, most of the time. But -- no, look, I'm satisfied with the people I've surrounded myself with. We've been a remarkably stable administration. And I think that's good for the country.
Note to Iraq:
Obviously, there's some times when government bureaucracies haven't responded the way we wanted them to. And like citizens, I don't like that at all. I mean, I think, for example, of the trailers sitting down in Arkansas. Like many citizens, they're wondering why they're down there. How come we got 11,000?
I think a lot of Americans would be surprised that there are ONLY 11,000 trailers in Arkansas.
Wait a minute... you mean... oh. FEMA trailers. Well, okay then.
So I've asked Chertoff to find out, what are you going to do with them? The taxpayers aren't interested in 11,000 trailers just sitting there; do something with them.
Note to Chertoff:
But aside from staff, Mr. President, are you listening to suggestions you bring somebody else into the White House, a wise man, a gray beard, some old-time Washington hand who can steady Congress if they're upset about things, Republicans in Congress?
I'm listening to all suggestions. I really am. I mean, I'm listening to Congress. We're bringing Congress down here all the time. And it's interesting to hear their observations. They -- they're, obviously, expressing concerns. It's an election year, after all. And it seems like history tends to repeat itself when you're in the White House. I can remember '02 before the elections, there was a certain nervousness. There was a lot of people in Congress who weren't sure I was going to make it in '04, and whether or not I'd drag the ticket down. So there's a certain unease as you head into an election year. I understand that.
Slight difference: In March of 2002, Bush's approval rating was 77%. Now, it's in the mid-30s.
My message to them is, please continue to give me advice and suggestions. And I take their advice seriously. But also remember we've got a positive agenda...
Where is this positive agenda, exactly?
...We're supporting our troops over the last 12 months.
By getting them killed and slashing their benefits and pay.
We've got two Supreme Court judges confirmed.
Who will dismantle a woman's right to choose and run roughshod over your civil rights.
We've got the Patriot Act reauthorized over the objections of the Democrat leadership in the Senate.
Total fucking disaster.
We got some tort reform passed.
So if our corporate friends fuck you over, you can't do anything about it.
We passed a budget that cut non-security discretionary spending.
In other words... "screwed over kids, students, the elderly, the sick, and the poor."
There's a series of -- we got an energy bill passed.
Financial windfalls for our friends.
We worked to get a lot of positive things done.
I'm still waiting for you to tell us about those things.
-- new guy? No new guy?
Well, I'm not going to announce it right now. Look, they've got some ideas that I like and some I don't like. Put it that way.
New guy. Totally.
You've said during your presidency that you don't pay that much attention to the polls, but --
Correct.
Yeah. It's been shown that 58% of Americans "strongly prefer" that their president doesn't pay attention to polls, and an additional 24% "somewhat prefer" it.
-- there is a handful that have come back, and they all say the exact same thing: A growing number of Americans are questioning the trustworthiness of you and this White House. Does that concern you?
I believe that my job is to go out and explain to people what's on my mind.
Damn. I want THAT job.
That's why I'm having this press conference, see. I'm telling you what's on my mind.
Okay, no. That would officially be the WORLD'S SHORTEST FUCKING PRESS CONFERENCE EVER:
Q Sir, could you please tell us what's on your mind?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Are your recorders on? Everybody ready? Here goes.
Ahem.
"DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR."
Okay, thank you all for coming.
END 11:13 A.M. EST
And what's on my mind is winning the war on terror. And I understand war creates concerns, Jim. Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of -- of uncertainty in the country. The person you talked to in Cleveland is uncertain about our ability to go forward. She's uncertain about whether or not we can succeed, and I understand that. War creates trauma, particularly when you're fighting an enemy that doesn't fight soldier-to-soldier, they fight by using IEDs to kill innocent people. That's what they use. That's the tool they use.
As opposed to, say, air strikes, smart bombs, unmanned drones, and shit like that.
And it creates a sense of concern amongst our people. And that makes sense, and I know that.
And one of the reasons why it's important for me to continue to speak out and explain why we have a strategy for victory, why we can succeed. And I'm going to say it again, if I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there. I wouldn't put those kids there. I meet with too many families who's lost a loved one to not be able to look them in the eye and say, we're doing the right thing. And we are doing the right thing. A democracy in Iraq is going to affect the neighborhood. A democracy in Iraq is going to inspire reformers in a part of the world that is desperate for reformation.
Yeah, all of those reformers in Middle Eastern dictatorships are all looking at Iraq right now and thinking, "Damn! That situation over in Iraq sure is a sweet deal! And to think... that could be US! Where can I sign up for a piece of THAT sweet action?"
Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don't -- I can understand -- don't view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don't see it that way. I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to impose their will on other countries.
Wow, I am super glad we don't know anybody like that.
The enemy has said that it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That's what they have said. And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow modern governments -- moderate governments -- in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don't, Jim. I take them really seriously.
That's because I'm the one SPOUTING this meaningless propaganda.
And I think everybody in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly. And so it's -- I've got to continue to speak as clearly as I possibly can about the consequences of success and the consequences of failure, and why I believe we can succeed.
That's setting the bar awful goddamn low, isn't?
You said you listen to members of Congress, and there have been growing calls from some of those members for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; also from his own former subordinates like U.S. Army Major General Paul Eaton, who described him in a recent editorial as "incompetent and tactically inept." Do you feel that personally you've ever gotten bad advice in the conduct of the war in Iraq? And do you believe Rumsfeld should resign?
No, I don't believe he should resign. I think he's done a fine job
Heckuva job, Rummy!
of not only conducting two battles, Afghanistan and Iraq, but also transforming our military, which has been a very difficult job inside the Pentagon.
Transforming the military:
Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy -- not just the war plan we executed in Iraq, but the war plans that have been executed throughout the history of warfare. In other words, the enemy changes tactics, and we've got to change tactics, too.
Every war plan looks good on paper? Let's see...
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say... no, that war plan doesn't look so hot on paper.
And no question that we've had to adjust our tactics on the ground. And perhaps the clearest example is in the training of Iraqi security forces. When we got into Iraq, we felt like we needed to train a security force that was capable for defending the country from an outside threat. And then it became apparent that the insurgents and Zarqawi were able to spread their poison and their violence in a ruthless way, and therefore, we had to make sure that the Iraqi forces were able to deal with the internal threat. And we adjusted our tactics and starting spending a lot more time getting the Iraqis up and running, and then embedding our troops with the Iraqis.
This is your example of changing your tactics? "We were training Iraqis... but then that tactic wasn't working so well, and we had to change things up. So we started training Iraqis. We are a versatile group of people, constantly changing and adapting."
And it has been a success. But no question about it, we missed sometime as we adjusted our tactics. We had to change our reconstruction strategy. We were -- we thought it made sense, initially, when we went in there to build big, grand projects, which turned out to be targets for the insurgents to blow up. And a better strategy was to be spending reconstruction money at the local level, so that local leaders committed to a peaceful and unified Iraq would benefit. In other words, people would see tangible benefits from an emerging democracy, and the leaders would be viewed as people helping to improve their lives.
And how has that been going for you?
Just after the 2004 election, you seemed to -- you claimed a really enviable balance of political capital and a strong mandate. Would you make that claim today? Do you still have that?
I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war.
That's been working pretty well, huh? You're still fucking up the war AND your poll numbers have dropped into the low 30s -- the lowest presidential approval ratings since... well, since your DAD.
Well, is that costing you elsewhere, then?
I don't think so. I just named 12 -- I just named an agenda that over the last 12 month was -- would be, I suspect, if looked at objectively, would say, well, they got a lot done.
"They got a lot done". You know who ELSE got a lot done? Stalin. Hitler. Pol Pot. Pinochet. Milosivech. "Getting a lot done" doesn't necessarily equal a Good Thing.
-- Social Security --
Wait a minute. Please no hand gestures. (Laughter.)
Here's a hand gesture:
Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?
I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship.
And that said, get ready for some needless partisanship.
And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
Yeah! Misrepresenting the Democratic position regarding this issue is my way of having an open and honest debate!
I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- "they" being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, "We killed the Patriot Act." And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have.
We can have that debate right after we have the debate about why the Republicans hate the Constitution and how Republicans want to spy on everybody's private phone calls, emails, library check-outs, purchases, etc. And maybe right after that we could throw in an open and honest debate about how the Republicans want your grandmother to live out of a shopping cart and eat dry cat food in order to pay for more bombs to drop on innocent civilians' weddings in Afghanistan.
You mentioned earlier that you were encouraged by some of the discussions going on over a unity government, over the last few days. Do you now have in mind a target date for forming the unity government and --
As soon as possible. Next question.
Gee, thanks for that rousing commentary on what kind of timeframe the American people can expect regarding what you yourself describe as a key component to winning in Iraq and averting a disastrous civil war clusterfuck there.
How much of a factor do you think that will be -- in turning around, or at least improving the situation in the public opinion?
Here in America?
No, I was wondering how you think this might affect your job approval ratings in fucking Kuala Lampur, dumbass.
Right.
That's a trick question, because you want to get me to talk about polls when I don't pay attention to polls.
And I'm going to keep repeating that bullshit lie, because a recent USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that a full two-thirds, or 67%, of Americans believe the president is "definitely lying" or "probably lying" about not paying attention to poll numbers.
At least that's -- after five-and-a-half years I was able to rout you out.
You are one wily, crafty son of a bitch, Mister President.
First of all, I have no idea whether or not a -- how Americans are going to react to a unity government. There will be a unity government formed, then there could be an attack the next day, and so it's hard for me to predict. I do know a unity government, though, is necessary for us to achieve our objective. I do know that the Iraqi people -- 11 million of them -- voted in an election in December, which was, like, four months ago.
I know math is hard. Especially when you're dealing with big numbers like... three and... four. But it was three months ago, moron.
Mr. President, in the upcoming elections I think many Republicans would tell you one of the big things they're worried about is the national debt, which was $5.7 trillion when you took office, and is now nearly $8.2 trillion, and Congress has just voted to raise it to $8.9 trillion. That would be a 58-percent increase. You've yet to veto a single bill, sir -- I assume that means you're satisfied with this.
No, I'm not satisfied with the rise of mandatory spending. As you know, the President doesn't have the -- doesn't veto mandatory spending increases. And mandatory spending increases are those increases in the budget caused by increases in spending on Medicare and Social Security. And that's why -- back to this man's question right here -- it's important for -- "this man" being Jim -- (laughter) -- sorry, Jim, I've got a lot on my mind these days. That's why it's important for us to modernize and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, in order to be able to deal with the increases in mandatory spending.
Secondly, in terms of discretionary spending, that part of the budget over which Congress has got some control, and over which the President can make suggestions -- we have suggested that the Congress fully fund the troops in harm's way. And they have, and for that the American people should be grateful.
Here's the problem with this. Those billions of dollars in so-called "Defense" spending mostly don't go to the troops at all. They go to Halliburton. They go to defense contractors who make guns and missiles and planes and tanks. The money gets poured into private mercenary companies. All in an unnecessary, elective war. But don't worry! We don't have to pay for it!
My kids do. And your kids do. And THEIR kids do.
Secondly, we suggested that Congress fund the reconstruction efforts for Katrina. They have spent now a little more than $100 billion, and I think that's money well-spent, a commitment that needed to be keep [sic].
How many "secondly"s is this guy gonna have?
Thirdly, we have said that other than security discretionary spending, that we ought to, last year, actually reduce the amount of discretionary spending, and were able to do so. Ever since I've been the President we have slowed the rate of growth of non-security discretionary spending and actually cut discretionary spending -- non-security discretionary spending. Last year I submitted a budget to the United States Congress. I would hope they would meet the targets of the budget that I submitted, in order to continue to make a commitment to the American people.
I should point out that when I say "non-security discretionary spending", I mean things like Food Stamps and Head Start and Housing Assistance and environmental protection and college tuition programs and Home Heating Assistance and other worthless shit like that.
But in terms of the debt, mandatory spending increases is driving a lot of that debt. And that's why it's important to get the reforms done.
Debt is when your expenses exceed your income. Spending is only half of the issue. The other half is income, which for the government comes in the form of taxation. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest motherfuckers on the planet did not help matters, asshole.
Thank you, sir. For the first time in years, interest rates are rising in the U.S., Europe and Japan at the same time. Is this a concern for you? And how much strain are higher interest rates placing on consumers and companies?
...You know, it's a myth in Washington, for Washington people to go around the country saying, well, we'll balance the budget, just let us raise taxes. That's not how Washington works. Washington works raising taxes and they figure out new ways to spend. There is a huge appetite for spending here. One way to help cure that appetite is to give me the line-item veto.
Basically what I'm saying is that I would like to be able to veto programs that I don't like (assistance for the poor) while leaving in shit that I DO like (abstinence education). Basically, if the earmark has a "D" after it's name, it gets cut. Only the "R"s will remain. I can save lots of money that way.
You mentioned vetoing a bill -- one reason why I haven't vetoed any appropriation bills is because they met the benchmarks we've set. They have -- on the discretionary spending, we've said, here is the budget, we've agreed to a number, and they met those numbers.
Now, sometimes I didn't -- I like the size of the pie, sometimes I didn't particularly like the slices within the pie.
Okay. The deficit is out of control. I say it's because of all the spending. I want a line-item veto to help pare down all the spending. In the very next sentence, I describe how Congress is meeting the budgeted numbers. Let me put it a different way: If the deficit is getting fat because of way too much fucking pie, then what is really solved by saying, "I like the size of the pie, but instead of apple, I think some of the slices should be cherry instead"?
Let's see here. They told me what to say.
"They told me what to say."
"They told me what to say."
"They told me what to say."
Mr. President, you've spoken about Iraq as being a beacon for democracy throughout the Middle East. Yet we've had troubles in Iraq and we've seen aggressiveness from Syria and Iran. Are you concerned that the Iraq experience is going to embolden authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and make it tougher to get democracy there?
There's no question that if we were to prematurely withdraw and the march to democracy were to fail, the al Qaeda would be emboldened; terrorist groups would be emboldened; the Islamo-fascists would be emboldened. No question about that.
Then here's the million-dollar question, genius: Why the fuck did we go?
I know that you didn't really answer this question when Helen asked you. But Iraq was secular and had no dealings with al Qaeda before we went in. And now look at them, dipshit.
The -- it's an interesting debate, isn't it, about whether or not this country of ours ought to work to spread liberty. It's -- I find it fascinating that -- to listen to the voices from around the world as to whether or not it is a noble purpose to spread liberty around the world. And it is a -- I think it's -- I think it's -- at least, my position is affected by my belief that there is universality when it comes to liberty. This isn't American liberty, this isn't America's possession. Liberty is universal. People desire to be free. And history has proven that democracies don't war.
Really? We don't? Really? Refresh my memory... What were we talking about a second ago? How we -- a democracy, supposedly -- started a war with another country for no good reason?
But how about the difficulty --
Excuse me a second, David. Excuse me for a second, please.
The -- that we ought to pursue liberty. We ought to not be worried about a foreign policy that encourages others to be free. That's why I said in my second inauguration address, the goal of this country ought to be to end tyranny in the 21st century. I meant it. For the sake of -- I said that for the sake of peace.
Now, what is your follow-up yell? (Laughter.)
I am an unbelievable dick.
I was wondering -- have the difficulties of the last three years made the job of those reformers more difficult?
Well, if the United States were to lose its nerve, it would certainly make the job of reformers more difficult. If people in Iran, for example, who desire to have a Iranian-style democracy, Iranian-style freedom, if they see us lose our nerve, it's likely to undermine their boldness and their desire.
That's not what he asked you, asshat!
What we're doing is difficult work. And one -- the interesting thing that's happening is, is that imagine an enemy that says we will kill innocent people because we're trying to encourage people to be free.
Wow! What a wild sort of science fiction concept that is! A country that says "we will kill innocent people because we're trying to encourage people to be free". I don't know if my limited imagination is turbo-charged enough to conjure such a concept.
What kind of mind-set is it of people who say, we must stop democracy? Democracy is based upon this kind of universal belief that people should be free. And yet, there are people willing to kill innocent life to stop it. To me, that ought to be a warning signal to people all around the world that the enemy we face is an enemy that ascribes to a vision that is dark and one that doesn't agree with the universal rights of men and women. As a matter of fact, when given a chance to govern or to have their parasitical government represent their views, they suppressed women and children. There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this.
And we all know that I do press conferences like this ALL THE TIME, because I consider them one of the most important aspects of a good democracy.
Sir, you said earlier today that you believe there's a plan for success; if you did not, you would pull the troops out. And so my question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution? Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there if they're caught in the cross-fire in a civil war? And can you say to the American people, assure them that there will come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
Bob, the decisions about our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create more of a problem than a solution -- than be a part of the solution.
Secondly, I've answered the question on civil war. Our job is to make sure the civil war doesn't happen. But there will be -- but if there is sectarian violence, it's the job of the Iraqi forces, with coalition help, to separate those sectarian forces.
Our job is to make sure the civil war doesn't happen. We will achieve that goal by just calling it "sectarian violence" instead.
Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
Those poor fuckers are gonna have to clean up a lot of my messes.
FUN INTERLUDE
Cannon.
Mr. President --
No, you're not Cannon. That's Cannon. You're Ken.
I'm such a raging dick that I will tell you what your own fucking name is.
Thank you, sir.
Sorry, Ken. You thought I said Cannon --
But I actually said "Gannon". Now where is that guy? He owes me an oil rubdown.
I thought you said Ken.
Mr. President, two years ago, Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco, heard your State of the Union address, went back to California, and began authorizing the marriage of gay men and lesbians. Thousands of people got married. The California courts later ruled he had overstepped his bounds. But they were -- we were left with these pictures of thousands of families getting married, and they had these children, thousands of children. Now, that might have changed the debate, but it didn't. In light of that, my question is, are you still confident that society's interest and the interest of those children in gay families are being met by government saying their parents can't marry?
Fuck those kids, man. Fuck having happy parents, in a loving marriage. If they're queer, fuck them.