Well folks, it's time once again for another Scotty Show with Tony Snow! In this exciting episode, we'll examine the socio-economic impact of immigration on the United States with special interest paid to globalization and free trade agreements. We'll also examine the mounting political instability in the Middle East and try to establish a plan that will bring a viable solution to the historical conflicts between Israel and militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Just kidding. We're gonna swear a lot, use the middle finger a couple of times, and draw a crude picture of a cat like we always do. Sounds like fun, let's get to it.
As always:
Questions and comments from the press are italicized for her pleasure.
Scotty's Tony Snow'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.
Tony, one week ago the President said in the East Room that a missile launch, a test firing would be unacceptable.
It still is.
Somewhere in Pyongyang
ADVISOR: (bursting into room) I have urgent news, sir!
KIM JONG-IL: What is it?
ADVISOR: Pardon my interruption, Your Royal Batshittiness! But we have urgent news from the President of the United States of America!
KIM JONG-IL: My interest is piqued. Please continue.
ADVISOR: He says that firing our missiles is unacceptable.
KIM JONG-IL: The hell you say!
ADVISOR: No, really! I speak the truth!
KIM JONG-IL: Well then, don't just stand there! Contact the launch pad immediately! Tell them to disassemble the missile! (quietly) Thank you, George W. Bush. Your keen diplomatic skills have averted yet another nuclear catastrophe.
China is now, at least publicly, saying that they're not for harsh sanctions against North Korea saying that they fear that the regime could crumble and that causes a refugee problem for them.
Yes.
Maybe they should take a page out of the Minuteman handbook and construct a Wall to keep those immigrants out. A Great Wall. A -- oh, wait a minute. Never mind.
Barring China's support, what are the tools that you could punish North Korea --
Brett, there are many tools.
So many tools.
If I could follow, if the first test firing was unacceptable, what's the potential second test firing?
Well, look, we've had seven firings. They're all unacceptable, each and every one of them. Let's deal with that if and when it happens. I really -- it's one of these things.
Yeah... North Korea test firing missiles is just one of those things. It's unacceptable one time, it's unacceptable seven times, it's unacceptable eight times. You're really actually kind of boring me with it here. Wouldn't you rather talk about something more substantial? Like how liberals don't say "under God" when they recite the pledge? Hmmm? It's really easy to be outraged when a three-foot tall whackjob dictator is developing nuclear weapons and building missiles he hopes will reach the United States mainland, but where is that concern when two men are allowed to kiss in public? Huh? Answer THAT! I knew you wouldn't be able to. Fuckin' liberal media.
Remember -- poor Ivan, I was beating up on him last week for asking me hypothetical questions.
Yes, if there is one thing we must avoid, it is allowing members of the press to ask the President's Press Secretary how the President might react to foreseeable future events.
Three times, you said.
Well, I told you I was never going to answer your question. As it turned out, I never did. (Laughter.)
You know what's funny? When the Press Secretary of the United States -- whose $161,000 annual salary (plus benefits) is paid for with our tax dollars for the sole purpose of keeping the American people informed by answering the press's questions -- refuses to answer the press's questions. That makes me laugh all the time. Like this one time I was in a very quiet waiting room and then all of a sudden I thought, "The press secretary makes as much money as FOUR average American households and then gloats on television about how he refuses to do his damn job!" And then I laughed and laughed, because that is a very humorous thing.
But the fact is, let's see what happens. And if it comes to that eventuality, we'll give you a response.
And that response will be, "I'm not going to get into negotiations that are going on behind closed doors." Or maybe even, "I cannot discuss the options that are being weighed at this time."
But following on Ed, intelligence is indicating that they have other Taepodong-2s that potentially they could put up on the pad --
That is correct. Well, I don't know -- you may have more intelligence than I.
Well there's a safe bet.
Will the President have anything new and pithy to say on Larry King tonight in the prepared statement of sorts? And will he be returning to the White House from Chicago, or going to Camp David?
You mean is he going to say, thank you, Larry, and pull out a sheet and clear his throat and deliver a statement?
No, we mean he's going to say, "Thank you, Larry," and then repeat whatever Karl says into his earpiece.
Well, the President, although perhaps not as well-spoken as you, is capable of speaking --
Yes. No, he's not going to do a prepared statement. I mean, I think this is keyed off the President's birthday, and obviously, Larry will ask whatever he wants. But as somebody who had done interviews of this sort and been in the business, look, the last thing any interviewer wants is for somebody to come on and just recite stuff. And so you're going to have the President and the First Lady --
The President is capable of speaking? Prove it.
I didn't mean that -- sometimes a question is a means to come up with, if you will, a prepared answer. Even though it doesn't sound like one. I'm just asking --
Well, far be it for me -- I don't know. I don't have any clue.
Surely you jest! Are you saying that a member of the press would ask a question and receive a response that was prepared ahead of time? A talking point? Why, I never!
Do current military obligations in any way limit or restrict potential U.S. responses to North Korea?
Not that I'm aware of, but that's probably better posed to the Pentagon, which would have -- it's not a question that I can give you an informed answer to.
Well, shit, why start now with the informed answers? Just hit us with the same old uninformed answers we've come to know and love.
Tony, can you expand on the President's statement today that Kim Jong-il is going to be less of a threat, the more he is isolated? Some experts say that with a leader as unstable as he is, if he's backed to a wall, he could do just about anything.
Well, this gets into the tea leaf reading about is he sane or is he not, and I'm afraid I can't answer it. There is also this -- you've heard, Brett -- a lot of people think, well the theory -- and the Wall Street Journal has this as an editorial -- is that in the past, by behaving badly, he has received certain benefits and emoluments. The only thing I can say, again, is that if that's what he thinks, he's miscalculated in this case. But it is notoriously difficult to read his mind, and therefore, I really don't want to try to engage in scenario building based on that.
We cannot say if he is sane or not -- we can only go by what we know based on his correspondence with the President.
Obviously, anybody -- let me put it this way -- I think the President made the point is that you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Actually, recent history suggests that your plans are the worst, yet you irrationally expect the best.
Hamas has threatened to murder that 19-year-old Israeli corporal that they captured. In the event that they do and Israel retaliates by hanging one or more Hamas leaders, the President will not condemn Israel, will he, since murdering of nine confederate POWs by General Custer in 1864 was stopped by Colonel Mosbey's hanging eight of Custer's command? There is a precedent for stopping the murder of prisoners of war in the United States. If Israel follows that same thing, they will not be condemned by the President, will they?
I amend my characterization of your earlier question. (Laughter.) Why didn't you just -- you decided upon specific means of retaliation, Lester. (Laughter.)
Let me put that question a different way. If a cowboy eats a Big Mac during the War of 1812, but the Greeks captured Troy with Kung Fu skills, then does a kangaroo fire a musket in the Vietnam war? More to the point, would the President support shooting a Slurpee machine at a 7-11 in the French and Indian War? And would there be Hessians involved? Please, I must know the answer. This is on the minds of the American people, dammit!
On the New York ruling on same-sex marriage, does the President have a reaction to that?
Not that I'm aware of. And I have not heard any conversation about it, so we'll get back to you later on it. I mean, the President's position on marriage has been consistent and clear.
And that position on marriage has consistently and clearly been this: Missionary.
And this one, I don't know if anyone could answer this, but it seems outrageous -- I mean, I'm sorry Ken Lay died, sorry for his family, but I don't understand why the creditors can't somehow sue the estate, just because he died. There's nothing the White House can do to help those poor people out?
As I said yesterday also, when it comes to legal matters, the White House, we give duly constituted legal authorities who do their work, and we will allow the court system to process in whatever way, to probate the estate as it sees fit. I am not going to just --
Poor people? Excuse me... this White House has gone a full five and a half years doing nothing to help poor people out and we're sure as hell not going to start now.
When you hear from your allies on Capitol Hill and elsewhere who were in favor of the preemptive doctrine, and they are critical of the administration, they think the administration is not doing enough in terms of North Korea and Iran, essentially continuing the Clinton administration policy on North Korea, for instance -- what's your response? What do you tell them?
Well, this is not the Clinton administration policy. I understand what the Clinton administration wanted to do. They wanted to talk reason to the government of Pyongyang, and they engaged in bilateral conversations. And Bill Richardson went with flowers and chocolates, and he went with light-water nuclear reactors, and he went with promises of heavy oil, and a basketball signed by Michael Jordan, and many other inducements for the "Dear Leader" to try to agree not to develop nuclear weapons, and it failed. But there was, at least, a good-faith effort on the part of some very smart people to use that as an approach.
We've learned from that mistake. One reason not to go bilateral with the North Koreans is what we're seeing right now, which is that you need to have concerted pressure, especially from those who have very close and ongoing ties with the government of North Korea so that you can get results. So this is not a continuation of the Clinton program.
We have learned from Clinton's mistakes and have changed our ways, and now we are getting results with North Korea. That is why everything is going great regarding North Korea, if you don't count that they are developing nuclear weapons and test firing a whole bunch of medium and long-range missiles. Our strict policy against bringing foreign leaders autographed basketballs is really paying off.
Iraq's human rights minister has said that Iraq will ask the United Nations to end the immunity from local law for U.S. troops, and this is, of course, is following the charges being brought against six former and current soldiers for the rape-murder.
Right, understood. That again is a bilateral -- that is a matter of bilateral agreement or an ongoing agreement within Iraq and, obviously, that is something that people are going to be visiting in days ahead. Let me just say -- and this is an important point -- you will note that already military officials here in the United States are trying to get evidence in the case, and they are going to render indictments where they think they are appropriate, and they will go ahead and try to convict, and they will let the courts do their work. It is obvious that this is not a government that looks the other way when members of the military commit crimes.
Let me rephrase that. This is not a government that looks the other way when members of the military are CAUGHT committing crimes.
In the wake of the alleged atrocity at Mahmoudiya and all the others that we've been hearing about, are we taking any extraordinary measures to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world? Because the Arab media is all over this worse than we did before.
The Arab media are all over it. I think the thing you do, number one is, you bring to justice those who are guilty of breaking laws. And certainly this is not a government that condones rape, murder, or the abuse of human rights.
#cough# Abu Ghraib #cough#
The second thing you do is you stay the course.
That is the singularly worst motherfucking plan I have ever heard. This course has been an unmitigated fucking disaster and in no way should it be stayed. This course has wrought torture, the deaths of civilians, murder, rapes, civil unrest, staining of worldwide American reputation, ramped up nuclear threats, increased worldwide terrorism, the deaths of (as I write this) 2,543 US soldiers, and a partridge in a motherfucking pear tree. THAT's the course you want to stay, fucknut?
And you allow the government of Prime Minister Maliki to create a functioning and successful democracy. And over time, what happens is media stories that may be negative, slowly are not -- are not going to be able to turn the tide of developments that in the long run are going to provide prospects for peace, hope and prosperity for people who in the past have not had the kinds of blessings that we take for granted. That's how you do it.
Yeah, see, at some point we'll have a government that might be able to keep the electricity on for more than a couple hours per day, and that will surely outweigh all these other small concerns like American troops raping 14 year olds and shooting 6 year olds.
Will the President be urging Chancellor Merkel [of Germany] to get involved in this, to step up and do anything with this latest reaction from Iran?
Well, I mean, to the extent that you -- look, we welcome anybody's participation. We already have the EU-3 involved in this and certainly -- I think you're going to find out that the people who have already been involved in the negotiations are stepping up and they're working as aggressively as possible. I think you heard some signals of frustration on the part of our European allies on the non-answer they received yesterday from Mr. Larajani.
That was no non-answer from Iran. It was a very clear answer, and one which they have been giving for a while:
Of course, that was in response to the diplomacy Iran has received from Bush over the years:
Was the President frustrated, too?
No, the President doesn't give into frustration. To be frustrated is to waste your time stomping and fuming, and when you're President of the United States your chief objective is to get things done. So as the facts on the ground change, you try to figure out proper ways to get people working in concert to get the result you desire.
The President doesn't give into frustration because being frustrated about something implies that you give a flying rat fuck about it. For example, I had a friend in high school who was very frustrated because she didn't make the cut for cheerleading. I did not care to be a cheerleader; therefore I was not frustrated in the least about not being a cheerleader. Some European nations are frustrated about the Iran situation because they want to see a peaceful diplomatic solution. Bush is not so encumbered.
Response to the situation in Lebanon and the Israeli soldiers?
A couple of things. Number one, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers -- we saw this in Gaza, but also in Lebanon -- is simply unacceptable. And that the governments of Iran and Syria implicated in this; Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. We are hoping that the Lebanese government is going to be able to get control of the situation. But certainly Israel has the right to defend itself and it has assured us that it is trying to proceed us in a way as to avoid civilian casualties.
But the most important thing is we have another act of terror. In addition, as you know, they've been firing rockets into Israel from these areas of Lebanon, as well.
Wooooooooooooooooooo! Rapture, bitches!
So the U.S. isn't really troubled by Israelis going into Lebanon?
We believe that Israel has the right to protect itself.
The Jews and the Arabs will wipe each other out so that the Holy Lands are ready for the God of Christianity to return to Earth beam special people like me up into Heaven, while leaving the rest of the people on this planet to face nuclear apocalypse and a thousand years of pain, misery, famine, plague, drought, and death. Oh, and pestilence, too, whatever that means. And maybe locusts or something. But anyway, what's so troubling about that?
Fourteen months ago the President visited with President Putin in Russia. What's changed from then? Should President Bush still trust President Putin? We haven't had reforms that we'd like to see, some things haven't been done. What's changed in 14 months?
That's a gigantic question and it also happens to be unanswerable, but let me try to reshape it a little bit.
President Bush and President Putin still maintain a friendship. They also have made it clear that they have their own interests and that their chief obligation is to their publics. And so President Bush and President Putin I think have a very clear understanding of the ways in which they operate and how they can work together. And I think they're going to work very hard to get constructive results. I think it's important to President Putin to have a successful summit. We would like to help him have a successful summit.
But to try to encapsulate, oh, I don't know, in a gaggle what's gone on in the last 14 months is beyond my powers.
Bush looked him in his eyes and got a sense of his soul. And Bush didn't like his soul much anymore.
Maybe Pootie-Poot was wearing new colored contacts that made his soul look different. Maybe it was cataracts. Maybe it was a seething glare that said, "Bush, you are a fucking dunce and my KGB training provides me with 67 ways to kill you with my bare hands."
On Iraq, the sectarian violence there -- has the President had any conversations with Prime Minister Maliki or military folks about new ideas or ways to stabilize the situation?
He has been in conversations, obviously, in continuous conversations with officials in Iraq. He has not had a direct talk with Prime Minister Maliki in recent days. However, as you know, Zal Khalilzad, our ambassador, has been in Washington and we have been in close contact with the embassy. And General Casey is working with the government of Iraq and also with -- as you know, the defense and interior ministries have been called before parliament.
It's pretty much agreed upon that they need to find effective ways of going after people committing acts of terror, principally in Baghdad, but throughout the country. And that remains to be a top priority. General Casey is doing what he can to help the government put together a plan and an approach that will succeed.
Maliki, Khalizad, the Iraqi Embassy, General Casey, the government Iraq including the Defense Ministry, the Interior Ministry, and the entire Parliament have all gotten together to discuss the ongoing civil unrest and violence against Iraqis in Iraq and they have all finally come to an agreement, to wit:
- The sectarian violence is bad
- We should go after the people who are doing it
Holy shit, thank God we have this crack team addressing the situation.
Back on Jeff's question [regarding Russia]. Did you guys notice this pro-democracy meeting, that some people were arrested by Russian police, apparently --
Yes. We are, too, and we did see the press report and I know that Steve has been talking to the ground trying to get verification. We don't have details.
It is worth saying, and it's obviously one of the things the President wants to stress, is that we believe in the importance of developing civil institutions within a democracy, which is why the President wants to meet with representatives of civil society within Russia. It is important for people to be able to express themselves and to be able to be constructive members of a society. So we certainly understand the concerns.
Yeah, those arrests were total fucking bullshit. Aren't you glad that YOU live in a country that doesn't do that? Oh, wait.
Has the President ever had wild boar, as far as you know? Apparently that's going to be part of the barbecue in Germany.
No, nor do I know if he's going to be called upon to catch it. (Laughter.)
Meanwhile, as everyone at the German conference is starving to death, Bush makes a statement to the press:
"I don't know where the wild boar is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not my priority."