That's right, "THE SCOTTY SHOW! with Tony Snow" will not be seen today so that we can bring you a special presentation of "THE SCOTTY SHOW! with Tony Snow With Dana Perino in the Role of Tony Snow".
Okay, I know you're excited. You missed me a lot. It's understandab -- WHAT!? You DIDN'T miss me? It was mostly just the pictures of the cats that you missed? That's all right, I'll take it anyway.
A couple items of business... MySpace. Go there. Be my friend. All the cool kids are doing it. Secondly, stay tuned at the end for a very special public service bulletin.
And in case it's been so long that you've forgotten:
Reporters questions/comments italicized for her pleasure.
Dana's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
My comments are in plain text, which I'm sure means something suitably profound.
A few notes about the State of the Union address that is coming up next Tuesday, January 23rd, at 9:00 p.m. In his State of the Union address, President Bush will address big issues facing our nation, including the war on terror, energy, immigration and education. The State of the Union is an opportunity for the President to unveil a positive, comprehensive agenda that will improve the daily lives of the American people, and to explain how our actions in the world will make our nation safer and better.
And in keeping with the tradition he has established throughout his term in office, the president will ignore that opportunity in favor of blinking at the camera a lot and talking about switchgrass.
President Bush will outline issues where he believes we can find common ground with the new Congress. Both parties share many of the same goals for the people they serve.
For example, getting re-elected.
We can find practical ways to advance the American Dream and keep our nation safe without either party compromising on its principles.
This is particularly easy to do since "advancing the American Dream and keeping our nation safe" is a Democratic principle and the Republicans HAVE no principles.
President Bush will discuss his determination to defeat the terrorists who are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq. If the extremists prevail in Iraq, the American people will be less safe and our enemies will be emboldened and more lethal.
If only this war in Iraq had been avoidable, somehow!
The President realizes the strength of our economy requires to address some of the biggest issues facing the American people: greater energy security, comprehensive immigration reform, affordable health care and education reform.
And to be honest, the President is quite happy that those things are the Democratic Congress’s problem and not his.
You talked about seeking consensus with Congress. Speaker Pelosi said today that on Iraq, the President has dug a hole so deep that he can't even see the light. She says it's a historic blunder. Do you have any reaction to that? And given that statement, how do you reach a consensus?
Well, I think one of the things that's happening up on Capitol Hill is there is a sound bite war going on.
A war we have never, ever engaged in... you cut-and-run Defeatocrats who don’t want to stay the course and fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here.
For Pelosi to say, "The President knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources, that's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" is poisonous, and it's certainly not in keeping with the bipartisan spirit and civility that the Democrats pledged and that we looked forward to.
BUSH: Well, the Democrats are pledging that they will run the next Congress with bipartisan spirit and civility.
CHENEY: Yeah.
BUSH: That’s a lot of big words. What’s it mean?
CHENEY: Bipartisan spirit is where everybody agrees with whatever we say.
BUSH: Oh yeah, I like bipartisan spirit!
CHENEY: Civility is where even if you’re a murderous shitbag fucktard, everybody pretends that you’re not.
BUSH: Oh, I’m looking forward to that.
The President will again call for that in his State of the Union.
"My fellow Americans, the state of the union is slightly pissed off that you’re not agreeing with everything I say and pretending I’m not a murderous shitbag fucktard."
Speaker Pelosi was arguing, in essence, that the President is putting young men and women in harm's way for tactical political reasons, and she's questioning his motivations, rather than questioning his policies.
By the way, before anybody gets any stupid ideas -- don’t question his policies, either.
The one thing you can say about President Bush is that he's not moving forward with this new plan because he thinks it is popular; he is doing it because he thinks it is right.
See, that’s where you’re wrong. There are a LOT of things you can say about President Bush. Most of them require a generous supply of expletives.
Has he contemplated the cost of what he thinks the number of people are going to die in this?
President Bush has talked about the sobering calculations of his decision and about the situation in Iraq and what is in the best interests of our country. Recent policies, plans that have been announced on Capitol Hill don't take into consideration the consequences of a Baghdad that would collapse -- that would certainly cause Iran to come in, feeding into the militias. You'd have the possible collapse of the government, the fracturing of the military, much for violence, entrenched radicalism and a recruitment for al Qaeda.
Yes, lots of American servicemen will die, but you’ve got to think about what might happen if we don’t send them. Iran would get involved in Iraq! There would be entrenched radicalism! A recruitment opportunity for al Qaeda! And much violence in Iraq! Clearly, we cannot allow this to happen.
Oh, we already did?
Well, then, never mind.
But if you're sending two brigades or seven brigades in, whatever it is, aren't you also going to cause more violence?
As the President said, it could get worse before it gets better, and he fully understands that. But we also believe that by securing Baghdad -- which you cannot ignore the situation in Baghdad; you must secure it, because if you don't, all of these other things I just mentioned could happen, and that's the way you go in to get to peace, and that's the way that you also, frankly, are going to get to the political and economic reforms that everyone says that they want to have.
"It could get worse before it gets better."
"It could get worse before it gets better."!!!!??????
THAT'S the awesome new Iraq strategy from the White House!????
THIS is what took weeks and weeks and weeks to come up with!!??
And by the fucking way... if it gets worse, does it become a cluster-clusterfuck or a double-clusterfuck or a cluster-fuck-fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck? I'm not sure on the usage and I want to be ready when it happens.
Given the way that you're talking here of Speaker Pelosi, it sounds like positions have hardened on both sides. I mean, how can there be any consensus?
Well, I think the President has made clear that he plans -- he is moving forward with his plan. He spent four months with an exhaustive review process that in many ways, as you all know, was a little bit in the open, because people were talking about different ideas. We also had the Iraq Study Group that came forward. His thought process was quite extensive. And what he wants to do, he wants to win.
SOMEWHERE IN DICK CHENEY’S UNDERGROUND BUNKER, TWO MONTHS AGO:
BUSH: Okay, the Democrats took both the House and the Senate.
CHENEY: That’s great fucking news.
RICE: What? Why?
BUSH: Because when we fuck things up even worse in Iraq, we can blame them.
CHENEY: Heh heh.
RICE: Brilliant. Well, we’re going to have to do something new though. The American people clearly want us to try a new strategy.
BUSH: Yeah, we fucked the last strategy up pretty good.
CHENEY: Heh heh.
RICE: Okay, let’s see... what have we tried already?
BUSH: We tried doing what we’re doing now with 138,000 troops. We have also tried doing what we’re doing now with 158,000 troops.
CHENEY: I’ve got it! Let’s try doing what we’re doing now, but instead of 138,000 troops or 158,000 troops... how about – wait for it – 152,000 troops!
RICE: I see no flaws whatsoever in that plan!
BUSH: It’s perfect.
CHENEY: Heh heh.
To say that this is only the President's war makes a mockery of the notion that when we are a nation at war we should all hang together. The President really hopes that in this time of an epic struggle against radical Islam that when we are facing an enemy that is determined to hurt us in Iraq and to hurt us here at home, that we can come together and be constructive. And if there are arguments about the policies, we welcome those, and the President has had no short of a number of both Republicans and Democrats who are -- many of them very skeptical.
And when I say, "We welcome arguments about the policies", what I mean is that you are an un-American terrorist sympathizer and also that Cuba is lovely this time of year.
To say that this is "poisonous" -- didn't you just escalate it by calling it "poisonous," if there's a war of words going on? Is this not an escalation just now?
I think that questioning the President's motivations and saying that he is sending troops into harm's way for political reasons was the one that -- I think she was being provocative in that statement this morning. And I don't think that just because -- I think that we should be able to defend the President's policy and his decision and his beliefs without necessarily calling that an escalation.
For those of you keeping score at home:
Defending president’s indefensible Iraq troop-increase policy: OKAY
Defending the troops who are being put in harm’s way by questioning president: POISONOUS.
But are you also suggesting that we should all rally behind the President, and if we don't, we're not --
Absolutely not. If there's a question about the President's policies, let's hear them. And the President has been hearing them. We've had numerous members of Congress into the White House in order to talk about his planning, the plans for the new way forward, but also, just as important, his decision-making process.
Of course I’m not suggesting that we should all rally behind the president, even though just a second ago I said something to the effect of:
"To say that this is only the President's war makes a mockery of the notion that when we are a nation at war we should all hang together."
-- Dana Perino
Twenty seconds ago
Is it unfair for Democrats to refer to is as the President's war, if many lawmakers no longer support the war?
I think the point I'm trying to make is that we are a nation at war.
BREAKING!!!!!!! We are a nation at war! Point well made, Dana!
The Attorney General said something interesting yesterday, that at the Justice Department, every day is September 12th. And I think that is true across the federal government. And that is not a partisan issue. We are all facing an enemy that is determined to hurt us anywhere that they possibly can, whether it be in Iraq or here in the United States or at our embassies and such around the world. And so it is something that we are all facing together.
I’m sorry, were you criticizing this administration? You’ll have to excuse me, I’m just subbing for someone today – let me just refer to the Press Secretary’s Desk Reference here... C-R-I... ah, here it is.
Criticism of the President:
(1) Invoke September 11, repeatedly if necessary.
(2) Point out that Bad People want to hurt us.
(3) Ignore original criticism.
The President has nothing but the utmost respect for people that have disagreements with him.
BULLSHIT!
He's been very honest,
Double-BULLSHIT!
and he understands that his decision is not popular. But he has the courage of his convictions, and he believes what he is doing is right.
courage of convictions, n.
What you have when you are going to do something idiotic and everybody but you knows it's idiotic, and they all tell you it's idiotic, but you do it anyway.
On the list of what you called promising nuggets this morning, you mentioned the Iraqis taking a harder look at their relationship with Iran. Can you flesh that out a little bit? What specifically -- and how do Talabani's comments fit into that new look at Iran?
I confess that -- I actually read that in the newspaper. So I saw the reports on it. I haven't dug deep into talking to the National Security Council to get further detail on it. But we can see if we can get you more.
So you're walking into a room full of newspaper reporters, and you basically tell them about things you read in the newspaper? WTF?
AND NOW FOR AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!
Are you a total fucking retard? Do you have problems staying upright on a bicycle? Do you fall off of objects that are specifically engineered to not fall over? Do you bust your face in by choking on a pretzel? Then you're in luck! We may have a job opportunity for you!
Now, there can only be one president at a time, and that position is already filled at the moment. But several other positions for total fucking morons have just opened up!
Do you think that this is the face of a trustworthy man?
Are you so completely and totally moronic, ignorant, apathetic, or delusional that you do not recognize this administration's Iraq policy for the complete, total, and utter clusterfuck that it truly is?
In a town full to the brim with politics and journalism, are you so totally ignorant of both that you do not already have an opinion about one of the biggest cases involving politics and journalism in recent memory?
Then CONGRATULATIONS!
We want YOU to be a juror for the Lewis "Scooter" Libby CIA leak trial! Jury selection has already been completed; however, over the course of the trial it is highly likely that several jurors and/or alternates will stick their tongue into a box of exposed electrical wires or something, and that means there will be an opening for YOU!
Please do your part for the country and register for the Emergency Scooter Libby Jury Alternate Program today!