In today's exciting episode of THE SCOTTY SHOW! Dana shows her incredible sense of empathy for the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, learns how email works, and explains how Democrats and a large majority of this country are unreasonable for wanting to leave that clusterfuck we commonly refer to as Iraq.
As always:
Press comments and questions are italicized for EVERYONE'S pleasure.
Dana's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
My comments are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.
Good afternoon. I have several announcements and then we'll go to questions. The President was made aware of the Virginia Tech shootings. He was horrified and his immediate reaction was one of deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims, themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident. And his thoughts and prayers are with them; we are monitoring the situation. And while state and local authorities are in the lead right now -- I think that will remain the case, but federal assets are available should they be needed, if Virginia were to request them.
On Iraq, this is the 70th day since the President requested emergency funding for our troops.
Virginia Tech, yeah yeah yeah. Deep concern, yada yada, thoughts and prayers, blah blah, but now that that's out of the way, let me tell you my bullshit Iraq talking points.
In Russia, we are deeply disturbed by the heavy-handed manner in which this weekend's demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg were broken up by the authorities, and by an emerging pattern of use of excessive force by the authorities in reaction to similar events. We also find it intolerable that journalists were detained -- an unacceptable practice that hinders freedom of the press. We underscore that allowing peaceful expressions of protest is an essential element of democracy and a universally recognized human right.
To Russia, we have only the following seven words: "hand-picked crowds and free-speech zones". What is it, fucking amateur hour in Moscow? We don't have these kinds of problems here because we have the threat of secret police and secret prisons hanging over our citizens' heads... we learned that shit from YOU, Russia! Come on!
In Nigeria, the United States takes seriously reports of voting irregularities and election-related violence during this past weekend's state and local elections. We would urge that officials address any problems in order to ensure that Saturday's presidential election, that those polls are free and fair and conducted in an atmosphere free of violence.
As always, we remain the world's champions of free and fair elections devoid of any voting irregularities.
The Attorney General released a copy of the remarks he'll be making before Congress tomorrow. Has the President read these remarks, and is he satisfied that they're detailed enough about the pattern of decision making?
I don't know if the President has read the remarks, but he does believe that the Justice Department and the Attorney General, at his direction, have been fully responsive to Congress and that there will be a hearing tomorrow, and then the AG can continue to answer questions from the members.
Holy shit, there IS a pattern emerging!
So were they submitted to the White House, or reviewed by the White House before they were released?
I don't believe so. At least I did not see them, and that was one thing I said I would check on from the gaggle, and I didn't have an opportunity. Just to let you know, the committee asked for the remarks -- or the testimony, 48 hours in advance, and I don't know if it was the Attorney General who first released them. But they asked for the remarks, and the Attorney General also had an op-ed in yesterday's paper, and I think that he's working very hard to make sure people have answers to the questions that they have.
Did we review his testimony? Fuck no, we WROTE his testimony.
Did the President read the op-ed?
I don't know.
Sort of. Bush requires all op-eds, testimony, and other important briefing documentation to be submitted in comic book form so that he may follow along. Here's an excerpt:
Dana, going back to Virginia Tech, what more does this White House think needs to be done as it relates to gun issues? The President says current laws need to be strengthened, anything beyond that -- you had a conference on school violence with guns -- what more needs to be done?
I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October -- October 10, 2006 -- a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America's heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration.
If only those ten-year-old Amish girls had been packing heat, that school shooting may never have happened.
As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting -- I don't want to say numbers because I know that they're still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.
Well this is very helpful. I think I'm ready to file my story with the wire services.
SHOOTING PEOPLE AGAINST LAW, SAYS WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a bold statement following the aftermath of the worst shooting rampage in US history, White House spokesperson Dana Perino reaffirmed that bringing a gun onto a college campus and opening fire on innocent, unsuspecting students and faculty is, in fact, against the law. "Certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting... would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for."
Americans across the country greeted the news with relief. "When I heard about the massacre, I was like, 'Isn't shooting an entire classroom full of innocent people against the law?'" says one CNN viewer. "I was glad to hear that the White House agreed with me on that point."
However, the White House was quick to defend the assailant's right to possess the weapons he used to kill over thirty people. "The President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms," said Perino yesterday. The President plans to travel to the Virginia Tech campus Tuesday afternoon, where there is an outside chance of him holding up a gun and shouting, "From my cold, dead hands!"
Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools -- that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?
The President -- as I said, April, if there are changes to the President's policy we will let you know. But we've had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
What we really need is LESS restrictions, not more. Universities, high schools, elementary schools, day care centers -- none of them will be safe until they are filled with guns. If, God forbid, someone opens fire in your child's preschool, do you want them to be defenseless? Of course not. That's why you tuck a 9mm into the waistband of their training pants every morning, like any responsible parent would.
Lastly, in Texas, if I'm correct, he passed legislation, no age restriction on possession of weapons, if I'm correct. Should there be some kind of federal age limit, as far as the President is concerned, raising the age for gun possession in this country?
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go back and look at what the record was in Texas. Maybe Ken Herman could tell us. We'll go to Ken next.
Well, I would just like to point out that the Constitution does not expressly state that a six-year-old cannot be a member of a well-regulated militia.
Dana, what is the outcome the President hopes to see at Wednesday's meeting on Iraq at the White House?
The President hopes to find out if the Democrats are going to be able to come together, resolve their differences, and stop being so unreasonable and come to him and say how they are going to pass a clean bill that can get to his desk that will fund the troops.
Does he expect them to give up on timetables?
I'm going to let them have a conversation on Wednesday, and I'll update you from there.
I wonder... if he expects into one hand and shits into the other, which will fill up quicker?
I guess a logical follow up to that question is, what is the President perhaps willing to compromise if the timetables have to be taken off the table?
The President was very clear today in his remarks of what he is for and what he will accept. What he will not accept is an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, a date for withdrawal that tells our enemies exactly when we're going to leave.
The president will accept nothing less than the Democrats obeying his will and doing his bidding.
He is not going to accept armchair quarterbacking from Capitol Hill on the generals who are in Baghdad and around Iraq trying to prosecute this war. And he is really disappointed that they had to include pork barrel spending in order to get this bill across the goal line.
Okay, so balls go over the finish line, and bills go across goal lines. I think I've got it now.
So it is the President who has a very principled stand, one that is consistent. And the Democrats don't have any agreement on their side. So, hopefully, they can come to agreement on their side. And if they come on Wednesday and they don't, we'll have to see where we go from there.
A majority of the House passed a bill for a timeline to leave Iraq.
A majority of the Senate passed a bill for a timeline to leave Iraq.
Opinion polls of Americans consistently show significant majorities favor a timeline to leave Iraq.
How's that for agreement?
Dana, General Sheehan, one of the names that's come up as a potential war czar, says the administration does not have an "agreed-upon strategic view" for Iraq. Do you buy that?
Well, first of all, I would take issue with the idea that he was a potential war czar. As Steve Hadley has said and as we have said, that no list of candidates has been narrowed down and no names have been sent to the President for consideration.
Here's our problem. We’re trying to put together a list of names for presidential consideration. But as soon as we write a name down, that person calls us, blows an airhorn into the phone, and then screams "FUCK YOU!" and hangs up.
What we are working on right now is implementation of a long, deliberative process of a policy that was created and announced by the President on January 10, 2007, and is being implemented right now by General David Petraeus. We are quite unified. And we are starting to see some small signs of success, despite the very real challenges and the violence that the enemy continues to perpetrate.
Small signs of success, like Parliaments blowing up and bridges getting bombed and falling into rivers.
Can you give us an update on the emails from the RNC side and the White House side? Last week we talked about the organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a figure of 5 million missing emails. You had mentioned in the gaggle you thought -- you would check with the Office of Administration and perhaps that wasn't correct.
Look, the left-wing group, CREW, came up with a number of 5 million. We don't know where they came up with that number. We've told you what we know, which is that we are aware that there could have been some emails that were not automatically archived because of a technical issue. And we have talked with the Office of Administration about that, and we're looking into those details. But given the complex nature of this issue, it might take us a little while to identify those. We do, however, know that most -- all of those emails should be available on backup tapes. And so we'll continue to look at it. This is separate from the RNC accounts, and as soon as we have more information, we'll provide it.
Don't worry, Dana, as soon as we saw that "Responsibility" and "Ethics" was part of the CREW acronym, we knew it was a left-leaning organization.
Are you confident they're on backup tapes, or you're still in that phase of investigating?
There should be, and we just want to make sure that there are all of them. And, remember, there's a huge amount of email that comes in and out of the White House. And it's quite a feat for the IT folks to be able to keep up with software upgrades and storage and the amount of -- just the amount of traffic that's coming in and out on emails. On any given year, I think I've read upwards of 50 million emails are sent and received, not to mention forwarded or copied or blind copied, or all of those different features that you can use with email. So it's a massive number.
Whoa, Dana, slow down with all that fancy technology talk.
Do you think that she has any clue that "forwarded or copied or blind copied" email is the same thing as "sent" email?
I think I know what happened.
DANA: All right, a lot of people were criticizing me for wondering where emails go when they are deleted. I know that you're kind of the Senate technology expert, so I was wondering if you could tutor me a little.
TED STEVENS: Absolutely. The first thing you need to know about email is that it is the same as regular mail except that instead of the mailman coming and putting it into your mailbox, email is carried by fairies through your electrical socket and into your computer's TV screen.
DANA: Wow, you're really smart about this. Let me write this down...
Dana, can I come back to the Gonzales testimony again? One of the things Senator Schumer said is that there's a lot of "I don't knows," and "don't remembers" in it. You've heard the testimony. Do you think that the Attorney General has been specific enough in how he has answered some of the questions about the --
I think that the Attorney General has been perfectly honest. And I do have to -- I think all of us have to remember that this was an issue that took place over now almost two-and-a-half years. And so if there are certain things that somebody can't specifically remember, I wouldn't consider that necessarily to be without -- outside the realm of possibility, and I think the Attorney General has been very honest and he looks forward to that hearing tomorrow.
Okay, most of this stuff happened within the last six months. I'm not sure if I like the fact that the top law enforcement officer in this country supposedly has the memory span of a fucking guppy.
You, Dana, we're quoted in yesterday's New York Times, with your 61-word announcement, beginning with, "The President has full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz." But the large Times headline above your quote was "the mounting storm on Wolfowitz," which The Washington Post headlined as "furor." And my question: Do you or the President believe that Mr. Wolfowitz has been libeled by these newspapers publishing details of his personal life?
Let me just reiterate for you that the President does have full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz. He has done a very good job at the World Bank, where they are working to lift people up out of poverty around the world. He's focused on Africa and other areas around the world that need the World Bank's attention. And the President continues to have confidence in him.
Yes, it's totally libel, except for the fact that his comb-licking ass is a highly visible public figure, that he erased the boundaries between his personal life and his public life when he gave his girlfriend (shudder) a huge pay raise, and because YOU CAN'T LIBEL SOMEONE WITH THE TRUTH, you fucking idiot.