This new Scotty is more aesthetically pleasing, yet there's definitely something missing. Male genitalia? Yes, that, and also brains. She's like the love child of Scotty's inability to sound convincing while lying, and Bush's inability to form a cogent thought. But that's how we like 'em over here at THE SCOTTY SHOW!
As you may know, THE SCOTTY SHOW! has been on hiatus for a while because I am trying to take over the world. Since I don't have the power to do this by arresting all the people who oppose me and charge them with treason, I have to do it the hard way. And it’s time consuming -- literally taking up tens of minutes out of my busy schedule. This time constraint hardly allows for the painstaking and time-consuming process of carefully detailing the exquisite graphics you've come to love and expect from THE SCOTTY SHOW! But sometimes, like today, I bribe you for your loyalty to the KE World Government by giving you another fine episode of THE SCOTTY SHOW!
And please join me in celebrating the election of new KY governor Steve Beshear, who’s exactly where I need him to be when my World Domination plans reach fruition.
For those of you unfamiliar with how this works, we take a Press Briefing or sometimes, a Press Gaggle ('cause it's funner to say), and then we mock it and draw kitties in MS Paint on it. And yes, that's a royal "we".
Press comments/questions are italicized for your pleasure.
Girl Scotty's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
My comments are in regular old' normal plain text, which probably means something profound.
And now, the show, already in progress:
Dana, the headcount is there is for the veto override this afternoon --
On the water bill?
No, on House Resolution 475, which states:
Whereas Wildcats pitcher Taryne Mowatt set a College World Series record for most innings pitched, and was named the Most Valuable Player of the qualifying tournament...
The president just vetoed the shit out of that resolution, but now the House and Senate are going to vote to overri--- YES, you ignorant tool, the water projects bill.
Yes, water resources bill. What is it -- what's the reaction to the first veto override on this President?
The President vetoed this bill because he felt it was fiscally irresponsible. The House passed a bill that was $14 billion; the Senate passed a bill that was $15 billion. And when they got together to work out their differences, they came out with a bill that's $23 billion. This is an authorization bill; not a penny goes out of the coiffures to pay for any projects. It is a chance for members of Congress, from all areas of the country, from both sides of the aisle to come forward with their ideas for what they think would be the best project.
And then, when members of Congress, from all areas of the country, and from both sides of the aisle, came forward with their ideas for what they thought would be the best project... we vetoed it.
One thing we know, the Corps of Engineers is stretched to the limits right now. Adding more projects to their schedule would mean spreading more money over more projects, ensuring that nothing gets done.
You know, Girl Scotty is right. The Army Corps of Engineers is just stretched too thin. There aren't enough people to do things like protect Louisiana and Mississippi from hurricanes, or restore wetlands in the Everglades or the New Orleans area. They're busy with other shit.
That's why the President vetoed the bill. We've anticipated the override and we expected it, and the President is fine with being overridden on this bill.
Yeah, the President strikes me as the kind of guy who is cool with 2/3 of Congress shoving Hurricane Katrina back up his ass.
Some Democrats are painting this as the first crack in the dam of overrides that they believe that they can muster.
Get it Dana? The first crack in the dam? You know, about the water projects bill? I crack myself up! Seriously folks, I'm here all week.
Well, we'll see about that. One thing that the President would like to do is make sure that he's on the right of the federal taxpayers, and that's what he's doing with this veto.
Yeah, he's way the fuck to the right of the federal taxpayers. That's why the federal taxpayers think he's a walking rectum.
I don't know if I would be proud, as a member of Congress, to be overriding the President in spending -- in authorizing spending worth billions of dollars of extra taxpayer dollars that would go to projects that won't necessarily get done for many, many years.
Yeah, this is a big problem for members of Congress. Just the other day, I overheard the mother of a member of Congress talking to one of her friends. Here is an exact transcript of what she said:
"Oh, that picture? That's just my son. He's a member of Congress, but we don't like to talk about it. It's shameful, really, the way that he authorized projects to restore wetlands in Florida and protect the Gulf Coast from another devastating hurricane. Whenever Congress is in session and he goes back to DC, I tell my grandkids that he's in Bolivia smuggling cocaine in condoms that he shoved up his asshole. It's better that way. I don't want them to live with the shame of knowing the truth."
Last thing. Democrats are saying that this is newfound fiscal responsibility, and that's the continued phrase that you hear.
Well, that's rich coming from the Democrats. I will tell you that this President, who held the line with budgets in the first administration -- and yes, he has increased the number of veto threats that he's put out since the Democrats have been in office and in the majority, but that's because they wanted to add new spending, new taxes, and fiscally irresponsible ways of paying for new programs that the President doesn't think is the right direction for this country. And that is why he has vetoed the bill. Anyone who thinks the President won't veto those bills I think has been proven wrong.
What is the direction that the president thinks is wrong? Forward.
Why is the President dodging a personal phone call to Musharraf?
The President has had his Secretary of State --
I'm asking you directly why doesn't he call him?
The President feels very strongly that President Musharraf knows exactly how he feels about the situation.
"Imposing martial law on your country? Dismissing the people on the Supreme Court you don't like? Hand-picking a new court that makes you president for five more years? Arresting people who disagree with you and charging them with treason? Rounding up and arresting thousands of lawyers? YOU LUCKY SON OF A BITCH."
That isn't the point.
It is the point.
Is not!
Is too!
Dana, does the White House believe that Musharraf is now a dictator?
Look, I think that that is -- it's premature to say that.
Premature to say that?
This is a President who has worked closely with an ally in the war on terror, President Musharraf. We're doing two things with them: on the one hand, working cooperatively to take the fight to the enemy, to fight against terrorists; and on the other hand, trying to help President Musharraf and the other members of the Pakistani government to move along the path to democracy, because ultimately what's going to help solve this problem is a free society, a democratic society. And yes, President Musharraf, we believe, has made a mistake. We are gravely concerned about the situation. We are calling for an immediate return back to --
A mistake. Like, "Oops, I accidentally declared martial law and had political dissenters charged with treason. I meant to write a new law on marriages -- a marital law... things just got out of hand."
But wait a minute, why are you calling it a mistake? You seem to be giving Musharraf the benefit of the doubt.
We are calling for an immediate return to civilian rule, and we are in communication with them because we have a lot of cooperative interests. We have a broad relationship, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have very serious counterterrorism operations that are currently underway in Pakistan as well.
Basically, the United States policy is that a keystone of our nation's international counter-terrorism efforts are dependent on a military dictator who has nuclear weapons and shows every sign that his cheese had slid off his cracker. Wheee! Yay for fucking everything up beyond all recognition again!
Why did -- the First Lady was very clear in her op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about Burma, Myanmar, saying it's a military dictatorship; what they're doing is wrong. We're not hearing the First Lady, we're not hearing the President being that sharp either on Pakistan. Why do you seem to be giving Musharraf the --
And what you have heard -- what you have heard from the President and this administration is that we were made aware that this state of emergency could possibly be declared. We have averted it before, in trying to work cooperatively with President Musharraf. This time the President of Pakistan decided that this is the direction he wanted to go in. We disagree with it. We want him to return to civilian rule. We want the normalcy of the democracy to come back. We're in the early stages of this crisis, and it's going to evolve. We're assessing the situation, and we're reviewing our aid packages.
In all fairness, nobody has ever heard the president being all that sharp about Pakistan or anything else.
But why is it evolving? It's been days that he basically said, no more constitution, and we're going to round up political --
We have condemned the action. We have condemned the action. We cannot support any means that are happening outside of the constitution. And that's why we are calling for him to return to the constitution. But remember, this is a country that we want to see democracy. There is a way to get them back on that path. It would be in the best interests of not just the Pakistani people but for people like those of us in the United States, who want to work with an ally in order to fight against terrorists.
Did I say that the situation is evolving? Er, I meant that the situation is intelligently designing.
[Y]ou've outlined, again, the White House strategy of urging Pakistan to return down a democratic path, reviewing aid. But you also said yesterday that you shouldn't rush -- you shouldn't rush into a strong action.
I don't know if I said that.
Well let's hop in the Wayback Machine 3000 and find out.
I think it deserves a thorough review, a comprehensive review, and not something that we should rush -- in terms of any actions that we take -- if and when actions are taken...
I said that we have to be mindful to make sure that we do not undermine any of our counterterrorism efforts. We have -- the President has to protect the American people. Pakistan is a country where extremists try to take -- are trying to take hold and have a safe haven, and we had to deny them that. And working -- we have been working with the Pakistani government, through President Musharraf, for the past several years on that.
Well mission a-fucking-complished, then.
Agence France Presse reports thousands of illegal aliens coming into the U.S. every year could include terrorist spies and those with communicable diseases, largely due to the under-staffing and low morale among Border Patrol agents, according to our GAO report. And my question: How does the White House believe the morale can be improved with such agents as Ramos and Compean still in prison for doing what they believed was defending the nation's borders?
Wow, what is the question?
Duh, Dana. The question is, since everybody knows that Osama bin Laden assembled a crack undercover force of disease-carrying, brown-skinned terrorist spies to infiltrate the United States and pick our tomatoes and landscape our yards, why can't Border Patrol agents shoot them in the back if they flee?
Dana, when and how did the White House find out about the head of Immigration and Custom Enforcement's involvement with this incident involving an offensive costume at a government party?
I'm not exactly sure how different individuals were informed. I was informed this morning by Fran Townsend, who's the -- actually, I'm sorry, I heard about it earlier from somebody at the Department of Homeland Security who alerted us that this story was underway. Obviously we do not tolerate inappropriate behavior at the Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary has asked for an inquiry into the facts surrounding the incident, and once the facts have been determined we are sure that the department will take all necessary and appropriate actions. But then Fran Townsend did inform senior staff this morning.
What we want to know is, what's a little black-face and funny, funny jokes about racial disparity in the justice system between friends, anyway?
Do you think there should be disciplinary action? I mean, wouldn't you think that a person at this level of government would know better than to pose next to someone in a costume like that?
Since Secretary Chertoff, the head of the department, has asked for a review, I'm going to let that review take place and let him make any personnel decisions.
Hurray! The review will be conducted by Michael I-Don't-Know-Nothin'-Bout-No-Black-People-Dyin'-at-No-Convention-Center Chertoff.
***************
At 12:00 p.m. the President will attend Texans for Senator John Cornyn
This is a bold scientific experiment intended to discover whether it's possible to fill a room with people whose heads are filled with so much empty space that the room implodes in on itself and creates a giant, sucking black hole.
and then at 2:50 p.m. he will visit the Center for the Intrepid at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
"Yeah, you might be mad at me for sending you to Iraq for no good reason, but now that you're missing a leg, I can outrun you."
Then at 4:20 p.m. he makes a statement after that visit at that same center.
"Turns out, I cannot outrun a pissed-off veteran, even if he only has one leg."
At 5:25 p.m. he will do another event for Senator Cornyn, and then he will get to Texas, where he will remain for the weekend.
"And then he will get to Texas"? Don't the Texans for Cornyn have their events in Texas? Isn't San Antonio still in Texas?
Dana, have you ever looked at a map of Texas before?