It's time again for a brand-new Scotty Show! And is it just me, or has he gotten a little... I don't know... HOSTILE... lately? Maybe someone told him about our little show.
If you're new to The Scotty Show or you just have a bad memory, here's how it works: We take the White House press briefing and we abridge it, then feed it to our state-of-the-art bullshit detector. After the briefing passes through the bullshit detector's colon, you're left with what you see below, using the following key for easy-reading:
Press corps comments and questions are italicized for her pleasure.
Scotty's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
Translations are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.
And now...
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to begin with a couple of opening comments. The President was pleased to learn earlier today that the American Bar Association has given his nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Judge Sam Alito, the organization's highest possible rating, a unanimous well-qualified.
Of course, "qualified" doesn't mean what it used to mean. For example, half the country thought that THIS guy:
was qualified to lead this country.
The ABA's stated criteria for its evaluation are integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. Leading Senate Democrats have said in the past that the ABA rating is the "gold standard" for evaluating judicial nominees. The ABA also gave a unanimous well-qualified rating to Chief Justice John Roberts before his hearings, which ultimately led to his confirmation as the Chief Justice. Judge Alito's confirmation hearings start next Monday, January 9th, and we look forward to a dignified and respectful hearing leading to an up or down vote by January 20th.
After that, we look forward to bloody metal coat hangers and a president with the Supreme Court authority to do whatever he likes, as long as he's a Republican.
When the President went to the Pentagon today, did he ask about the dropping of a bomb on a home, killing nine children and grandchildren, and so forth? I mean, is this how we go after the rebels?
The President talked about the update that he received at the Pentagon earlier today. And let me just back up, because, first of all, as I understand it from the military in Iraq, they have put out a statement saying they are looking at the facts surrounding this matter. Second of all, our military goes out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. They target the enemy. They target the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists who are seeking to kill innocent civilians and disrupt the transition to democracy. In terms of this individual matter, it's something that's being looked into in terms of the facts surrounding it.
We are targeting the enemy, but the enemy is everywhere.
Why did they do that --
I don't think that's an accurate characterization, first of all. The military has put out --
They didn't find any so-called terrorists.
The military has put out additional information and you need to look at what they've said. It's still being looked into. I encourage you to wait until the facts are learned.
Those were not innocent little children! Earlier in the day, US military intelligence observed those children behaving suspiciously. One of the children closed his eyes and initiated a countdown while the other children took cover in various hidden locations. At the end of his countdown, the first child went out on a seeking mission to see if he could locate the others. This was obviously preparation for some sort of operation against US troops and it is important we stop this activity before it begins.
How can you justify killing children and grandchildren at home?
Look at what took place in Iraq last month; successful elections, where you had nearly 70 percent of the voters turn out --
Let me ask you: Isn't 70 percent voter turnout worth this?
That has nothing to do with my question.
-- and if you look at the pictures from that election, the Iraqi people are determined to live in freedom. They want to chart their own future. And the President talked about that earlier today.
The Iraqi people are determined to live in freedom, and we'll do our part even if we have to bomb 500 preschools to help them achieve that goal.
-- bomb innocent families.
And it's the terrorists and Saddam loyalists who are going out killing innocent civilians. We saw that again today, with some suicide attacks on a funeral procession of Iraqi civilians.
I bet, when you think about apologies, and what they are used for, you might believe that bombing the living shit out of 9 innocent children would be one of those times where an apology might be a good idea. But then you wouldn't be a member of this administration! Because if you were a member of this administration, your response would be, "Terrorists kill innocent civilians, too! So what's the big friggin' deal?"
So why are we there --
I disagree strongly with your characterization of our military. They go out of the way to target the enemy --
It's like you're characterizing this military as one that was forced to go overseas and invade a country illegally for no damn good reason, and then had to follow orders that led to the bombing deaths of nine innocent children. And I have to disagree strongly with that characterization, because I have no soul.
I didn't say they did --
Well, your implication is certainly that.
I am through debating you on what you said. Instead, I shall now take issue with what you meant.
In this case, there have been several --
That's your implication. No, that's your implication.
I'm sorry, but I feel it is in my best interest at this point to act indignant and interrupt any time you try to complete a sentence. Whenever you complete a sentence, I go to my unhappy place.
That's not my implication. I'm telling you what --
Our military uses technology to target the enemy and avoid civilian casualties.
No, bitch, I and I alone will determine what your implications are. Furthermore, if you would do a little research over at the Pentagon, you would know that we use MAGIC bombs which only kill terrorists and Saddam loyalists, while leaving nearby innocent civilians totally unharmed.
A new Gallup Poll shows that 49 percent of the American public think most members of Congress are corrupt. Does the President agree?
The President believes it's important for elected officials to adhere to the highest ethical standards. I don't -- I haven't seen the poll that you're referencing, but it's important for all of us in elected office to adhere to the highest ethical standards.
Yes. Starting yesterday, the president began believing everything he sees in polls.
In light of the Abramoff deal, what's the President, or White House surrogates on his behalf doing to talk about lobby reform on the Hill?
Lobby reform?
Lobby reform? Pardon me while I spray strawberry milk out my nose.
Yes, lobbying reform.
I'll keep you posted if there's anything. In terms of what took place yesterday with Mr. Abramoff, I talked about that yesterday. He entered a plea where he acknowledged being involved in wrongdoing. It's a serious matter. It was outrageous what he was engaged in. And he needs to be held accountable, and he needs to be punished. And he's going to be punished. The Justice Department continues to investigate this matter. I'm not going to speculate beyond what has been acknowledged by Mr. Abramoff at this point. So let's let the investigation proceed.
We are shocked -- shocked I tell you -- to find corruption, vote buying, bribery, and kickbacks in this fine establishment.
Leaving aside the specifics of the Abramoff case, is the President concerned that there's a culture of favors --
Well, you're speculating based on facts that aren't known at this point.
Let's just say, for example, that oil companies didn't contribute $1.7 million to Bush just because they thought he would restore honor and dignity to the White House.
I'm not talking about Abramoff, I'm talking about the way business is done.
And I don't think you -- well, I just -- I'm not going to speculate regarding this ongoing investigation, but I don't think you can draw broad characterizations at this point based on what you know.
Even though you specifically said that you are not asking about the ongoing investigation, I am going to refuse to answer on the basis that I will not talk about ongoing investigations.
So he's happy with the way lobbyists do business with Congress?
No, you just said that. That's not what he said. He's made it very clear that -- and he spoke out when we had a congressman admit to wrongdoing just recently and talked about how unacceptable and outrageous that is. Elected officials must adhere to the highest ethical standards. And we'll continue to speak out about the importance of doing so. And it's up to those officials to make the right decisions.
Yes, elected officials should adhere to the highest ethical standards. Although we may have lied to get us to go to war, broken the law to spy on American citizens, stolen elections, bombed innocent women and children, and compromised the cover of a covert CIA agent, at least we did not accept money in order for favorable treatment toward particular organizations or companies. Oh wait, we did? Never mind then.
Scott, Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign, and the campaign has given back, like, $6,000. Why aren't they giving back more?
Well, you might want to talk to the RNC to get the specifics. That's my understanding, is that Mr. Abramoff and his wife, and a tribal interest that he represented had contributed that money. And this is keeping -- consistent with past practice of the campaign. If people are involved in wrongdoing, they return that money that that person contributed, or donate it to a specific charity. In this case, I understand that they're going to be donating that money to the American Heart Association.
The president says you can have the rest of that money when you pry it from his cold dead hands.
But you don't think the rest of the money that he brought in --
Are you suggesting that there are others that were involved in wrongdoing? If you want to bring that to my attention, and I'll refer it to the RNC.
I am certain that, despite being the key player in one of the biggest corruption scandals in recent history, Jack Abramoff solicited all the rest of that money completely legally and that it's all completely clean and on the up-and-up.
Well, I guess, the question is, though, since he raised the money and you don't know what was involved in raising that money, does that not put a taint or a cloud over it?
I think that it's keeping with past practice, and they took the appropriate step.
We've always accepted and kept dirty money. Why stop now?
The President's speech today at the Pentagon as far as terrorism and fighting terrorism is concerned, do you think that Osama bin Laden is still in -- is running the al Qaeda business?
I'm sorry, who?
I'm sorry, who?
Osama bin Laden. And where he is now? He is in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Iran? Where --
Well, if we knew exactly where he was, we would go and bring him to justice. He is someone we continue to pursue. We are making great progress on the war on terrorism.
We're making awesome progress in the war on terrorism.
- Let's see, there was that time that we caught Osama bin Laden, I think everybody remembers that. What? No? Never happened? Huh.
- Well, there was our exciting capture of Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban. No? He's still on the loose, too? Shit.
- Well, how about how terrorism dropped dramatically worldwide after we started our War on Terrorism? Really? Holy fuck, it more than tripled?
- Well, I think everybody can be proud of our success in Afghanistan! Countryside ruled by warlords? Hmm.
- Okay, but Iraq... everybody knows Iraq is going great -- 2,200 dead soldiers and a three-way ethnic civil war brewing?
Okay, but I'm pretty sure we captured al Qaeda's #3 guy like twenty-seven times, and I'd think that's got to count for something.
Scott, has the President offered his condolences to the miners and the families? Can you talk a little bit about what the government, the federal government is doing through the Mine Safety and Health Administration, on the investigation?
[...]In terms of the federal government, the Secretary of Labor, earlier today, announced that they will fully investigate this tragic -- this tragedy that occurred in West Virginia, and they will take steps to prevent something like this from happening again when they complete that investigation and learn more about what caused this to happen.
We are frankly puzzled by what could have caused this to happen. Could it be the roofs that tended to collapse without notice? Maybe the faulty or missing tunnel supports? Or perhaps the dangerous buildup of flammable methane gas and coal dust documented by investigators? Or was it one of the other 273 safety violations which the mine was cited for but which we did basically nothing about because we were too busy tonguing the underside of the mine industry's dick? The world might never know.
One of the relatives of the miners who were killed were saying this morning that President Bush has sent letters to the CEO of the mining company. Do you know if this is the case? And if it is, would you be able to find out for us what was in the letter?
That's the first I've heard of that. I'll be glad to take a look at it.
EXCLUSIVE LOOK AT THAT LETTER: SEE IT ONLY AT THE SCOTTY SHOW!
Scott, you said a few moments ago that you thought that if Abramoff had been to the White House it has only been a couple of times besides possible holiday receptions. How long do you think it will take to track down exactly when he was --
Oh, it's going to be long -- that's my understanding, just kind of an initial check, just -- there are probably a few staff-level meetings and that's about it --
It will take somewhere between a really long time and infinity for us to track that info down for you.
Scott, on the money Abramoff raised, there is evidence that he boasted to clients and others that by raising this money and his Pioneer status got him a certain connection here, that he was wired into the process. Is that the point of the Pioneer program? Do you want the money raised by someone who makes that claim?
Absolutely not. The President makes decisions based on what is right for the American people. And that's what he has always done, and that's what he'll continue to do. If someone thinks that money is coming in with strings attached, it doesn't get in the door.
I resent this notion that the president gave influence to measly Pioneers. That's what the "Ranger" status was for.
Do you want the money from someone who went out making that claim to people, saying, this money bought me influence?
Well, I think I indicated to you that in keeping with past practice, that the money that was contributed by Mr. Abramoff, his wife, and tribal interests that he represented is being donated to the American Heart Association. We think that's an appropriate step to take.
We donated $6,000 of that $100,000+ to charity. What the hell else do you expect of us?
What word do you get, specific word, what word does the President from the leadership in both houses as to what's going to happen [with the Patriot Act]?
Well, there are -- there is a minority of Senate Democrats that have been using obstructionist tactics to delay us from moving forward on renewal of the Patriot Act. The President has made it very clear that we cannot go without this vital law, even for a day. He wants to see it renewed, a majority of the House and Senate want to see it renewed, and it's time to get done. And we're going to continue working with them. They're out of session right now, but we're staying in contact with leaders, and we're going to work with them to get it done. It's set to expire on February 3rd, and that's why we need to act and make sure that it is renewed.
The Patriot Act is an important tool for this country. If we don't know who is checking out Cindy Sheehan's book "Not One More Mother's Son", then how in the hell are we supposed to be expected to know who to have disappeared by the CIA and the NSA? Huh?
Some of the opponents that are out there playing politics with this are busy chasing ghosts. We're out there chasing terrorists.
Okay. Secondly, to follow up -- because of the confusion about the NSA eavesdropping program, and I put myself in that confusion, can you just clarify, are you saying that the eavesdropping program that The New York Times published did not begin until the President signed a National Security directive? And on what date was that signed?
Well, are you talking about the NSA authorization that the President issued? As he indicated in his press conference, he did that in the weeks after the attacks of September 11th. It's an important tool that has helped us to prevent attacks here on the homeland. And that's why it's so important. But it's also one that is fully within our Constitution and our laws, and it's very limited in nature.
I believe you'll recall that the President was coronated as King For Life as soon as the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. And from then on he's been allowed to do anything he wants.
And let me just point out, because some articles try to say this is about domestic surveillance -- this is about detecting and preventing attacks. It's about looking at calls that involve someone overseas that is an al Qaeda member or affiliated with al Qaeda in some way. So it's important to make that very clear. This is about involving communications with known al Qaeda members or related terrorist organizations.
Like this particularly insidious al Qaeda group. Or those damn military families.
And I think the American people strongly support that, as has been indicated in some recent polls.
You know what polls indicate the American people DON'T strongly support?
It's still not clear to me, what have the consequences been, not only at the White House, but administration-wide, if you violate your ethics guidelines? I mean, I understand with the OFPP official, he was arrested so he resigned. Now, I presume that would mean, had he not resigned --
I think it depends on individual circumstances. You have to look at it case by case. If there are violations of ethic guidelines, there is appropriate action that we take.
We have a wide variety of things at our disposal that we can use for members of this administration who violate ethics guidelines. For one, we can publicly say that they are doing a good job and that we fully support them. Sometimes, that is enough. Other times, a promotion is in order. For those rare circumstances in which the ethics violation is particularly stunning, they may receive a Medal of Honor or a Medal of Freedom. Now -- keep in mind -- those are only for rare, special cases.
So what are the -- what is the appropriate action? Because it's my understanding there is no --
Well, I think it -- I think it depends on each case.
Let's take a look at our handy pocket chart:
HANDY ETHICS VIOLATIONS POCKET CHART
LYING TO PRESS: Gold star (Exception: S. McClellan. This is his job)
LYING TO SENATE: Promotion to Secretary of State
LYING TO UNITED NATIONS: Medal of Freedom (Exception: C. Powell. He wasn't a team player)
SAYING TORTURE IS OKAY: Promotion to Attorney General
CARRYING OUT TORTURE: Public Statements of Support From President
FABRICATING EVIDENCE TO LIE US INTO UNNECESSARY WAR: Medal of Freedom
Please keep this chart in your purse or wallet at all times.
Well, I'm only asking again because it's been two-and-a-half years since Valerie Plame's identity has been leaked --
Exactly. You're asking again because of a matter that we've indicated what our policy is on, and that's an ongoing matter.
UNEXPECTED ERROR IN FAULT x0029465: Plame invoked.
An unexpected error has occurred in this application. Please check to see if you have invoked the words "Plame" and/or "CIA leak investigation". If this is the first time you have seen this error, please exit all programs and reboot the Scotty.
We apologize for any inconvenience.
I'm asking outside the scope of the investigation. I'm asking about any ethics violations --
You just said you're asking in the context of that investigation.
Yeah! Let's go back to the transcript and shove that reporter's words right back in their face!
REPORTER: blah blah outside the scope of the investigation blah blah
SCOTTY: You just said you're asking in the context of that investigation.
Oops.
No, outside the scope of it. Mr. Fitzgerald is looking at criminal offenses under your document detailing violations of ethics. I'm asking --
That's why the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with investigation.
Wink wink. Nudge nudge.
So why hasn't the President taken any action against anyone within his administration who has acted unethically? Or are you saying everyone has acted ethically in relation to being involved in the --
Wait, wait, you're making a suggestion that I don't think you can back up. There has been action taken when people have violated ethic guidelines. And to suggest otherwise, I think, is ignoring facts. We just talked about one individual who has left the administration.
Yeah! That one guy! If that's not proof, nothing is!
He was arrested.
And he no longer works in the administration.
Yeah, as opposed to him working for the administration from HIS MOTHERFUCKING PRISON CELL.
Would he have been dismissed had he not resigned?
Go ahead, John.
Toss up. Either he would have been dismissed, or promoted to, like, Director of FEMA or something.
Want me to throw you a lifeline, or --
I don't need one. I'll be glad to talk about this if Paula wants to. Paula, I think, is just trying to grandstand on this issue, as she has previously.
Yeah, that dumb bitch Paula, always grandstanding about stupid shit like whether or not our public officials are acting ethically. And then being such a fucking pain in the ass about whether or not this administration will do anything to the various members of the administration who act unethically.
Oh, boy.
Rare Translation of Press Comment: Scott, you'd better start running, because I'm about to put my shoe up your ass sideways.