It's time for an all new SCOTTY SHOW! And one of these days, we'll start getting into a routine, and these will come earlier in the week. So stay tuned for that. In the meantime, this might be shorter in length, but took the same amount of time as usual due to its graphic intensity.
Last week there was a lot of interest in Scotty Show t-shirts featuring that kitty, which has gotten totally out of control and has apparently become the Scotty Show MascotTM. I'm looking into possibly working something like that out via one of the online companies that specializes in that (possibly from dailykos's good friends over at Goodstorm).
Now without further ado... another Scotterrific Episode! As usual:
Press comments and questions are italicized for her pleasure.
Scotty's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
Bullshit detector comments are in plain text, which I'm sure means something suitably profound.
Scott, on immigration... the way this thing is shaping up, it seems like everybody is on the same page as far as establishing more secure borders and increasing enforcement in the interior. The bone of contention is going to be this temporary worker program. And it's entirely conceivable --
Well, it's not just -- I mean, there are issues on both sides of the political spectrum, and there are issues relating to amnesty, there are issues -- some that favor amnesty, some that don't. The President is firmly opposed to any sort of amnesty. But he does believe that we need to include a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers where Americans are not wanting to fill those jobs.
And why don't Americans want to fill those jobs? Because they're not willing to accept less than minimum wage to pick onions from your fields or to clean your mansion?
Many in the right-wing want to seal off the border from immigrants, who they say are in this country to "steal our jobs, drain our resources, rape and murder our womenfolk." On the left, many are concerned about the human rights and the exploitation of immigrants and the implications for labor. But never fear -- George W. Bush has a plan. He'll keep the immigrants in the country as <strike>indentured servant</strike> temporary guest workers, while virtually assuring their exploitation by American businesses and the depression of wages for everyone. He'll also interpret the anger on both the left and the right as proof of his Solomon-like wisdom.
In a follow up for -- from this morning's briefing, I said that the President was aware in the run-up to the war that there were no weapons -- no weapons -- unconventional weapons had been found, and you sort of denied that it was in the memo.
No, this morning you said that the President was aware there were no weapons of mass destruction. And that is not what that article spelled out.
Helen, you total un-American whore... just because the President knew that no unconventional weapons had been found, that does NOT mean that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction! Why can't you admit that it was POSSIBLE that Iraq, though economically battered by war and sanctions, might have developed ground-breaking cloaking device technology to hide his weapons of mass destruction? Is it not CONCEIVABLE that deep under the Mesopotamian sands of Iraq, there was a secret undetectable WMD bunker, fiercely guarded by an army of pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns? In this post-9/11 world, those are not risks we can afford to take!
This is what it -- the memo says: The President and Prime Minister acknowledge that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq in the run-up to the war.
Yes, let me remind you and take you back to that time period, because there was a U.N. weapons inspection team that was looking at these issues. And that team put out I think some sort of interim report back in December of '02, and that report showed that the regime was not coming clean. And we said at that time that the regime was continuing its pattern of non-cooperation and that if they continued --
Those dastardly Iraqis were defiantly non-cooperative when it came to helping us find weapons of mass destruction that weren't there! Clearly, war was the only option!
They also said they didn't find any weapons.
-- if they continued down that path, then we were prepared to use force. The President pursued a diplomatic solution. That's why we went to the United Nations. That's why we passed a 17th resolution that called on the regime to disclose or face serious consequences.
United States: If you have weapons of mass destruction, we are going to fuck your shit up!
Iraq: Well, we don't.
United States: Show us your weapons of mass destruction!
Iraq: We don't have any.
United States: Prove that you don't have any!
Iraq: How are we supposed to do that? You can't prove a negative.
United States: Aha! So you ADMIT that you can't prove that you don't have weapons of mass destruction!
Iraq: Um... I guess. But --
United States: Say no more! Now we are going to fuck your shit up. We told you to disclose or face serious consequences!
Iraq: Well, we could disclose 11,800 pages worth of documents showing we destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction that we DID have.
United States: (pretends to read 11,8000 pages of documents) You clearly did not account for the underground nuclear bunker guarded by pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns. Prepare to get your shit fucked up.
The memo says he wanted a war, basically that he was determined, and there were no weapons found.
No, Helen, that's not an accurate assessment, and you know it. Because you covered --
Damn it, Helen, you ignorant hag! Don't you remember when our glorious president uttered these famous words?
I'm a war peace president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war peace on my mind.
Meet the Press, February 8, 2004
Clearly, he did not want a war and was not determined to go down that path. And we will find the weapons soon enough, but it turns out that pixies are mean motherfuckers.
Is this memo wrong?
Well, you covered us at that time period. And let me remind you, go back to that time period, look at the public comments that were made, look at the numerous statements that were made by the President of the United States. We were continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution, but we recognized that it was necessary to prepare and plan accordingly in the event we would need to use force, and that's what we were doing at that time, as well.
But Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, and he continued to defy the international community -- even when he was given one final opportunity, or face serious consequences. So let's not rewrite history. It was very clear what was going on at the time.
Yeah, holy shit... let's not fucking rewrite history, okay?
I think we can all agree that it was very clear what was going on at the time.
Is this memo correct?
I don't -- I haven't seen that memo, Helen.
First off, let me just reiterate that I have basically been pulling answers totally out of my ass regarding a memo I claim to not have seen.
Secondly, Helen, I'm saying your name, Helen, which means I'm fucking pissed at you, Helen.
You haven't seen The New York Times' memo?
I've seen The New York Times.
HEY KIDS! It's time for another fun episode of "How One Word Can Really Change Shit" with your host, Scotty McClellan!
QUESTION: WHAT REALLY TURNS YOU ON?
"Honey, your body turns me on!"
VERSUS
"Honey, your sister's body turns me on!"
QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO ENGLAND?
"I have been to England."
VERSUS
"I have been to New England."
QUESTION: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANE?
"The plane crashed on the runway!"
VERSUS
"The plane almost crashed on the runway!"
Well, let me just follow on that. There's nothing in there that suggests that this is not an accurate reflection of a conversation that the President had with Prime Minister Blair, right?
Well, I think that our public and private comments are fully consistent.
Is that true? Let's check the dictionary!
Administration's public comments (ăd-mĭn'ĭ-strā'shəns pŭb'lĭk kŏm'ĕnts)
n.
Please see: Bullshit
Administration's private comments (ăd-mĭn'ĭ-strā'shəns prī'vĭt kŏm'ĕnts)
n.
Please see: Bullshit
consistent (kən-sĭs'tənt)
adj.
Remaining continually unchanged: changeless
I'll be damned! Scotty's right! Their public and private comments HAVE been consistent!
And therefore the guts of this appears to be accurate?
I don't know what you're talking about "guts" of. Let's be specific in what we're talking about.
You know... GUTS, asshole. Guts.
Well, comments made about the inevitability of war, the President's feeling about that at one --
Well, the President was making numerous public comments at the time, David. You covered those comments. The use of force was a last option, but we recognized that it was necessary --
Well, David, first off I'm going to say your name. David. That is my way of holding you liberal members of the media accountable for your highly biased questions against this administration. David.
Now, on to the "guts" of your question, if I can coin a term. Invading Iraq was a last option. As you can plainly see from the following declassified document.
We keep telling you, invading Iraq was our last option, but we had no other option but to invade them. What the fuck did you THINK we meant by that?
It was his mind frame, though.
-- to prepare and plan, and that's what we were doing at the time. And if you go and look at the public comments at the time, going back to late in the fall and winter period of 2002, on into 2003, we were making it very clear what the regime needed to do. And if it didn't do it, we were prepared to enforce the Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for serious consequences.
We made it very clear what they needed to do: Show us the bunker with the pixies and the unicorns and shit. They didn't do it. Bet they won't make THAT mistake again. This reminds me of a funny story. When my friend's little brother was three, his dad had lost his car keys. Couldn't find them anywhere. Knowing that the little brother had hidden them, the dad demanded that the keys be turned over, or there would be 'serious consequences.' The little brother said he didn't have them. My friend was going to search his brother, but his dad shouted, "NO!" really loudly. Then he pulled out a gun and shot the little brother in the forehead, killing him. Then a little while later -- this is the funny part -- his dad found the keys in his jeans pocket!
There was a moral to this story, ladies and gentlemen, and as soon as I remember what it -- oh yeah, I remember now. My friend's dad is a dick.
It didn't call for going to war.
Let me ask you a more fundamental question. The President -- according to this report of this memo -- said to Prime Minister Blair that he didn't expect that there would be any sectarian violence. That's obviously proven -- he was disproven. That is, in fact, the case that there is sectarian violence. Some worry about the prospects of civil war.
My question, though, is the President's judgments, this administration's judgments about the war that did not come to pass, that created a credibility problem with the American people with regard to how they view this war, does that not hurt the President when he now says, we need patience and we have to persevere.
First of all, you made a very long statement there, and I'm not accepting the premise of the beginning of your question that that's an accurate reflection of things. We've talked about what we anticipated and what we didn't anticipate and what we prepared for.
And don't just take my word for it. Just look at this highly sensitive leaked PowerPoint presentation!
And I think credibility is about doing what you say you're going to do. We did what we said we were going to do. Tyrants around the world know that we mean what we say, because we followed through on the resolution that was passed at the Security Council and held Saddam Hussein's regime to account. And he has been removed from power. The world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.
Which part of the world is better off with Saddam no longer in power? Not that Saddam was any kind of saint or anything, but since you're Mister Credibility today I thought that maybe you could explain that for me.
We are working to transform a troubled region of the world, and that goes directly to our own security.
Boy, he ain't lyin.
The Middle East has been a breeding ground for terrorism. We had a false sense of stability because of previous foreign policies of previous administrations. This President made the decision after September 11th that we were going to take a comprehensive approach to the war on terrorism, and that we were going to work to spread freedom.
Before you say anything else about Iraq, I just need to get one thing in. September 11. See? Wasn't that nice? Saddam 9/11. Terrorism Iraq. Iraq jihad Islam Saddam Iraq Muhammed. Anyway, I forget what you were saying.
You're getting off point.
No, it's very much on point.
And that point was, for those of you who have forgotten... Iraq Terrorism 9/11 Saddam Twin Towers Baghdad Iraq al Qaeda Hussein Iraq 9/11 Fateful Day WTC Saddam Muslims Suicide Bombers Iraq 9/11 Terrorism.
Scott, on Iraq, the Manning Memo also alleges that in this private meeting, the President told Prime Minister Blair that one option was to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Did the President really contemplate that as an option since it would be breaking U.S. law?
Ed, this was a meeting that took place back in January of 2003. Even if I knew exactly what was said in that meeting, I wouldn't get into discussing private conversations between world leaders like this. Again, I reiterate to you, the comments that we were making publicly and privately are fully consistent with one another.
Why I do declare! I cannot believe that you would even stoop to such a question, Ed, which is why I am calling you by your name in my answer to you, Ed! The notion that the president would ever, EVER break US law is -- I just... I can't even fathom it, Ed.
Is the President concerned that the explosion today in Tal Afar -- that's one of the places he highlighted last week where things were turning around, there were bright spots, some of the good news... [there were] at least 30 people dead, 30 more wounded outside a recruitment center.
I don't have all the facts surrounding that. I would also encourage you to -- if such an attack did take place there, look at what the motivations are. We know that the terrorists try to grab headlines, and that they target progress to try to gain attention and to try derail the transition to democracy. But I can't speak to this specific incident that just took place today. I don't know all the facts regarding that. I think that's best to direct to our military forces in Iraq.
Last week, Tal Afar was peaceful. It was proof of the progress that we have made in Iraq. This week, there was an explosion that killed at least 30 people. Since the terrorists are clearly trying to target the progress we've made and to derail the democracy that is blossoming in Iraq like a spring tulip. Truly, this explosion is just proof of the progress that we have made in Iraq. In fact, a dog cannot shit on a sidewalk in Tikrit without that dog's feces being proof of the progress that we have made in Iraq.
Two months before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas, laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, Senator Rick Santorum told the AP, if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex in your home, then you have the right to bigamy, incest, and adultery, you have the right to anything. And my question: Does the President disagree with this Republican Senator and will he ask the Justice Department to oppose the pro-polygamy lawsuit, Bronson vs. Swenson, or not?
Les, you might want to check with the Justice Department on what involvement they may have in any particular case. I don't know about --
Wait... if an adult man has consensual sex with another adult man, that's the moral equivalent of a father having sex with his daughter?
I want to know what the President -- does he agree with Santorum?
I think you've heard the President's views.
Depending on what day it is, not even Santorum agrees with Santorum.
ANOTHER FUN SCOTTY SHOW INTERLUDE!
Scott, is there no concern that having an amnesty program would be another incentive for another 11 million people --
This isn't -- this is not. The President specifically said that in his remarks. He said, this -- he is firmly opposed to any sort of amnesty. We're talking about a temporary worker program.
You will call our amnesty program the name given to it by our focus groups!
I'm sorry, I meant to say temporary worker --
Honest mistake, dude. Honest mistake.
Scott, does Josh Bolten have the authority, or will he have the authority, to make other personnel changes if he deems it necessary?
Sure, he'll have all the authority he needs to -- as Chief of Staff -- to make the decisions that he feels best, working with the President. Josh Bolten is someone who brings a lot of broad experience to the position. The President felt he was the best one to succeed Andy Card. Andy has done a great job. As the President talked about earlier, he has the highest admiration and respect for Andy, and appreciates the great job that he has done through some very historic and challenging times. We have accomplished much over the last five-and-a-half years. And now the President has tapped Josh Bolten to come into this position. Andy is not leaving until April 14th, so there will be a smooth transition period. Josh is certainly someone who knows the President well, knows his priorities, knows his philosophy. And the President looks forward to working with him in his new position as Chief of Staff.
But, I mean, I think that all of us here serve at the pleasure of the President. And that's important to keep in mind. But the President will look to Josh for his advice and counsel on management and staffing issues throughout the administration. But I think it's premature to try to speculate about what, if any, decisions might come.
Well, let's put it this way. My resume is on the fax machine autodialer as we speak.