Starting today, Tony Snow will be on a leave of absence to have a growth removed from his abdomen. With an eye on the fact that Tony is a cancer survivor, please join me in my sincere wishes for Tony to get well soon and return for the Scotty Show ass-kickings that he richly deserves. In the meantime, Tony's flunky Dana will be filling in for him. As we have seen in the past, Dana Perino is Tony Snow is Scott McClellan and therefore there is no reason that The Scotty Show cannot continue while Dana is at the podium.
If you’re new to this here’s how we run things. Tony Snow gives a press briefing to a group of trusting, doe-eyed "reporters". I then post the press briefing – edited, abridged, and full of mocking, profanity and crude pictures of kitties drawn in MS Paint. To make it more reader friendly, we follow this format:
Press questions and comments are italicized for her pleasure.
Tony Snow’s bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
My comments are in plain text, which I’m sure signifies something profound.
[Regarding the Iraq supplemental bill] Is the position still that there must be no strings attached, that all these -- the peanut storage and the rest of it -- need to be out of a bill like this?
Well, I've told you what our position is. And the President -- we have put out a supplemental -- I mean, a statement of administration policy. We think that this is inappropriate. What we want to do is to make sure that the funds have -- that our commanders have the funding and flexibility they need. That is the paramount consideration.
We adamantly oppose the storage of peanuts and will fight this abominable practice wherever we find it. We tried to warn you back in November – a vote for the Democrats is a vote in favor of evil peanut storage, but did you listen? No. Now our quest against peanut storage is a much more uphill climb. I hope you’re pleased with yourselves.
I'd like to ask you about the standoff between Congress and the White House on the testimony of aides. The Senate Judiciary Committee has now followed the lead of the House, and they have voted to authorize subpoenas. What now?
You'd have to ask Congress. I think what the House and Senate have both done is to go through the step of authorizing subpoenas but not issuing them. As I have mentioned before, the conversations, at least the readouts I've gotten from Fred Fielding, about his discussions with members of Congress, they've been respectful and collegial. And I have noted -- I think maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I've noted that there's been sort of a moderation in some of the rhetoric in the last 24 hours.
Well, do you remember that bus that we threw Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld under? It’s gassing up right now.
I think everybody realizes that the end product of this inquiry ought to be the truth. And we have offered a suggestion that we think allows everybody to get at the truth and to get all the answers.
But we’ll only talk to you in private. And we won’t swear that our answers are the truth. And you can’t record what we say. Holy shit, we just radiate innocence, don’t we?
The phone lines are still open, and at this point, I'm not aware of any conversations that Fred may have had. But we certainly are not averse to hearing from members of Congress, and, if nothing else, explaining more fully what our position is and why we think it's appropriate.
And our position is, specifically, that members of Congress can go fuck themselves with barbeque skewers.
If the phones lines are open, what are you willing to compromise on, in terms of your initial --
Well, this is -- this initial position is a significant compromise in this sense: We could have said no, we're not going to do it, we're not going to share White House deliberations, and we could have cited any number of legal precedents.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on just a damn minute. When I said "compromise", I meant that OTHER people can compromise.
What we have said instead is that we're going to help you assemble every document and every -- and make available every individual, both at the Justice Department and the White House, you need to hear from. And you'll be able to measure every single data point, every single communication. If you look at the letter Fred sent, it talks about every communication with Capitol Hill, with the Justice Department, with anybody on the outside. That enables you to put together a pretty extraordinary record and try to assemble the facts.
I’m certain that an agreeable compromise can be reached. You want us to testify, we will compromise and grant you an "interview". Sort of like football stars after the Superbowl. You want us to testify under oath, and we will compromise by not testifying under oath, because putting our hand on a Bible makes our flesh burn. You want us to agree to an official transcript, we will compromise by refusing to have an official transcript and failing to provide a logical or coherent reason for our refusal. I think everyone agrees – our level of compromise defies belief.
It sounded like there's a possibility for some compromise here between the White House and Capitol Hill.
No, we already -- we started with the compromise, and now we want to get members of Capitol Hill to join us.
And it’s time again for another exciting episode of:
APPLIED SCOTTY SHOW SCIENCE!
There will be times in your life when you are forced to negotiate in order to get things that you want. Whenever these instances arise, try to keep in mind the key tenet of Scotty Show Diplomacy: Diplomacy is the art of trying to fuck over the other guy and get everything you want. Let’s look at an example.
Weeks ago, you borrowed your neighbor’s Weed-Eater. He is now asking for it back. Having tried the Weed-Eater, you have discovered that you like it and would like to keep it. You must now enter negotiation with your neighbor.
NEIGHBOR: Hey, how’d that Weed-Eater work out for you?
YOU: Great! My yard is the best-looking one on the block now!
NEIGHBOR: Yeah, about that... I really need to get that Weed-Eater back from you.
YOU: I’d like to counter-offer! Instead of me giving you your Weed-Eater, I will instead keep it, and you will provide me gas for it periodically, as needed. Also, I am going to take your riding lawn mower. I’ll give you a pair of gardening shears in exchange. An Extremely Generous Offer, I think you’ll admit.
NEIGHBOR: Um, no, that’s the shittiest offer I’ve ever heard of, actually.
YOU: Are you saying that you’re unwilling to compromise here?
NEIGHBOR: Why should I compromise by giving away what is mine and getting nothing in return for it?
YOU: You get gardening shears!
Eventually, the idea is that the person you’re negotiating with will wear down and see that you’re not going to back down. At this point, hopefully they will just break down and give you what you want. However, sometimes people are just too stubborn for their own good.
This is why most experts on diplomacy agree that it’s important to open with at least one thing that you’re willing to compromise away.
NEIGHBOR: You want me to give you a Weed-Eater, a riding lawn mower, and gasoline in exchange for gardening shears!? Are you nuts?
YOU: All right, I won’t make you provide the gas. But this is my final offer.
NEIGHBOR: Fine...
The White House should now ease up on its position regarding the transcript, but will require the stenographer to sit next to a loud air conditioning unit. On the other side of the room. With earmuffs on.
You say you're open to compromise, and what way do you indicate --
No, I didn't. I didn't say we were open to compromise. I said, we opened with a compromise.
Our original position was that we be allowed to knife the Democrats on the Senate floor. After compromising, we reached the much more watered-down version that you see today. Democrats should be happy to take what we will give them. We simply cannot compromise any more than we already have.
And there's no further compromise from there? How is this not a showdown if you're not willing to compromise further?
Well, because -- well, wait a minute, the question we're asking is, will members -- the real question -- let me put it this way: Our goal is to make sure all the facts get out. Does our proposal allow all the facts to get out? The answer is, yes. Does our proposal enable Congress to get at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The answer is, yes. Will the American people be able to have an answer that indicates precisely what went on in making these decisions and be able to have confidence that they were appropriate, they were -- within the President's authority, they were the right thing to do? The answer is, yes.
You have to give Tony Snow some credit here. His job is much harder than it would be if Jeff Gannon was still around. I mean, poor Tony has to stand there at that podium and ask himself leading, bullshit questions. He is doing the job of not one, but TWO administration shills. That’s uniquely American, isn't it?
The cameras weren't on this morning. You came and said one of the big stumbling blocks is you don't want to see Karl Rove with his hand up in front of a bunch of cameras flashing.
You bet.
How about frog-marched? Is frog-marched okay?
They [the Justice Department witnesses] get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.
There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.
Well, yesterday Congress had oversight responsibilities.
What we think is possible is that we've come up with what we think is an amicable and respectful way to enable the House and Senate, in their oversight responsibilities, to get access to everything they need to understand fully the process that led to a decision to replace eight U.S. attorneys.
Why don't you run that "does not have oversight responsibility" line past the Senate at the impeachment trial? I think it will be a big hit.
Why haven't you moved on the transcript issue? This morning you were saying off-camera that you don't need an oath because if someone says something that's not true, they still could be prosecuted if they lie to Congress, essentially. If there's no transcript, what U.S. attorney can actually go through and see what they said, if there's no record?
I will let you -- you're asking a legal question that I would refer you either to the Department of Justice or to prosecutors, because they know the law. As you know, Ed, anybody who testifies before Congress, anybody that talks before Congress, is under an obligation to tell the truth, and if they don't, they're liable to legal punishment.
That's a good point, and we're hoping that no U.S. attorney can – or would want to. Prosecuting something like that is highly likely to lower your Bushie rating and I frankly don't think anyone wants that.
If they don't have a record of it, how would a U.S. attorney know how to prosecute it --
I'm not a prosecutor, but I think you'll find that plenty of prosecutors out there will tell you how to get a conviction without a transcript.
And when you find them, let them know that we see that ability as a "performance related problem".
-- dodging the oath because of the legal consequences?
We're dodging the oath because -- well, I'm not going to say we're dodging the oath, because that -- Yes, I know, kaboom, steel trap closes. No, it's -- this is not a notion of dodging. It's simply, we don't think it's appropriate.
When I adopted my daughter, I had to take an oath on two separate occasions. When my cousin's wife became a citizen of this country, she also had to raise her hand and take an oath. Jurors are required to take an oath to perform jury duty, doctors take an oath before practicing medicine, and schoolchildren are regularly expected to take an oath of allegiance to this country every morning in school. But you guys won't take an oath to testify to Congress about obstructing justice. So my question is as follows. What. The. Fuck. Makes. You. Lying. Motherfucking. Scumbags. So. Fucking. Special. ?
You used the word "avoid." There is an avoidance, it seems, of this administration to sit down and talk on the record, under oath, about critical issues.
What you're saying is that every time somebody wants to try to mount a charge you ought to be able to get hauled up and testify under oath, with a presumption of criminality, rather than a presumption of goodwill. I'm not going to buy that.
Every time the government mounts a charge against ME, they expect ME to testify under oath.
I also see that we've done away with that whole "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" nonsense, too.
Can you tell us, when did the Department of Justice brief you on the gap in the emails? Was it after or before --
I have actually not been briefed by the Department of Justice. And I would suggest -- No, I actually have not spoken directly with DOJ. But I'm glad you asked. You really need to ask them about it. The answer we have gotten is that the documents that have been provided are fully responsive to the request from Congress. But if you want a detailed answer, you really need to go there.
The detailed answer:
[W]ould it be helpful if the Attorney General came to this room or the Justice Department and actually just sat and took every question he could get?
You're going to have to ask the Attorney General how he -- I'm not speaking for the Attorney General, I'm speaking for the President.
Didn't you guys see the way he ran out of the room the LAST time he had a press conference? And he didn't even have to face a real press corps... just you guys. What are you, trying to make him cry or something?
We spoke with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Senate says there is no precedent for having an official of this nature come and speak to the Committee without a transcript. The House also says they can't find any precedent. Why should this case set a precedent?
Well, the fact is what they're trying to do is to establish their own set of precedents. What we're trying to do is to set a precedent for adult behavior in a way that is going to reflect well on a situation and offer an opportunity -- I don't think you're going to find any case where there has been no allegation of impropriety, no specific -- any specific allegation of impropriety, suddenly to say, we're going to offer up internal deliberations. But we're doing this because we know there are concerns on the Hill and we want to address them. I think that this is -- I'm not sure that there are any situations for which there is a precedent for this.
Oh, don't get all "precedent for adult behavior" with me, Mister Poopy-Head. I don't think that the guys threatening to take their ball and go home should be lecturing ANYONE about "adult behavior".
But, Tony, the idea of minutes goes back to the beginning of Western thought. Plato kept minutes on Socrates. What does Karl Rove have on Socrates?
Plato kept -- was that the case, or was it Aristotle who kept notes on Plato?
Inquiring minds want to know. This is Maimonides. Let's just start dropping philosophers' names. The fact is –
No, here's the point, is we've set up a situation in which we think members of Congress and staffers -- this is open to members and staff, who are able to take notes, and we also believe that writing goes back to the inception of Western civilization, and the ability -- I'm not sure that they had recordings or transcripts, but they did have writing. There was writing.
What does Karl Rove have on Socrates? Well, was Socrates ever beaten up by a girl with a George McGovern sticker on her bike? Aha! I thought not.
So you want everyone to come out with their own notes -- you know how often you challenge what we've said and what we've written down, that's how you want it to be recorded?
Let's please put this in perspective. Here's a decision made at the Department of Justice. Any documents, any deliberations, any key players, they're available. Now, if there are additional questions about White House involvement, as people say, any communication is going to be available, any. So as a consequence --
At this point, Tony Snow paused for a moment and then finished up his thought, saying, "Karl Rove licks my asshole. Karl Rove licks my asshole and I am a child sexual predator. Boys or girls, I don't care, as long as they are less than seven years old. Seven years old is my cut-off point. Furthermore, President Bush and I sometimes throw kittens out of the Marine One helicopter just to blow off steam."
[Y]ou say, if you want to support the troops, pass a different sort of bill. A majority of Americans, Tony, don't think that American sacrifice is worth this war. So how -- you could look at supporting the troops and be consistent with what the House bill does, which is to set a deadline to remove them. Why does the President -- if I can just finish -- why do you and this President have the corner on what it means to support the troops?
I think if you ask the troops, "Do you think it's supporting you if we are going to cut off your ability in two-and-a-half weeks to repair your tanks, to fix your fighting vehicles, to be able to have your reinforcements in, to have rotations? Do you think that constitutes support?" My guess is they'd say "No." I think this is a pretty simple case, when you start cutting people off in the middle of an engagement.
What if you ask the troops, "Do you think it's supporting you if we are going to send you into an unnecessary war, without proper weaponry, armored vehicles, bulletproof vests, and other equipment, leave you out on the battlefield and refuse to let you come home when your rotation is up, cut your hazard pay and make life difficult for your family at home, treat any injuries in dilapidated medical facilities, then send you back over for another tour of duty without the appropriate amount of stateside time and without adequate training?" My guess is they'd say no that.
What you're really asking is, I think -- and correct me if I paraphrase wrong -- a lot of people want us out. And, yes, I mean, we'd like to be out. But we need -- the fact is we want to leave when we have, in fact, succeeded in the mission. I think you'll find that the folks in the military agree with that, too.
What was the mission again?
MISSION: Find the weapons of mass destruction.
STATUS: After searching in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat, as well as (hilariously!) under Bush's desk in the White House, the weapons that threatened to unleash a mushroom cloud over New York City have yet to be located.
MISSION: Destroy terrorist havens.
STATUS: Terrorist recruitment up. Terrorists get to train on live American soldiers. Civilian deaths, Abu Ghraib, torture, etc. helping to create more terrorists every day.
MISSION: Bring Democracy to the people!
STATUS: Most Iraqis feel life was better under Saddam. Basic service needs not being met. Government widely seen as American puppet.
MISSION: Create stability in an unstable region.
STATUS: Iraq in a two-way civil war. May become three-way civil war. Iran growing more powerful in region. Israel threatening preemptive-strike against Iran. Scores of Iraqis killed every day. Turkey threatening if Kurds get uppity. Resources diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq allowed for resurgence in Taliban. Suicide bombings, sectarian violence, death squads (oh my).
So which of these missions has to be successful before our kids can come home?
Why is it that the President's stated desire to close Guantanamo Bay cannot be turned into some kind of plan of action?
Because there are legal constraints, and those are the things that the Attorney General had made clear in terms of the inadvisability of putting Guantanamo detainees on continental U.S. soil. We have tried as best we can to move those who are in Guantanamo either to their home nations, or nations where they are wanted for other trial or justice dispensation. But we also have laid down the benchmark that you also have to be able to assure that they're going to be treated humanely.
Very few countries want these people back, and, therefore, what you have to do is to work through a procedure where you do, in fact, bring them to justice. But the President made clear back in September that he would love to be able to shut it down, but unfortunately the circumstances do not presently permit.
We need to keep Guantanamo open so that administration officials have a place to spend the rest of their natural lives.
In a letter from the House Judiciary Committee, it said the -- this was the one yesterday -- "In the meantime, we ask that you ensure the preservation of relevant White House documents in defined in our March 9th letter." Should they have any concern about the preservation of documents from the White House?
No.
And please ignore the large document shredding truck that just pulled up to the White House service entrance.