McClellan Falsely Claims “We Are Doing Everything We Can To Protect Our Ports”
McClellan Falsely Claims “We Are Doing Everything We Can To Protect Our Ports”
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that right-wing members of the House of Representatives defeated an amendment by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately-needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. Today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked if the President was disappointed. Watch it:
McClellan claimed “we are doing everything we can to protect our ports.” That’s just not true. For example, one of the programs McClellan touted today – the Container Security Initiative – is only in operation at 43 of the 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States due to chronic underfunding. The Sabo amendment would have provided an additional $300 million in funding, enough to extend the program to all 140 ports.
Full Transcript:
QUESTION: Is the president disappointed that the House defeated the amendment yesterday that would have provided $1.25 [b]illion for port security and disaster preparedness funding?
MCCLELLAN: You’re talking about the Senate budget resolution?
QUESTION: No. I’m talking about the Sabo amendment in the House.
MCCLELLAN: In the House? Well, first of all, a couple things.
One, we have significantly increased funding for port security. Strengthening our port security or improving our port security has been a top priority for this president. And so we’ve taken a number of steps, particularly since September 11th, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to secure our ports.
We’ve moved forward on a Container Security Initiative. We have pushed out the screening of ports to make sure that we know what is coming in on ships when they’re coming into our ports, well before they arrive on our shores. And we have taken a number of steps to make sure that we are funding the Customs and Border Protection so that they can carry out their important security responsibilities at the ports — and the Coast Guard. And we want to continue working with Congress and continue building upon those efforts.
QUESTION: But would it be the president’s view that the $1.25 billion is not necessary; that, in fact, what you already have is what’s necessary?
MCCLELLAN: The president’s view is that we have taken a number of steps to better secure our ports, and we need to continue to work to build upon those efforts. And that’s exactly what we will continue doing.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Snotty Scotty McClelland is the worst liar in the world! Okay we all know who No 1 is.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmThe lies never stop.
Scott you are a disgusting douchebag!
The Bush Administration has no shame.
Who’s really surprised about this?
They continually tell us the that the sky is green and the grass is blue. Even if we all know it isn’t.
Sad, really.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pmBeam me up, Scotty, no intelligent life is
March 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pmapparent in this administratin.
Less than 5% of containers are currently
inspected.
C’mon, Scotty, admit it…the President won’t
support any billput forth by
Democrats. Your job is to lie to the American
people. Call black white & blue red.
Good job, Scotty.
Have you talked to Ari lately? He seems to have
finally found honest opinions about your boss.
He meant to say that “We are doing everything that we WANT to do to protect our ports.”
March 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSince Think Progress is in possession of this information, the question then becomes why haven’t any of our intrepid and resourceful journalists also been made aware of these facts so they could have shown McClellan that he has been less than forthcoming with the truth?
March 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pmEveryday, right after the gaggle, Scottie goes down and throws his big ass infront of the ports and protects them. So selfless, quit being so mean to him! ;-D
March 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pmEveryday, right after the gaggle, Scottie goes down and throws his big ass infront of the ports and protects them. So selfless, quit being so mean to him! ;-D
Comment by Zookeeper — March 17, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Hysterical. Scary, scary visual, but worth it for the laugh :)
March 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pmIn defense of McClellen, he is paid to put out whatever info the white house wants released to the press. It is not so much that he is a liar, it is his superiors who pull his strings who are liars. One of the facts that has to be faced about yesterdays port security vote, is that the bill lost by less then the number of votes of democrats who did not vote. Sad but true. Despite claims to the contrary the dems and repubs are the same party sometimes, they just like to pretend to be in opposition with one another.
We need to replace everybody, from congress to the whitehouse.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pmScotty is a big liar.
The house voted agaist the $300 Million to inspect high risk containers for all 140 overseas ports and is going to support increase spending of 1.7 Billion for Missile Defense, a program that does not work.
What security do we have in this country?
March 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWhat security do we have in this country?
Comment by Mary Poppin
Bush’s new plan.
Buy one of those yellow shirts that say “SECURITY” on the back for every American to wear. That way, the terrorists will think we’re all security.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm“Strengthening our port security or improving our port security has been a top priority for this president.”
As long as it does not interfer with making a buck.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#9 – The “security” of knowing that the current slate of “fiscally irresponsible” Republicans are going to continue running up the national debt while cutting taxes on the top 1%?
How about the “security” of knowing that our next stop on the “endless war train” will be Iran?
I’m looking forward to the “security” of knowing there will be fewer “fiscally irresponsible” Republicans come this November after the mid-term elections prove that American voters are tired of the lies coming out of the current administration.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pmoh man he’s a bad liar
March 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmThis is the type of person, were he to die horribly, that I would throw a huge “Glad it Hurt” party. I am so sick of these liars and how nothing ever is done about it. If you or I even call in sick to our job there is skepticisim…but for them nothing. I wish them all dead!
March 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pmAbnd the press lets these liars get away with this. Why did no one questoin this blatant lie?
The poodles of the press must have blackmail being used against them like the Dems in congress.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pmNO INCUMBANTS IN ‘06!
March 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pmBoth parties appear too constipated to regurgitate
anything of use.
NO INCUMBANTS IN ‘06!
*. – If Scott is just doing what he is paid to do, then he qualifies as a whore, since he is helping Bush screw the country. No morals, no compassion, not even dinner.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pmThis man is the most pathetic public servant I have ever seen. How he is able to get a minutes worth of sleep is beyond me.
Maybe all those Jeff Gannon reach-arounds have helped him throught these troubled times.
-GSD
March 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm“we’re doing everything we can?” who’s feeding him his lines, Nancy Reagan?
March 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pmo’damn, if opposing money for port security, and bomb material escaped detection in 21 airports is doing everything i would hate to see them doing nothing.
i have a girlfriend that works for homeland security (airports) and she had to go to d.c. and do some oversight for a year due to some issues and couldn’t mention why. well my question was answered. and let me say this, she is not impressed at all.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:30 pmAdd the BROOM 2 Your EARTH DAY Events
It’s Time 2 Sweep Clean Our Earth
You Know What To Do / a BOTTOM UP protest – please PASS this ON
Surround the WHITE HOUSE April 22, 2006
More info at.
http://www.CleanSweepCampaign.com
Thank U
March 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmHe never really answers a question.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#22 He likes to object to the questions though. What a joke.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pm#22, he can’t, that would then require the truth.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmNext: “I can’t comment on anything, because EVERYTHING is under investigation”.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pm‘We’re doing everything we can to protect The Carlyle Groups portfolio, uhh, I mean, our ports!”
March 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pmSilly boy,you equate everything they can do with everything that could be done. Two different things altogether. Such idealism is generally admirable but utterly impractical when fighting terrorists.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pmI would have to say in this case they can do more, not they could do more. If our own experts were able to sneak bombs through the TSA security, then obviously more training is needed, for TSA security to identify those items, and prevent a real terrorist attack from occuring.
It is also impractical when fighting terrorists, to attack a country that has nothing to do with terrorists. but why bother explaining to you, you will not listen anyway.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:28 pmAnother attack would give Bush all the self-justification he needs to suspend the Constitution and give himself that dictatorship he wistfully desires.
There will always be that 25+% that will support him no matter what he does. Dictators have had long careers with less popularity than that. Oh, and God would be on his side, too. Not his father, his REAL father, you know, the one upstairs. (God has a nice carpet in his office too.)
But that’s assuming real Machiavellianism. It’s far more likely he’s just too incompetent to really care about port security.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:44 pmAh,Kraz,sharp as the proverbial tack,as usual.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pm[...] Update: McClellan Falsely Claims “We Are Doing Everything We Can To Protect Our Ports†“For example, one of the programs McClellan touted today – the Container Security Initiative – is only in operation at 43 of the 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States due to chronic underfunding.” [...]
March 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pmAnother attack would give Bush all the self-justification he needs to suspend the Constitution and give himself that dictatorship he wistfully desires.
Comment by ElectricBassPlayer
Oh, so now all of a sudden you’re worried. I thought with war on terrorism was just a scam to make me and the other Halliburton stock holders rich? I thought we were in the Middle East just for the oil? WTF? But you know what, you’re right. A devastating attack from the friends of the Filthy Left (the Muslim headchoppers) would be all the excuse we need to round up all those losers we’ve been spying on illegally. How many times have I told you about those “re-education camps in W. Texas? How many times have I told you to buy some stock in ACME Hemp & RazorWire, Ltd.?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:32 pmsomewhat off topic, but another example of scotty’s ability to obfuscate …
god bless helen thomas …yesterday’s briefing:
Q Does the President know that he’s in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us.
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I would just disagree with your assessment. First of all, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign –
Q It’s not a long-standing principle with us. It’s your principle.
MR. McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question?
Q It’s a violation of international law.
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, let me back up, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign policy. It is also part –
Q It’s never been.
MR. McCLELLAN: It is also part of an inherent right to self-defense…
…And it’s important what September 11th taught us –
Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war.
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish responding to your question…But first of all, are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes and then respond? September 11th –
Q Under international law you have to be attacked first.
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, you’re not letting me respond to your question… But again, I’ll put the question back to you. Are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes before we respond –
Q You had no threat from Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us –
Q That was not a threat from Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: — some important lessons. One important lesson it taught us was that we must confront threats before they fully materialize…understand the consequences of failing to confront those threats early, before it’s too late.
Q What are the consequences?
MR. McCLELLAN: The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, they are very serious in terms of stability –
Q Are you warning Iran that it has consequences as you did Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what has happened with Iran right now is that the matter has been reported to the United Nations Security Council …
This is an important issue. It outlines in our national security strategy that this is one of the most serious challenges that we face.
Q Are we threatening Iran with preemptive war?
MR. McCLELLAN: We’re trying to resolve this in a diplomatic manner by working with our friends and allies.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:16 pm…
yea right…
I thought we were in the Middle East just for the oil? WTF?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
I-RIGHT-I: Not WTF but WMD’s. Remember? Or are you developing amnesia like all the other wingers? Silly boy.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pmI-RIGHT-I
I would like you to shut your eyes and pretend your married to Claudia Schiffer and you have more money than you can spend – Now would you be typing all this nonsense – No you would not – therefore i can conclude you are a immature delusional hypocrite who was so hard done by when your mother confiscated your soother you have a grudge about women, you are dragging yourself into a hole you cannot or will not ever get out from – Your very similiar to George Bush – Please go into the toilets at your work with aggressive and proud and burp each others worms that way you might releave your stress – you seem to mention gays all the time you remind me of the gay soldier in american beauty that could not communicate the fact he was gay like you – Monkey Knut Wrench got you going the other day eh ??a taste of your own delusional medicine…….
March 17th, 2006 at 6:34 pmMcClellan is a paid liar. I caught a few minutes of his press briefing today. I often wonder how all of these White House guys sleep at night – don’t their consciences bother them? Don’t they realize they have sold their soul to the devil?
March 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pmWhat could be so important to them that they would cause the harm that they do and then lie about it? It’s so difficult for me to comprehend the level of amorallity in the Bush White House.
Sabo’s ammendment is warm and fuzzy and very appealing to liberal emotions, but according to Kurt Nagle, president of the American Association of Port Authorities, what is really needed is funding for the Port Security Program.
“From its inception, the PSG program has been dramatically under-funded. While billions of homeland security dollars have been allocated to airports, first responders, and research and development, only a modest amount has been made available for port facility security improvements. For FY’06, DHS has stated that it is proposing $3.1 billion for port security, but last year’s funding level for the Port Security Grant program was only $175 million. To date, DHS has given out $700 million in port security grants, but this is less than 20% of the grant requests, which totaled $3.8 billion (see chart below). AAPA recommends an annual funding level of $400 million for this program.”
Sabo needs to pay more attention to what the ports feel should be the priority for funding.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:24 pmPSGP – Port Security Grant Program
March 17th, 2006 at 7:34 pm“While disappointed in the lack of funding for port facilities, AAPA is pleased that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) received a 10 percent increase over the 2004 budget, with several U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Patrol maritime security programs benefiting from the boost in funds. For example, both the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program received increased funding, and the recently-launched United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program budget was increased. DHS also included $46 million for a new grant program under the Office of Domestic Preparedness’ Urban Area Security Program to implement area security requirements called for in the MTSA. The U.S. Coast Guard received $100 million to carry out the MTSA, as well.”
March 17th, 2006 at 7:43 pm“With so much at stake, America’s ports are urging the Administration to make seaport security a higher funding priority in its FY’07 budget request. To do this, AAPA advocates funding the federal Port Security Grant (PSG) program—the only federal grant program specific to protecting port facilities—at a minimum $400 million/year. In his proposed FY’06 budget, the President recommended eliminating the PSG program and lumping grant proposals from ports together with requests from a host of other transportation-related industries.”
March 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pmScotty will soon be puking during questioning.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:05 pm[...] But, when they attack us again, will they say it’s because Liberals prevented them from protecting Americans. [...]
March 17th, 2006 at 8:10 pmOff topic, Bush want’s to do the same with our air lines he wanted to do with the ports. Sell to foreign companies. Will some one send the men in white coats to 1600 Penn. Ave and make a pick up. We have an insane person impersonating a president. He thinks he is king……Blessings
March 17th, 2006 at 8:39 pmSharon, I saw a cartoon today of King Bush cutting our paper crowns for himself, the paper he was cutting up was the Constitution.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:53 pmGave me a chuckle — there is little to laugh about these days.
I think I saw Scotty’s head spinning around just before the camera panned away.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:24 pm” Listen Helen, I told youwe’re making progress. The President is working hard for the American people, and I have ten fingers.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:56 am#36…Well, in point of fact, NEITHER of those options are included in this budget (thanks to the Republicans voting down Rep. Sabo’s amendment. I’ll tell you what is included in this budget though: 1.2 Billion dollars for a missile defense system that a) doesn’t work and b) is, essentially, worthless considering today’s threat matrix (When’s the last time you saw a terrorist launch an ICBM?). In point of fact, if we were to suffer a terrorist initiated WMD attack in this country, the WMD in question would probably be brought in through our ports. That missile defense system is really going to come in handy then huh? That is, if they can get it to work eventually.
Oh, and which administration do you think has consistently underfunded the Port Security Grant Program?
This budget is just more pork for the pigs. These rapacious villains are robbing ALL of us (& our children and grandchildren) blind. They are the new robber-barrons, the new capo di tutti capos only they use war instead of lead-pipe cruelt. the results remain the same. When are you wingers going to realize that your children are going to have to help mine pay for all of these fiascos. This is beyond partisanship! They are stealing OUR money in magnanimous amounts. It’s time to make them stop for the sake of our children and their children.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:42 amAnd this is more bulls***! I would love for Mc Clellan to deliver that drivel to my husband who is actually working at a major port. This is all lies people. Straight up lies.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:50 amBushsucks and all, with our borders wide open, our ports unsecure and now Bush wanting to sell off our air lines we are becoming the Sold United countries not the USA. Hell, our navy ships are docking in Dubi, closer target for the bad guys I would think. I wonder what does a white house press secretary with no neck do when his job is over . We need to get these thieves and liers out. All of them, both sides. ” if they aren’t with us, they are against us and with Bushco”…Blessings
March 18th, 2006 at 10:59 amIs there ANY point at which government officials who blatantly LIE to the American people…
…about such weighty matters as national security…
…can be PROSECUTED?
March 18th, 2006 at 11:50 amWhat the fcuk is wrong with this picture?
The House defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness.
Amongst a few other items, the bill proposed $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors. So, they will talk up the possibility of dirty bombs, but do nothing to sniff them out beforehand. If such a horror happens they will just pullout the lie that worked last time “No one could have known…”
Does anyone know if the bill was defeated because there was an even better plan for port security?
It would seen that the GOP wants to keep their options open for their partners in terror when ever they need to boost the fear factor to keep the sheeple in line.
Geez..
IMPEACH THE CHIMP!
March 18th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
March 19th, 2006 at 4:12 pmFAT LIAR.
March 20th, 2006 at 6:55 am[...] Right-Wing Blocks Funding For Port Security, Disaster Preparedness and shortly thereafter, Scott McLellan Claims “We Are Doing Everything We Can To Protect Our Portsâ€. [...]
April 4th, 2006 at 10:37 amOur brave fighting boys have never ended the life of a single man that God has not wished; we have removed several hundred terrorists, at GOD’s will. At no time have we killed innocents.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:17 am