All this week there have been questions about Desiree Rogers and her role in the crashers getting into the White House. Now there's some sort of theory that the Obamas are "protecting" Ms. Rogers because she's a personal friend.
To that I say, SHUT UP! My Goodness, it's not like there was NO ONE there to check names. Like Stephen Colbert said last night when he was checking to verify the identity of Sec. Napilatano "So, the Secret Service doesn't have clipboard technology?" The way I see it, if someone rolled up to the gate and their name isn't on the f*cking list, THEN YOU DON'T LET THEM IN! ESPECIALLY if you aren't planning to call the Social Secretary's office to see what to do. It has been established that there WERE people there for Secret Service to verify for.
Of course now the system will be changed just because of all of the hoopla, but I don't think Ms. Rogers did anything wrong. She doesn't need to testify to Congress, she doesn't need to explain anything. We KNOW what happened, we know WHY it happened (and it wasn't because someone wasn't there from the Social Secretary's office), and we know it won't happen again.
THIS is what the press is focusing on? It's not about President Obama's "security" because any problems were fixed by now. Now it's just about picking off another official in the Obama administration.
As pointed out in the Huffington Post, she wasn't there just kickin' it like she's a guest:
A source with knowledge of the evening's events tells the Huffington Post that, other than about five minutes "to pick at her salad," Rogers spent the entire evening coordinating and working the event. She was spotted and photographed in the rope line preceding the dinner, but the source said that was only after completing frantic, last-second planning for the high-profile affair.
Prepping all day on Tuesday, she changed into her outfit just 30 minutes before the state dinner started, the source added. And she was "shadowing" the president and first lady at a separate private reception for roughly 20 people shortly after arriving.
I mean, this is LITERALLY a question/answer session from the WH:
QUESTION: Follow up. Normally in the past, before this administration came, there was always a checks and balances type of system at that gate with the Social Office, as well as the Secret Service --
MR. GIBBS: I think that's what Ed just asked.
QUESTION: That's what I'm saying. And you're saying --
MR. GIBBS: This is a follow-up or -- go ahead, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
QUESTION: Again, there's always been a series of checks and balances. And if there was a concern from the Secret Service, they would always relay it back to -- it was a back and forth between the Social Office and the Secret Service.
MR. GIBBS: What I'm saying -- what I said to Ed was --
QUESTION: But let me finish, please --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let me -- I think the question was asked, so let me reiterate my answer. Again, April, none of that relay happened, right? None of that relay happened between the Secret Service and the Social Office, whether or not the Social Office was standing at the gate or whether or not somebody was sitting in their office at the White House.
QUESTION: If you would allow me to finish, you can understand what I'm saying. The relay did not happen because that person was omitted at the gate from the Social Office. The way we understand, that person --
MR. GIBBS: Omitted?
QUESTION: That person was fired earlier in the year. So --
MR. GIBBS: But again, April, you can ask it seven ways. The answer continues to be, the relay didn't happen because somebody was or wasn't there. The relay didn't happen because nobody picked up the phone to relay the information. I mean, I appreciate the observation that somebody could or could not have been at a certain gate. But again, you could pick up the phone, just like I can pick up my phone in the office and relay you, April. You don't have to be standing in my office for me to convey information to you. I think the --
QUESTION: So are you saying that the Social Office does not have any responsibility in this at all?
MR. GIBBS: April, there's an investigation that's ongoing into the actions of what happened, and I'm going to wait for that to be completed.
QUESTION: The reason why we are questioning the Social Office and the Secret Service is because in the past, both have worked in conjunction and successfully were able to protect the President of the United States without anyone coming in. And now because the Social Office did not have that other layer of checks and balances there, this happened. And people are questioning why this White House is not putting the onus some on the Social Office, as well.
MR. GIBBS: I'm going to let the investigation put the onus on where the onus should be. But what I'm simply doing is explaining to you a series of facts that include the notion that if somebody was confused about whether or not somebody was on a list at a guard tower on the exterior perimeter of the White House, and there was a question, generally somebody could pick up the phone and ask. I'm saying that -- I'm saying that the Secret Service, in the statement that they released a few days ago, acknowledged that that didn't happen and that that was a mistake.
QUESTION: The whole process has been changed at that gate from now on. Will the Social Office be working in conjunction with the Secret Service now?
MR. GIBBS: I think first and foremost we're going to go through this investigation, and I would refer you to the Secret Service about operations that might change at that gate.
QUESTION: And the last question. People were saying that the President was never in danger, and many people have said that is not true. They got in --
MR. GIBBS: Who's "many people"?
QUESTION: People here, Secret Service. These people met with the President. They shook the President's hand. Who's to say they did not have some kind of -- granted, they didn't -- but hypothetically, what if a person had walked in and could have done something to the President? The President -- do you --
MR. GIBBS: This hasn't happened before. (Laughter.) I appreciate the opportunity to indulge in a grand hypothetical.
QUESTION: Has the President remarked on this at all?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think the President shares the concern that the director has for how this happened and how we can remedy it from happening again.
QUESTION: Is he concerned about his safety with this?
MR. GIBBS: No.
QUESTION: Have you heard him say anything, is he angry or is he as incredulous as the average American is that people could just walk right into the White House like this?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President -- look, the reason there's an investigation is the President and the White House has asked for that to happen. So I think suffice to say the President is rightly concerned about what happened last week.
QUESTION: Have you actually heard him say anything about it?
MR. GIBBS: I have not heard it, but it's been relayed to me.
QUESTION: Can you confirm whether or not charges will be filed against this couple?
MR. GIBBS: That is not a power bestowed on me as the press secretary. I know they've -- according to media reports, they've been interviewed by the Secret Service. I think that's a decision that would be made by the Secret Service and the United States Attorney in that area.
I'm pretty sure the American people are OVER the WH Party Crashers. Yes, it was an egregious breach of security that they even got IN. But they did, and steps are being taken to remedy the problem. Leave Ms. Rogers the hell alone and let her do her damn job (and she's been doing a pretty kick ass job.
[update] Oh yeah, and I find it funny that one minute the press is questioning whether the Obamas secretly hate Desiree Rogers for being "too" awesome, and the next the Obamas are trying to protect her because she's their friend. Our press is so pathetic.