It also helps to have a verified guest list. But when you're too busy GOING to the party, it's hard to remember YOUR JOB was to provide a list of those attending.

Besides, all those POLITICAL ELITE in Washington know that Secret Service agents are a pain in the ass, and will deliberately keep you out in the rain. They are just drones, to be ignored.

Unfortunately, the Secret Service is severely handicapped in its role, and this incident demonstrates a critical flaw in the system.

The Salahis did the nation a great service by demonstrating beyond dispute that there's a critical flaw in White House security. Obviously, it's the kind of security test the government wants to discourage, but once done, the value of it should be recognized. Likely, the Secret Service will get whatever money, manpower, training or White House staff involvement that it was lacking because of the Salahis, and that's a good thing. I'm for giving the Salahis some leeway. If Obama had a sense of humor he would actually invite the Salahis to the next state dinner. Then again, he might have to go out to the gate to convince the Secret Service to let them in.

I always have concerns about the security situation myself as well because of the added menace of worldwide terrorism. But it seems like the lone screwball is always the most likely to cause harm.

To think that John Hinckley screwball could get so close to wound four people outside the Washington Hilton including press secretary Brady and President Reagan in 1981 still makes me very angry. Fortunately, security has seriously tightened since the days of Lincoln where his security officer actually left the theater to drink at the bar across the street and allowed John Wilkes Booth a too easy opportunity to cause harm.

Let us spell it out: The Secret Service was told by someone in the White House to stand down. Now they are being used as scapegoats. We will have to wait for a future book to find out the truth. As usual, the left squashes the least favored.

I can't quite remember the word that describes a conservative who speculates about the assassination of Barak Obama, America's first black president. It's just on the tip of my tongue. Wait, now I remember.

RACIST.

They went through the metal detector so they were no more dangerous than the rest of those half baked liberals, anyone of the could have snapped at the dinner.

Still fire Desiree Rogers for her total incompetence.....

Hey, Vic

I wonder how many people are saying that they will never vote for a liberal black man or woman again for the office of President because they know from experience liberals will call everyone who has a difference of opinion a racist again and again?

It resonates with me and I'm sure it does so with many other people. We're only 1 year into a 4 year term. Just think how many people liberals will alienate by then with all their accusations of racism.

I don't like it, but liberals will have brought it on themselves.

You could say I'm racist against racism.

This President needs no protection. First, no one who hates his policies wants to see the idiot made a martyr. Second, the chain of succession is so unimaginably horrible as to provide a bubble of safety around him. President Biden? President Pelosi? President Clinton? No, The Zero is safe as he can be. We can survive three years of him, but then he and his cronies have got to go.

Sue, this is old news. It has all been well debunked many times before. Even if there is any particle of truth there, that doesn't change anything. The consensus is settled. We won, you lost, get used to it. This is Mao's Century. Our hippie sandals and unwashed feet will be on your necks grinding your faces into the filth for many, many years to come.

Peace.

I think I should point out to other commenters that "Victory is Mao's " is a parody poster skewering "Victory is Ours" and other lefty trolls.

It resonates with me and I'm sure it does so with many other people. We're only 1 year into a 4 year term. Just think how many people liberals will alienate by then with all their accusations of racism.

Oh yes, I'm sure many, many people choose a presidential candidate based on their opinion about the people who support that candidate.

Wise voters interested in the good stewardship of this nation would choose McCain over Obama simply because liberals call racist conservatives "racist"...

Well, the simple ones will anyway.

Vic

Oh yes, I'm sure many, many people choose a presidential candidate based on their opinion about the people who support that candidate.

Ron Paul comes to mind. The folks who were spamming every damn board they could get on about how wonderful Paul was got me to the point I wouldn't have voted for the man if he paid me. And it seems like the more they were reviled by the people they were spamming, the more they did it.

Until his run collapsed.

By the way, Vic - insulting people is an almost CERTAIN way to NOT win their support. But you know that, don't you?

Doing your research as always, DJ!

I was with you (as I am many times) until you get to your summation ("Obama sucks!"). The Secret Service has dual and very, very different charges. While they continue to focus on both, they do harm to both. This is ESPECIALLY true of the protection role, primarily because (as you point out) they keep their successes secret. This means that when it comes time to budget setting, they need big things to show off their skills... thus the reason they've clung to the treasury work.

Couple that with a significantly underfunded SS protection budget, where fire teams have been reduced from 5 to 2, and where the SS leadership hasn't had the cojones to reject requests from political staffs to lighten up or to push details back further away and you have a recipe for disaster.

Political folks are ALWAYS going to ask for SS to draw further back, to allow bigger crowds in, to push the protection vs. access boundaries as far back as possible. It's a balance, to be sure, and NOBODY except the SS leadership is responsible for the breaking or alteration of protocol. Just because you, me, a candidate, or a president asks for protocols to be set aside doesn't mean the SS has to do it. Saying Desiree Rogers is at all responsible for a gross violation of the President's safety is almost as ridiculous (someone said above), this President doesn't need protection at all.

I do agree though that we're having a conversation about the reality that a dual function, underfunded, understaffed, undertrained SS is going to let very very basic flaws happen, and that's a good thing.

Has anyone thought about the safety of The Indian PM? What would the ramifications of an attempt on the life of any visiting dignitary that was the result of sloppy security and/or an idiotic "open door" policy of an incompetent social secretary? Of course with the Obamas it's all about them. Who cares about the safety of their guests? I doubt Pres. 0 or Ms Rogers even gave a moments thought to that issue.

Other bloggers have shown photos and pointed out that Obama actually knew these people and had appeared with, and attended at least one event with them. I think the secret service are the scapegoats here, someone gave a nod and wink and let those people in.

Ruth, either they were or were NOT on the guest list and therefore the SS either did or DID NOT or DID screw up. Just because Obama met someone once doesn't mean that they're not a potential safety risk.

SS aren't being "scapegoats" here - the buck absolutely stops with them. Therefore breaches are absolutely their responsibility.

#8 got it exactly right.

"Wise voters interested in the good stewardship of this nation would choose McCain over Obama simply because liberals call racist conservatives "racist"...

Well, the simple ones will anyway.

Vic"

Good job simpleton!

At least the liberal lie of death threats against Obama is up 400%. The left loves lying. ww

"At least the liberal lie of death threats against Obama is up 400%. The left loves lying. ww"

And I thought Clinton had the patent on lying? Guess He paid some taxes once in a while.