December 9th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Obama look like Bush by letting aide avoid testifying?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Congress, and the American public for that matter, would like to know how uninvited guests can simply walk into the White House and attend a state dinner hosted by the president. Seems like a reasonable question.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/09/art.rogers.jpg caption="White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers planned the state dinner that Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashed."]
Trouble is, no one wants to tell them. Except for the Secret Service, who willingly admitted their role in the screw up.

The intruders - they weren't guests - the Salahis - don't want to talk. And if they're subpoenaed by Congress to testify they say they plan to invoke the Fifth Amendment. The one that protects against self-incrimination. If, as they claim, they were invited - they weren't - why would they do that?

But the bigger question is why the White House is providing cover to social secretary Desiree Rogers. The president cites executive privilege in saying this woman who was in charge of the dinner, that's her job, doesn't have to testify.

Now we're not talking about a key policy adviser to the president here. We're talking about a secretary whose job it is to be in charge of stuff like dinner. It's not like she has access to the nuclear launch codes, if you know what I mean.

But the president doesn't want Rogers to have to go in front of Congress and explain why she didn't do her job. Which was dinner. Why not? People have been fired for less. But she's being shielded from any embarrassment not because of "executive privilege," but because she's an old pal of Obama's from Chicago. This is change?

Here’s my question to you: Does President Obama look like Pres. Bush when he allows social secretary Desiree Rogers to avoid testifying before Congress?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Peg from New York writes:
Desiree Rogers should have complied. Pres. Obama looks questionable by allowing her to not testify. She should know her place at these functions. She is not an invited guest, she is a paid employee. She should have been working the front lines along with the Secret Service, not attempting to be a "guest". She must be getting calluses on her hands from social climbing.

Steve from Palmerton, Pennsylvania writes:
Jack, The White House refusal to allow Desiree Rogers to testify does indeed bear a striking resemblance to the Bush administration with one notable exception: one always suspected Bush invoked executive privilege to shield staff his from the exposure of illegal activity. In the case of the Obama White House, it seems more like they’re shielding Ms. Rogers against the exposure of incompetence.

Chris writes:
Obama is using executive privilege to keep a secretary from being the victim of a witch-hunt over a hyped-story. Bush used it to keep his lackeys from having to answer for torture. Comparing the two is absurd.

Renee writes:
Ms. Rogers was so busy being a designer-clad guest at the state dinner the she simply didn't have time to do her job. Perhaps Congress should ask her if she understands the difference between "guest" and "planner."

Larry from Torrance, California writes:
If Desiree Rogers is about dinner, it's long past time that she should be toast.

Brian from Seattle writes:
Allowing Desiree Rogers to testify in front of Congress risks making many highly-guarded state secrets a matter of public record. Do you have any idea what sort of chaos America will be subjected to if al Qaeda gets the presidential meat loaf recipe?

Filed under: Congress • President Barack Obama
soundoff (143 Responses)
  1. Mary in Florida

    He's certainly acting like him.
    If this woman has nothing to hide, she should come forward.
    The president is making her look guilty just by his actions.
    Don't think we will ever be told the truth.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  2. Sue From Idaho

    Wouldn't her testifying be kind of like shutting the barn door after the horse has gotten out? There is a difference in the Bush debacle he was protecting illegal behavior not just his own hide.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  3. Chad from Los Angeles

    A little, but I wish Obama would get some of Bush's tenacity. Then maybe he would not cower to the opposite party so easily so we could actually see some change!

    December 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  4. Jerry Johns Creek, GA

    Jack, this may not be change but it certainly is transparent.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  5. Linda Williams San Francisco

    Please Jack, Obama does not look like Bush. Why does she need to testify. Whatever she told him is enough. Why waste time and tax-payers money on such trivia things?

    December 9, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  6. Mary WV

    No change. Politics as usual.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  7. Luci - Pekin, IL.

    She probably will testify, give the process time to work it out.
    Remember when Bush wouldn't go to a hearing, maybe about oil deals? He wouldn't go unless they let Cheney go in with him. His problem was a lot bigger one than this lady. Some things are soon forgotten, like a lot of things done when he was in office.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  8. Michael Roepke - Dallas, TX

    The President had a dinner in his home. There was a security SNAFU and two people crashed the dinner. And now, rather then allow the President to correct his security problem, we are going to ask the people who we don’t trust to handle health care, the economy, or the war in Afghanistan to legislate reform of White House procedures. What happened to separation of powers?

    December 9, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  9. EugeneWiese

    Sucessful people ,many times,appear to be immature,and lack wisdom and understanding.They don't know what they have in their hands,and think that it is all about them.Money can be a poor goal to measure success. Lack of a proper education reduces talent for success. It's all about the frailty of man and woman,with too much free will and too little Faith. Gene

    December 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  10. Jasmine in Germany

    No, and Obama will never look like Bush. Ms. Rogers is irrelevant ("non-germane"), Jack. The Secret Service is in charge of security, not the Social Secretary. The party crashers have a subpoena to testify, so what's the problem?

    December 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  11. Thom Richer

    Lots of resemblance to Bush, I fear. Not what I had hoped and voted for. Very disappointing to say the least. I hope and await a new president with new ideas and change in our war policies and national healthe care and catering to the wealthy and corporate interests with an honest and concerted effort to help the working class and elderly. So far it is Bushness as usual. Where is the Obama I voted for?

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    December 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  12. DM - San Diego

    Come on Jack. Holding the President's feet to the fire is fine, for some issues. She's not a key adviser, doesn't have the launch codes. Her job is to get dinner out. This has happened ninety some times over the years. What is the Secret Service doing wrong? Could you imagine if those righteous Republicans in Congress started grilling her? It would become some sort of Socialist conspiracy. What if Pallin or Beck got wind of this? The Tea Baggers and Right Wing Nuts would be convulsing on the ground. How would you feel if someone said YOU looked like George Bush?

    December 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  13. Jim in Texas

    I was enthused Obama and voted for him. He continues to show by his actions like this one that, when you get right down to it, he is just a typical politician in many ways. That said, I have faith that he will get this health care action done and, in the long run, will be more helpful to the american public than the previous self serving bunch of clowns in office.


    December 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  14. Michael, Pensacola, FL

    When his aides start avoiding testifying on matters related to big oil, corporate corruption, torturing prisoners and political manipulation of the justice department, then we can make a fair comparison between him and Bush. In the meantime, I think we can let his social party planner off the hook!

    December 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  15. DT from Fort Walton Beach, FL

    The new guy looks like the old guy...nothin new...

    December 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
  16. Antonio from Washington D.C.

    Obama's a rookie, leave him alone.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
  17. DawnL,CA

    Of course, Pres. Obama looks like Bush by not allowing his social sec. to testify before congress. This was really a stupid move on Obama's part; just proves cronyism is alive & well. Rogers should take the fall for her incompetence. She is supposed to be a party-planner not a social butterfly.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
  18. steve in virginia

    There's no comparison. When Bush claimed executive priveledge, it was at least arguably applicable, albeit sometimes on shaky grounds. The Social Secretary doesn't even come close to being in a position to claim executive privlege. This is more on par with Clinton's abuse of executive privlege to keep staff from testifying in the Lewinsky investigation. An utter abuse of power bordering on corruption and undermining Congresses Constitutional powers.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  19. Talitha

    Obama is the "New Bush", he's just a little taller, darker, eloquent, and a better liar. New boss same as old boss.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
  20. Meg from Troy, Ohio

    She should testify–pure and simple. I still remember what transparency means–and this isn't it.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
  21. Tim

    From Wikipedia we have a definition of separation of powers to be "... derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity". Therefore based on the assertion of executive privilege for this case, the carrying out of a state dinner is an activity covered under the constitution. So, I guess that we are all just so ignorant that we do not see the connection between fulfillment of constitutional duties and dinner. What were we thinking?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  22. ben stockton, calif

    first rule of the day, all personnel responsible for security breach go join the line of the unemployed.. you are done here. next thing you know some nutbag will filter through and hurt the president.. mr obama please name names through your testimony ..you wil have more credibility if you get tough ..americans dont want a weenie running the nation. we went through bush and cheney with no apologies for getting us into a war with iraq.. mr obama dont go there

    December 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
  23. dick from indiana

    I don't believe the Constitution deals with who gets invited to a McDonald's birthday party. So I don't care who went and I sure don't care why they were invited. I hope our Congress has more to do than fuss about a guest list. This is a perfect example of too many newies looking for something to do on a cold winter day.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
  24. Larry L, Torrance, CA

    If Desiree Rogers is about dinner, it's long past time that she should be toast.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  25. Jeff Devine

    I thought Prez. Obama was all about accountability? If Obama can release important CIA documents about GITMO, then he should have no problem allowing Desiree Rogers testify!!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  26. Renee

    Ms. Rogers was so busy being a designer-clad guest at the State Dinner the she simply didn't have time to do her job. Perhaps Congress should ask her if she understands the difference between "guest" and "planner".

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  27. William from Kansas City

    Yes, I do believe that he is making himself look like George Bush. However, I think that President Obama has a sufficient reason for doing so. My bet is that Desiree Rogers messed things up big time, even worse then what people know think. Obama is just doing what is best for his cabinet. Give him some slack, Jack.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  28. Chuck

    Obama made many statements about how Bush protected his inner circle. Funny now that the shoe is on the other foot I am having difficulty seeing the difference between the two. The only change I see is a different party in charge. Only 3 more years then we can try again.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  29. Joe, Corvallis, OR

    Jack, the bottom line is that this isn't anywhere near as serious of an issue as the media is playing it up to be. Although there was no formal way of checking who got into the dinner, there was strong security at the White House dinner which ensured that even if Bin Laden himself had gotten in he wouldn't have anything with which to cause any harm. These people are just a pair of media whores and presented no threat to the President or anyone else. If Ms. Rogers were to testify, the Republicans would have a field day with her simply because she works for a Democrat. Can we please get back to important issues like health care and Afghanistan?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  30. Lisa in Illinois

    Of course she should testify. Here in the real world, if you screw up you can lose your job. Apparently in Washington, if you screw up it gets covered up. Isn't transparency grand?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  31. Matthew from Orange,CA

    Sometimes Jack, the problem with 'transparancy' is that people can see right through you.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  32. Venkata

    No, to me it appears that, the stimulus and TARP money is being wasted on this kind nonsense hearings and testifying dramas.
    It is time to get over with this nonsense and move on, there are tens of other important issues.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  33. Lil Me

    The day after the state dinner, Ms. Rogers accepted thanks from the Salahis. She said she was glad they had a good time and that it all worked out. She never, at any point, denied having anything to do with them getting in. You have to wonder why she didn't simply respond "I'm glad you had a good time, but I do not deserve your thanks as I did not do anything to get you in the door." - That's why she's being called to testify. That's the question she needs to answer as it appears – based on what the Salahis have said – that Ms. Rogers is the one who got them in.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  34. George Osier

    No, President Obama does not look like President Bush when he has let this aide avoid testifying before Congress. I don't believe President Bush ever vowed to have an open government where nothing is hidden – President Obama made that promise to us, but has not kept it.

    Syracuse, NY

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  35. Kentae Greene

    Though rumor has it that the Salahis won't testify before Congress, this belief does not hold water. The 5th Amendment only applies to a defendant having the right to not self-incriminate himself or herself. It only applies to a criminal proceeding and has no bearing on them testifying before Congress.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  36. Linda Jardine

    What ever happened to the time honored method of falling upon one's sword for the common good? obviously Pres. Obama's party coordinator dropped the ball here....she needs to ante up....

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  37. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    You are right Jack, she doesn't have the nuclear launch codes, so why continue to waste taxpayer money on this?

    The Secret Service has accepted responsibility by being accountable, and is in the process of investigating and course correcting. Now it's time for the Salahis to be responsible adults.

    I feel there is nothing wrong with Obama protecting a docile "social secretary" from this circus when the error has been acknowledged by the responsible party. I'm sure she has answered to her boss, Obama.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  38. John Babitskas

    Hi Jack, It's not that simple. She needs to have an attorney present. Who pays for that. Every Republican on that panel is out to hang her including you. She probaly does not have a few thousand in her budget for this.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  39. Tom Shade

    Were the crashers on the list or not? If not secret service screwed up not Rogers. If they were on the list whats the problem. Rogers makes the list thats it no need to continue on with this story. Secret service already took blame as they should have.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  40. Scott Stodden

    Jack I don't think anybody could act like President Bush or make the horrible decisions he made. In my opinion I don't think it was Desiree Rogers fault that the Salahis got into the White House, I feel that all the blame should fall on the Secret Service. Its the Secret Service job to protect the President and the White House but the Salahis can get into the White House and shake the President's hand without an invitation or without being on a list come on Jack this woman is in charge of public affairs with the White House like dinner her job is not to protect the President, Desiree Rogers should not have to testify at all put the Secret Service on trial who let them in the White House and send them all to prison.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    December 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  41. Ulysses

    Jack Cafferty is concerned about Obama's friend from Chicago, Desiree Rogers, not being allowed to testify, and being shielded because of "executive priviledge". Why should we be surprised? The Obamas won't even let their dog, Bo, receive any publicity. Bo has been shielded from public exposure, from the day that he was acquired this past April. When Bush was in the White House, he was always shown carrying Barney down the steps of Air Force One. When Bush's Father was in the White House, we would always see him with Millie. When Clinton was in the White House, we would see him with Buddy. When Nixon was in the White House, we would see him with Kim Timahoe. When LBJ was in the White House, we would see him with Him and Her. When FDR was in the White House, we would see him with Fala. Yet, Bo Obama is never shown to the public. Even when the Obamas went to Martha's Vineyard on vacation, Bo was never shown to the public. What seems to be the big deal in showing Bo? Are they afraid that he will act in a wild manner? My point is if they won't let the public see Bo, we should not be suprised about them shielding Desiree Rogers!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  42. Adam Simi Valley, CA

    It is just another exmaple of the White House making rules and casting stones at everyone, but does not feel the same rules should apply to them. She's a party planner. She has nothing sensitive that can't be discussed, just a guy trying to use his power and influence to cut a friend some slack. Nevermind the fact that she has put the President and our country in danger by circumventing rules that don't suit her. Same old politics. Maybe when Obama talked about "Change" he was really talking about himself and his positions.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  43. Phil Fusilier

    Jack, the only difference
    Between the Bush White House and Obama's is that Obama uses Chicago machine politics and Dubya used Texas oil men.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  44. Shelby Morrison

    In no way does Presidnt Obabma remind me of our former president, but there is no plausible reason for him to extend executive privilage to his social secretary unless, maybe, she's been sitting in on the Dept. of Defense meetings coaching the military on how to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghanistanis.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  45. Ralph Spyer chicago Il

    It one thing to be incompetent at a party ,it is another thing to be incompetent in a war.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  46. Angela

    It is easy enough to say that Ms. Rogers' job is "just dinner". However, if she is made to testify, the President will be setting a precedent that the opposition will cease on and use against him, because anyone else that they want to question will be given some job description that is "just" whatever. This starts the sliding slope into eroding the separation of the offices. While right now it will make everyone happy and give them an opportunity to rail against the current administration, this will not bode well for other administrations going forward. There is nothing more they will learn from Ms. Rogers that we do not already know. And with regards to the comment about reminding anyone of Bush? Well, he exercise Presidential privilege then and this President is doing the same. Suddenly it's okay for Bush to do it, but absolutely unacceptable for Obama to do the same. Hmmm... double standard, anyone??

    December 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  47. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Absolutely not because President Obama knows a social secretary is no more than a social secretary and not the Vice President as Dick Cheney was to Pres. Bush who spoke for himself and refused to testify.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  48. Donald Kreis

    One of Obama's buddies into a job through NETWORKING, or you
    scratch my back for a job, should be fired. Protection is not the order.
    Performance is the order. Not doing the job as required calls for the
    role of the President to rid himself of this type of failure. Bush's way
    should not even be considered. He is outa there now !!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  49. Michael from Ft. Hood Texas

    Jack is it s the same old Potomac Two Step that everyone practices in Washington. If the White House Social Secretary had the codes to our nuclear arsenal that is one thing, but in truth she is just an overpaid VIP cocktail hostess paid for by taxpayers. Hmmm....Tiger Woods wasn't in DC that weekend was he? When it comes to promises of change, Bush was a liar, and so is Obama.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  50. James

    It is interesting that you found General McChrystal so smart and effective explaining the same strategy unveiled by the President last week. Yet you found much to criticize in Mr. Obama's version of the strategy. Now you are upset that the president denied the Congress an opportunity to grandstand over the White House dinner snafu.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  51. Steve Rosenstein

    Check out why Desiree Rogers was forced out as head of the Illinois State Lottery...

    Steve from Illinois

    December 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  52. Jon C

    The only thing that seems to have changed is us, the people of this nation. We have given up tax dollars to the wealthy, lost our jobs, chosen our first black leader, and are tightening our belts in preparation for the future. Our government has displayed the exact opposite in its cronyism, nepotism, misrepresentation and outright lies to the public. If anything, these so called government changes have made it worse for the rest of us while lining the pockets of our leadership.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  53. Theodore

    There is a war going on; healthcare debate; millions unemployed. You'd think there are more important things to talk about, than who came for dinner!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  54. Joe from Miami

    I can't understand how this detail of the story hasn't been given more attention? This type of behavior leaves me not only regretting a vote, but sorely disappointed in the President. If this happened under the Bush administration, there would have been a three ring media circus and vicious, vicious, reports in papers like the New York Times. Tisk, Tisk, Barry.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  55. southerncousin

    And all of you were fooled by his lies about "transparency" and "accountability." He just said things to get elected, he is a liberal he lies and he is sure everyone knows he is lying because that is the basis of liberalism.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  56. Eric V, New York, NY

    Obama is a politician, not the god he was made out to be. He was either lying to us or very naive prior to taking office. I say this because he made many promises he could never keep but got him the votes from stupid people who bought it. The media got him elected and now that he is in, you all look like fools. Transparency? LOL. War? LOL. Healthcare by August? LOL. Hook, line and sinker people.....hook, line, and sinker.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  57. Lilly: Baltimore, MD.

    No. President Obama does not resemble President Bush in this way.
    May I ask my own question? Jack, why does Congress need to poke its nose into anything and everything possible?! It was a dinner hosted by the Executive Branch, security was the responsibility of the Executive Branch and the investigation of this breach in security is also within the purview of the Executive Branch; NOT within that of Congress. Tell them to leave the aide alone and focus on something important within their legislative authority ... like a Congressional Coin bill to honor the memory of Michael Jackson with a Commemorative Thriller Quarter (JK)!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  58. Wll

    No, I don't think so and I don't think that President Obama should permit her to go to congress about how she handled the dinner. First and foremost, whom does she report to? If it is to the president then as her manager I expect him to protect his employees from external departments. If I worked for someone whom allowed some external department to question my actions even after addressing the issue with my boss then it would make the working environment quite uncomfortable. As a leader, the president has to do what is right for his people while making sure that he take corrective measures to address any issue. If anything, they should be sending their questions directly to the President. If the question is regarding security then according to DHS’ organizational chart that department and the Secret Service should be the individual’s being questioned.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  59. Marie

    I am not surprised there is little transparancies with Obama!!!!! Wasn't Rodgers hired when Michelle fired another person who already had the job? As a couple they are both very far left and very eletist! No surprise to me! Tell me Jack don't you think that Campbell Brown might be a bit over her head talking about Global Warming? Why don't you have your own show you are far smarter than she could ever hope to be!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  60. Tim from WI

    For all his talk about "change" and "transparency" I see absolutly no difference between Obama and Bush. The only real difference is Bush never promised to change the Washington status quo. That's at least one less lie from one of the worst predsidents we've had in recent history. I guess The Who wrote the truest words I know "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". UNfortunatly it looks like we got fooled again.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  61. Chris

    i agree with you jack, this is the same ole' cronyism. I'm sick that i supported this guy (Obama), and everyone associated with him. What's especially funny about this is, that rather the social secretary working and assisting the Secret Service to screen arriving guest, she seemed more concerned to show off that hideous dress and stuff her face full of shrimp!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  62. AJ, Potsdam, NY


    Sadly, Obama resembles Bush (the junior) more and more, with each passing week. Executive Privilege for a Social Secretary?

    Perhaps even more disappointing is that rather than following in the footsteps of FDR, Obama appears to be trying to trace those of Lyndon Johnson. The only real difference between the Viet Nam Conflict and the one in Afghanistan (neither were legally-declared wars), is geography (and terrain).

    This is manifestly NOT the 'change I could believe in' for which I – and millions of other Americans – voted for.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  63. Kooky in CA

    Unless there was some covert operation in regards to this dinner she should testify. What can she testify to? They weren't on the list and the Secret Service let them in. The Secret Service should have contacted her to verify if they were guests but didn't. They let them in. How much more can there be to it. Congress has become, "Much ado about nothing".

    December 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |

    It does not matter what Mrs. Rogers did or said. She should not have to testify about anything. Those looney tunes were not on the list and the Secret Service should never have allowed them in. The buck stops with the Secret Service regardless of who said they could or could not come. These little rascals were at another state dinner and was asked to leave because they did not have tickets, did Congress want to know how they got into that one.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  65. Tim in Texas

    What does congress want to ask Roberts about? The place settings? The flowers? Her dress? She's the SOCIAL secretary. This whole thing is absurd - the republicans in congress want to make this about the White House instead of the secret service. The media have gone along with this nonsense because it gives them a story. Simple question - who is responsible for protecting the President the guys with the guns or the woman who is "in charge of dinner"? If the secret service can't read a dang list, they should be fired.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  66. Chris, NY

    No the President is being a President. They all have claimed executive privelege at one time or another.......

    December 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  67. Mr Fly from Michigan

    No he's not Bush. He just knows "all you media folks" like to jump on nothing like "flies jumping on you know what". Gee.. then you take these so call polls and report on them like it's news.. when it's the dog gone media that "leads" the public into forming their opinion that are reflected in the polls. Just like YOU Guys sat on your butts and lead the public in to the Iraqi War (yeah you did it!! ..and your never take responsibility). And then you wonder.. why Americans are sooo negative? Gee that's the path you take on. Did you notice how long it took the "flies" to get off the Tiger Woods story?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  68. Allister from Freeport New York

    Like you said Jack,
    Desire Rogers was responsible for the "DINNER". Don King is responsible for coordinating and promoting his boxing events, but he doesn't stand outside at the arena entrance patting people down and putting a check mark next to the name of all of his VIP ringside guests. Give me a break. The couple was not on the list. They even received a message on their cellphone saying that they were not invited. The bottom line Jack, front gate security guard is not on Desiree's job description!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  69. Steven from Oklahoma

    I am as concerned about the president's safety as I am the safety of every single American. That is why It puzzles me that our legislative body is at all concerned or even has the time to look into this issue. I'm not going to list all the problems we have right now, but there are plenty. I don't blame congress though, I blame those in the news media that have decided that this piece of gossip is some kind of major story. Now you're posing questions to viewers about whether or not a person should risk incriminating themselves in front of congress for something that congress shouldn't have the time, energy, or authority to deal with. Why are you all the sudden reaching for comparisons to President Bush? Of course there will be similarities. It's the same job! The amount of pressure being put on our government by the desperation of reporters to get a "juicy" piece of gossip nonsense is the crime of this century. I don't agree with Bush on just about anything, but I'm starting to see his point about the media. Oh and congrats, you gave those people who crashed the whitehouse party exactly what they wanted...attention...if anything, your editors needs to go before congress and explain why the media has spent 3 weeks discussing security flaws and exposing how easy it is to get at the president, all while giving these two morons far more attention than they ever deserved.


    December 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  70. Stanley, Houston, TX

    Why is this surprising? What real change has happened since Obama's inauguration? Just same 'ol DC politics.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  71. Charlie from Boston, MA

    The simple answer is a resounding yes. Rogers has close ties to the Obamas the same way Karl Rove has close ties to the Bush family. Therefore I'm not surprised Obama used executive privilege for Rogers to save her the embarassment of explaining why the Salahis weren't turned away at the door to the White House state dinner. President Obama is looking more and more like our last president every day, with the escalation of the Afghan War, more TARP bailouts for Wall Street, making a deal with Big Pharma not to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, etc. I'm still waiting for change I can believe in.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  72. Silas Kain - Boston

    Let's cut Ms. Rogers some slack here. We're forgetting that this is a new Administration. There was a complete screw up that took place and they're dealing with it. We can't expect a new Administration to have everything perfect in 11 months. The Administration is doing the best it can under tough circumstances. Imagine if the Balloon Boy happened on the Bush watch. We would have NORAD mobilized, Dick Cheney would have been whisked off to some God forsaken place and W. would just be finishing the book he started on 9/11.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  73. Jerry

    Jack ,She needs to be canned. And Yes he doe's a lot of things just like Bush, Look at his speeches. His last speech on putting more troops in Afaganistan,His speech was almost word for word of one of Bushes speeches.He's not as bad as Bush yet But give him time.If we still have a country. Jerry /Iowa

    December 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  74. Jan

    I would not let Desiree Rogers testify in front of congress. I think her office have already said they were making changes. All Peter King and some in congress want to do is grandstand and try to make her look incompetent. If they are really so concerned about Pres. Obama's safety, why didn't they try to do something about these people bringing guns to the presidents speeches. President Bush was trying to cover up wrong doing in his administration by not letting his people testify. This is not the case with President Obama.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  75. Bruce

    I live in GWB's home town and I believe him to be the worst president in US history. Unfortunately, this move by President Obama is reminds me of Bush. We voted for change...but we're not getting it.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  76. Rich McKinney, Texas

    No , not really. What it does do however is make his administration look like is a bunch of buffoons. If Obama and his staff have done nothing wrong why would they not want to dispel any rumors, myths or adverse media attention? That tells me Obama is trying to protect his secretary from the American people finding out what she did or failed to do regarding the white house party crashers. Obama is quite content that the Secret Service took the bullet in congress on this one. He sees the Secret Service as expendable. His cronies are not. That speaks volumes about Obama's character.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  77. L Bell

    Oh get over it! Social secretaries handle protocol. The Secret Service handles security. More importantly, they agreed to the changes. Honestly, the Secret Service can take a bullet, but they can't read a list? Why is every little thing about Obama such a huge deal? Honestly, the knit-picking is so ridiculous, I think for his State of the Union Address, he should moon America.

    L Bell

    December 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  78. Bill

    Hey Jack. Sure the secretary should testify and tell the American people she screwed up and let two dummies into a white house state dinner. Is she afraid to just tell the truth, or is she content to let someone else fall on his sword? There is just to much of this sort of thing happening. If she feels she is immune from telling the truth, she should just quit her job and find something else. I'm sure corportate America could use her, being honest there isn't very important anyway. President Obama should surround himself with honest people.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  79. dorothy cody

    I'm very disappointed in President Obama's decision to let Rogers off the hot seat. She must tell us what happened. The American people deserve no less.

    I had hoped he would be different. Isn't that what he promised?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  80. Mr Fly from Michigan

    P.S. The Press just likes "hanging" someone ! Oh goodie, who has the popcorn.. this is going to be fun.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  81. roger long


    He also reminds me of another George, George Washington, and every president inbetween.

    Being president has its responsibilities and perks.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  82. Global Warming Denier

    Wow, all the transparency we were promised turned into invisibility instead.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  83. Robert

    You can not compare the mishandling of a dinner too the outing of a CIA agent, mismanaging 2 wars, mismanaging Katrina, and torturing prisoners.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  84. Mike

    Meet the new boss, same liar as the old boss...

    December 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  85. Jordan -AL

    Well Jack, at least the cronyism is transparent... See, there's a bright side to every story. Now if we can only find a way to forget all about this nonsense.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  86. Aaron

    Well there is a couple of really big difference between Obama and Bush...Bush was a terrible speaker but worked hard to get things done (I realize people didn't agree with most if), Obama is great at giving speeches but is extremely ineffective at accomplishing anything.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  87. not so

    I don't think so Jack, after all the chicken, steak, or lobster wasn't in question, security was and that wasn't her job. So realistically what does she have to say to Congress?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  88. Mickey

    Testify as to what?? How the Secret Service didn't follow their own protocols? If she has to "testify" about something she really had nothing to do with, where does it stop? Everytime congress disagrees with something that happened at the White House, someone gets hauled in front of Congress??

    December 9, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  89. Maggie

    She did her job! She gave the Secret Service a list of people to let in and decided to let in a pushy couple of con artists. If a loyal employee did nothing wrong why send her to be crucified by politicians looking for sound bites to impress voters?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  90. Daryl

    "I will have the most transparent administration ever!"
    R I G H T..............

    December 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  91. David

    Jack ,

    If you feel that this situation is any comparison to the Bush White House, then you are just as Right Wing as those nuts who just hate him because they hate him. Security is still the job of the Secret Service and this kind of hatred need to be directed at the Salahis.

    Las Vegas.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  92. Michael R`

    Yes, this seems like President Obama is working to be George Bush III. It is a no brainer. Then again President Obama missed the no brainer on the ban on land mines. Disappointing.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  93. Henrita

    Why should she have to testify? She did her job just fine. The party crashers names WERE NOT on the list!! Again, THEY WERE NOT ON THE LIST!! They were still let in by the secret service which has admitted they were at fault. What's the point of bringing HER before Congress. I see it as an attempt to downplay the secret service's fault in the issue and instead embarrass the White House. I smell a rat and I think the White house does also. Sorry, Paul Begala, but the
    White House is correct int this one.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  94. Bob (Illinois)

    Since when is it the responsibility of the White House Social Secretary to maintain security?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  95. Ken in NC

    The President is protecting his Family. "C Street" tried to protect their family and are still trying. What's the difference. Family is Family.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  96. Aries Miles

    Yes. There goes TRANSPARENCY & CHANGE out the window, Jack!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  97. Besalel in Great Neck

    This is a very important national security matter. I think we need to learn how a Palestinian, Tareq Salahi, can walk right up the President of the United States. Is it true that all it takes is having a pretty blonde on your arm?

    I am not saying Tareq is a bad person because he is Palestinian or otherwise because he is NOT a bad preson but obviously, we should be very concerned by the very fact that someone that has the potential to be a terrorist can walk right up to our commander in chief simply because of his western appearance.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  98. Terry from Illinois

    Bush was far worse than Obama. Bush outsourced America and now GOP can't understand why taxes from less paying jobs can't pay for 2 wars, Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, Social Security, Medicare and everything else.
    Nobody cares about Desiree Rogers since the Secret Service has admitted fault so GET OVER IT and move on to JOBS and HEALTHCARE !!!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  99. Bill Hogarth

    Did you ever wonder What Happened To Obama's promises to:
    close Gitmo by Dec?
    close tax breaks which reward businesses for shipping jobs overseas?
    rescnd Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy?
    end the war in Iraq?
    stop taxing Social Security benefits?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  100. frank

    Presidential aides don't testify at Congress if president doesn't want them too. Now something like Cheney and war crimes, that's different. You can override the president. But if that wasn't important, who cares about this. Just put the crashers at gitmo until the Illinois prison opens up. Who but an enemy combatant would want to crash the WH.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  101. Bill in Penna

    I was unaware that the presidential social secretary was now responsible for the security of the President. I had always thought that was what we paid the Secret Service to do. We give them police powers, a budget, and training but it may be true a government agency can not do the job. Just look at the DEA billions and billions, year after year and they are a total failure. Just decriminalize drugs and we can get out of three wars, save Mexico stop terrorism in Arfica and balance our budget. But we will not tolerate that. No profit for the billionaires.
    Yes, she could have done more. The Secret Service could have done its job too but they didn't so lets whip up a phony story and hang a secretary out to dry when the Chief of the Secret Service has a responsibility to resign.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  102. Cole

    There is a huge difference here! We now have a president whose parties are worth crashing. Cheers!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
  103. Rex

    Why is it surprising that he is acting more and more like his predecessors? What amazes me is the fact that the Left drank the KoolAid and fell for his rhetoric, but what has he done of substance which is radically different than any other politician? Now the Left has become overly apologetic for his actions, since it would be a major egg in the face for them to 'fess up and admit that a mistake was made in electing this junior leaguer. As for claiming Executive Privilege for his social affairs director? Please, Mr. President – save it for something important and worthy of the fight.. Actions such as these just show how little the office (or the people who occupy the office) has become.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  104. Aries Miles

    Yes. There goes TRANSPARENCY & CHANGE out the window, Jack!

    Sacramento, CA

    December 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  105. NonBeliever

    Nope, I think he looks worse than Bush. His campaign promises of transparency were obviously a lie. Claiming Executive Privilege, closed door meetings on health care, not posting legislation like he said his administration would do, promising to weed out lobbyist and then hiring them by waiver.....etc, etc, etc,........At least with bush, you knew where you stood. With Obama, it is unclear. His best game seems to be deception.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  106. John

    If this is the standard of this administration for "Executive Privilege, then WHAT else will White House employees be shielded from?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  107. Michael from Ft. Hood Texas

    Jack is it s the same old Potomac Two Step that everyone practices in Washington including the Congress. If the White House Social Secretary had the codes to our nuclear arsenal that is one thing, but in truth she is just an overpaid VIP cocktail hostess paid for by taxpayers. Hmmm....Tiger Woods wasn't in DC that weekend was he? When it comes to promises of change, Bush was a liar, and so is Obama. And the truth is most everyone in politics is too.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  108. John Ca.

    So, What! Bush did not let some of his peoples testify in front of Congress.org. The Pres. Obama is well within his rights in the eyes of the law on this one. By the way Pres. Obama is doing a great job up ther in Was. D. C. and he is keeping America Great!!!

    John Ca.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  109. Chris

    Yes, Jack i agree with you, Obama isn't fooling anyone, he's just protecting another of his crony's. I'm embarressed to have supported this man and anyone he's associated with. It's all the same ole' crap!

    Desiree should testify as to why she didn't do her job that night. It was apparent that she was more interested in showing off that hideous dress and stuff her face full of shrimp.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
  110. John Ca.

    I think this was P.R. for the TV Show?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
  111. GaryB

    It could be because the whole thing is just so darn silly. Why is congress wasting its time investigatingwhat was, essentially, a minor secret service foul-up? What do they hope to gain? What point does it serve? Its distraction poilitics. What are they going to do next, investigate Tiger Woods?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  112. Ken in NC

    Jack, if they have Ms. Rogers up on the Hill to testify, the next thing you will see would be Bo Obama under oath and he has yet to give his first interview.

    So what else critical do we have to discuss?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  113. E. Cleaver

    Wow! I cannot believe that any one would cast aspersions on how Ms Rogers is doing her job. I question the sanity of anyone who would hold her responsible in any way for any aspect of white house security. She looks like a sweet young thing with knowledge of fashion, protocol and etiquette, and a high energy level. Perfect for the job. If the Secret Service needed someone with a clipboard at the entrance, it was up to them to get one there. Leave her alone. She produced a stellar state dinner of which she, the president and the American people can be proud.

    Halifax, NS

    (PS sorry for the repeat – I sent this to the wrong question earlier)

    December 9, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  114. Lynn

    Absolutely NOT – Bush was trying to protect himself and his cronies from possible illegal activities against the Constitution – Obama is showing his usual intelligence in how he handled the security issue – find the problem and fix it! . As far as Ms. Roberts, she is the SOCIAL SECRETARY for crying out loud! I noticed that those really responsible have already been dealt with and security tightened – I'm sure Ms. Rogers got a warning about any oversight she may have had – all this so called investigation is for is to try to distract from more important issues and throw a little mud at Obama. Enough already, stop giving credence to these cretins. Lynn, Jamul, CA

    December 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
  115. Ari in LA

    First off, why the hell is a "Secretary" being dragged before congress to testify when she didn't seem to do anything? She didn't ask those morons to come by, she didn't give invitations to them, she just politely rebuffed them. I've had to do the same, passing off any yes/no by saying "We're looking into it", or "I haven't heard yet".

    This is yet another stupid waste of our national time and money – when we SHOULD be holding hearings on that Chicago Mumbai terrorist, and how he was able to go back and forth between India, Pakistan and God Knows Where, and NOT ONE TSA AGENT at O'Hare said "Hey, you've been in Pakistan. Alot. Any reason why?"

    But *no*. We want to go after a social secretary.....

    December 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
  116. ISE (Somerville, MA)

    I think Obama looks like Bush in a lot of ways. Welfare for the rich, aka bailouts, is one appalling thing they have in common. Why shouldn't we expect other things, such as cronyism, as well?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  117. steve in virginia

    Bush was no Boyscout but he didn't have 37 czars and counting. If Obama won't let a Social Secretary testify, how can we believe he will allow his shadow government of czars to be subject to Congressional oversight? Seems indicative of an even bigger showdown that should be addressed now.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  118. rogersmith

    Hi Jack 15 inches of snow here DID THE UNVITED GUESTS HAVE PLACE SET FOR THEM?hmmmmmmm

    December 9, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  119. Steve

    I'm a fan of the President and I'm wondering what he's hidding. Oh my God, I hope she's not a mistress. That would be so typical. All the men I love, keep hurting my views of them, President Clinton, David Letterman, Tiger, and now maybe Obama 🙂

    December 9, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  120. Aurora Murabayashi

    I think Desiree Rogers shoud really speak and explain her position in the first place why she feels she can get an invitation for the Salahis (according to the exchange of emails with the couple). The President and First Lady are the ones who invited guests. The social secretary is in charge of the dinner and the guests lists. As a wife of a diplomat posted here in the States, I also attend many functions and it's very simple that the main guests lists would be at the entrance of the party venue and whoever is not in the list, is of course, not allowed to enter. This is very simple, how come Desiree could not appear in the hearing and explain her side? If it is true that President Obama is protecting her because she is a 'buddy' from Chicago then it looks like the present administration is not serious or efficient enough in following the protocol at White House dinners/functions... this is really frustrating for many Americans, and if this issue will not be resolved and the people involved will just try to evade from their responsibilities, then it appears like as if the State dinners of White House is just like any other ordinary parties /dinner in the States....that's a shame.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  121. Herman from Chicago

    It's not Bush, or Obama, it's politicians in general. These people that we elect to represent us suddenly feel that they're better than us. Why do you think that the huge Health Care Package that is slowly and seemingly unstoppingly making its wat through Congress doesn't apply to Senators or Congressmen?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  122. Brian Wickremasinghe - Woodland Hills, CA.

    If the Salahis were invited they would have had a place on the seating plan. The intruders were not invited. The secret service accepted responsibility for the SNAFU. Is there a reason to waste time and money with more inquiries?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  123. Dave

    That's not fair. This was a White House Dinner, not a Congressional Dinner. This is an Executive Branch issue and not a Legislative Branch issue. This is why Obama may be claiming executive privilege. Let the White House deal with this issue. It's not a matter for Congress. Obama isn't getting involved with Congressmen who violate ethics laws. Those are issues for Congress to investigate.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  124. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Lets just flip a coin .

    December 9, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  125. Jorge Casana

    Once a politician, always a politician. Obama promised change yet he is doing more of the same.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  126. Brian from Denver


    We've got boondoggles up the yin yang from this country's "leadership"–bailing out greedy bankers and investment brokers, STILL pouring blood and treasure into Iraq just so they can have an Arab-style parliament that STILL doesn't treat women as equals, and now this! If Desiree Rodgers was in any way responsible for that security breach, she should be fired. Period. If she wasn't, then she should be shielded. Period. Obama might know the truth, but do WE The People? This President loses valuable credibility by even invoking the APPEARANCE of cronyism. He should know better.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
  127. Rickster

    Obama is about as transparent as a block wall. The "change" that he keeps saying is only to benefit himself, friends, unions, and to repay people who donated to him. The only way that this is not tottally visible to anyone is if they have their eyes closed because they are just glad it is not Busch that is Pres. Personally I think he should be compared to Carter more than Busch, although unfortunately for us Carter would win that comparison.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
  128. Lindy

    This is all just politics. Obama is no different than Bush, or Clinton or anyone before. Except for color.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  129. Tcaros

    The Salhis are a couple of old tarts that slipped into the White House to furhter some career intentions.

    They knew they weren't inviited. They figured the worst that could happen is they would have to go home after some name dropping attempts.

    Obama needs to cut Desiree Rogers loose. She's obviously not paying attention to what she's doing and being paid alot of money for it.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  130. GWTripp, Mch'sburg, PA

    Sadly, Jack there are so few of us who are not corrupted with the burden of power. As soon as one believes that they are too important to make their own bed, wash their own clothes and dishes, and take out the trash, power takes hold and one loses one's sense of humility and being grounded with life and what is real. Living from paycheck to paycheck and having absolutely no influence with any one else’s political view does have its advantages after all. It’s hard for a man with all the President’s power at hand not to feel some sense of hubris. What a shame

    December 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  131. Michael from Ft. Hood Texas

    Refer this answer to this and your last question.......Obama is not Bush but he is not being the candidate of change he swore to the American public he would be. Obama needs to fire his handlers and drinking buddies that feed him their swill of crap instead of the truth, and run the country with integrity and honesty for a change. Or else he might finding himself managing his third war......the second American Revolution here at home!!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  132. Ryan

    Presidents need to protect their staff, but if this were Bush it would be plastered everywhere in the media. Obama seems to be sheltered from the criticism Bush had to endure each and every day.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
  133. R J Gay, KS

    This thing about testifying is taking up too much space, The only similarity betwen the two is they both have Firsst Ladies with class.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
  134. Michael

    Executive privilege–No one is above the law! President Obama certainly espoused this belief when he brought Guantanimo Bay, teh securiy service, former president Bush and VP Cheney's torture methods before the legal system. And, now he doesn't want his crony social dinner planner to testify? I think people are forgetting the reality of this whole deal; two apparently uninvited guests gained access into the Presidents dinner party. What if they had planned on killing the President? i.e. spiking his drink with poisen etc., After all they certainly were pretty cozy with him in the photos Hmmm. Then again I wouldn't quite compare him with Bush who was certainly security conscious, but rather Bill Clinton who had staff without security clearances and allowed them to attend classified briefings! Then again, maybe President Obama doesn't need security, or care about it? Everyone and anyone involved should be made to testify to sort this debacle out-no playing school ground favorites-It's time to be adults.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
  135. Ted Weber

    put them in a sack, shake them up & who knows who would come out first. Whatever happened to the buck stops here . Step up , admit your mistake. If you can't take the heat , get out of the kitchen.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:46 pm |
  136. taizoon chinwalla

    As they say more things change, more they remain the same.
    I wonder if congress can subpoena her. I am a Obama fan, but this totally outrageous.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:46 pm |
  137. Wes

    Investigations by congress on this acting is wasting time and money. This is what congress does when they dont get what they want. Watch "West Wing" Season 3 episode 4-6 and it explains it well. Stop being a baby and start doing your job. NO MORE CRYING!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
  138. Bill in VA

    In some ways he does remind me of Bush. it seems that he may actually be beginning to see the light. Talk doesn't work. Troops work. But he has a long way to go to show as much intestinal fortitude as W. Maybe a couple more years of the reality of the rogue leaders will bring him around.

    Obama talks too much before thinking. He was all about transparency until he got in. Now it seems he thinks it isn't such a good thing. But I do think there is some value to the privilege he is claiming just as I believed it in the past and will continue to do so whoever the president is.

    I do not necessarily agree that it is the party planners fault. While in the past a representative of the social secretary may have been there to sort out issues, that does not mean that the Secret Service, absent such a representative, should be letting people in without invitations. Totally unacceptable.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
  139. Mildred

    No, . She should not testify. She is the Social Secretary, not Secretary of State. She is responsible for planning parties, menus, decorations, finding interesting people to attend, nice looking invitations and pretty penmanship. If she was also responsible for security she would have under her job description Social/Security Secretary under her name. But, she doesn't. Testify before Congress because 2 people slipped by the Security Service? Or did they slipped by? Come on now!

    December 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
  140. Vernis Robertson

    This a totally different issue , give me a break . Don't the american people have a lot more to worry about than 2 nuts sneaking into a State Dinner. Give me a break . This administration and the Bush administration are very different. Jack your are starting to sound like those Republicans.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
  141. Chris

    Jack, this is just plain stupid. Can't we find something better to do with our time?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
  142. vern-anaheim,ca

    jack,most polititions are like what president obama did ,they won't let their aides take the blame for anything and refusing to let them testify because it might bring out dishonesty on the part of the administration.Every president has done this and i expect it will go on until we can find a way to stop it

    December 9, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
  143. Tracy

    If the party crashers had turned out to be terrorists and had caused harm to Obama, you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone would be screaming for Desiree Rogers to testify. This breach in security needs to be addressed and all those who had any ties to it need to be questioned.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:48 pm |