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?