White House Staffers Now Posted at Checkpoints for Social Events
EmailJake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:
The impact of alleged State Dinner-crashers Tariq and Michaele Salahi has resulted in a procedural change for White House social events, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced Wednesday.
Last night was the first of many holiday parties at the White House that will be held over the next several weeks, he said.
And as a response to an internal White House look at procedures post-Gate-Crash-gate — and criticism that unlike in previous years, no one from the White House social office stood at security checkpoints to help the Secret Service make sure only invitees got in — White House staffers were at security.
“We had staff at the security checkpoint to ensure that if there was any confusion about lists those would be double-checked with somebody representing the Social Office," Gibbs said of last night's party security, "That was an assessment made based on something that we believed could have been added and we've made those changes as of last night.”
The White House has now posting the findings of their own investigation, as well as instructions from Messina on the policy change.
A full review of the incident was conducted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, looking, "at whether we were doing enough to complement the work that the brave men and women do at the Secret Service," Gibbs said.
The answer was no, the White House was not doing enough, Messina said in a blog posted on the White House website this afternoon.
"After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex," Messina writes, "White House staff were walking back and forth outside between the check points helping guests and were available to the Secret Service throughout the evening, but clearly we can do more, and we will do more."
The new procedure basically orders a return to the standard operating procedure in previous White Houses, requiring the Social Secretary's office to be at the checkpoints during events now.
The new protocol, as is written by Messina, are as follows:
-"White House staff will be stationed physically at the check points with the United States Secret Service.
-Guests will be checked off of the list by White House staff and the Secret Service will continue to ensure that all guests have been properly cleared before entering the White House.
-Guests whose names are not on the guest list will be assisted by White House staff present at the check point for appropriate resolution.
-As always, the Secret Service will provide security and remain ultimately responsible for controlling access to the White House complex."
Social Secretary Desiree Rogers was invited to testify before Congress on the controversy tomorrow. Gibbs said she would not do so because of the separation of powers.
“I think you know that based on separation of powers staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress," Gibbs said, "she will not be testifying in front of Congress tomorrow.”
-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
===Gibbs said she would not do so because of the separation of powers.===
LOL. While I agree with them on the separation of powers, I find it humorous they are using what they complained about during the Bush years.
Posted by: Axey | December 2, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Is this an admission this couple was admitted by staff decision , and not an error by the SS ?
Posted by: nat turner | December 2, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Gibbs wouldn’t answer the question about WHO decided not to have the staff member at the gate BEFORE this party.
My guess would be Disarray.
Posted by: Linda Eaton | December 2, 2009, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
Michelle Jones, the WH/pentagon liason confirmed the invite in emails to these jokers.
The secret service should never have been blamed. This was just another Obamatureism of the day.
They must keep a fleet of buses at the white house. They would have run out of room long ago with only one.
Posted by: oops | December 2, 2009, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
“Social Secretary Desiree Rogers was invited to testify before Congress on the controversy tomorrow. Gibbs said she would not do so because of the separation of powers.”
Transparency
Posted by: jb | December 2, 2009, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Separation of powers? That is what caused this to begin with. No one knew who was on first let alone who was to amble into the party with or without an invite, official or not. Hope that Afghanistan thing goes a little better. Maybe some staffers need to be assigned to screen the participants for invites..
Posted by: Bob | December 2, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
Didn’t Cheney try the separation of power thing and everyone got all worked up about it? At least the previous administration didn’t promise unprecedented transparency. Guess the O’ministration “changed” their mind of that one too.
Posted by: Jet | December 2, 2009, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm
I can’t wait for Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Ruth Marcus, and other left-wing pundits to cry foul of Obama WH refusing to testify before Congress.
Hilarious. Much ado about almost nothing. Just fire the nitwit Desiree who was taking interviews about her evening gown that night instead of doing her job. Typical incompetent Obama WH. Maybe Desiree can transfer into the Office of Protocal since they also do such a bang up job. I wonder how the Queen of England is enjoying her iPod with Obama’s speeches?
Posted by: Aaron | December 2, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
All that needed is a posted sign that reads ” The Whitehouse is full of pretenders and cannot accept anymore”.
Posted by: david | December 2, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
Got to love how everybody has prejudged this incident many times over before all the information is out – petty, trite and juvenile is what the right wing has become. “Soap opera” level political intelligence. Shameful.
Posted by: tierra | December 2, 2009, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
According to Robin Givhan, Desiree is bff’s with Valerie Jarrett… not hard to figure out who advised POTUS on this decision. I HATE CRONYISM!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ohiogal | December 2, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
I am a strong supporter of Mr. Obama, however, a social secretary does not have the right to executive privilege or a claim to separation of powers. This is a serious breakdown in security, particularly important in the post 9/11 years and if there are weaknesses in the White House/Secret Service communications, it is IMPERATIVE that they be identified and corrected NOW. All US Presidents are at risk. but this President is particularly so because of substantial efforts by some Republicans (and Democrats) to create an atmosphere of hate toward those who have opposing views. The Salahi’s may have been harmless, publicity seeking nobodies, but others who have seemed to be harmless have dealt serious blows to our citizens and our country. They may have entered without weapons, but I am sure that knifes, forks and other utensils were available quite readily on the dinner and serving tables. Perhaps they might not have been able to assassinate, but certainly they could, had they been so inclined, harmed important members of the administration. Rogers has an obligation to speak to Congress and ensure that a similar transgression will not happen again.
Posted by: mJG | December 2, 2009, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
They did have a person doing this job, but she was told it was no longer necessary.
We will never be told the truth.
The one thing that I am sure of is the SS was not at fault.
It never seems to be mentioned that this guy is a Palestinian.
Posted by: Duane | December 2, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
And here, Mr. Obama is supposed to take of us from terrorists. He may not even beable to take care of himself.
Posted by: young_voter | December 2, 2009, 7:08 pm 7:08 pm
Another Bush Policy reinstated after abortive hope and change.
Posted by: Terry | December 2, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
ClimateGateCrashers…
An inconvenient truth.
In 1991 Roger Revelle apologized that his research sent so many people in the wrong direction on global warming.
He worried about the political fallout from the UN IPCC and Al Gore.
Revelle realized that it was a false alarm and the science was flawed before he died.
Posted by: Barry Christmas | December 2, 2009, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
And here, Mr. Obama is supposed to take of us from terrorists. He may not even beable to take care of himself.
____________________________________
He’s doing a lot better than his predecessor.
1) North Korea developed and tested their first nuclear weapon on George Bush’s watch,
2) Iran developed its secret nuclear facility on George Bush’s watch,
3) Bush and Cheney let Afghanistan drift for 7 years while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and got stronger – with serious consequences we’re still having to deal with .. .
Posted by: tierra | December 2, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
I wonder how the Queen of England is enjoying her iPod with Obama’s speeches?
Posted by: Aaron
she probably likes it, and it’s also a joyful reminder that the dope who used to be president isn’t
Posted by: Oh Yeah | December 3, 2009, 12:37 am 12:37 am
He’s doing a lot better than his predecessor.
——————
How so?
1) North Korea: Have they now renounced their nuclear program and missle launches since Mr. Obama started his program of direct engagement? No, now the administration is trying to return to the Bush strategy of having NK’s neighbors bring pressure.
2) Iran developed: Have they renounced their ambitions for nuclear development under Mr. Obama’s policy of direct engagement? No, the just announce they will increase by 10 the number of facilities. In addition, they are executing protesters from the last election.
3) Bush and Cheney let Afghanistan drift for 7 years … Has it improved under Mr. Obama during the last year? No, it has gotten markedly worse while he completely ignored it between last March and October, then dithered until now before coming up with halfhearted plan to send in an additional 30k of young Americans.
Posted by: Terry | December 3, 2009, 12:58 am 12:58 am
How so?
1) North Korea developed and tested their first nuclear weapon on George Bush’s watch,
2) Iran developed its secret nuclear facility on George Bush’s watch,
3) Bush and Cheney let Afghanistan drift for 7 years while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and got stronger – with serious consequences we’re still having to deal with .. .
Posted by: tierra | December 3, 2009, 2:33 am 2:33 am
1) North Korea developed and tested their first nuclear weapon on George Bush’s watch,
2) Iran developed its secret nuclear facility on George Bush’s watch,
3) Bush and Cheney let Afghanistan drift for 7 years while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and got stronger – with serious consequences we’re still having to deal with .. .
—————
1. President Bush was in office for 8 years. I doubt the North Koreans (or any country could ‘develop’ nuclear weapons in just 8 years. They were probably working on it much earlier. As for testing it….so what? Unless you think we should have attacked North Korea also? I think most Democrats, Bush-haters and anyone with 2 working brain cells might have gotten a little upset with him.
Or did you approve of us attacking Iraq? I did not.
2. Please see #1 and replace North Korea with Iran.
3. I agree with you on that one; bad mistake!
Posted by: malcat | December 3, 2009, 6:11 am 6:11 am