Make no mistake, the Vendetta against Desiree Rogers has nothing to do with Desiree Rogers or the White House Gate Party Crashers, but it's a new way found by Repubs and the press to embarrass the President and his administration.
Now people are trying to deplace the debate on this subject. The debate isn't about Desiree Rogers being a socialite or not, it's about two morons who found their way into the White House without an invitation. The facts are that the members of the secret services had the guest list on their hands, didn't see the Salahi's name on the list, didn't call the social secretary office as recommended in a previous meeting, and let pass those two clowns. Desiree Rogers' office is not at fault. Yes, it was a bad idea to have not let someone of her staff at the gates in question, but still, secret agents should be smart enough to not let in someone without an invitation, even if it was the Ambassador of India himself.
People are asking the head of Desiree Rogers. They are questionning why Desiree Rogers was in the guest list. I was surprised to see the defense of Desiree Rogers coming from Laura Bush's Chief of Staff. On Larry King Live, Laura Bush's Chief of Staff claimed that Desiree Rogers had to be at the dinner to coordinate the event. And she disputed the accusation against Desiree Rogers, saying that Secret Services should have called the Social Secretary Office instead of letting the Salahis in. While a Lady from the Clinton administration was constatly blasting Rogers for dressing to expensive. Are you kidding me ? I can't believe that it was Laura Bush's Chied of Staff who defended the White House.
The press seems to be in vendetta against Desiree Rogers for stupid reason. Like this morning, Joe Scarborough attacked her because she "poses" for Paparazzi and she wears too expensive clothes. They even try to attack Chuck Todd, when Chuck claimed that attacks against Desiree Rogers were personal attacks that nothing to do with the quality of her job.
WashingPost's fashion correspondant Robin Givhan is the most ridiculous. I don't call it an article, I call it a rag, even the National Enquirer would should less bitterness or stupidity.
Early in her tenure, Rogers made a trip to New York City during February's fashion week. She sat in the front row of runway shows such as Donna Karan and smiled for the flock of photographers who descended on the striking Obama gatekeeper with her pixie cut, stylish wardrobe and high-altitude heels. She dabbled in a world of hipsters and art scene know-it-alls in her attempt to bring a contemporary gleam to the White House. And she seemed to thrive on all the attention. She has come across as a big-picture manager, not one focused on details.
Then came The Chicago Tribue's Mark Silva with his own rag on this issue.
A certain reporter was commenting on the attire that Rogers herself had donned for the occasion that night - a pale peach gown from the Japanese designer, Comme des Garcons.
(...)
The Post's own social correspondent, Robin Givhan, who was standing next to the print pool reporter working the dinner, asked Rogers that night: "Are you wearing Comme Des Garcons?"
"Of course," Rogers replied.
That crap even went through the White House Press Briefing thanks to April Ryan from American Urban Radio Networks :
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.
Now Representant Peter King (R-NY) wants to subpoena Desiree Rogers to testify before the Homeland Security House committee. Are you kidding me ? Since when the Social Secretary has to response to the HSHC's answers. I agree with Robert Gibbs when he said that this story isn't "The Watergate".
UPDATE
The HuffingtonPost has an excellent piece on the subjet by Sam Stein :
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. Rogers 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-profiled affair.
Prepping all day on Tuesday, she changed into her outfit just 30 minutes before the state dinner starter, the source added.
"What are the odds she was going to be lackadaisical at the biggest moment of her life?" the source asked. "Zero. That's why these stories don't make any sense. Her reputation is at stake."
The source spoke in defense of Rogers because the social secretary had been told not to speak to the press. "I think the way it is being characterize and the way it is coming off that she is too big a personality for the White House, it just doesn't make sense," the source said.