Secret Service will tighten WH security after party crashers scandal

posted at 9:30 am on November 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

A bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, no?  The Secret Service says that guests to future White House events had better bring umbrellas on rainy evenings, because they will take their time in the future in confirming invitations rather than expedite waiting times — the situation that created an opening for two embarrassing but thankfully innocuous party crashers at a state dinner last week.  The Washington Post takes a bit of credit for exposing them — but also an unnecessarily hysterical tone over presidential security:

The bizarre breach at the White House state dinner last week lends new urgency to a review of Secret Service procedures that was begun after President Obama’s inauguration, and threatens to revive questions about how much security is enough for the country’s elected leader.

A senior Secret Service official said a “top-to-bottom” review of the agency’s protective department was ordered shortly after Obama began his term amid the highest threat level for any recent president. The results are due soon, said spokesman James Mackin.

The highest for any President?  The US prosecuted a man in Virginia for seriously plotting George W. Bush’s assassination (and convicted him).  Ahmed Omar Abu Ali also got convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda.  Perhaps they’re tracking that kind of threat at the moment against Barack Obama, but I’d call an operational AQ plot to assassinate a President a very high threat level indeed.

But who blew the whistle on the party crashers?  Surprisingly, the Post says it was their reporter:

A source who had spoken to senior Secret Service officials said the Salahis were allowed inside in violation of agency policies by an officer outside the front gate who apparently was persuaded by the couple’s manner and insistence as well as the pressure of keeping lines moving on a rainy evening.

“Rather than stand there and get wet, he went ahead and let them go,” said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid offending his contacts.

Once inside, the couple were identified by a Washington Post reporter, who asked two White House staffers early in the evening about their absence from the guest list and raised the issue with them in an 11 p.m. e-mail. A report on what occurred that night — including their movements inside the White House — is expected in a matter of days.

But this part of Michael Shear and Spencer Hsu’s report is just silly:

But Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the Virginia couple who waltzed, uninvited, into the White House and shook hands with Obama on Tuesday night provided new evidence that in a democracy, it is far from impossible to breach the bubble of security around the chief executive.

What does “democracy” have to do with it?  We could be a communist people’s republic with Pol Pot running security, and if guards don’t take the time to check the invitation list, you’ll still get crashers at state dinners.  People on the queue outside the White House didn’t vote to allow the Salahis into the party.  They didn’t vote for rain, either, or to let security off the hook for doing their job.  Someone should be out looking for a new job, and I’m going to bet that someone won’t save the one he had last week by giving the Secret Service a discourse on democracy.

Besides, it’s apparently not the first time the Salahis have met Barack Obama.  According to Canada Free Press and the American Power blog, the Salahis met Obama at a 2005 event hosted by Tariq Salahi, the America’s Polo Cup pre-event party:

So were they at the state dinner by invitation after all?  The Secret Service says no, but they hardly crashed the 2005 event.  Read more about Salahi’s interesting political background at Talking Points Memo.  Would a lobbyist for Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have been invited but his name kept off the official list?  That might explain the supposed security breach better than just a rainy night, or democracy.

Update: TPM link fixed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If our president wasn’t such a rockstar I’m sure there would be less enthusiasim for crashing his super cool parties.

myrenovations on November 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Dana Perino mentioned on Fox News Sunday that the incoming Obama admin actually asked the Bush admin to work with them on relaxing White House security.

Go RBNY on November 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Slackers.

Maquis on November 30, 2009 at 9:36 AM

The Talking Points Memo link doesn’t work.

aunursa on November 30, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Uh, sure, I’m concerned about the ‘crashing’ of the party at the WH.

I’m far more concerned with people like Hasan running around.

Our government needs a big shot of Common Sense injected into it. Just unbelievable to me…the idiocy.

bridgetown on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

well, the skinny blonde looks hungry… maybe the guy at the gate had pity and told her to hit the buffet line….

whatevs.

ted c on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Dana Perino also said there was never a terrorist attack on our soil while Bush Jr. was president.

She is obviously a fool.

A Axe on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

The highest for any President?

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I think this story needs coverage until the truth is known.
I suspect they were indeed invited and I think this rock star attitude of the WH is part of the problem if indeed there even is a problem.
This attention seeking couple has been around a long time, has tax problems like most of Barry’s friends and has all the other qualities of the rest of the clique in the WH. I actually feel sorry for the Seccret Service. There is no way to win on this one and for them, like the rest of us, this is going to feel like the longest presidency in history.

ORconservative on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

She was let in because she was a good looking blond, white woman…a black woman, without credentials, would have never been let in…just had to post it…

right2bright on November 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Widely reported and factual are two very different things.

myrenovations on November 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Gee, what told ‘em they need to wake up and get back on the job?

Gotta love this White House. Soooooo so on the job they can’t even keep watch over the guy they insist is the greatest president EVAH!

Pathetic. But, it’s good to know we weren’t wrong. Amateur hour continues…

Mad Mad Monica on November 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Parody: Couple with Private Sector Experience Breaches White House Security http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/couple-with-private-sector-experience.html

Mervis Winter on November 30, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

This keeps being put out there without any substantive proof that this is anything more than the usual lies of this administration. Fact of the matter is that the filthy lying coward wants the sub-text to be that whites are so upset a black man is in power that the loonies are out to get him just like they gunned down MLK, JFK, and RFK.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Would a lobbyist for Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have been invited but his name kept off the official list?

My money is on story that they were invited, but were kept off the official invitee list. I think there is much more to this.

behiker on November 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Once again, if Messiah is all about “Hopey-Changey” and he himself proclaims the USA is more beloved worldwide now than ever before (thank-me very much), please explain a “400 percent increase in death threats”. I’ll explain it: it’s BS and a tactic.

Marcus on November 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Threats are of little consequence, since seldom does someone who is out to do a terrorist attack explain what they are doing.
Reagan was attacked, Obama has been verbally attacked…mainly because of his ridiculous programs.

I am sure that the reports of threats against Obama is about as valid as his stats on his recovery.org site…or as valid as his saving millions of jobs.
BTW, his threats have included bloggers statements…hardly a reliable source for “threats.

right2bright on November 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM

I actually feel sorry for the Seccret Service. There is no way to win on this one and for them, like the rest of us, this is going to feel like the longest presidency in history.

ORconservative on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I think it entirely depends on what the true story is. If, as I suspect, the SS is taking the fall then they deserve our sympathies. On the other hand, no matter the fact that these people are not strangers to the filthy lying coward and Dem circles, if they were not invited they shouldn’t have made it past the first checkpoint let alone getting to shake hands with the rat bastard traitor in power.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Just like all the jobs he has created…onward to global warming…

right2bright on November 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM

if they were not invited they shouldn’t have made it past the first checkpoint let alone getting to shake hands with the rat bastard traitor in power.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM

They know that through efficient profiling that an underfed white woman was no threat…it’s those Cambridge police officers that are so dangerous.

right2bright on November 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM

BTW, Karl Rove said today the likely story is this couple was put out there by Bravo reality (a NBC affiliate) and was probably “snuck” into the shindigg by a “low level White House employee” (also a NBC affiliate).

Marcus on November 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM

A senior Secret Service official said a “top-to-bottom” review of the agency’s protective department was ordered shortly after Obama began his term amid the highest threat level for any recent president.

Another invented precedent for President First. Let me guess, white Christian gun-owners are tops on the “threat” list.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM

I’ll explain it: it’s BS and a tactic.

Marcus on November 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM

As I posted above, it is all about sending the message that racism is still around by suggesting that Whites are in a rage since a black man dares usurp white entitlement.

It also is a tactic to suggest that Obama’s radical socialistic change is being met with threats and he is soldiering on because it is the right thing to do despite personal risk to him and his family.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Yes. How funny that the originators of the hate we saw directed towards W. nationwide and worldwide think that they could actually be outdone. 400 percent my arse.

Marcus on November 30, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Notice in the picture that obama is checking out the blondes cleavage?

jistincase on November 30, 2009 at 9:55 AM

question: if they were not invited guests, why was their entrance announced as if they were on the list?

i figure the secret service would be scapegoated for this; they admit “not following proper procedure”…this would include allowing somebody in who was not on the list but who was given the ok by somebody in a position of authority…no secret service officer/agent, whose duty is to protect the president, is going to worry about a couple of socialites getting rained on…if this happened, the officer would be fired and his name would have been leaked

nope, somebody with clout let this couple in and now the wh is doing damage control because of the ridiculous reality tv circus…again, there are no adults in the wh

erclimb on November 30, 2009 at 9:56 AM

The WH apparently eliminated a position, which was responsible for guest list creation/checking at State dinners.

Ooops*

AnninCA on November 30, 2009 at 9:57 AM

BTW, Karl Rove said today the likely story is this couple was put out there by Bravo reality (a NBC affiliate) and was probably “snuck” into the shindigg by a “low level White House employee” (also a NBC affiliate).

Marcus on November 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Hey, today’s junior assistant to some White House czar could well be VP of programming by the end of the year. If this were for publicity, it worked though the “Housewives” franchise seems pretty good without doing so- but what a great series opener! All that publicity without having to resort to the TLC tactic of featuring dwarves, extreme obesity, or famlies that have had litters of children.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 9:57 AM

This one’s easy – they were invited to the party by The One, but he didn’t want their names to appear on the official guest list because of the jihadi connections.

Mr. Pickles on November 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

nope, somebody with clout let this couple in and now the wh is doing damage control because of the ridiculous reality tv circus…again, there are no adults in the wh

erclimb on November 30, 2009 at 9:56 AM

If it turns out the Salahis had inside help from political appointees in getting past the gate, it will be interesting to see how many people within the Secret Service are willing to go under the bus for Barack Obama, which is far different than taking a bullet for the president.

jon1979 on November 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

The bizarre breach at the White House state dinner last week lends new urgency to a review of Secret Service procedures that was begun after President Obama’s inauguration, and threatens to revive questions about how much security is enough for the country’s elected leader. [Washington Post, emphasis mine]

It must be tough being the country’s only elected leader.

Kralizec on November 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

It is total BS and there is a real story behind the bull. The real story is important. This reminds me of Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame. There are no end to attention whores BUT there is complicity on the part of someone or many someones in the WH.
And before someone jumps all over me, it is the attention whore aspect that reminds me of Plame/Wilson.

ORconservative on November 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I’m convinced that you can get access to just about anywhere if you have a pretty woman on your arm or a leaf blower strapped on your back.

TXUS on November 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I smell a rat.

SouthernGent on November 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Poor Secret Service..another organization under the bus. The wheels of the bus go thunk and thunk.

nyx on November 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Not that the SecServ can’t make mistakes, but I’ve seen their uniformed people work in places such as New York and I can’t believe they just casually waved people through. I tried talking to a couple of them that were on an elevator with me and they were polite but reticent in their answers; all business and serious.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM

The blonde white lady is not a “typical white person”. A reason probably why noone was alarmed including the Won over the security breach before the media got wind of it.

nyx on November 30, 2009 at 10:08 AM

WHO GIVES A DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bluegrass on November 30, 2009 at 10:11 AM

My money is on story that they were invited, but were kept off the official invitee list. I think there is much more to this.

behiker on November 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM

I agree, the whole thing smells funny.

LSUMama on November 30, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Widely reported? Really?

Where was this on your list of bullsh!t democrat wishing points.

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM

That whole thing is hilarious.O was so excited about everyone wanting to get a pic w/him,I swear if that doesn’t sound like the emperor w/no clthes:):)…He’s embarrassed about this country,listen buddy,we could not be more embarrassed that you represent us.

ohiobabe on November 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM

This one’s easy – they were invited to the party by The One, but he didn’t want their names to appear on the official guest list because of the jihadi connections.

Mr. Pickles on November 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Either that or the hottie is Biden’s squeeze, and he cleared the couple through.

TXUS on November 30, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported printed in my copy of DNC talking points that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

FIFY

uknowmorethanme on November 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Either the couple knew they’d get in because they were unofficially invited, or they’re just like media whores like balloon boy dad. They should be charged with criminal trespassing at the very least, maybe fraud. We need to stop giving people like these the media attention they’re seeking and treat them as what they are.

scalleywag on November 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

You gotta have better security guys. After all there are all these home grown terrorists. You know those crazy tea party types and returning soldiers that are loonie tune wack conservatives.
– Janet Napolitano

angryed on November 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

reported on msnbc does not equal widely reported

angryed on November 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

The security was fine. They were invited.

What, you thought otherwise? Why?

mojo on November 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Obama is trying to distance himself from these two. He has been rubbing shoulder with them and their PLO supporting freinds for over a decade.

Alden Pyle on November 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Only 400%?…. I’m not impressed.

Alden Pyle on November 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Obama is trying to distance himself from these two. He has been rubbing shoulder with them and their PLO supporting freinds for over a decade.

Alden Pyle on November 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Thump! Thump! Was that a bus?

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I wouldn’t put it past the administration to make SS the scapegoat in this, but I don’t think they had anything to do with it. That couple had to know the logistics about how/when/where to get in. Someone gave them instructions, they didn’t just show up and take a chance. It’s not like they were going to some wedding, this is the WH we’re talking about.

scalleywag on November 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Widely reported? Really?

Yep. Just because it wasn’t mentioned on the 3-4 wingnut blogs you frequent doesn’t mean it’s not widely reported.

I’ll explain it: it’s BS and a tactic.

Marcus on November 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM

“This fact is inconvenient to me so I will dismiss it.”

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I wouldn’t put it past the administration to make SS the scapegoat in this,
scalleywag on November 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Thump! Thump! Thump! Thump!

Man, there’s a lot of buses going by the White House today!

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM

If Obama doesn’t think security is important, why should I object? What’s the worst that could happen. /s

It’s becoming pretty clear that Obama doesn’t take any of this President stuff very seriously. Hasn’t he watched The West Wing? A President’s every action, or even inaction, is very important. That’s why he gets a huge staff to advise him on security, protocol, foreign policy, etc. But instead, the Obamas seem to have decided to run their administration off the cuff. Didn’t he wonder WHY security was so tight? Hell, if I was a guest at the WH, I’d be kind of annoyed if I did NOT have to go through security checks. I want to know the leader of my country is being kept safe.

hawksruleva on November 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

“This fact is inconvenient to me so I will dismiss it.”

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

You just called it a fact. Prove it!

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Just more democrats wanting a bailout

bluegrass on November 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM

“This fact is inconvenient to me so I will dismiss it.”
crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

How’s that global warming email controversy going for you?

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM

How’s that global warming email controversy going for you?

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM

How’s that scientific consensus on global warming working out for you?

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Crr6, a profile of one guy’s book doesn’t qualify as “widely reported.”

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

A Axe on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I have heard Dana Perino say there hasnt been a terrorist attack…since 9/11…. under GWB.

becki51758 on November 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Cavity search them all.

unclesmrgol on November 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Apparently, the couple will satisfy all questions…for a mere $500,000.

*gulp*

I think I can live without the details on crashgate.

AnninCA on November 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM

You mean the consensus that exists because of arm twisting and blacklisting peer reviewers? The one based on absolutely no source data to be spoken of?

That consensus? It’s freefalling right now. Thanks for asking!

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Crr6, a profile of one guy’s book doesn’t qualify as “widely reported.”

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Ok.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM

If Obama doesn’t think security is important, why should I object? What’s the worst that could happen. /s

hawksruleva on November 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Well, you just made the threats go up 75% with that. HA! I’m all for congress to push for investigation into this and see if it gets stopped by dems. Will this couple be willing to go to jail for the One because he kept their names off the list on purpose? I say most of the media will suddenly drop this story after they figure out where it leads.

yakwill83 on November 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Yep. Just because it wasn’t mentioned on the 3-4 wingnut blogs you frequent doesn’t mean it’s not widely reported.

A link to a book? Written by a guy who works for Newsmax, a place you would write off as “wingnut blog” anytime it reported anything damaging about Ogabe.

Those widely reported reports are certainly, well, widely reported; they were mentioned in a book.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM

How’s that scientific consensus on global warming working out for you?

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

That disappeared in a cloud of CRU fairy dust.

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Wow, that link was devastating.

The Free Republic.

Some place called “Hoffmania” where the author blames Rush Limbaugh and Beck.

Newsmax….again.

And finally “Yahoo” which mentions…you got it…Newsmax.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Wow, ccr6, we now have an “anonymous source” inside the white house and Mr. Kessler’s book. Anyone want to bet that Mr. Kessler is the anonymous source? It seems pretty likely considering the claim is identical to the one made in his book.

Anything substantiated beyond one man?

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

How’s that scientific consensus on global warming working out for you?
crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

What consensus? Read this: Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus by Richard S. Lindzen

kingsjester on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

The sad thing is, it appears this is the first time you’ve heard about it. You really need to get out more, from an information-gathering standpoint.

I can’t decide whether your desperate attempts to dismiss it are entertaining, or sad. “Er..well it was written in a book…and umm…books are untrustworthy!”

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

How’s that scientific consensus on global warming working out for you?
crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Scientific consensus once agreed the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Of course actual facts later proved that consensus wrong.

We could use that same factual approach to anthropogenic global warming, sadly it seems that 99% of the base data for the AGW “consensus” was destroyed. Convenient, yes?

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I think I can live without the details on crashgate.

AnninCA on November 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM

I’ll bet Obama could live without them too.

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:47 AM

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

You said “widely reported”, but it seems the links mostly point back toward anonymous sources and a book.

I need more than “Look at all the whiteys lining up to kill Ogabe” from administration flacks and hysterical liberals.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Wow, ccr6, we now have an “anonymous source” inside the white house and Mr. Kessler’s book.

How else would the volume of death threats towards the president become public? It’s not as if the Secret Service publishs a comprehensive list of threats each year or something.

No one’s provided a credible reason for why the source is unreliable, or why the author of the book would lie about it. If you want to dismiss it because it’s inconvenient to your worldview, just save us all time and say so.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Beck is talking about this. Obama knew these people.

kingsjester on November 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM

“Er..well it was written in a book…and umm…books are untrustworthy!”

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Well written doesn’t mean widely read, but you understand that. Don’t you?

donh525 on November 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM

crr6, It is dismissable because it was ONLY written in a book. Anyone can write anything and call it the truth. It isn’t substantiated beyond the authors. Remember Palin’s 11 fact checkers? Are you going to tell me after that editorial show that the standard media practice is to just accept something on face value? Maybe only conservatives get fact checked? When someone makes a claim, it better be verifiable. Otherwise it’s just noise.

I could write a book blasting my employeer. I could even make my claims on national TV. That doesn’t make them true. None of your links questions the original assertion or tries to find in corroborating evidence. Sorry that I dont immediately trust the claims of one man, no matter who that man is.

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM

How else would the volume of death threats towards the president become public? It’s not as if the Secret Service publishs a comprehensive list of threats each year or something.

True, yet without such a comprehensive list you were more than willing to throw out a claim. You might as well have said the threats have increased a jillion percent, what’s the difference.

No one’s provided a credible reason for why the source is unreliable, or why the author of the book would lie about it. If you want to dismiss it because it’s inconvenient to your worldview, just save us all time and say so.

Oh sure, one guy writing it in a book and it’s gospel now to you. You make a claim, provide the author of a book, and then dare anyone to refute it even though you already admit the Secret Service isn’t providing any details to bolster the claim. Genius.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM

You said “widely reported”, but it seems the links mostly point back toward anonymous sources and a book.

So your criticism is that the fact in question comes from a book that relies on sources from within the President’s Secret Service? Where else would such a fact come from? And what’s wrong with a fact coming from “a book”? LOL.

I need more than “Look at all the whiteys lining up to kill Ogabe” from administration flacks and hysterical liberals.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Whose an administration flack? The author? Can you provide proof of that? When has he lied before? What is your evidence that he’s an “administration flack” other than the fact that he’s reported on something you don’t like?

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Crr6 must be right. I just binged the subject and Huffington Post and Alan Colmes agree. That’s credibility for ya. **snort**

kingsjester on November 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM

How’s that scientific consensus on global warming working out for you?
crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

There is no consensus, you fool, that is why it is called a “controversy”.
The majority of climatologists agree with Richard Lindzen, the foremost authority in the world.

kingsjester on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

That is only one link, he has written numerous scientific papers.
No one has the credentials Lindzen has, but his papers have tried to be blocked from being published…now we know why and how.
Obama’s “global warming expert” has her degree in English, ENGLISH, that is who Obama is depending on representing science, a complex science…he picks an English major.
I think I pick an MIT doctor of climatology over an English major…

right2bright on November 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Oh, I don’t know, ccr6, maybe someone would leak an anonymous tip to stir up interest in the subject before an upcoming book. Kessler surely pegged his audience. You’re practically lactating at the thought of a deranged white-power mob coming after our dear, black president.

I’m not saying that the threats haven’t increased. I’m saying that I don’t trust one man’s words that they did. Especially since that man stands to gain a great deal of book sells from the story. “Obama receives no threats” isn’t exactly an exciting SS tell all, is it?

Surely if knowledge of this problem is really as widespread as you’d have us believe someone other than Kessler could verify. No?

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Yep. It’s been widely reported that threats have gone up 400% since Bush’s Presidency.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Right wing blog posts are now considered a threat.

faraway on November 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

“Er..well it was written in a book…and umm…books are untrustworthy!”

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Threats against Obama has been reduced by 10%, they are only 10% of any other president.
There I published it, and now it is fact…Obama is the least threatened president ever…
crr6, you rode the bench on the debate team, didn’t you?

right2bright on November 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Oh sure, one guy writing it in a book and it’s gospel now to you.

You act as though the author just came up with it himself. The book was written based on information he gathered his contacts within the Secret Service. So the source is…the Secret Service! What’s a more credible source on threats to the President?

You make a claim, provide the author of a book, and then dare anyone to refute it even though you already admit the Secret Service isn’t providing any details to bolster the claim.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM

They haven’t denied it. Don’t you think if the author misquoted his sources or flat-out made stuff up (as you seem to be implying) one of his sources would call him out on it? And what exactly do you expect the Secret Service to do, publish every threat the president receives? From the article…

Most (threats) however, are kept under wraps because the Secret Service fears that revealing details of them would only increase the number of copycat attempts. Although most threats are not credible, each one has to be investigated meticulously.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM

So your criticism is that the fact in question comes from a book that relies on sources from within the President’s Secret Service? Where else would such a fact come from? And what’s wrong with a fact coming from “a book”? LOL.

Yes, those famous anonymous sources that has you hyperventilating. I have it on good authority that Ogabe said he hates the troops and hopes they all die, I’ll write a book and you will believe it.

Whose an administration flack? The author? Can you provide proof of that? When has he lied before? What is your evidence that he’s an “administration flack” other than the fact that he’s reported on something you don’t like?

The flacks are those Ogabe supporters who have created the “Whitey is out to get the black President” meme from day one.

Not that it matters, at least probably not to you, but Kessler lied about Ogabe attending a racially demogogic speech by Rev’rund Wright; he later had to post a clarification.

If all you have is a book, that is some pretty thin soup.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

They haven’t denied it. Don’t you think if the author misquoted his sources or flat-out made stuff up (as you seem to be implying) one of his sources would call him out on it? And what exactly do you expect the Secret Service to do, publish every threat the president receives?

Yes, those phantom anonymous sources are going to call him out, or else respond to every claim as if they don’t have better things to do.

From the article…

Terrifying. They admit there are threats but not how many, and from out of the ether pops “400%!!!eleventy!!!111!” Like I said, make it a jillion and really scare yourself.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Yes, those famous anonymous sources that has you hyperventilating.

Actually, you seem to be the one who’s upset about facts you don’t like. Stomping your feet doesn’t make it less true.

Not that it matters, at least probably not to you, but Kessler lied about Ogabe attending a racially demogogic speech by Rev’rund Wright; he later had to post a clarification.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

LOL. Bishop desperately checked the author’s wikipedia to try and find evidence he’s an “administration flack”. Oh man this is great.

And the only evidence you found is that he made an error and reported something unfavorable to the president! LOL. And then he promptly posted a clarification when he realized his error. So the lesson we can draw from that is what? He was once overly critical of Obama, but when he realized his error, he quickly corrected it. Wow Bishop, that was just devastating.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

LOL. Well it’s been fun Bishop. Just so ya know, after this exchange I’m going to file you under the “hopeless wingnut” category. It’s reserved for those who are so unhinged they dismiss every single fact that doesn’t conform with their worldview because…it doesn’t conform with their worldview.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Ok, crr6. Let’s make this really easy for you since you seem to have trouble grasping concepts.

Do you believe ever word of Sarah Palin’s book is the truth?

Yes or No?

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM

We wll never hear what happened on this. But you can count on the fact that these 2 would not have gotten in and close to the Pres without the help of WH staff.

james23 on November 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM

If all you have is a book, that is some pretty thin soup.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Right, I have a credible reporter who got his information from sources within the Secret Service. Once again, where else would he get the information? The Secret Service is “secret” after all. It’s not as if they give weekly press conferences on the number of threats. And no one else would have that kind of information on the threats the president receives.

Take a deep breath and admit it. You’ll feel much better. It’s a long road towards not being a deranged wingnut, but you can take the first step today.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Do you believe ever word of Sarah Palin’s book is the truth?

Yes or No?

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Actually, that book perfectly illustrates my point. The supposed factual inaccuracies in her book were quickly refuted by sources within the McCain campaign. If this author were lying, why wouldn’t the same thing happen?

Now for you. Is every fact not consistent with your worldview prima facie false?

Yes or No.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM

every*

Also, since you appear to be leaving, I think I’ll classify this you as someone who “believes absolutely anything he reads in a tell all book, regardless of substantiation or sources.” Good to know if Larry Sinclair ever gets published.

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Wait, I forgot. Larry was published! I’m sure everything he wrote in “Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Sex, Cocain, Lies, and Murder” was completely true. I mean, it was written in a book!

Vera on November 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

You’ve clearly been caught lying. You clearly cannot prove the assertion of a 400% increase in threats. Stop digging.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM

You’ve clearly been caught lying.

highhopes on November 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM

LOL. Where exactly was that?

You clearly cannot prove the assertion of a 400% increase in threats. Stop digging.

On the contrary I’m the only person here who actually has provided any proof for my assertions.

crr6 on November 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2