Good job, Gibbs!!! Ms Ryan was appropriately handled and her question is not only childish, it was trivial

“Gibbs: I’m going to get back to your topics like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.”

Hey, Adkins: If Tony Snow had treated a black female reporter as if she was one of his children, your tone would be different.

And that goes for you too, Glynnis MacNicol.

Remember… Democrats being rude to reports is acceptable. Gibbs response in typical Gibbs fashion… with snarky and insulting language. Another 6-months (sooner if things continue going poorly), and he’ll “decide” to go spend more time with his family.

I like the way he puts her in check. She’s an idoit. She like Jake Tapper don’t seem to care that the people who let that couple in were the Secret Service. That it didn’t happen because she wasn’t there. It happend because the Secret Service let them in even though they weren’t on the list. Gibbs also held up an invite that the couple also should have had but, didn’t and again, the Secret Service still let them in. Which is why Rogers is not required. She was doing her job and the Secret Service wasn’t doing theres. It’s that simple no matter how the pathetic reporters try to spin it. Think about it this way. The Headlines were basically Security Breach, not Social Secretary Breach.

She should have slapped him, and the rest of the press corpse should have told Gibbs to stop being so abusive.

The WH is circling the wagons around Mrs. Obama’s staff who were partly responsible for this fiasco. Finally today, I actually heard a reporter mention that the significance of this breech was not just for POTUS but also the PM of India — that aspect has been completely ignored. I wonder how comfortable other world leaders feel about coming to the WH knowing what a bunch of amateur’s are on Obama’s staff. Inviting herself and walking the press line and seating herself as if she is a guest rather than a staffer? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Oh, and Dan Abrams just told Ed Shultz, pretty much, what I’ve just said!

roxsteady wrote:

I like the way he puts her in check. She’s an idoit. She like Jake Tapper don’t seem to care that the people who let that couple in were the Secret Service. That it didn’t happen because she wasn’t there. It happend because the Secret Service let them in even though they weren’t on the list. Gibbs also held up an invite that the couple also should have had but, didn’t and again, the Secret Service still let them in. Which is why Rogers is not required. She was doing her job and the Secret Service wasn’t doing theres. It’s that simple no matter how the pathetic reporters try to spin it. Think about it this way. The Headlines were basically Security Breach, not Social Secretary Breach.

Rule Number 1 when questioning someone else’s intelligence online: Watch your spelling and your grammar. It keeps you from looking like an I-D-I-O-T.

It’s obvious that something more is going on here. The fact that the White House won’t let her testify (where’s that transparency we heard so much about?) suggests that there’s more than meets the eye.

Someone isn’t telling the whole story… and Mr. Gibbs is sound to look like the old Hamlet quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

(PS- That’s the actual quote, apparently, not the other way around… look it up…)

NewsBusters: White House’s Gibbs Talks Down to Reporter, Dismissing Her Gate-crashers Question
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/12/03/white-houses-gibbs-talks-down-reporter-dismissing-her-gate-crashers-qu

Something else entirely is going on here. Days ago the couple could not wait to sing, bidding out their interview, then on camera they basically clammed up. Then came the Senate hearing on what transpired and Rogers was not released to testify, and the couple also refused to show, after stating that they would be there.

To the inbred who addressed me. Byte me you inbred, hayseed! You’re just pissed because I’m right. You idiot wingnuts always go on the defensive. You are clearly a teabagger and a MORON!

That’s how you sounded to me. Now, instead of giving me spelling tips why not try to address the content of my post dear?

One more time people, can any of you tell us who let those people in? Who was responsible for checking the list they were given and asking guests to see their physical invitations? Until one of you has the guts to answer this question, I remain unimpressed. Oh, and be sure to check for typos!

Had the president or any of the dignitaries been assaulted by these two it would have affected a lot of Americans. We need to know how this happened and who is responsible.
Slimming Pills

roxsteady wrote:

To the inbred who addressed me. Byte me you inbred, hayseed! You’re just pissed because I’m right. You idiot wingnuts always go on the defensive. You are clearly a teabagger and a MORON!

Ahem…It’s B-I-T-E. But on the upside, you did spell “idiot” correctly this time! Keep trying! :)

If an “inbred, hayseed” can correct your spelling, what does that make you? And I wasn’t going on the defensive — that’s what Gigglin’ Gibbs was doing. It’s his modus operandi; – when he doesn’t want to answer a question, he first claims ignorance (which is really not useful to the public since he’s the guy who speaks for the President), and if that doesn’t silence the reporter, he’ll insult him or her for having the audacity to continue asking the question.

One more time people, can any of you tell us who let those people in? Who was responsible for checking the list they were given and asking guests to see their physical invitations? Until one of you has the guts to answer this question, I remain unimpressed.

Roxie, Roxie…calm down, take a deep breath.

We can’t answer that question with any certainty because we don’t know ALL the facts — we just know so far what the Obamanoids want to tell us. We DO know that the Secret Service didn’t fulfill its share of the responsibility to keep the uninvited out, because the man in charge showed up, and owned up to its part in the breach. Desiree Rogers didn’t show, and hasn’t provided any answers. That’s why it was up to reporters like April Ryan to find out what Obama doesn’t want us to know.

You are defending Gibbs and Obama’s refusal to send Rogers to face questioning. Why? That’s not the kind of government Obama promised us on Day Two of his Presidency:

“The way to hold government accountable is to make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made [and] how they’re being made. … Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known. … The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it.”

Of course, we now know that was a lie. That’s not how things are done in Chicago-on-the-Potomac.

Finally, when will you people tire of calling people “teabaggers?” Does it enhance your feelings of superiority to spit slang for a sexual practice not suitable for discussion in polite company at your ideological opponents? Grow up!

Still haven’t got over last years historical ass kicking? Pitty!

Again, who can tell me who let those 2 guests in? Was it a social secretary or the SECRET SERVICE? It begins and ends with security and your Obama Derangement Syndrome isn’t going to change that. Aren’t you concerned about the Secret Service’s competency? Or are you all stupid enough to believe a social secretary is responsible for the President’s saftey? Oh, and byte is inside computer speak because, you know, we’re using computers. DUMB ASS TEABAGGER, WINGNUT, INBREDS!

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? BYTE ME!

Ok, since you’re unable to touch my comments then, how about the comments from Dan Abrams? Since you don’t like my take on this, what did you think of Dans? ………crickets!!!!! I guess Cheney and Palin aren’t the only ones who have the President in their heads. They’re obsessed with him. We Liberals understand though. We’re quite taken with him as well.

It’s interesting why the comments get over the top nasty. I understand becoming defensive even frustrated.

But get it to name calling? Is it you want it so bad to be WH/Obama admins fault? Or you want it so bad not to be?

Look, feel free. I’m just commenting trying to understand the REAL underlying emotions.

It’s mostly frustration at the pathetic attempts by many to pretend that they don’t understand who’s really at fault. If Rogers had been the one to let them in I’d be trashing her too but, the facts just don’t bare that out. It would be like a club owner not wanting a certain person to be let in but, after the bouncer does just that and the waitress serves him a cocktail, the waitress gets fired. It’s frustration that people think that couple was let in because Rogers or some other social staff was not there. If the Secret Service has to be told that names missing from a list means you don’t let them in, then they should find another line of work. It’s not really personal. Just personally frustrating when this isn’t rocket science. There’s a feeling that if the public can’t grasp this then, there must be something wrong with them and thus, the name calling. I don’t hear the people attempting to blame Rogers even mentioning the folks who actually let them in. Why is that?

roxsteady says:
December 4, 2009 at 12:47 pm
If Rogers had been the one to let them in I’d be trashing her too but, the facts just don’t bare that out.

Well, Rogers couldn’t have let them in, because she put HERSELF on the guest list!

You know, when the story first broke, I thought it was the Secret Service’s fault. However, as I hear more about it, it appears that the WH has a real prima prima donna for a social secretary. She’s not supposed to be a guest at these events, she supposed to run them. The SS aren’t supposed to be bouncer at Club White House… that’s not their role. Clearly hey dropped the ball, but it appears that it wasn’t solely their fault. There’s enough blame to share.

It’s not really personal.

Actually, I think RazorsEdge (great album, by the way) was referring to your persistent personal attacks. Perhaps he/she doesn’t understand the terrifying whit of Roxsteady. I’m still quaking in my boots from that threat of verbal insults you gave me a few days ago… but I don’t think Razor understands that throwing around goofy attacks, schoolyard insults, and juvenile name calling is just your ‘style.’ Kinda like posting multiple times within a few minutes of each other… and getting upset that nobody has responded to you… that bit of irrationality is just ‘your style.’

Don’t worry… Razor will learn what a comment from you means. We’re all learning…

roxsteady wrote:

Still haven’t got over last years historical ass kicking? Pitty!

Sigh … P-I-T-Y.

Again, who can tell me who let those 2 guests in? Was it a social secretary or the SECRET SERVICE? It begins and ends with security and your Obama Derangement Syndrome isn’t going to change that.

The social secretary IS part of security, as former White House employee Cathy Hargraves — who was stripped of her responsibilities by Rogers, leading to her resignation — told a D.C. blog. Via Newsweek (not a right-wing rag):

Hargraves tells Declassified in an exclusive interview that, while she had originally been hired as a White House political appointee in 2001, she landed a new position on the White House residence staff in 2006 and was specifically detailed to the social office to work on state dinners.
Her job duties included overseeing the invitations for guests at state dinners and keeping track of RSVPs, she says. On the evening of state dinners, she says, she physically stood at the East Gate portico entrance and greeted each of the guests as they arrived, checking their names off a computerized printout of those who had been invited.

But when she met with Rogers last February and went over her job responsibilities, she says, the new social secretary told her, “We don’t feel we have a need for that anymore.” Rogers’s explanation, according to Hargraves: “In these economic times, I don’t think we’re going to have very many lavish expensive dinners. It wouldn’t look very good.”

(snip)

Hargraves … says the lack of a social-office employee on the scene at the gate might have made a difference. During her tenure, she says, it was not uncommon for guests at state dinners to arrive only to discover that their names hadn’t been placed on the official guest list. In such situations, she says, she always refused the people entry until she could verify that they had actually been invited.

If she had been on the job at the White House last Tuesday night, the Salahis “would not have made it past the East Gate portico,” she says. Once she had ascertained that they had not been invited, she says, she would have called in the Secret Service officer who let them through in the first place, and “they would have been escorted out.”

…Hargraves’s account may be relevant because White House social secretary Rogers has publicly acknowledged that nobody from the social office was physically present at the White House East Gate entrance during Tuesday night’s dinner to resolve any questions about whether the Salahis were invited.

So, let’s review: Bush White House: Zero breaches at state dinners in eight years. Obama White House: One state dinner, one breach.

What’s changed since BHO took occupancy? Not the Secret Service.

Aren’t you concerned about the Secret Service’s competency?

Of course. But I’m more concerned about the President’s competency. So far, the men and women of the Secret Service have given me far fewer reasons to question theirs. Obama? There’s a long list starting with hiring a tax cheat to run the Treasury Department.

Or are you all stupid enough to believe a social secretary is responsible for the President’s saftey? Oh, and byte is inside computer speak because, you know, we’re using computers.

Yeah … right. I suppose “saftey” is “inside computer speak” too.

DUMB ASS TEABAGGER, WINGNUT, INBREDS!

Go ahead, Roxie. Let it all out, if it makes you feel better. It doesn’t hurt ME a bit.

Acutally, I’m not just posting. It’s what we call multi-tasking.Believe it or not I’m actually working as well while I’m online. But, again if you wish to place the blame on her, good luck. You still can’t seem to grasp who let them in. As for what the Social Secretary does or does not do, it’s not your’s or April Ryan’s call. The duties are not set in stone from one administration to the next with Social Secretaries but, they are with the Secret Service. You people clearly have a bias when it comes to facts. It’s not like a painting that’s open to interpretation. As I’ve said before facts don’t have a counter weight. The Secret Service let these people in without seeing their names. Do any of you have a problem with that? I’m not asking about someone who didn’t let them in. I’m asking about the people that did. Was it wrong for the Secret Service to let them in? This question only requires a yes or no!

Just what I thought. Oh and here’s my response to this nonsense:

Of course. But I’m more concerned about the President’s competency. So far, the men and women of the Secret Service have given me far fewer reasons to question theirs.

Really? How about their apparent lack of reading comprehension and lack of judgment. Maybe you could answer this question for me, has any member of the Secret Service ever let someone enther the Whitehouse after not finding their name on a list? And think about this, Rogers would be sharing the blame if she had been at the door with the Secret Service and after not seeing their names, letting them through anyway thinking they’re on the next person’s list. What you’re all saying is that if the social secretary had been there, there would not have been a security breach. If they had a list then why would she need to be there? Do you need to be told not to let someone in if they are not on the list? Then what’s the point of the list? I’ve got to go now but, don’t worry, I’ll be back when I have more down time!

From the Associated Press, Nov. 27, 2009:

During President George W. Bush’s administration, it was standard procedure to have someone from the White House social office at the gate for state dinners and other events with large groups of visitors, according to a former senior Bush aide who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen as criticizing the Obama White House.

The social office is most knowledgeable about the guest list and could have been called in case of any uncertainty, this official said.

White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers, asked by The Associated Press on Thursday whether personnel from her office were at the checkpoint said, “We were not.”

That is a procedural change from the practices that kept the President protected in the White House for eight years. Why did Rogers think it was all right to change things? Perhaps, as April Ryan implied, because she wasn’t so much concerned with gatekeeping than she was hobnobbing. Ryan seems to be concerned that Obama could have been killed. Gibbs and Obama seem to be concerned that Rogers, if put under oath, might say something they don’t want people to know about WH procedures.

Like I said, the USSS owned up to its part in the debacle. Rogers is being protected, as if she had no role in the way the events occurred. The Dems rightly blasted the Bush Admin’s tendency to allow incompetent people to rise to important leadership roles, most famously Michael Brown of FEMA. If there was ever a time to dispose of such cowardly cronyism in the White House, it’s now.

Why won’t Obama do it?

Look see, the debate is getting a little better already. Latest arguments are much more persuasive and compelling.

Actually was asking the Why name calling to both sides of the argument not just towards roxsteady. Before both sides go and jump all over me, just remember I said feel free. I’m just saying that I feel we get much more distance towards what’s real or not real without the name calling. I’m sure I’ve slipped in the past too.

Personally, I kind of weighing in that both SS and WH Secretary office at fault. Now before you think that’s a cop out:

1. I think it’s arguably feasible to think that if Secret Service let the couple in with no Secretary intervention and couple not on the list that they made a mistake letting them in. Same problem if couple not on the list and the Social Secretary told them, asked them, bribed them or told them do you know they are big DNC contributors and the SS let them in. Still a problem.

2. Of course no evidence other than a follow up email or note (can’t remember) from secretary noting to couple “no problem or happy to do it” when responding to couples thank you(s). The WH threatening to claim executive privledge with the secretary is a little creepy too. If admin/secretary had nothing to hide and ALL secret service fault, I would think admin would want her to make statements or testify to clear her/themselves.

At this point, would really matter if the couple were on the list and attended? Now that this “security breach” happened and made public, aren’t we glad it was this couple that breached it and not a terrorist? Won’t this episode alarm the WH and SS to make sure this doesn’t happened again? All assuming we’re were debating the issue of security breach and not only the politics of the episode.

BTW, RazorsEdge is a great album, big fan. Not why I use that username. But no one cares about that.

GREAT JOB GIBBS!
She is a loud mouth no class women.
Her husband need to put that b@#%* in check..
When your in a room full of profesional people, their needs to be a chain of command.
You dont run your mouth like a rotweller and expect someone to listen.
I am not a racist, but she acted like an ignorant person.
Lets see you fan this comment you dummy..
Oh yea, keep up the good word Gibbs

All I need to say to that last comment is: “don jaun wrote: …”

That’s right. “Don Jaun.”

I’ll say this for roxsteady: At least she can spell her own nick.

The woman asks tabloid questions and insists on answers despite so many more pressing issues. Gibbs was right in addressing her as a petulant child.

Curtis Stotlar wrote:

The woman asks tabloid questions and insists on answers despite so many more pressing issues. Gibbs was right in addressing her as a petulant child.

The reason why she needed to ask those questions is because the White House is C’ing Desiree Rogers’ A at the same time they served up the Secret Service’s before a House hearing on a platter with all the fixin’s.

Maybe you’ve forgotten what happened, Curtis — someone who shouldn’t have been in the White House got close enough to the President to kill him (and a foreign leader to boot) with his/her bare hands IN THE WHITE HOUSE. When has that happened before? All the assassinated Presidents were killed IN PUBLIC.

Why are you satisfied only knowing half of the story?

RazorsEdge says:
December 4, 2009 at 3:15 pm

BTW, RazorsEdge is a great album, big fan. Not why I use that username. But no one cares about that.

They were awesome at Giants Stadium this summer… truly one of the best shows I’ve ever seen.

Oh, as for the other things you said in your post… equally agreed.

Herr Gibbs needs a good strong kick in the nuts! This smarmy punk would think twice about making another sexist remark to someone trying to ask a valid question. How much longer can this incoherent TWIT hold on to this job?

Are we sure that “Don Jaun” isn’t really Robert Gibbs? It would make sense if Gibbs was posing as Don Jaun, right? I Don’t know, Think about it.

Do we really want Gibbs to quit, be fired? Don Jaun, I mean Gibbs really gives us (me) commentors some legitimate reasons to comment. All Press Secretaries have. Some more than others.

Don Jaun, before you think I’m Fan(ning) your comment, I’m not. You just caught me by surprise. I just didn’t see that comming. Too funny.