Will Desiree Rogers Be The White House’s Next Van Jones?

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 4:59 pm, December 2nd, 2009

» 14 comments

desiree While there are plenty of jokes to be made about the Salahi’s White House state dinner party crashing, it is at the core, an extremely serious breach of White House security that could have endangered the President’s life. That is not a joke. Neither is the Congressional hearing that’s been called for tomorrow to investigate what happened. Because as audacious at the Salahi’s behavior was it pales in comparison to lapse in security that happened. The question now is whose lapse was it? The Secret Service, who has apologized, or somebody in the social office?

The focus now seems to be on the social office. Desiree Rogers to be exact. Rogers, close watchers of this story will already know, showed up to the dinner in a (gasp!) Comme des Garcons gown. She walked the press line. She may or may have been seated though her name was on the guest list. What she did not do, nor anyone in her office, was watch the gate even though that has been common in years past.

The White House has since announced, in a rather heated exchange (updated: video below, transcript of exchange after the jump) that she will not be attending the Congressional hearing tomorrow even though her presence was requested. Which is just the sort of announcement a certain person by the name of Glenn Beck might love to label a conspiracy! And then proceed to draw a relentless amount of attention to. And while to our knowledge Rogers has not yet been accused of doing anything wrong (or is you know, a reader of Chairman Mao) at the rate these stories take hold it may just be a matter of time before she officially becomes (in cable land anyway) the Social Czar!

TRANSCRIPT

Pages: 1 2

barack obama, Desiree Rogers, Glenn Beck, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, Van Jones

TfT

There is no disputing the fact that the individual who used to be responsible for tracking the RSVPs and standing with the SS to greet the visitors quit her job in June when Deseree told her those kind of tasks would no longer be required (paraphrase). It is also not in dispute that the reporter who went to ask why the crashers were not on the list, but were announced, spoke to two of Mrs. Obama’s staff on the matter and did not get a response (I think she was on reliable sources this past Sunday).

The “most transparent” administration is not going to allow her to appear in Congress for the hearings. Hmmmmmm…Obama threw SECDEF under the bus last night, will he throw her next?
the visionary

god forbid someone who did their job poorly (if it is found to be her fault) would lose their job when the stakes are so high…
http://www.abramsresearch.com/ Dan Abrams

I don’t know if she is the one to blame or not but someone should lose a job over this and rightly so.
JazzDrummer7

Van Jones never deserved to be fired. That is why Desiree could never be the next Van Jones…
Sunnyr

If she is at fault, her stupid, incompetent head should ROLL! But I fully expect the Amateur Hour Rookies in this whiny Administration to put the entire blame on the CIA and Secret Service. It’s the Chicago way.
Banjo

Reverend Wright, Van Jones, the Harvard professor, the aunt from Africa, now Desiree. What happens when they come to throw you under the bus?
Pat Doherty

I don’t think she should be fired simply because there aren’t enough people in the government named Desiree.
MartiniShark

So Glynnis (and I presume, JazzDrummer), are we to think that having AVOWED Communists in the WH administration is simply a trivial matter? It was not a case of people simply “reading” Mao, they freely declared their admiration for that system. Seems kinda-sorta-possibly within the potential of being important.
LNSmithee

Jazz Drummer wrote:

Van Jones never deserved to be fired. That is why Desiree could never be the next Van Jones…

So why do you think he was fired, Jazz?
LNSmithee

MartiniShark wrote:

So Glynnis (and I presume, JazzDrummer), are we to think that having AVOWED Communists in the WH administration is simply a trivial matter? It was not a case of people simply “reading” Mao, they freely declared their admiration for that system. Seems kinda-sorta-possibly within the potential of being important.

Beck-bashers always climb all over him in a personal manner (not that his demeanor doesn’t make him a ripe target) to avoid acknowledging the factual nature of his assertion: People who either don’t have faith or dedication to free-market capitalism are in charge of all three branches of government at this moment. Some are self-described socialists or communists, such as Van Jones and “climate czar” Carol Browner. Those are facts, regardless of what you think of Beck.

The important question is: Does it matter to you if there are Marxists and/or Maoists formulating America’s economic policies, or does it not matter?

If you’re OK with that, go ahead, say it. If you don’t want to say it, then you likely innately know there’s something wrong with that. But instead of facing that reality, some people want to bash Beck, the messenger.
ImNotBlue

JazzDrummer7 says:
December 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm

So being a “9-11 Truther” doesn’t disqualify you from serving in an unelected position in the federal government? Yikes!
StewartIII

Michelle Malkin: A hard-hitting MSM investigation of Chicago crony bundler Desiree Rogers?; Update: WH invokes separation of powers
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/02/a-hard-hitting-msm-investigation-of-chicago-crony-bundler-desiree-rogers/
Sunnyr

This Chicago Thug-ette will be protected by the Community Organizer and his fellow Chicago bottom-feeders.
Counting the days until 2010 and 2012!!!
carl43m

The white house is claiming that as a matter of principle a staffer can’t be called before congress to testify. That may be appropriate when Congress is on a witch hunt to blame the president for something he wants to keep confidential. However, noone is suggesting the president is at fault. Congress just wants to hear about how she went about addressing her responsibilities. There should be no rationale for not letting her speak about her job. She is not testifying against the president. This is a just scam to try and protect one of Michelle’s friends from taking the heat she deserves.