Yesterday, Salahi had alerted the news media that she “may have been kidnapped or abducted and being held under duress” and called upon the public to “be on the look out for her, and if found please contact the authorities and please approach her and contact the authorities to intervene and that she may be forced to say she is okay, when in fact she is not and being held under possible abduction.”

Salahi’s worst fears were unfounded, but much to his chagrin, she was in the company of Schon in Memphis.

According to Good Morning America, “Hours after (Tareq) made a public plea for help in finding his wife, whom he believed had been kidnapped Tuesday, Virginia’s Warren County Sheriff’s Office released a statement saying authorities had spoken with Michaele Salahi and she was “fine” and “where she wanted to be.””

“Tareq is devastated but he is relieved to know that Michaele is safe and is okay,” said Tareq’s attorney, David Silek on GMA Thursday.

He added that divorce talk was premature, and won’t stop believing that the Salahis can work things out. “If there’s an opportunity for reconciliation, that’s something they can and ought to explore.”

Watch the segment below, courtesy of ABC News:

No, this is not Bravo’s Watch What Happens Live. At least, I don’t think so. I’m fairly sure I was watching the somewhat more serious Parker Spitzer on CNN. And yet, how to explain the presence of Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the reality TV couple who jumped to “fame” by crashing President Obama‘s first state dinner.

Parker Spitzer, if you haven’t watched CNN’s struggling 8 p.m. show, fancies itself–at least I thought it did–as a bit of a smart person’s show, usually booking guests who not only have never appeared on any of the Real Housewives shows, but have also never watched any of the Real Housewives shows. Last night, for instance, co-hosts Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker sat around their table talking China with Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute (and one of TIME’s 100 most influential leaders) and Nina Hachigian of the Center for American Progress.

You expect to see guests like this on Parker Spitzer. And you expect to hear Parker and Spitzer engage smarty-pants people on topics like global trade. You don’t expect them to find out whether or not one of the Real Housewives of DC has cut her hair (she had, and pivoted her head to show viewers the back), which is one of the excruciating details viewers were forced to learn during the Parker Spitzer conversation with the Salahis.

Booked to talk about the White House state dinner for Hu Jintao–apparently because nobody else with state dinner experience was available (for God’s sake, couldn’t they have just dialed up Wolf Blitzer?)–the Salahis were given time to talk about themselves, to again deny they ever “crashed” the White House, and to raise serious questions about Parker Spitzer.

Judging by the comments on the Parker Spitzer blog, viewers who expect Jeffrey Sachs and Nina Hachigian were stunned to see Tareq and Michaele Salahi, with many asking how a show that could host the first segment could also host the second. Would any viewer happy to see the Salahis be able to stomach five seconds of arcane chat on the political impact of global trade deals? And would anyone who finds intelligent chat refreshing be able to handle even five seconds of the giggly back-and-forth with the Salahis? (At one point, Parker said she had a degree in wine drinking, and asked–twice–whether the Salahis’ offer that she visit their winery was “a real offer.”)

Insiders say the booking was only meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and not a standard Parker Spitzer segment. But it’s clear viewers have a sense of ownership of P/S and didn’t find the presence of the Salahis funny. The word “disappointed” came up repeatedly in comments on the show’s blog.

As an SNL skit, it would’ve worked. On a lighter, less serious show, it could’ve worked. As a segment on Parker Spitzer, it was painful to watch. What’s next? Snooki?

Watch the segment here, from CNN:

In the segment Michaele denied accusations that she lied about having MS and explained why she was so thin (said Geraldo “should I get you some rice and beans?”). Riveting stuff. They are also broke from defending themselves from all the lawsuits coming their way (what Tareq calls “the Falcon Crest saga”). If you can stand all the tragedy, the segment is below.

In a totally unrelated note, the clip below ends with a statement from the Salahis’ lawyer once again stressing that they were invited to that White House party.

Here’s how it apparently went down, from Gossip Cop:

“Goldberg was not in the segment, but as the conversation went on and on between Joy Behar, Sherri Shepherd, and the D.C. Housewives, Goldberg stepped onto the show’s set, lightly tapped Salahi’s back, and told her, ‘Excuse me, can you get back to the White House, please,’ meaning she wanted Salahi to return to the subject of how she and her husband Tareq crashed President Obama’s state dinner last fall.

But that wasn’t the end of it.

Later, after hearing that Salahi was claiming she had “hit” her, an exasperated Goldberg went backstage to a room where the Salahis were, and got into a screaming match with the crashers.”

The Salahis are now accusing Goldberg of attacking Michaele. This is the official ABC response:
“At one point during Michaele Salahi’s appearance on The View on Wednesday, Whoopi lightly touched Ms. Salahi to get her attention and said to her ‘Excuse me, can you get back to the White House, please?’, meaning could Ms. Salahi return to the original subject of the conversation. After the show, Ms. Salahi and her husband accused Whoopi of hitting Ms. Salahi. As the broadcast clearly shows, the accusation was completely unfounded and erroneous. After the show and after being told she was being accused of hitting Ms. Salahi, Whoopi proceeded to defend herself verbally from this baseless claim in a heated exchange with the Salahis.”

I like how, after Michaele discussed her absurd made up drink throwing drama with her vapid castmates and after Goldberg gives her that quick jab, the other hosts let their displeasure with the White House crasher be known and Salahi uses the same condescending response she used on Lynn Berry a few months ago. “Have you ever been to the White House?” What lovely people the Salahis are.

Goldberg will be responding to the accusations on today’s show.

UPDATE: Check out Goldberg’s response here.

The Salahis have joined forces with investigative reporter Diane Dimond: “[The team] will lay out “behind-the-scenes” details of the November 2009 night when they bamboozled the Secret Serviceand got into a state dinner for India’s prime minister.”

Dimond told the Post the Salahis’ story has “‘genuine intrigue’ with twists that ‘can be traced right back to the White House.’”

This does not come as much of a surprise, but only time will tell if the investigative piece makes a big splash or goes unnoticed.

From ABC News:

The limo driver ran through a red light around 8 p.m., just blocks from the White House and was stopped by a uniformed Secret Service officer, according to Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan. The driver had signaled to turn into a restricted area near the Ellipse. The attention-hungry couple was among those in the limo. They were released and went to dinner a few blocks from the White House after the incident. The limo driver was issued an infraction for running the red light.

This latest incident will, no doubt, help the Salahis to publicize their appearance in the upcoming Bravo reality show “Real Housewives of DC,” but I’m looking forward to them fighting the ticket in court by insisting that the Department of transportation invited them to run that light.

Transcript:

Tommy Christopher: I have two questions, but can I do one follow-up first? Is that okay –

MR. GIBBS: A follow-up to your question or to somebody else?

Tommy Christopher: Chuck’s question about the state dinner. Can you say whether –

MR. GIBBS: Chip’s question, I think.

Tommy Christopher: Was it? Okay, can you say whether it’s going to be –

Chuck Todd: — another good-looking TV guy –

Tommy Christopher: Sorry, I get ‘em mixed up all the time.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, all those TV guys look alike. Go ahead.

Tommy Christopher: All right, can you whether there’s going to be a representative from the Social Secretary’s office at the checkpoints?

MR. GIBBS: Let me check on the procedures. My understanding is there will be.

A White House staffer later confirmed for me that Gibbs was correct.

Of course, East Wing staffers aren’t actually security personnel, despite efforts to blame their absence for the last breach. Having them there will certainly make for a more organized entrance, but they are not responsible for White House security.

The Crashergate story has become a sort of “grassy knoll” obsession for me, something that nags at me disproportionately. I just find it impossible to believe that anyone could sweet-talk themselves past these guys. Often, on my way into the White House, I’ll bounce theories off of the uniformed Secret Service, or just say, “C’mon, did one of you guys really let the Salahis in? Really?”

Invariably, they cautiously tell me they don’t know anything about it. It’s a shame, because the sooner they ‘fess up, the sooner I can return to my search for Keyser Soze.

Meanwhile, in an obvious attempt to collect royalties on all utterances of the phrase “that takes balls,” the Salahis tell Radar Online that the White House owes them an apology:

In a brand new interview about the incident that created a national security scandal and cost presidential Social Secretary Desiree Rogers her job, the Salahis have also exclusively told RadarOnline.com the congressional investigation on Capitol Hill was a “charade” and a waste of tax-payer dollars.

“It would be nice if somebody apologized to us and for (the White House) to call it quits,” Tareq Salahi, along with his wife Michaele, told RadarOnline.com.

“I would certainly not treat anyone this way that comes to my house, even if there was a question about an invitation, or there was some miscommunication… I would still welcome anyone and be gracious.”

Yes, how rude of us to object to an unthinkable security breach at the home of the leader of the free world. It’s right there on a par with “Would you please pass the jelly?”

At the time Rogers was criticized for walking the press line (in a Comme des Garcons gown, no less…gasp) and possibly taking a seat at a table. What she did not do was appoint anyone to watch the gate, even though that has been common in years past. In the subsequent investigation into the matter the Secret Service did admit to some blame, though Rogers’ resignation would seem to suggest some has also fallen to her.

Rogers told Chicago Sun-Times‘ Lynn Sweet that “As we turn the corner on the first year, this is a good time for me to explore opportunities in the corporate world…When I took on this assignment, we talked about the importance of creating the people’s house. My work was really to create this framework.” CNN video below.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, (D-New Jersey) was clearly frustrated with the couple (whom he derided as “normal looking” which must have been galling) refused to answer even the simplest question, including “Did you wear a tux?” and “Were you there?” (Photo evidence that we’ve ALL seen confirms yes and yes.) Exasperated, he finally exclaimed: “Are you here, Mr. Salahi?” It was a simple yes or no answer, and Salahi obviously knew it was a ridiculous enterprise, but — well, you know lawyers. Said Pascrell: “I don’t respect your right to take the Fifth Amendment. Not at all.” Well, at least they make for great TV. Video below.

The Secret Service has refused to identify the third party goer but the Washington Post is reporting he is Carlos Allen, a D.C. party promoter. Short version: Allen was apparently with some Indian businessmen before the dinner and was ferried along with them as well as some Indian officials to the White House after the Indian Embassy asked the State Department to provide transportation, something which the State Dept. is at pains to point out is not a usual service and is now “investigating.” The Indian Embassy, meanwhile, is also denying that Allen was part of the delegation however “but the spokesman did not respond to requests for comment about how Allen got on the van or if the embassy requested that the State Department add the Indian CEOs to the trip.”

Hmm, sounds like a lot of officials were inadvertently involved in allowing Allen into the party. Want to bet there are a dozen other similar stories dating back through the last two administrations of “uninvited” guests attending White House functions? Based on these details I would be there are. Meanwhile, if Allen did post pictures of himself at the event on his Facebook page (and apparently he does have a penchant for snapping himself with famous faces, that’s him up top with General Patreus, though not at the state dinner) they were removed lickedy split once the Salahis hit the news cycle. Additionally he shows no sign of desiring the Salahi cable spotlight, though lord knows that is probably about to change.

Somehow post the Christmas/Underwear bomber, yesterday’s shutdown of Newark, and the general sense that not only do people still wish us harm, but we are not prepared to deal with it, the Salahis are less funny. So the news that there was likely a third party crasher, which might have made for a fun (ish) follow-up headline just a short month or so ago, is actually not that funny. Or at all funny.

Newsmax first reported this morning that there may have been a third crasher:

At the last minute, someone from the Indian diplomatic delegation invited a man to attend the White House event on Nov. 24 without the knowledge or consent of the White House. As with the Salahis, the Secret Service ignored the fact that the man was not on the guest list and failed to conduct a background check on him.

The Secret Service confirmed later today there was indeed a third uninvited guest:

“It appears at this point that the subject traveled from a local hotel, where the official Indian delegation was staying, and arrived at the dinner with the group, which was under the responsibility of the Department of State. This individual went through all required security measures along with the rest of the official delegation at the hotel, and boarded a bus/van with the delegation guests en route to the White House.

“At present, there is nothing to indicate that this individual went through the receiving line or had contact with the president or first lady.”

Sigh. At this rate there’ll be full body scans at all future White House functions.

It is perhaps a measure of the media cycles of the blogosphere that I consider the latest study from Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism on last week’s news coverage to be encouraging. According to the study, 27% of the newshole between Nov. 30 and Dec. 6 was devoted to coverage of Afghanistan. Which makes sense since the President’s speech took place on the 2nd. Though it is interesting (and a not a little disturbing) to note that it is “the largest amount of attention the media have devoted to the war there since the PEJ began monitoring the news in January 2007.” Meanwhile, coverage of the economic crisis accounted for 15%, which actually seems a bit low if only because at the end of the day doesn’t everything come back to the economy?

The point of this, however, is that clocking in at six percent each was coverage of the crashers: Salahis and Tiger Woods, respectively. Yes, six percent is a lot of coverage in the grand scheme of the world’s news (also, more than health care, though I would make the argument health care has received such saturated news coverage the last four months that maybe we all just wanted a break). What the poll does succeed in proving, however, is that despite the fact one glance at any number of websites (including this one) or television news shows, mainstream or otherwise, might lead you to believe that Afghanistan and/or the economy was struggling to be heard through the cacophony of this week’s latest stunt news story, actually they are getting plenty of attention and space. Whether those stories are being read or listened to is another question altogether.

Side note: George Stephanopoulos might want to glance at this graph to get a sense of where his journalistic future lies.

(h/t Michael Calderone)

“Considering the White House’s hulking, media-rich Web site, its Facebook page, photo galleries and podcasts on iTunes, the presidency seems less threatened by the incursion of a reality show than running an administration that is in danger of becoming one.”

– David Carr, New York Times media columnist, describing the ” all-Obama, all-the-time” era “that concluded in a reality-program couple crashing a state dinner at the White House.”

David Carr’s latest New York Times column, “Reality TV’s Glare Hits High Office,” has more zingers than Obama has photo ops, as he suggests the president scale back on the “oversharing.”

Carr accuses the “Celebrity in Chief” of dumbing down the role of a leader, creating “the impression that the leader of the free world is part of a milieu that is more TMZ than C-SPAN.” His evidence is largely pop cultural: Big Brother, Oprah, Vogue, Facebook and, of course, the White House-crashing Salahi couple and the Real Housewives of D.C. “Perhaps the Salahis were just taking the president at his word when he promised a new era of openness,” Carr suggests.

It’s just not special anymore, Carr argues, to see Barack Obama acting like a normal person, and it just might be bad for his presidency. But intuitive quotes from a VH1 exec and West Wing producer don’t do anything to support Carr blaming Obama, himself.

The Kennedys, Carr writes, balanced politics and celebrity correctly, and he quotes Jackie O saying, “I want to live my life, not record it.” But in the forty-plus years since JFK’s presidency, the press has become insatiable and Carr’s column avoids pointing the finger back at the cable news stations with 24-hours to fill, the struggling but celeb-obsessed magazine world, or yes, even the New York Times.

Last month, Mediaite’s Glynnis MacNicol suggested that politics are our new national pastime, and that media organizations were left scrambling as the 2008 election ended, with nothing compelling left to cover. “The answer increasingly appears to be that they will merely find other elections and/or turn everything into a race,” she wrote. That, or a reality show, apparently. And that’s not to say that the Obamas are not themselves complicit, but in Carr’s column one suspect — the media itself — gets off surprisingly unmentioned.

Responding to the story last night on Twitter, NYU professor and press critic Jay Rosen wondered about the assumption that the press know “what the right level of exposure is.” And if so, “How?” Salon’s editor-in-chief Joan Walsh put it thusly: “They’re blaming Obama for their bad, shallow, celebrity focused coverage of him.” That is, “it’s self-correction for the way they sold the Obama ‘brand’ (shallowly).” And though Carr’s column is indeed zingy, it might also be self-incriminating.

The Social Media Presidency [New York Times]

(photo)

There were several disappointments at Thursday’s Crasher-gate hearing, but chief among them were Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan‘s continued insistence that the now-famous security breach posed no threat to the President, and the committee’s focus on Social Secretary Desiree Rogers‘ role in said breach.

Taken together with the media’s initial narrative on the Social Secretary’s Office, the right’s targeting of her, and a heated broadside from the White House press corps, it seems some are taking the Secret Service’s failure as an opportunity to settle scores with Desiree Rogers.

Initially, I shared the House Committee on Homeland Security’s consternation at Rogers’ absence from the hearing, but after further consideration, I’m not so sure. The committee members’ interest in Rogers seemed to involve spreading some of the blame for the Secret Service’s failure to turn away Michaele and Tareq Salahi, as they repeatedly questioned Sullivan as to whether the presence of a Social Office staffer would have prevented the breach. This is absurd on two counts.

First of all, this is the year 2009. You no longer have to actually be standing next to someone in order to communicate with them. The officers at that first checkpoint had an entire world of confirmation at their fingertips. The committee focused on the fact that there usually is a staffer present for state dinners, but they seemed ignorant of the fact that 99.99% of White House visitors are checked in by the Secret Service alone.

More absurd is the notion that the Secret Service needs backup from the White House social staff. If that’s true, Sullivan should just hang it up. This would be akin to Batman blaming a defeat on the absence of Alfred, the butler.

Since Rogers’ name first came up, however, there seems to have been a cauldron of resentment simmering just below the surface. A disgruntled former staffer came forward to complain about Rogers, and the right jumped at the chance to show how Rogers was yet another example of how Barack Obama is everything that’s wrong with the world.

>>>NEXT: A transcript of Ryan’s chat with Gibbs and a final defense of Desiree Rogers…

Also new is the fact that, as Sullivan says, “the officers are all on administrative leave, with pay” pending completion of the investigation. As far as I know, this is the first time the agency has said that there was more than one officer involved in the breach.

As we went to recess, I tried to question Sullivan about how many officers were involved, and if they had consulted anyone at all before allowing the Salahis onto the White house grounds, but one  of his aides body-checked me into the banister as Sullivan strode down the stairs.

Thus far, committee members from both parties have condemned the White House for not making social secretary Desiree Rogers available to the committee.

The way the White House and the Secret Service have been talking about this incident so far has left open the possibility that a less serious breach may have occurred. I contacted the White House to see if they could eliminate those possibilities.

As I said yesterday, the emails between the Salahis and Michelle Jones left open the possibility that the couple were not invited to the dinner, but may have been cleared for the arrival ceremony. A White House official told me that “the Salahi’s were not cleared to enter the White House grounds for any reason…Not being waved in means not being waved in for anything at all, or as (we’ve said), not cleared to enter the White House grounds for any reason.”

The emails also state that their names, ss#, etc, were submitted in case tickets became available. If there had been a background check done just in case they got in, and a computer record remained when the Secret Service looked them up at the checkpoint, it would mitigate the breach somewhat. Of the submission of the Salahis’ request, the White House official told me the following:

“No (there was no background check). No. On Friday November 20, Michele Jones’s office sent a request to the White House office of Public Engagement for two arrival ceremony tickets for the Salahis. That request was denied by the White House Office of Public Engagement later that same day.”

White House staff, including Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, have evinced frustration that their statements on this story have been questioned and dissected so, but they should understand that, knowing how vigilant Secret Service is, and knowing how vigilant the White House press office staff are, it’s not at all obvious that the Salahis should have been able to BS their way past a guy whose sole job it is to make sure they belong there, and then shake hands with the President and Vice President without any of the White House staff noticing they weren’t supposed to be there.

The White House also raises questions by not making WH Social Secretary Desiree Rogers available to testify at the hearing. Without her or the Salahis at today’s hearing, all that’s left is the Secret Service, who were eager to take the blame from day one, even before an investigation had begun.

“Given how desperately we want to believe in a human god, it didn’t take much peddling from Team Tiger for us to accept Woods as a modern deity…And we ate it up….So now that the “real” Woods has been revealed as a wild bone-daddy who behaves more like your out-of-work, alcoholic brother-in-law than an object of worship, we feel cheated.”

– Slate’s Jack Shafer explains what’s really behind the world’s fascination with the Tiger Woods‘ Sherman McCoy-like debacle. He also notes that the reason we can’t get enough of the Salahis is because “they do in maximum what we do in miniature every day.”

Given the very best possible interpretation, the emails show that Michelle Jones was working to get the Salahis tickets to the arrival ceremony prior to the dinner, but explicitly tells them that the dinner has been full up for months. The emails leave open the possibility, however unlikely, that the Salahis might attend the arrival if tickets became available.

That leaves open the possibility that the couple passed through the first checkpoint as legitimate attendees of the arrival ceremony. I asked the White House about the arrival ceremony specifically, and a White House official told me that “the Salahi’s were not cleared to enter the White House grounds for any reason.”

Michele Jones never confirms either event for the couple in the emails, except to accept their thanks the following day.

The crux of their defense, then, is that they went to the White House just to check if Jones had managed an 11th-hour miracle, and they say in a thank-you email that they were, indeed, on the list. The email conveniently explains that their cellphone battery had died, so they wouldn’t have received any calls telling them not to go.

The White House and the Secret Service have now fairly definitively ruled out every scenario that could vindicate the Salahis. While their future as reality TV stars may be bright, it looks like they could face serious trouble for what looks more and more like a ridiculous security breach.

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!

Related:
Executive Privilege for Obama’s Social Secretary? [TIME]

TRANSCRIPT

(Video of the interview with Congressman King starts at the 2:55 mark)

While they differ as to the reasons for concern, both King and Kessler rightly agree that, despite the reality TV angle and the Salahis’ own penchant for the ridiculous, this story is no laughing matter. While the Secret Service downplays the degree to which President Obama faces a greater number of threats than past presidents, the fact that he does is a well-established fact.

So far, the official story is that a uniformed agent at the first checkpoint admitted the Salahis after checking their ID and physically screening them, but did not verify that they were on the guest list for the dinner, thinking this would be done by a later post.

Assuming that there’s nothing more to the story, this was an unthinkable breach of security. Attempts by some to spread culpability to the absence of a Social Office staffer at the checkpoint completely miss the point. Any idiot can pass someone through a metal detector. The most important part of that first checkpoint is to ensure that the person has a reason to enter, that they’re not windpipe-crushing, anthrax-smuggling stealth assassins. It’s basically their sole reason to exist.

Both the White House and the Secret Service, however, were quick to dismiss the notion that the President was ever in any danger, based on the fact that the couple were physically screened.

Part of the problem the Secret Service faces is that they must necessarily fight this PR battle with one hand tied behind their backs. First of all, any perception that the President is/was vulnerable could easily encourage others to give this a try.

This is compounded by the fact that they are limited in their ability to reassure the public, since specific security measures are secret (hence the name “Secret Service”). They are extremely vigilant about this.

Still, at this point, it sends a bad message to downplay the seriousness of this incident. When the Secret Service completes its investigation this week, some pretty drastic consequences are in order.

–The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board on the Salahi gate-crashing incident

The media has yet to come to a consensus over the meaning of “Crashgate.” Some outlets see the news that socialites Michaele and Tareq Salahi were able to get past state dinner security and even snap photos with President Obama as an alarming sign of poor security, some find fault with the Obama administration itself, and some think that the whole affair is funny. Not to be overlooked: it is possible that the Salahis had help from the inside.

The members of the San Francisco Chronicle‘s editorial board, for their part, does not think that the incident is a laughing matter. If they’re not explicitly calling for the heads of Secret Service or White House staff, they at least see their firings as inevitable.

But is that fair? A poll: do you think anyone should be fired over the incident? Who, if anyone, do you think is at fault?

Gawker is reporting — with photo evidence — that the Salahis are “polo buddies” with an influential state dinner guest, Indian Ambassador Arun Singh. Whether it turns out to be this specific connection or another (they have a lot of powerful friends), it makes a lot more sense that they had a helping hand into the White House than that the Secret Service got conned by would-be reality show contestants.

As the NYT reported yesterday, Bravo has now confirmed that a TV crew for the upcoming “Real Housewives of DC” was indeed trailing the Salahis, who told the crew that they were invited to the dinner. The Salahis are set to appear on “Larry King Live” on Monday to tell their side of the story. Through a lawyer, they deny “crashing” the event, so look for them to explain how they were left off the guest list, but were added to the White House clearance list.

What struck me was the Secret Service’s response. When I talked to spokesman Ed Donovan yesterday, he was quick to accept responsibility for the incident, even though no investigation has been completed. (Secret Service director Mark Patterson told Politico that they were “deeply embarrassed” — especially since it’s been confirmed that the couple met the President and Mrs. Obama on the receiving line). Neither he nor the White House could confirm or deny that someone within the White House had interceded on the Salahis’ behalf, and both have pointed out repeatedly that the couple were subject to the same physical security measures as the other guests.

While it seems counter-intuitive that the Secret Service, already under fire for cutbacks, would take the blame for this if it wasn’t really their fault, the alternative is arguably worse. It’s fairly simple to mitigate a relatively harmless, isolated slip-up.

On the other hand, the idea that the vapid, privileged stars of a reality show could be waved through security and into the White House would not play well with recession-battered Americans (or with luminaries who couldn’t score an invite), and the security implications of the People’s House becoming the brass ring of D-list prankdom are also far-reaching.

The possibility that the Salahis were admitted at the request of a foreign diplomat is just gravy on top of the red meat.

What also amazes me is the credulity with which the media reported this story. As Gawker puts it, “the Salahis weren’t just some randos who showed up at the White House and schmoozed their way past the Secret Service with their fancy clothes.”

Yet that’s pretty much how it has been reported. Perhaps the pop culture appeal of the moxie-laden gadabout who skirts the velvet rope was too powerful a lure to resist.

Update: Report from NBC Nightly News about how the Salahis got through that first checkpoint, and how they met President Obama.

Photo of the Salahis with Ambassador Singh from Gawker.com

The Salahis, owners of the Oasis Winery and the America’s Cup of Polo, are rumored to be part of Bravo’s upcoming “Real Houeswives of DC” reality show. Actually, there are more than rumors. In September, the Salahis were spotted being trailed by a Bravo film crew, and Michaele Salahi’s makeup artist reported seeing a TV crew filming them as they prepared to crash the state dinner. Though Bravo declined to make a statement yesterday (even to NBC News, part of its corporate family!), today Bravo reluctantly confirmed that a “Real Housewives” camera crew was ineed with the Salahis as they crashed their way to the most exclusive ticket in town. They’ve got a flair for the dramatic, as their cheese-tastic wedding video shows.Yes, they’re throwing doves.

NBC’s Brian Williams also says he saw the couple’s SUV turned away at the East Gate, at which point they got, camera and makeup people in tow, and went to the pedestrian entrance. (video below)

I spoke with Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan this morning, and he would only offer  that they had identified a checkpoint at which proper procedures were not followed, and that the incident would be investigated. He stressed that, no matter which checkpoint was the problem, “It’s on us.” He stressed, again, that the Salahis had been subjected to the same stringent physical checks (magnometer, x-rays, etc.) as the other guests.

A White House official tells me that the White House has called for a “full review of the incident” by Secret service.

The Secret Service isn’t saying which checkpoint was the problem, nor will they confirm or deny whether the Salahis were already on the grounds when the misstep occurred. This is an important distinction. Once you’re inside the White House gates, it becomes significantly easier to wander into someplace you don’t belong, especially with a crowd. It’s possible that a White House staffer walked them through the gates, perhaps for a legitimate purpose. The Salahis know a lot of people in DC, as their 2,000-person wedding guest list attests.

It would have been a challenge for the Salahis to have slipped past the first checkpoint. First of all, the Secret Service Uniformed Division are extremely, shall we say, detail-oriented. On my first day at the White House, I watched them turn away a very famous person that they see pretty much every day because he wasn’t on the list. He was only admitted when a White House staffer vouched for him.

Since then, I’ve seen countless people hold up the line trying to get in, most of whom really did belong there but weren’t on the list, including me. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your story is, if you’re not on the list, No…Soup…For…You!

Even if you decide that once in a million times, someone could slip through unassisted, what are the odds that it would be this couple, who were planning to slip through? It doesn’t seem possible.

The Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility has been tasked with investigating this incident, but it will be interesting to see how they let this play out publicly. If the Salahis got onto the grounds legitimately, and then snuck into the dinner, it’s embarrassing, sure, but a much less serious security problem.

If, on the other hand, they just managed to talk their way past that first checkpoint, it points up a disturbing vulnerability. Even though they were physically checked, there’s a reason for doing background checks on White House visitors, especially ones who will be sharing dinner with the President.