The e-mails show that Michele S. Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense and White House liaison, told the Salahis that the dinner was closed. But she offered to try to get them into the "arrival ceremony," presumably the daytime ceremony that kicks off a foreign leader's visit, often attended by several hundred people. The couple's lawyers told NBC that the Salahis thought this meant the dinner's receiving line.ABC News had this piece yesterday as well, "E-Mails Show Salahis Never Got White House State Dinner Invite From Pentagon: Couple Had Claimed After E-Mails Came Out, They Would Be 'Completely Exonerated'."
The lawyers also told NBC that the Salahis say Jones called them the night before the dinner to say they were cleared for the receiving line. In the morning, Jones e-mailed to say that the arrival ceremony was canceled -- rain forced it inside -- but that she was still working on the state dinner. But later that day, lawyers claim, Jones left the Salahis a voice mail saying she had had no luck; but the couple, already in Washington, never got the message.
Tareq Salahi's next e-mail to Jones was a thank-you at night's end: "We ended up going to the gate to just check, in case it got approved, since we didn't know, and our name was indeed on the list." Jones's response: "Tareq you are most welcome. Delighted that you and Michaele had a wonderful time:)."
An administration official said Tuesday night that the e-mails support Jones's denial Monday that she told the couple she could get them in. "All Ms. Jones tells them is she is trying," the official said. "She never tells them yes and even leaves them a voice mail the day of saying, sorry, but it didn't happen." The Salahis, meanwhile, still can't point to "an e-mail actually inviting them."
As for Jones's final blithe note, the official said, she "responded that way to be polite," assuming the Salahis got tickets some other way.
Plus, from Ronald Kessler, "Secret Service Under Scrutiny for Salahi Slipup: Breach at the State Dinner Lends New Urgency to a Review of Secret Service Procedures." Referring to that piece, ChattahBox points fingers elsewhere, "State Dinner Security Lapse Mary Cheney’s Fault?"
But as any student of the presidency knows, the buck stops in the Oval Office, and even Kessler's clear about that:
New York: Your newsmax.com column implies that Pres. Obama is taking unnecessary risks with his own security. But does a president really know how lax his security is? Who reviews these operations and reports to the president? If magnometers aren't used or turned off, does a president have this kind of info? Thanks.I'll have more later on the deeply problematic screw-up of White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers.
Ronald Kessler: The president certainly has this kind of information since my book, In the President's Secret Service, came out. Whenever I appear on TV or on the radio to do publicity for the book, people ask how can this happen and why isnt' the president doing something about it. Obama issued a statement after the security breach at the White House saying that he has "full confidence" in the Secret Service. While it's true that Secret Service agents are dedicated, brave and will take a bullet for the president, Secret Servicew management has been derelict in its duty. If the president continues to express confidence in the Secret Service without replacing the director and totally revamping the management he will be jeopardizing his own life in the opinion of many agents I have interviewed. In that respect, he will be following, unfortunately, in the footsteps of Abraham Lincolna and John F. Kennedy who also ignored advice to beef up their security [emphasis added].
No comments:
Post a Comment