On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, K.M. Richards <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin, neither you nor I were at the White House that evening, so we > have no direct knowledge of exactly what happened. > > And some of what has been reported conflicts with other reports, so it > is difficult to get a clear picture. (Indeed, there has been > confusion as to whether or not they were on the guest list, and if so, > on which list.) I would therefore suggest that the committee is > trying to get a clear picture itself, and therefore inviting them to > talk about what happened from their perspective so that whatever did > happen won't happen again. Call it "closing a loophole" if you want, > but your reply does not change my opinion.
Fair enough, though I'd point out the problem with the "story" is that the media also has no direct knowledge, but wasted a week discussing it anyway. I was "head of security" on various award shows for two or three years (and I put the job title in quotes because I should not have held the position, having never worked any aspect of security prior to the day I was placed in charge of it). If even a single person would have entered the Shrine Auditorium who wasn't on my guest list, I'd have been fired immediately, regardless of who was at fault. I worked at NBC during three different Tonight Shows where Secret Service was brought in (one was for then VP Al Gore, another was for then first lady Clinton, and the third was for then candidate GW Bush). Memos were distributed outlining what credentials we needed to have and how visibly they should be displayed. They had the big killer dogs and the bigger killer agents with guns. I saw them almost shoot the guy who brought in the morning donuts and coffee, because someone forgot to credential him. They were all nice people (and dogs), but they don't f*ck around. At the end of the day, if your guards/agents/officers do their job, nobody gets in who isn't on the list. If these two people got in, either: A - They were on a list, or B - Somebody failed to follow protocol. I agree there have been conflicting stories... primarily the result of a 24-hour-a-day news cycle where news agencies can't be bothered to confirm facts before reporting something. We saw it with "balloon boy," again with the 9/11/09 "shooting" on the Potomac, and again with this story (as near as I can tell, major news outlets initially ran with the story based solely on the couple's Facebook profile, or. worse, erroneous reports from others who saw the profile). So, sure, you can debate the myriad of possibilities, but they all boil down to one of two. And, if the media had waited to report on the story until after they'd gathered the facts, there never would have been a story. As has been posted already, it turns out they were on a list. Maybe not a primary list, but a list that Bin Laden & Friends wouldn't have been on. They knew people in the administration who could confirm their identity. Nobody was at risk. There may have been a miscommunication or misunderstanding about what they were allowed to see or do, but I would suspect such things happen with some degree of regularity in "the people's house" (I think of the number of people who would insist to me that they were supposed to be allowed to an award show "after party," and it didn't take long for a novice like me to enact procedures to confirm the truth... I assume it takes the Secret Service even less time). But, again, what turned out to have been, at most, a minor bending of established protocol became another overblown media craze. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
