On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I agree with this. One thing I believe, but have no evidence to support, is that people like the Salafis have gotten into these events before, and as nothing bad has happened, and the line crossers have been smart enough to keep their mouths shut, it's become accepted. The people who can get away with this have passed security, are dressed for the occasion, and are known to the White House staff or can drop a name. Allowing them entry covers possible mistakes with printed invitations or name lists. If the White House moves to "close the loophole," there's a possibility that a major donor who has flown to Washington for a state dinner gets shut out because he left his invitation in his hotel room. Serves him right, you might say, but you're not trying to get him to write a check for your boss. Going back to my question of laws being broken, Slate takes up the question: http://www.slate.com/id/2237098/ If they are to be prosecuted, the DA has to show an intent to deceive on their part. As long as they say they thought they were invited, the DA would have to present proof to the contrary. Tom -- 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
