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 wasn’t on the guest list and didn’t do a background check on him.
At a hearing on Dec. 3 by the House Homeland Security Committee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., asked Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan whether any other “interlopers” might have been allowed into the event by the Secret Service.
“Ma’am, that was a concern of mine, as well,” Sullivan replied. “That is something we have focused on; I cannot talk about it in this setting, but I believe that I can satisfy you in explaining that there were no other people there that night that should not [have been let in].”
Oh, really? Well, no problem then. Just three uninvited guests, all of whom could have theoretically been terrorists.
As David Horowitz’s NewsRealblog‘s very own Paul Cooper wrote over a month ago, “I believe this embarrassing incident finds its greatest importance in its symbolism. It represents an Administration that has consistently proven itself faulty on who has the ear of the President and clueless on the policies presented to the American people.”
Combining the above with the failed terrorist attack on Christmas day, it’s time for us to wonder about this administration’s attitude towards very real dangers. What effect does this attitude have on the intelligence community and on the Secret Service? If the president himself doesn’t take (foreign and domestic) threats violent, why should the CIA or the Secret Service? And what does that mean for national security?