[TigersEye]

Summoned by Congress to account for the security lapse the White House - which had come into office promising a new era of transparency - forbade her to attend, citing a constitutional "separation of powers" issue.

Much as it pains me I would have to agree with the WH's decision on that.
What business is it of Congress' to question WH security?

[Dacus943]

"What business is it of Congress' to question WH security?"

Question away Congress! Though I loathe this Administration, I still feel its security is something paramount.

If the lady "fashion horse" thinks gate keeping is "E" on her to do list - FIRE her butt, and find out why she held that position in the first place.

[piasa]

Interestingly- an Indian paper speculated a while back that the security breach was a distraction to cover the presence of Robert Creamer the con and rent-a-thug leader from the recent O’Keefe video.

[piasa]

Interestingly- an Indian paper speculated a while back that the security breach was a distraction to cover the presence of Robert Creamer the con and rent-a-thug leader from the recent O’Keefe video.

Otherwise why would the SS allow a con to attend a state dinner?