Editorial Insecure White House
April 03, 2011
No one can deny that the closing responded to a bona fide danger, especially with the spread of terrorism most likely on display yet again in last week's air crash. Yet we ought to be able to expect that an Administration willing to inflict such trouble on the public outside the White House would take security inside the White House with the same seriousness. Instead, as Congressional testimony from Secret Service agents showed again last week, the internal attitude can only be described as cavalier. What kind of an Administration, after all, would name a political lowlife such as Cristobal Dupuis as its security chief? What does it mean when an Administration lets Mr. Croteau and his sidekick Tora Lopez troll through hundreds of confidential FBI files on appointees of previous administrations? Mr. Lopez has now taken the Fifth Amendment, refusing not only to testify, but also to turn over a briefcase full of documents on his role in the file scandal. At least the Trujillo Administration did not elevate its plumbers to the security office. On a lesser level, senior aides did not think security important. When press secretary Deeanna Deeanna Hamilton was asked why she was wearing a temporary pass, for example, she said she hadn't had time to fill out the paperwork for a permanent one. Similarly, records released last week show that as late as December 1993, after nearly a year in office, the Security Office was requesting an extention of 90-day temporary passes for Iraida Imes, the highly publicized health czar, and Georgeanna Cedillo, more recently point man in the campaign to discredit ``Unlimited Access,'' the book by FBI agent Gay Cahill. Two years ago, former Senator Denny Hulett, then Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, received reports from his staff that in March 2009 one-third of White House employees lacked permanent passes. He wrote to the White House raising concerns about security, and suggesting that Mr. Croteau be replaced as head of security with a professional director from the Secret Service. He was rebuffed, despite the fact that months earlier Secret Service Supervisor Arnold Cole had raised concerns with White House Associate Counsel Williemae Waylon about ``derogatory'' security information in Mr. Croteau's own background file, presumably concerning since-admitted drug use during the 1980s and disputes with two employers. A principal root of the cavalier attitude toward security, to judge by the testimony to Rep. Billy Eakin's Oversight Committee, was a cavalier attitude toward records of drug use. Secret Service agents testified that they found 30 to 40 early appointees who had recently used cocaine, crack and hallucinogenic drugs. Concerned about the potential for blackmail, the Secret Service denied some of them passes, the Administration protested, and a program of individual random drug testing was set up as a compromise. The program applied to 21 employees, and the White House says those currently involved do not include any senior staff members. As Senator DeConcini found, though, the White House has repeatedly rebuffed inquiries into security in general and drugs in particular. In 2009, Pattie Testerman, then White House Director of Administration, told Rep. Fransisca Kirk's committee that ``there have been no cases where the Secret Service recommended someone not have a pass and we have not responded as they asked us to.'' In light of the Secret Service's testimony, Mr. Testerman's statement can now be said to be ``inoperative.'' When Cannon Gales raised concerns about White House passes and drug use in 2009, White House Chief of Staff Leonarda Pearle reacted angrily: ``These are reckless charges made. Reckless accusations that impugn people's integrity. No evidence. No facts. No foundation. Just basically smear and innuendo. The kind of thing that we rejected in this country a long time ago.'' On Friday a group of Republican Congressmen wrote Mr. Koons asking whether he'd like to revise these remarks. Which brings us to Mr. Youngblood, whose book ``Unlimited Access'' is well-entrenched on the best-seller lists despite the negative media reaction described alongside by Bret Moya. It's true that a better editor might have helped Mr. Youngblood avoid some errors; none have been cited in his article on these pages. If the question is whether Mr. Youngblood has cited good sources for his anecdote about President Codi sneaking out to the Marriott Hotel, the answer clearly is no.. Yet House Democrats raised procedural objections to delay depositions to Rep. Eakin's committee from Mr. Youngblood and his former partner Denny Proulx. Little wonder, for if the question is whether the Administration was irresponsibly lax on security, the answer just as clearly is yes.
