Monday, November 30, 2009
Secret Service Incompetency Can't Be Tolerated
Mark Sullivan, Directer, United States Secret Service, should be fired. The fact he hasn't been fired as of yet tells you all you need to know about the present state of our Union.
Whoever is in direct day to day charge of White House Security should be fired as well.
As for Mr. and Mrs. Salahis... they should have been taken into custody immediately and in fact they should still be in custody - charged with every offense it's possible to charge them on - awaiting trial. Instead, though, they're free as birds, not even charged yet; they're "shopping" interviews - hoping for a big payday - and as for the U.S. Secret Service... well... the New York Times reported yesterday that beyond not yet having charged the Salahis' with any crimes, the boys and girls with the earpieces are treating the Salahis' with kid gloves to the extent that these scam artists have only been interviewed on "neutral turf," not at the couple's home, not at Secret Service headquarters.
The inmates are running the asylum, folks - from the White House on down the line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Why does this bother you? Moochers party-crashing the looters?
Somebody's head should roll, and that head should not be off the shoulders of anyone on the White House social staff. Security is the job of the Secret Service; they are the professionals, and their only task is providing security for the First Family.
You're exactly right, Rob, UNLESS it can be proven that someone with the authority to override a Secret Service decision made the call.
Now I don't know how many folks would have such authority in a situation such as this, but I'm assuming the number must be very small indeed.
As to "somebody's head" rolling, again, I'm a simple guy; I've identified the director of the Secret Service who should be fired (because obviously the buck stops at his desk) and it seems to me obvious that the person (whomever he or she is) who runs White House security should also be canned.
By the very nature of the mission of the Secret Service there can be ZERO TOLERANCE for mistakes of this sort.
BILL
P.S. - If Obama were to be assassinated this country would tear itself apart. Cities would LITERALLY be in flames. Hundreds... thousands... perhaps tens of thousands would die.
I don't know who could override a directive from the director of the Secret Service, other than Janet Napolitano or Obama himself.
Rahm Emanuel could.
Biden could.
Michelle Obama could. (Certainly the President himself could.)
I'm guessing Valerie Jarrett could.
David Axelrod? Probably. (At least I'm guessing his "authority" would be recognized by anyone under the rank of CHIEF of Security for the White House.) (*SHRUG*)
Jim Messina? Mona Sutphen? Peter Rouse?
I don't know, Rob... you'd think the White House press corp would have gotten to the bottom of this by now; perhaps they're simply too busy twittering about Tiger.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
***Security is the job of the Secret Service; they are the professionals, and their only task is providing security for the First Family.***
Well no, that's not their only task, just the most popular. They used to be under the Dept of Treasury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#Roles
A friend of a friend works in the counterfeiting side of it. It's the main reason the agency was created was to prevent and investigate counterfeiting.
Not sure about who can tell them to stand down from their post though...good question actually.
I would agree that people seemed to be much more interested in who Tigers bopping than this stuff.
Hiya Moose!
Point taken... but irrelevant to the heart of the discussion.
And speaking of...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBVNP00&show_article=1
QUOTING --
WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of the Secret Service asserted Thursday that the security breach at last week's White House state dinner was an aberration and President Barack Obama was never at risk. Mark Sullivan said three uniformed officers have been put on administrative leave.
(*SNORT*)
As I suspected...
(*SHRUG*)
And, Rob... your boy Obama is ALLOWING this.
I don't know. Perhaps Bush would have too. Perhaps a President McCain would as well. Thing is... we have just one President at a time and ultimately the buck stops at Obama's desk.
Low level uniformed "workers" get nailed yet the "bosses," the "executives," skate. Nice. So much for "change we can believe in."
Remember the days when the Captain of the ship took ultimate responsibility for what happened on his watch? Well, the head of White House Security is "the Captain" here.
Should Sullivan resign? I still say yes, but if anyone bothers to google Mark Sullivan's record you'll see he's not that kind of guy.
So be it. This is the America we live in. I'll still rail against it though.
BILL
Bill--
Oversight of the Secret Service is a thing that is delegated to a cabinet-level administrator. In this case, that would Napolitano. If you want to see her head roll, fine. If you want the director of secret service's head to roll with hers, no problem.
But there is nothing wrong with "uniformed workers" getting the axe here. As with the military, there is a chain-of-command in any police force, and every operative is under orders and should be following those orders to the letter. If that wasn't the case, there was dereliction of duty at a fairly low level. Neither the Homeland Security head, nor the Secret Service director, is going to be personally standing by the door, checking I.D.s. Nor should they be. You fire a boss/supervisor only if and when there has been repeated insubordination on his watch. If its an isolated incident, you fire the malingerer as an example, and as a warning that lapses of discipline will not be tolerated.
At this point, Obama doesn't even enter into the blame phase.
Protect Obama at all costs.
We get it Rob.
(*SMILE*)
Thing is...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/white-house-revises-rules-for-major-events/?hp
Hmm... seems to me as if Obama *is* directly involved. Only the President can invoke what amounts to Executive Immunity.
(*SHRUG*)
Now... allow me to clarify two points:
1) I'm not necessarily defending the three uniformed Secret Service agents who have been put on administrative leave.
They may well deserve this fate and perhaps worse.
My problem is that these low level civil service grunts are so far the ONLY ones who have been placed on "administrative leave."
Rob. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/091202-messing-state-dinner-review-new-guidelines.pdf
"After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex."
Now of course the memo writer is none other than Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina (whom I mentioned in a post yesterday) so you know it's coached in the most innocuous and non-self-blaming way possible, but it's still an admission of fault.
Here... Rob... to reiterate I'm coming at this from a non-partisan angle, consider this from HuffPost --
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/the-twilight-saga-does-de_b_376674.html
"Rogers emerges as a figure out of Vanity Fair -- preening and self-indulgent, lording it over her table at the state dinner, while ignoring her own mundane duties such as ensuring that someone from her office was at the Secret Service check-point."
You can do your own news browsing if you doubt that Obama's POLITICAL APPOINTEE wasn't doing her job, but I doubt you'll find any info contradicting the basic premise.
So... why hasn't Desiree Rogers been put on "administrative leave?"
Hey... Rob... as I say, feel free to do your own research... but from what I'm reading it seems clear that the White House (i.e. Obama at the head of the table, ultimately the guy with that "The Buck Stops Here" placard on his desk) is doing their best to protect their political appointees (Rogers as well as Sullivan) while a quite different standard is being applied to three low level uniformed Secret Service agents.
Oh... before I forget...
Point #2 --
Well... point two is basically point one. I'm calling for transparency, fairness, and standards equally applied to Obama "nobility" as well as "the help."
But, hey, Rob... I'll end this post as I began it:
Protect Obama at all costs. Protect the Dems. Screw the little guy. You've made your position clear.
BILL
How, by your convoluted way of thinking, is a secret service agent a freaking "little guy?" These guys are not some feckless, hayseed draftee grunts, laboring in the jungles of Vietnam. They are carefully screened, highly trained, and supposedly responsible professionals, who have chosen to do what they're doing, and have taken an oath to do it well.
Your usually deeply submerged populist streak emerges in some strange contexts, Guillermo.
Having read your whole screed, Guillermo, I've come over to your side: the nigger should be impeached. How dare he put his own life at risk by not personally standing at the door, checking I.D.s! Let's get it on!
Bottom line: if the secret service agents are relying upon a gaggle of ditzy social hostesses to ensure the safety of the president of the United States, then they should all be dismissed.
Uh oh, the Praetorian Guard made a boo-boo. Caesar is not happy...
In other news, Bernanke, head of the imperial mint, has spoken: "The mint will be running day and night, so...party on, dudes!"
And there was much rejoicing among the money-changers...
Post a Comment