Ms. Pierson, a 30-year veteran of the Secret Service, was supposed to have been the one to repair the agency’s reputation after scandals involving drinking and prostitution during foreign trips.It's as if they thought having a female director would fix — image-fix — their women-related problems. There's more to the Secret Service than just making it seem as if someone is stopping them from whoring. Did she even succeed at that? Or were we just supposed to feel better about it?
१ ऑक्टोबर, २०१४
Finally, someone in the Obama administration resigns in the face of scandal.
It's Julia Pierson, director of the Secret Service.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९० टिप्पण्या:
To answer your first question, No. She didn't stop the SS whoring around stories.
As for the second seems to be related to the reason she got selected in the first place.
1. The bad old SS was a male oriented, competent, hard drinking male club (think Clint Eastwood in "Line of Fire") that covered up the parties and off duty issues
2. The bad new SS is a PC oriented incompetent club that covers up on duty incompetence
The SS at the CDC violated a number of rules and she directly ordered a cover-up.
But it's OK because it's Democrat corruption. That's different, because arrogance and elitism.
Or were we just supposed to feel better about it?
Exactly.
Wake me when the female agent, who was overpowered by the sprinter, resigns too.
I say it's part of the war om women. You can't fire a female. Resign? If you believe that Obama has a bridge to sell you.
What is it with all these women in powerful security positions talking out the side of their mouths?
Is there anyone in the Obama Administration who was no an affirmative action hire? Even Hagel, since he checked both the "RINO" and "brain damages" boxes.
You know, Leon Panetta is a political hack, and I was quite concerned when he was appointed to run the CIA and then the Pentagon, but at least he's a competent hack and new how to do his own job - and he'd be better in any position than any of Obama's current cabinet officers.
I know they say that "there's a lot of ruin in a great nation" but the Obama crowd seems determined to push the envelope on this.
#WarOnWomen!!
The reason that only she had to resign is that the other scandals endangered Americans, constitutional law, and liberty. All of which are trivial. This scandal endangered the Boss, so "You're fired!"
How is this racism?
Ann Althouse:
There's more to the Secret Service that(sic) just making it seem as if someone is stopping them from whoring.
Julia Pierson: Now you tell me.
Don't know if we're supposed to feel better about it. I bet nobody tried to whore around with her though, so let's grant her that small success.
The NFL is about to learn the same lesson that choosing a few women from binders won't fix the football player-as-abuser image problem.
"It's as if they thought having a female director would fix — image-fix — their women-related problems."
Bless you for speaking the truth.
ummmm.....who does her hair? The last time I saw hair like that it was a 17-year-old girl with profound insecurity issues.
I see that Bush moved the SS into Homeland Security. So, who's chasing the counterfeiters??
Here's the best thing you can say about her testimony before Congress: she didn't sweat much, for a fat girl.
She was only there 18 months. The move from Treasury to DHS was a disaster. Bureaucracies are effective in an inverse square to their size.
Disregarding the correctness of holding someone accountable for their failures, would a male head of Secret Service have survived? In other words, was she canned because she was a woman and not part of the old boys network?
War on Women!!!!!
Are married SS guys (or gals) prohibited from having sex with their spouses?
If not, why should single SS guys (or gals) be refused the right to have sex with women of their choosing, whether in DC or in South America?
If the gummint can't provide them sex partners, they have the right to buy them on the open market, particularly where it's totally legal, as in much of Europe and much of South America, and even in one liberated state of Amerika!
Like the IRS Director who resigned a few weeks before scheduled retirement, I will bet this woman was also at the tail-end of her 30 year career. She may be leaving the SS only slightly earlier than planned.
Still, she gets some credit for taking blame, but it is not clear the right lessons are being learned.
Why was an easily-overpowered female agent guarding the front door alone? If the NFL used similar PC logic, they would need to deploy 90# women at nose guard to be "fair". How stupid is this policy that elevates PC thinking over the primary mission? Their approach would"seem to require that she be prepared to shoot intruders on sight, to kill, so it does not become a physical contest. Otherwise, what was her actual purpose other than embarrassing female agents throughout the SS?
Are married SS guys (or gals) prohibited from having sex with their spouses?
If not, why should single SS guys (or gals) be refused the right to have sex with partners of their choosing, whether in DC or in South America?
If the gummint can't provide them sex partners, they have the right to buy them on the open market, particularly where it's totally legal, as in much of Europe and much of South America, and even in the one liberated state of Amerika!
Well, the Secret Service's bad behavior potentially puts the Obamas at risk. The other badly-behaving parts of the administration just put generic Americans at risk, and who worries about that?
Better boorish and effective than sensitive and inept. A whole lot of our current problems result from making the wrong call on that.
It stands to reason that the one figure in the Obama administration to resign over a scandal would be the one whose incompetence actually could have impacted Obama directly. If Obama is about one thing, it's Obama.
The country needs Obama to appoint someone with the leadership ability and knowledge to properly run the Secret Service. I don't support Obama's policies, but I sure don't want to see the President, his family, guests or staff hurt.
Hey, but at least she had a female (am I allowed to use that word) guard as the first line of defense.
She could easily have been taken hostage, or am I being a pantie waist?
Clint Eastwood told me Rene Russo wouldn't have put up with that crap for one second.
They want to improve competence, fire some more people and don't allow them to hire replacements. Also cut the bonus allowance in their budget.
That will get their attention.
Janet Napolitano to Treasury, Susan Rice to VP, Joe Biden to EPA.
Wasserman-Schultz to the wilderness.
Musical chairs!
Get an asian woman in there, stat!
Actually, this could be Sandra Fluke's chance to dance.
Six figure pension, I'm guessing. Some kind of disgrace?
I see the NYTimes is now accusing conservatives of crying crocodile tears over these very real threats to Obama's security.
Probably Projection of what liberals would think in the same situation
Did she even succeed at that?
We don't really know, do we?
Or were we just supposed to feel better about it?
What do you think?
ussmidway said: "How stupid is this policy that elevates PC thinking over the primary mission?"
Where have you been living the last 30 years? The "results matter" worldview died decades ago. They had good intentions when Ms. Pierson was appointed, which is all that matters.
"Why not just acknowledge that you are willing to believe anything, no matter how vile, if you think it will provide some partisan advantage to your team. " - ARM defending the now discredited story out of the administration.
See, ARMs posts can usually be boiled down to "All of the assholes are on the other side!"
"Rob said...
Here's the best thing you can say about her testimony before Congress: she didn't sweat much, for a fat girl."
You must have missed Trey Gowdy questioning her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13V2WIoAi1s
How profound the question from ussmidway,
"How stupid is this policy that elevates PC thinking over the primary mission?"
It could be the question asked a zillion times nowadays in public life.
But Mr. Obama and Mr. Johnson ultimately shared Ms. Pierson’s assessment that she needed to resign for the good of the Secret Service.
“She believed it was in the best interests of the agency to which she has dedicated her career,” Mr. Earnest said, and the president agreed.
Mr. Obama spoke with Ms. Pierson by telephone Wednesday and thanked her for her service, Mr. Earnest said.
Such sincerity.
Give her credit for biting the bullet. She was forced to, but she did the right thing. She had a pretty good track record at the SS, but it's not clear that she ever had a command before being made boss.
Obama's staffing is a nightmare!
"Hey, but at least she had a female (am I allowed to use that word) guard as the first line of defense.
She could easily have been taken hostage, or am I being a pantie waist?"
Here's a little story from Atlanta a few years ago. Sheriff's deputies are in charge of escorting prisoners around the courthouse and into courtrooms for trials. Somehow it came about that a single deputy, a 50ish woman five feet one inch tall, was escorting a 34-year-old, 6'1", 200+ pound accused rapist to his trial. They were alone together in a changing area (for his courthouse appearance) when he attacked her, overpowered her, took her gun and went on a shooting spree in his escape from the courthouse. He killed the judge in charge of his case, the judge's court reporter and a deputy on the way out. He looked for but apparently didn't find his accuser or his prosecutors to kill. Later that night, he killed a homeowner in his garage (who I believe was an off-duty federal officer). News reports at the time said that people in a control room who were supposed to be monitoring video feeds of the courthouse were either not looking or off getting breakfast at the time.
More on the story
Until Homeland Security was erected as a single command of defense within the borders, The Secret Service was a proud and traditional elite of realists that threw themselves on their swords to save the President from his evil enemies ( and his currency too).
This 30 year veteran did that. She thew herself on her sword for the President
The question is how can they find a dedicated American realist that sees evil for what it is and who can stomach working for Obama who is really an evil man to a traditional elite American's perception.
The job description's skill set will be hard to fill.
I can't help think, through all of this that, its not in some way Bush's fault.
Obviously, they should have appointed a minority woman. A minority woman could have weathered the storm.
In the Obama administration only women are forced to resign. Men get promoted.
She made the mistake of testifying more or less truthfully during the hearing covering it up.. Did she learn nothing from Holder, Clapper or Koskinen. Rookie mistake.
Smarter Lena is not going to like this. She might need to take her clothes off again. Ughhhhh!
They always fire the black woman first. Hey! Look at us! We're being responsible - we fired a black woman! See? The black woman is gone! All is safe now!
Oh - and fuck a turtle,...
10/1/14, 8:52 AM
Great! Firing people is good. It gets the attention of the people who are heading up other agencies and who aren't paying attention to the details. We should fire a lot more people. In some cases, we should give them a reasonable period -- say 3 hours -- to resign; in more serious cases, I'd favor giving them 10 minutes and a revolver with one cartridge. This isn't a revolver case.
Wow.. someone in the Obama administration actually TOOK RESPONSIBILITY AND RESIGNED?
Now how about Lois Lerner? Or Kenneth Melson (head of the ATF who was moved to another cushy job and didn't resign), or Kathleen Sebelius, or Janet Napolitano, or Susan Rice, or Steven Chu,
To late for Holder and Hillary but Hillary might get a second chance to resign.
Sort of like thinking that voting for a black president would stop all the racism and make the Democrats take ownership.
I've never seen the Secret Service referred to as the SS until this thread.
tim in vermont said...
- ARM defending the now discredited story out of the administration.
No. I was pointing out that it was not a bad thing that they didn't kill the disturbed vet, something most commenters were surprisingly keen on. I am still happy they didn't kill the vet and they shouldn't have killed the disturbed mother. Those kinds of places are magnets for nuts, some constraint is appropriate. Nutty Americans vastly outnumber terrorists. And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, nothing bad happened, beyond the hysterical response of the party's without any skin in the game.
But, I do appreciate the deep textual analysis of my posts.
khesanh0802 said..."it's not clear that she ever had a command before being made boss."
If the President of the United States didn't need a previous command before being made boss, why would anyone else need a previous command?
The sun rose in the west this morning. Congressman Cummings, as reliable a shill for Obama as exists, criticized one of Obama's appointments and said he'd lost confidence in her.
McCullough,
You need to get out more.
The answer is to return Secret Service to Treasury. All of its problems seem to stem from the time it was taken from Treasury and given to DHS. It went from being an elite agency in an elite department to just another hackish police force in an over-stuffed, incompetently managed, monster of a bureaucracy. Oh, and toss the inclusivity/diversity crap, too, while you're at it: let's not have any more female guards who can be overpowered by sole male intruders. Let's make sure anyone standing guard at the WH door is big and strong and very capable. Ex-marines would be ideal, but I wouldn't completely exclude the possibility that there might be women who are physically up to the job.
ARM wrote: I am still happy they didn't kill the vet and they shouldn't have killed the disturbed mother. Those kinds of places are magnets for nuts, some constraint is appropriate. Nutty Americans vastly outnumber terrorists.
If history is any guide a nut is more likely to harm the President than a terrorist.
ARM, what you said was that the president's opponents would believe anything while defending the story put out by that collection of serial liars.
That is the irony. That you believed the WH in a lie and defended them due to partisan blindness while accusing others of partisan blindness.
I know you can't see it but others do. That is why we think your handle is funny. Basically your posts boil down to "all of the assholes are on the other side" and that was one more example.
Here's a nugget from deep in the NYT article about the guy who should have gotten the job....
"But despite making the offer to Mr. O’Connor, who was known as “the dean of discipline” during his time at the Secret Service, the White House continued to examine his background. Officials uncovered an incident in the mid-1990s in which he had been accused — and ultimately cleared by the Secret Service — of using a racial slur. Mr. O’Connor, who decided against taking the job, declined to comment."
So...you say one bad thing 20 years ago...or, oops, you are accused to saying one bad thing...Result: Major career hassle if not derailment.
I would like to know the female agent's height and weight.
MadisonMan said...
Six figure pension, I'm guessing. Some kind of disgrace?
Feds don't get 6 figure gov funded pensions.
FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life.
Federal employees who started prior to 1987 still get traditional defined-benefit pensions. From Wikipedia it looks like Pierson joined the Secret Service in 1984, so she's in.
And I would betcha it is indeed a six-figure pension for someone who wrapped up at the highest executive levels.
Actually, it looks like the defined-contribution system was enacted in 1987, but applies to (and thus denies defined-benefit pensions for) those hired after 1983, so maybe Ms. Julia is out of luck there.
But I bet she'll be fine.
Well, Eric Shinseki also resigned. But I think that's it for heads of agencies or departments.
This one is pretty egregious though--partisan politics aside, the president can't be too happy with breaches of his own personal safety. I still don't understand how the same Secret Service that can block off an entire highway so the motorcade can get through also could allow a fence jumper to make it into the White House itself without getting tackled or shot first. Whether Pierson's leadership is to blame or if she needed to resign because this all fell under her overall responsibility, hopefully they can figure out exactly where the snafu took place and ensure it doesn't happen again.
The SS has had a remarkable track record over the past century--the one successful assassination attempt was a long-shot sniper on a moving target, so it's hard to say the SS bungled that (unless they should have had every window of every building on the route watched--which is pretty unreasonable). The Reagan and Ford attempts were closer range, but the assassins were handled pretty quickly and those were in public with crowds.
The idea that the president could be hanging out in the White House and some clown could make it all the way in from the street is pretty embarrassing.
A President with no experience appoints someone with no experience.
Shocking.
The question is how can they find a dedicated American realist that sees evil for what it is and who can stomach working for Obama who is really an evil man to a traditional elite American's perception.
I think you have to hope that the stories about the ushers complaining about security tones was completely false, otherwise the White House staff apparently pays more attention to ushers than it does the agents tasked with protecting the White House. Kind of sounds like Benghazi.
An interviewee (some kind of security expert) on Fox News just now said roughly that Pierson was trying to fix things, and good on her for resigning when she became the focus, shifting away from the real problems, such as they may be, in the Secret Service.
That sounds right to me. Good on her.
"Mr. Obama spoke with Ms. Pierson by telephone Wednesday and thanked her for her service, Mr. Earnest said."
Breaking up is hard to do. Much better not face-to-face. For someone.
great Unknown said...
The reason that only she had to resign is that the other scandals endangered Americans, constitutional law, and liberty. All of which are trivial. This scandal endangered the Boss, so "You're fired!"
Bingo.
This was personal.
Although, frankly, Zero caused this because he appointed this incompetent, and is just the type to endorse and participate in PC staffing vs. merit based staffing.
That being said, I'm glad no one got hurt. If Zero dropped dead from a heart attack, I would not shed a tear, but I don't want people breaking into my White House.
PS OKOK, maybe I would shed a tear as Biden was sworn in.
"Pierson was trying to fix things"
She was fired for not mentioning, when called on the carpet, that a man with a gun rode the elevator with Obama in Atlanta.
I can't believe how people just accept whatever lie these guys want to push. Every statement out of this group should be treated with suspicion. If they say the White House is white, check for yourself. You certainly wouldn't be able to rely on news sources.
At least that was the story they were pushing on MSNBC. It is probably a lie too.
If EVER there was a prime example illustrating why (among many other reasons as well) women should not be allowed in the combat arms of the armed services, the overpowering of the WH female SS guard is it..
If they say the White House is white, check for yourself.
@tim in vermont, Hell if this administration said that the sky is blue I'd rush to window to look because whatever color the sky is at that moment, if this administration says it's blue then it's certainly something else.
The SS has had a remarkable track record over the past century--the one successful assassination attempt was a long-shot sniper on a moving target, so it's hard to say the SS bungled that (unless they should have had every window of every building on the route watched--which is pretty unreasonable). The Reagan and Ford attempts were closer range, but the assassins were handled pretty quickly and those were in public with crowds.
The SS has been very lucky, not great.
1. Hinckly was within 6 feet, missed 6 times with a 22 long revolver.
2. Fromme was 3 feet from ford, holding an M1911 45 cal (a man killer). She had 4 rounds in the mag, but none in the chamber. click..
3. Moore had been screened by the SS earlier and let go. She had been charged with an illegal 44 revolver the day before and let go. The next day, She bought a new gun, wasn't familiar with it and fired from 40 feet and just missed, a Vet tackled her before she corrected her aim.
Luck....
Quaestor said...
If history is any guide a nut is more likely to harm the President than a terrorist.
This is a fair point but there are still vastly more nuts than dangerous nuts. They made an egregious mistake killing the mother, they didn't make a mistake not killing the vet.
There is a weird misunderstanding of the role of the police in our society. I would have favored heads rolling after the mother was killed. Too many US citizens are killed by some form of police action. Yet, not killing someone, who was no threat to the president, is perceived as the failure. It is a symptom of a sick society.
No, Mr. "Reasonable Man", it's not a symptom of a sick society.
You see, if you send out the message that the Secret Service will go out of their way to make you comfortable during your break in and not inconvenience you anymore than is necessary, you are encouraging more people to try it because the consequences are lower. Perhaps they should have served him some tea after restraining him?
But you can never expect a progressive to understand incentives. They think considering incentives and disincentives is a symptom of a "sick society".
Which is why all of their policies and prescriptions fail miserably.
So shooting an unarmed women with a baby in the back seat was not a sufficient 'disincentive'? They should have shot the baby as well?
In both cases you are dealing with mentally ill individuals who, be definition, do not respond to normal social signals.
" they didn't make a mistake not killing the vet. " - ARM
It isn't really about killing or not killing. the vet, it is about lying about what happened, egregious lies, and lax security, and it is easy to say what should or should not have been done after the fact based on the outcome seen, but it is not so easy to understand that maybe they are taking a 5% risk with the President of the United State's life, the real risk is unknowable, and there are only so many times you can do that, and in fact one is too many.
Getting "lucky" is nice, but it should never have come to that.
AReasonableMan said...
Quaestor said...
If history is any guide a nut is more likely to harm the President than a terrorist.
This is a fair point but there are still vastly more nuts than dangerous nuts. They made an egregious mistake killing the mother, they didn't make a mistake not killing the vet.
ARM said....
"There is a weird misunderstanding of the role of the police in our society. I would have favored heads rolling after the mother was killed. Too many US citizens are killed by some form of police action. Yet, not killing someone, who was no threat to the president, is perceived as the failure. It is a symptom of a sick society."
I actually agree with ARM in this case. I think the Secret Service has repeatedly shown great incompetency to say the least, but I don't want them dropping people any time there is a perceived threat. I really, really don't want a martyred president and St Obama, but I don't want the presidency to become any more imperial than it already is. An assassination would tear this country apart, permanently, I am afraid. But we already have too much of the Praetorian guard effect.
great Unknown said...
"The reason that only she had to resign is that the other scandals endangered Americans, constitutional law, and liberty. All of which are trivial. This scandal endangered the Boss, so "You're fired!""
This.
The Obama administration will probably replace her with pajama boy because the most important thing is identity politics.
AReasonableMan, in both indicence you site, how were the police or secret service to know these people were "harmess"? The car could have been a rolling bomb and the vet could have had a bomb vest on. Breaking into the White House is no small thing. Should they shoot anyone that scales the fence? Maybe. Anyone that scales the fence and then makes it to the front door and THEN into the White House, YES. Again, you don't know what could happen so you have to assume the worst will happen. He climbed over the fence for crying out loud. He didn't wonder off from a WH tour.
"An assassination would tear this country apart, permanently, I am afraid."
Exactly. If a nut had managed to do it alone, it would be about half a second before the blacksmithery denying 9-11 truthers were now assassination truthers and the Koch Brothers were dragged in to it.
tim in vermont, yes. Exactly. But...if keeping the body politic whole requires a shoot on sight rule for anyone who twitches within a mile of the president, I have doubts that the Republic is worth saving at that point.
"The SS has been very lucky, not great."
Considering all the times presidents (as well as anyone else under SS protection) have been in public and near crowds, I'd say the relatively small number of incidents where someone got close enough to shoot their targets (whether it was Squeaky Fromme or John Hinckley) suggests they're generally pretty good at their job (or maybe just so few people with the will and means to assassinate). It can't be an easy job to protect someone who insists on getting close to the masses and wants their protection to be as unintrusive as possible. The bad guys only have to get lucky once.
But someone getting into a secure location like the White House is a whole other level of magnitude. I wouldn't compare that with even the Kennedy assassination, where it's hard to imagine what else the SS should have done to prevent it (JFK insisted on the open car).
"In both cases you are dealing with mentally ill individuals who, be definition, do not respond to normal social signals."
You don't know ahead of time who is 'mentally ill' and who actually wants to do premeditated harm.
By telegraphing that you will handle certain people with kid gloves, you provide incentive to go that route for those who have a brain.
Do you think any of this through? Or are you just looking at hindsight with 20/20 vision? Everything's easy for an armchair quarterback!
No, I'm not saying shoot everyone who looks at the fence wrong.
But this guy was running around INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ARMED.
And you want to treat him with kid gloves. He could have easily stabbed multiple people.
"But this guy was running around INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ARMED.
And you want to treat him with kid gloves. He could have easily stabbed multiple people."
And yet, we already have a secret service. Armed guns. Against a guy with a knife. At this point, I am doubtful enough of their competence to think that adding more responsibility is a good idea.
I don't mind that the guy got past her. I mind that the guy got past her while she was still alive.
Considering all the times presidents (as well as anyone else under SS protection) have been in public and near crowds, I'd say the relatively small number of incidents where someone got close enough to shoot their targets (whether it was Squeaky Fromme or John Hinckley) suggests they're generally pretty good at their job (or maybe just so few people with the will and means to assassinate). It can't be an easy job to protect someone who insists on getting close to the masses and wants their protection to be as unintrusive as possible. The bad guys only have to get lucky once.
The biggest plus they had was the APPEARANCE of competence. Not that they WERE competent, but that people didn't even try because they thought they were.
That isn't the case now.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा