Secret Service Is Very, Very Busy
I find articles like this extremely disturbing – probably because it’s so easy to see where it’s heading.
The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency’s overall mission.
Threaten to overwhelm?
The domestic threat is also growing, fueled in part by Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president, according to specialists who study homegrown radical movements.
Two days before Obama’s appearance at San Francisco fund-raisers on Thursday, a 59-year-old Northern California man was indicted on charges of sending a racist, profanity-filled e-mail threatening to kill Obama and his family. The rambling e-mail included specific references to Michelle Obama and the phrase, “do it to his children and family first in front of him,’’ according to the indictment.
Obama, who was given Secret Service protection 18 months before the election – the earliest ever for a presidential candidate – has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors.
How many lone wolves does it take to make a pack? And, for our conservative readership, why do you suppose Obama has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors?
Tags: Extremists
Here is where the Secret Service is most of the time-fundraisers.
KNOLLER NUGGET, from CBS’s Mark Knoller: President Obama’s two fundraising events TONIGHT in NYC will bring to 22 the number fundraisers he has done since taking office. President George W. Bush did six political fund-raisers during his first year in office.
I guess unemployment, taxes, health care etc are all solved.
Mike Protack
George W. Bush didn’t have time to do fundraisers. He was too busy clearing brush at the ranch. 490 days worth of time on vacation over 77 visits in 8 years.
(also sourced from cbs news)
…another thread on a serious topic gets hijacked by nonsense….
What’s ironic, PM, is that Mike Protack has run … what, six campaigns? … without ever holding a fund-raiser, or ever raising any real money, either. It’s just envy.
sorry for contributing to the off-topicness, but that was just too silly to not warrant an obnoxious response.
The subject at hand is very scary. I don’t want to have to recount a JFK moment with my children someday.
The constant variations on Obama not being a legitimate president or some “other” need to stop. While it may be just political games to some it only feeds into the mentality of people who could do something dangerous and tragic.
a democrat nailed the sign to that tree
“The unprecedented number of death threats…” a quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center – Who “document” an increase in boogie men every year.
What is lacking in your linked article is a quote from the Secret Service saying the number of threats or attempts has increased.
I think in an odd (and very unintentional) way, the first comment here was actually right on topic. What the Mustachio Nut did here is employ a common right wing tactic. When confronted with a serious and incontrovertible problem, whether it be climate change, economic rescue, health care, or here, the dangerous outpouring of hatred towards the President, don’t address the actual topic. Instead, twist a tangentally, but not substantively, related topic into an “Obama bad” argument. All this factually irrelevant animus is directly related to the increased threats against the President. The only question for debate is the nature of the cause-effect relationship between the two.
The Globe cites as sources: Congressional Research Service and government sources.
And we get you don’t like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Shame on them for exposing what’s going on, lizard. BTW, love your name. So fitting.
I’m pretty sure I saw that the Secret Service does not give out information about threats to the President. However, according to a reporter who wrote a book on the Secret Service and did numerous interviews with current and former agents, presidential threats are up 400% over the previous administration.
http://email.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_secret_service/2009/08/03/243461.html
the CRS report dealt with budget allocation and mission focus (protection vs anti counterfitting) and recomomended further study.
“Already, there are signs of strain on the agency, officials said. Budget documents submitted to Congress this year said the agency lacks the necessary technology to keep up with threats.”
the rest of the article is hype, fluff and unamed sources worthy of the News Journal.
While I suspect that the number of domestic threats/attempts has increased, ther is no evidence in this article.
DixieMericans are just fed-up with having a “socialist” as president.DL Hughley said that America is not ready for a black President. He might be right on that.
Scott,
kessler says:
According to the agents he interviewed, President Obama — whose Secret Service codename is Renegade — is the target of more than 30 threats a day, more than four times (or 400 percent) the number received by his predecessor George W. Bush. These threats can vary from a lone individual mouthing off to friends after a few drinks, to haphazard plots, to full-fledged conspiracies.
Despite their initial cooperation on the book, the Secret Service’s official position on the assertions made by Kessler is that they are exaggerated at best, and in some cases patently false.
…
“We don’t talk about the number of threats against a presidentnor would we comment on an increase in threats, but I can tell you the 400 percent increase that Kessler cites came from a retired agent, not a current employee,” he said.
30 a day is a lot of threats to chase down, if Kessler’s math is right that is an increase from 6 a day for GWB. The Service implies that he is wrong without breaking their own rule about never commenting in numbers of threats.
lizard’s reading comp is evidently strained by this article — an article that launches off of the increased threats aimed at this President to talk about an agency that may be over committed and may need to rethink its mission. It seems unlikely to me that the CRS would be recommending a review of the agency’s mission of its workload wasn’t up — for which they provide some sense of how the agency’s work for each has expanded. Other than unnamed government sources, this is not a bad article talking about a government agency who may have too much to do.
it’s always cute when cassiot comments on anyone’s reading comprehension.
it’s a simple exercise, identify from the article, who makes the claim that threats against the President have increased.
I’ve cited my sources that they have – and if this proves incorrect, I’ll own it. Care to prove they haven’t, lizard? You seem pretty adamant.
Ofcourse it is an article of faith for Pandora and the rest of the collective that threats agains the Dear Leader have increased and that Packs of Evil Racist Conservatives are plotting to kill the Heroic Progressive President, as that is the point of this blog post.
I am adamant about the poor quality of the reporting in this article.
So then your complaint then, is what? That neither of the two sources who document the rise in hate crimes and racist activity are not credible? And you have what to back that up — just your claim? Either you can provide in detail a serious critique of the data and methods of these two sources or you can go home. Just because you say you don’t like them isn’t much of a reason to take that or your reading comprehension seriously, RICO.
So… I’ve got a Boston Globe article, and you’ve got… nothing.
I’ve also offered to print a retraction if the Globe’s article is proven false, but, we both know that threats against Obama are proportionally out of line – and neither of us needed an article to tell us that. But keep on defending the un-defensible.
Pandora, the only thing RICO ever has here is another name change.
Pandora, you have the Boston Globe… and what is that brand name worth? If the same article was written by a News Journal writer would you be more or less worried by it’s content? more or less likely to take it at face value.
I don’t know what you think I am defending.
Yes, I assume that threats against the President have increased… but I am just a regular reptile, not a Report of News, so I am allowed to assume. What I don’t see is any evidence that the secret service is being overwelmed. Have any of the recent budget requests been cut by congress? Have they been denied requested manpower or technology? Because if any of those things happened that would be Important News.
Cassiot, I’ll bet you think that’s clever.
Again, lizard, I have the Boston Globe. And you have…? What? Do you just feel it in your bones?
Then you’d lose that bet.
It is true, however, RICO or Anita luvs Mao or whatever todays name is.
I bet you thought you were clever changing your name every other day.
I see reason and logic are unwelcome here.
How can you possibly tell that? It isn’t as though you’ve been here actually testing that thesis.
Reason and logic consist of more than because… because I said so!
Here’s a story about the Secret Service. Some of you know I participate in NONVIOLENT civil resistance to war and risk arrest in doing so. Oct. 5th I was at the White House protesting the war in Afghanistan. There were 61 arrested in front of the WH fence. My group of 23 went to the WH press gate and enacted a die-in and then stood around peacefully because the Park Police said they were going to arrest us when they were done with the others. Without any warning, members of the Secret Service uniform divison swooped down on us and shoved and dragged us out of the arrest area. A couple older women were slightly injured. I’m mentioning this because never, ever during the Bush Admin. did the Secret Service ever get involved with anything we did. We were visibly shaken up and angry about being treated this way, but I think this is an example of their vigilence because of all the threats against the President.
We need to de-construct contemporary antisemitic discourse. ,