Obama Needs to Fire the Director of the Secret Service
In the wake of the latest scandal involving the Secret Service, President Obama needs to fire Mark Sullivan, the director of the Secret Service since 2006. If you’ve been following the news, the Colombia scandal is getting worse and worse. But this isn’t a one-off issue: think the White House Gate-crashers, the Bush twins evading the security detail, and Mary Cheney forcing the change of her security detail lead, because he would not taxi her friends to a restaurant.
Mark Sullivan has been running the Secret Service for 6+ years. It’s time for him to go.
Yea… Some heads need to roll. Who will it be?
The all-too-easy choice would be the Bush appointee, and no one would blame him for that. But I’d like to think that Obama will give this careful consideration and do what’s right.
@LE Sullivan must go. From what I’ve been reading, he NEVER has the back of the agents. It’s not that he was a Bush appointee, but he’s the man responsible for the Service and there have been too many incidents of late. For what it’s worth, there should be NO incidents and being an agent is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
@n “…he NEVER has the back of the agents.”
Isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that the way to properly manage diverse and difficult people? The danger is that you will get someone who does have the back of the agents, and that leads to malfeasance and corruption. How many police departments have done terrible things BECAUSE their leader had their backs?
@LE – No, it’s not a good thing. The agents, especially when protecting the Executive Branch folks, are protecting people that chaff at the inconvenience of it all. Mary Cheney getting the lead of her security detail removed because he/she wouldn’t do what she wanted is absolutely ludicrous. Agents at the gate of the White House who don’t check credentials of people walking in because it will inconvenience a party is not what you want. Agents who allow people to bypass metal detectors because it’s an inconvenience for the public is not what we want.
This is exactly why the upper management of the Secret Service must back their agents. The agents job is tough, but without support from their boss, even tougher.
Hmmm…. Yes, he should have their back when they’re just doing their jobs, but not when they stray. Too many managers don’t seem to know the difference. Anyway, I’m glad it’s not my decision.
The Secret Service is expected to prepare for the unknown and react to the uncertain with with absolute precision so that are never any failures in their assigned responsibility to protect their charges.
People being protected; people doing the threatening; and people protecting the protected. Is there any question why perfection cannot be achieved?
There may be a moral issue here regarding the events in Columbia, but in all the years of the Secret Services service, you can count the failures that resulted in harm to those they protect on one hand.
Perphaps keeping things in prospective would be useful. There is no evidence that they failed in their primary mission. Still, the represent our country as do all federal employees and their actions reflect on our country. Whether those actions warrant the agents removal and/or the Directors removal are questions we may not know enough to answer ourselves. However, some will answer that question eventually. But remember if you count the failures also count the successes (which are countless).
Reminds me of an official reception I attended on the rooftop of the Hay Adams Hotel across from the WH a few years ago. Looking across to the WH and watching the Secret Service on the rooftop with their missiles, alert to anything coming from the sky. Thankfully my job was to hold a cocktail in one hand and tapas in another and not the job they had to do and have done admirably well for decades.