<p>She’s a presidential appointee. I don’t think congress can fire people in those positions.</p>
<p>If the white house isn’t secure how on earth do we let the President out on the streets with any hope of keeping him safe? Please don’t think the majority of Republicans want anyone harming our President or his family. We’re not insane. Remember that prostitution scandal in Columbia with SS? Has anything really been done to tighten up the ranks? </p>
<p>The president can but he shouldn’t have to. </p>
<p>Here’s the official White House response thus far. Of course, it may change. But, this is the latest…</p>
<p>"Q And can I ask you very quickly about The Washington Post story that came out over the weekend about the shooting incident here at the White House back in 2011? It was reported in that story that the President and the First Lady were irate with the Secret Service over their handling of that incident. Does that accurately reflect how the President and the First Lady felt after they learned that there were shots fired at the White House and that they were fired by somebody who was intending to fire shots at the White House?</p>
<p>MR. EARNEST: Jim, as I think as you would expect, the President and First Lady, like all parents, are concerned about the safety of their children. But the President and First Lady also have confidence in the men and women of the Secret Service to do a very important job, which is to protect the First Family, to protect the White House, but also protect the ability of tourists and members of the public to conduct their business or even tour the White House.</p>
<p>So this requires balancing a wide range of equities, which makes for a very difficult task. But it is a task that the Secret Service is dedicated to. What they are also dedicated to is where shortcomings occur, implementing the changes that are necessary to improve. And Director Pierson and other senior leaders at the United States Secret Service are currently engaged in a review in light of the incident from 10 days or so ago to further upgrade and enhance the security posture of the White House. And what will be – what’s required in an environment like this is a security organization that is adept, that is nimble, and that can be constantly both reviewing and upgrading their posture as necessary. That’s difficult work. But the President and First Lady have confidence in the ability of the Secret Service to do it."</p>
<p>There you have it.</p>
<p>Elements of the right wing have been indescribably vicious towards Obama from day one. I think that has a lot to do with incidents like this. The less wild-eyed members of the right may well be disturbed at the apparent breakdown in security.</p>
<p>So in other words, you have no examples, you are just assuming and projecting.</p>
<p>To be snarky about this, the last thing the right would ever want is something to happen to President Obama. Because</p>
<p>Joe Biden </p>
<p>I think everyone is angry, regardless right or left or independent.</p>
<p>Except the White House, apparently.</p>
<p>The thought of the real crazies getting the idea that they could get at the president or his family is terrifying. The myth of the secret service as infallible has probably make some of them decide against the attempt. I am very torn about whether this should have been classified information to prevent the nutcases from getting any ideas.</p>
<p>You mean to tell me the left wing is not crazy. Well read this thread.</p>
<p>Joe Biden is scary thought indeed.</p>
<p>Does anyone doubt that Michelle Obama will make sure the woman is out, even if no one else does?</p>
<p>It happened in 2011. So, yes. I doubt it.</p>
<p>I have no examples? I could provide many, if I wished to swim in that sewage again. Anyone who is intellectually honest would find it difficult to deny the existence of that element. Since the right wing loonies have chosen to describe President Obama as a traitor to the US, amongst other things, it is not unreasonable, IMHO to wonder how assiduously some of them would protect him. This is not a slur on everyone who is right of center. Some of them are honorable and rational individuals.</p>
<p>It seems clear that the current director will soon fall on her sword.</p>
<p>The US Marines should guard the White House now.</p>
<p>I highly doubt the White House would hire security personnel from the lunatic fringe of either the left or the right.</p>
<p>Flossy (post 27) - No one could reasonably expect the White House to say anything other than that they support the Secret Service and have confidence in them. I mean, really. You can’t say you don’t have confidence in them, they’re doing a horrible job, then go out the next day and expect them to take a bullet for you. Talk about stabbing in the back the very people willing to die for you. </p>
<p>Now what they do about it is something else. I don’t buy the argument that they’re headed now by a political appointee. The SS has always been answerable to a political appointee. Used to be the Treasurer, now it’s the director of Homeland Security. No big diff. </p>
<p>We also don’t know where the problem resides. I don’t agree with automatically firing the head. That may happen. But what if the problem is different? The head is a woman and she was brought in after the Colombia drunken orgy problem. The SS who said shots had been fired at the house, and was disregarded, was a woman. What if the basic problem is an old boys’ network resisting discipline from a female outsider? Firing her would be the opposite of what should be done. So we need to identify the problem before firing people willy nilly. </p>
<p>What a lunatic post? This lady has been serving since 2008. The White house select this group. That goes to show there are also the left wing loonies out there in the lurk and not just Pelosi and Reid.</p>
<p>^ I agree with your first paragraph but disagree with your last one.
This is an embarassement for the nation in front of the world.</p>