Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think gender played a role in her promotion, but that is not the same thing as affirmative action.
The prostitution incident in Columbia is an example of something that might be more likely to occur under a male dominated organization. Hiring a female executive might help correct that culture.
I think Pierson simply wasn't good at the job of running the Secret Service. There is plenty of evidence of that.
I've posted this before - Obama specifically chose a woman, why else the quotes about "masculine culture"?
Obama was under a LOT of pressure to appoint more women, he also had a problem with the Secret Service ..... this was a two-fer. Pierson was not his first choice, but she was Valerie Jarrett's first choice.
A new director, in 2013, was supposed to end the era of slip-ups and get the agency on proper footing. Pierson was, in fact, not Obama's first choice for the job. A senior White House official told me that a few weeks before he introduced her in the Oval Office in March of 2013, Obama had settled on another candidate, David O'Connor, a recently retired assistant director of investigations seen as widely popular among the rank and file, someone who had spent time outside the agency, too. He had the bearing of a Secret Service agent. No bull**** about him. But when O'Connor's name leaked to Reuters, one of his rival candidates—not Pierson—instigated an internal campaign to undermine O'Connor's reputation. He had rubbed black agents the wrong way. He was abrupt and imperious.
These allegations quickly reached Valerie Jarrett, the president's adviser who was quietly handling the search for a new director.
Julia Pierson was not a "fresh start" -- she was ALWAYS a big part of the problem. She was the Chief of Staff, she was an Asst Director ..... she was NOT a "new broom". Not only that - her idea of "we need to be more like Disney World" was not going over well with the rank and file of the 6,700 members of the Secret Service. The nail in her coffin was that she LIED - she tried to cover up the Elevator incident in Atlanta. She LIED about how far the intruder got into the White House. Her predecessor certainly made mistakes, BUT he admitted to them and made an attempt to correct them.
It's time to look at the Big Picture. This is not just about the Secret Service. It's about the Treasury Department and the IRS. It's about Homeland Security that has a huge turnover and TSA agents stealing from the Public and missing weapons going through Security. It's about Health and Human Services that couldn't get a Web Site up and running ...... and still can't. It's about the Veterans Administration that is letting Vets die from being on waiting lists and not managing care. They PUNISH anyone who dares to speak out (as does he Secret Service). It's about the State Department that allowed the Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi to be unprotected and then tried to cover it up. It's about the DOJ that is STILL attempting to hide documents about their Gun Running in Mexico. It's about the Pigford Scandal at the Department of Agriculture. It's about the Energy Department and the boondoggle Millions to DNC bundlers like Solyndra ...... the list goes on and it encompasses almost every Department.
What are the Odds that so many Administration Executive Departments have so many issues at the same time? A Fish rots from the Head and this Fish is really rotted and spreading the stink.
Essentially - the Secret Service Agents were almost in revolt against what they call the "Eighth Floor", which are the Bureaucrats that run the organization and are a lot more involved in their own jobs and Ideological Politics than the functions that are charged to do.
In her 18 months in charge, Pierson also became the subject of derision among some lower-level agents for accommodating the White House staff’s wishes for less-cumbersome security over the warnings of her tactical teams.
Supervisors who had mapped out the security plan said they were taken aback when Pierson, who worked during high school at Walt Disney World as a costumed character and park attendant, said: “We need to be more like Disney World. We need to be more friendly, inviting.”
“I respect Pierson’s service, but she hasn’t been on a protective mission in two decades,” said one supervisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “She doesn’t know anything about security planning in a post-9/11 world.”
They pointed to a young officer on duty the night of the shooting who heard shots fired and debris falling but was afraid to contradict supervisors who had incorrectly concluded that no shots had been aimed at the White House. Several members said they had been hearing from agents and officers who do not feel they can make their concerns known internally.
I don't have any idea how to clean out this Enormous Nest of Vipers (the Careerist Bureaucracy) - but it's a certainty that it has to be done. SOON
At what point do the Obama Followers (who are almost cult-like) start taking a look at the Reality?
This is becoming a tsunami of incompetence and Cover-UP. It's going to get worse and I think the Media has woken up to that. We had the Gates book, the Clinton book and now the Panetta book.
All are basically saying the same thing and these are important people
Well we all know by now about this woman who was hired to lead the secret service only because she was female by Obama. Now she has to resign because of her utter incompetence. Some guy just runs into the White House. It took them 4 days to find billet holes in White House windows. She shut off he door alarm and left it unlocked. The list goes on.
Half of your list(including one of your examples) happened before she was even the Secret Service Director.
I have never seen Congress(and the public) scapegoat anyone as badly as this women.
Actual facts are considered to be frivolous by most here. Rhetoric as proof, on the other hand, is a good as gold. Really, if you are running the show you get to be the arbiter of what serves as facts or "facts".
A few days ago here, I just read of bullet point list of emotionally charged rhetorical reasons why the outgoing AG has broken the law. That's what was produced when the poster was challenged to state what laws the AG had broken.
Rhetoric isn't the same as actual facts. And as you said, when one believes their opinion is right and anything contrary is wrong, rhetoric will be used in place of facts.
It's common knowledge that she was hired because of the previous secret service scandal involving prostitutes and womanizing from their trips. They hired a woman to make up for it.
Most heads of secret service have decorated military backgrounds, so it seems rather unlikely that this woman fit the bill. And then the obvious fact that the ball was dropped by the secret service multiple times under her command. I think it's fairly safe to say that this was an "affirmative action" hire for Obama to help his street cred.
We can attest to her incompetence..........Oh!, maybe it was that she & Obama had so much in common.
And furthermore, you still haven't provided any solid evidence that she was an affirmative action candidate.
When you are a liberal who openly uses and supports affirmative action, the evidence goes on you to prove that less qualified minorities that are hired ARE NOT from affirmative action. Thats the price you pay for affirmative action.
When you are a liberal who openly uses and supports affirmative action, the evidence goes on you to prove that less qualified minorities that are hired ARE NOT from affirmative action. Thats the price you pay for affirmative action.
First of all
1) Why do you assume I am a liberal?
2) Why do you assume I support affirmative action?
3) If you make accusations of affirmative action first, it is up to YOU, only YOU to back those accusations up. If you cannot back them up with solid, unrefutable facts, then your accusations as lies, and a person who lies has NO credibility.
2) Why do you assume I support affirmative action?
3) If you make accusations of affirmative action first, it is up to YOU, only YOU to back those accusations up. If you cannot back them up with solid, unrefutable facts, then your accusations as lies, and a person who lies has NO credibility.
Accusations?! Our president openly supports affirmative action! No accusation is necessary!
You act like hiring people based on their sex and race over ability is something to be ashamed of. Like discrimination or something. Roll eyes.
Accusations?! Our president openly supports affirmative action! No accusation is necessary!
You act like hiring people based on their sex and race over ability is a bad thing or something. Like discrimination or something. Roll eyes.
Just answer my questions. I asked why you assumed I was liberal. I also asked why you assume I support affirmative action. You don't know anything about me at all. You are the one making accusations. You have proven NOTHING.
Hiring people based on sex and race over ability goes on all the time, and alot of time, it goes against minorities and women.
Just answer MY questions as they apply to ME, or there is nothing more to discuss with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
