Secret Service Director Julia Pierson appeared before a congressional committee today to address concerns over the recent breach of the White House by a deranged and armed and surprisingly swift 42-year-old who wanted to tell the president that the atmosphere was collapsing.
She did not encounter a warm reception.
The mere fact of the breach itself is concerning enough in its own right. But the assembled congressmen also appeared unhappy that they were learning about the Secret Service’s business from the Washington Post rather than the government agency itself.
The Post’s reporting has revealed new and increasingly worrisome facts about both this incident and an even more concerning case from 2011 when another lunatic fired numerous shots from a rifle at the White House, then got away. It could not have helped when it was revealed in the hearing that when the most recent intruder was finally tackled—deep inside the White House, and not at the front door, as was originally claimed—it was at the hands of an off-duty agent.
Director Pierson fielded questions with the grace, candor, and charm for which government executives in Washington are famous. She, to her credit, did take personal responsibility for the lapse, despite a not-so-subtle campaign that has been waged in the press during the course of the last week suggesting that the incident’s true cause is that the Secret Service doesn’t have enough money. Really? Not enough money to lock the front door?
For those of us laboring to keep the anemic, flickering light of liberty alive here at the Washington Free Beacon—it has been harder since the government outlawed incandescent bulbs—working two blocks from the White House in the very heart of Babylon, it is not hard to imagine the likely outcome here: an increased budget for the Secret Service and decreased freedom of movement in the vicinity of the executive mansion.
Indeed, the immediate Secret Service response in the aftermath of the intrusion was the erection of this pathetic barrier:
It was also suggested that average citizens entering the park adjacent to the White House should be subject to a security check. More money for the government agency that screwed up, and less freedom for the rest of us: such is the nature of "reform" in Washington, D.C..
Perhaps it is time for a change at the Secret Service. Director Pierson got her job in the aftermath of a nasty scandal involving Secret Service misbehavior overseas, but whatever she is doing, it does not seem to be working. All Americans—Republicans and Democrats—want to see the president and his loved ones protected. If the president and his family are furious at the failures of their bodyguards, they are entirely within their rights.
Recently, a Washington Post op-ed suggested it was time to bring in someone from outside the department to clean the place up: a "true leader, not a bureaucrat," who is "highly competent and beholden to no one in the Secret Service." The writer proposed former congressman and retired Army officer Allen West for the job.
Perhaps—and Allen West would make a fine choice, no doubt. But we here at the Beacon have a different suggestion: someone who is indeed a leader, not a bureaucrat, and beholden to no one in the Secret Service. As an added advantage over Congressman West, our candidate is a woman—Director Pierson was appointed, in part, to combat a perceived boys-will-be-boys atmosphere in the Service, and we see no reason to abandon that initiative. It is true that the leader we propose is not a law enforcement professional, but at the highest levels, leadership is not merely about immersion in technical details but also about passion, commitment, and vision.
Our suggestion has a forceful personality, Washington experience, political support, and a personal interest in seeing the White House secure. And she’s got guns.
Michelle Obama is the one we have been waiting for... at the Secret Service.