Monday, April 23, 2012

Agents Gone Wild, Part II: Debating the Fallout

The Obama Administration may not want to talk about the Secret Service's recent adventures south of the border, but Matt and Stephen do!  Vicariously enjoy a night of wild partying and Columbian prostitutes with another Conflict Revolution email debate - as always, these are real emails from real white collar workers...

****

Stephen: Should we mock debate if secret service agents should be allowed hookers?

Matt: Mock debate what?  Those SS agents have like, the most stressful jobs ever.  What do you have against them taking a break every once in awhile?  

Stephen: Can we avoid calling them SS agents? That invokes bad guys in my mind. As for their stressful job, I agree. Did they pay for their own $47 hookers? I wonder if they did background checks on them first?

Matt: They paid $47 per hooker?!?  I don't really know anything about hooker prices, but I would have to hope that with the strong dollar in Latin America they at least got fair value on that.  Good point on the background checks.  In the game of prostitute solicitation, I think we can call that competitive advantage.

Stephen: Perhaps that's what caused the fight? They knew from their intelligence services that those particular acts from those particular hookers typically only cost $40?

Matt: Perhaps. This whole thing, as Phil said the other day in the morning update, is straight out of The Hangover. To a more serious question... who, other than the individuals directly involved, should take the fall for this? Is it a one-off incident or a sign of something more systemic among, of all agencies, the one charged with protecting the leader of the free world?

Stephen: On the serious note, if I were Obama I'd be doing some serious house cleaning. The people charged with keeping me alive are engaging in compromising behavior (and I'm not saying from a moral standpoint but a security one).

Matt: Sure.  I mean the agents themselves were dismissed, so that's probably a good thing.  But I guess the bigger question is whether this compromises the whole agency, or whether it's just a few guys acting like fools.  If it's the latter, it's probably okay to keep the Director of the Secret Service around, as Obama has indicated he will do.  Obviously if it's the former he should go. 

Stephen: Not trying to get really serious but this shows how Obama doesn't get business. If this was a business, they'd fire everyone and rebuild. When the underlings are messing up this bad, it's a crisis of culture and that comes from the director. 

Matt: You mean like when US soldiers abused a bunch of prisoners, and Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld?  Sorry, couldn't resist.  I have a feeling they're probably just hoping the whole thing will blow over...

Stephen: No but I'm sure their commanders were disciplined. Go read the art of war if this doesn't seem to make sense. Which it may not, I know you haven't had to live in the practical business world yet. 

Matt: Easy there Donald Trump... business or not, you obviously don't want to keep people in your organization who are allowing terrible mistakes to be made.  But in this situation, I would prefer we legitimately review who's at fault, rather than cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house.  Based on the news reports, it appears that Mark Sullivan, the SS Director, is conducting a thorough investigation and cooperating fully with lawmakers. 

Stephen: Yea I'm sure he's not actually at fault, but when there's an issue it's likely because the director picked bad leaders who then instilled poor culture on the ground. Leaving him at the head just washed away the symptoms and didn't take out the problem. On a side note, a guy just walked into the elevator with me on the ground floor and asked if it was going up... someone started celebrating early.
Matt: To the elevator guy: Heyoooooo!  I hope he has a good Thirsty Thursday afternoon.  Point of clarification I just looked up, Sullivan was apparently appointed under Bush, in 2006 - that doesn't mean he didn't do a bad job in allowing this to happen to his agency, but it does at least clarify that it's not like this is a partisan Obama appointee.

Stephen: Actually I take back everything I said. No one is at fault here, not even the Secret Service agents..just take a look at these ladies... http://tinyurl.com/c4uad7e

Matt: Wow. I guess if my country's secret service agents are going to solicit prostitutes, I'm happy they're the attractive kind. Credit for Director Sullivan instilling good taste amongst his employees?

Stephen: My only regret here is that the FBI wasn't the agency involved. All those Federal Body Inspector jokes that were just waiting to happen.

Matt: The guys selling those shirts on the street here in DC would have had a field day

Stephen: Probably would have rejuvenated the DC economy. Maybe the FBI should go get prostitutes.

Matt: Agreed, it would be a very effective stimulus. Why doesn't the FBI want America to succeed?

Have a different take on prostitutes, or the Secret Service's involvement with them?  Blow off some steam in the comments section...

1 comment:

  1. Well if anything, it sounds like there's a few job openings in the Secret Service (America's most elite guard force?)for those still looking for good job with lots of "travel."

    Man, even the SEAL Team 6 guys who blasted in Osama's face weren't this bad - and they had already finished their mission!

    ReplyDelete