ShareThis Page
U.S. News opens closet of Secret Service |

U.S. News opens closet of Secret Service

| Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:00 a.m

Anyone who has encountered U.S. Secret Service agents guarding the president knows how arrogant, pushy and perpetually testy they can be.

The reason the agents are so grumpy all the time has nothing to do with the little radio thingamabobs in their ears. Or the 50 pounds of guns and ammo they’ve got stashed under their bulging suit jackets.

It’s because Secret Service agents have a very specific, sacred mission to perform — protect the president’s life at all costs.

If you don’t count a few embarrassing lapses — the Kennedy, McKinley and Garfield assassinations and the near-missed attempts on Reagan, Ford and FDR come to mind — the Secret Service has maintained a well-polished image as a valorous, patriotic and elite security force.

Until now, anyway.

According to this week’s U.S. News & World Report ‘s cover story, “Secrets of the Secret Service,” the Secret Service has an embarrassingly high rate of drunks, criminals, philanderers and boors among its well-dressed, overworked and stressed-out workforce.

Plus, it’s having serious morale problems and bleeding employees at the same time it’s expanding its duties beyond protecting U.S. government execs and visiting foreign dignities to providing security at the Olympics and the Super Bowl.

These shortcomings aren’t as threatening to national security as the embarrassing intelligence failures and bunglings of the FBI and the CIA, both of which dwarf the 4,000-person Secret Service.

But as U.S. News documents at length, the Secret Service — whose annual budget has jumped by half in the past five years to $857 million — is hardly living up to its motto of “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.”

Secret Service men don’t merely degrade themselves by watching porno videos at night in the White House basement. They also get into lots of barroom brawls. They go to jail for embezzling money and having sex with young girls. And they show up drunk for work without being disciplined.

U.S. News says some agents — in violation of strict Secret Service rules against mixing romance with security duties — carried on extramarital affairs with upper-level White House staffers in the Clinton era.

So far, the Secret Service has been able to sweep a lot of this tabloidian stuff under the rug, thanks to its own time-honored “code of silence” and an ability to escape outside oversight and accountability.

The U.S. News’ scandal-mongering isn’t going to bring on an FBI-like reorganization of the Secret Service. But it convincingly shows what grown-ups always should have suspected: The agency never was as pure and good as the TV shows and government propagandists had led us to believe.

Perhaps the best way to deal with the debunking of yet another highly polished American myth is to read “Democracy’s Drink,” American Heritage magazine’s cover story for June/July.

It is a tender, historical ode to the making, marketing and popularizing of America’s greatest, most beloved and most socially, politically and culturally symbolic beverage — beer.

As writer Max Rudin explains, with its links to sports, male bonding, saloons, working-class culture and its “implicitly rebellious, nose-thumbing attitude toward the tastes and rules of social ‘betters’ and other authority figures,” beer is an unchallenged drink of democracy.

If so, it might be the only icon we have left.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.