tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24946442.post8703471052843905963..comments2023-07-07T01:53:48.487-06:00Comments on What's Wrong With This Picture?: Talk about Pork UPDATE:M.G. Bralleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10083864482181744657noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24946442.post-78662381381993896752008-02-14T10:43:00.000-07:002008-02-14T10:43:00.000-07:00Unfortunately you have your facts wrong in most of...Unfortunately you have your facts wrong in most of your article, otherwise your article would be an interesting read. When Governor Richardson left the U.N. and went to the Energy Department, he was not, as you wrongly claim, given an even more "impressive" detail. In fact, the size of his detail at the Department of Energy was significantly smaller than than at the U.N. How do I know? Because I was assigned to his detail while at the Department of Energy for several years. I worked closely with the Diplomatic Security Service who protected Richardson at the U.N. Additionally,Richardson's detail was significantly smaller than his predecessor at the Department of Energy. In comparison to several other cabinet departments, the Executive Protection detail at the Energy Department was smaller than most other cabinet officers and smaller still than some protective details for the heads of independent agencies who were not even in the line of presidential succession. <BR/>Your article also fails to note that Governor Richardson, as a direct result of his service as U.N. Ambassador has been under direct threat from foreign terrorist organizations who threatened to kill him because of his efforts to rescue various U.S. hostages. <BR/>In regards to your former supervisor at P.G.County and his comments, I believe he was with the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service, which is not the same as you state, a "Secret Service agent." Secondly, there is absolutely no comparison between protecting the "money" and protecting a head of state. It's a very poor analogy. The U.S. does not have a single monetary system. Our monetary system is based on a multitude of factors, not just "money." If you mean currency, the Secret Service does not protect currency, the U.S. Mint Police protects currency, so I'm not sure how your former supervisor is qualified to comment on matters related to protecting currency. In fact, in the U.S., there is more wealth in non currency assets than in currency in circulation, so there's no relationship between currency, or lack thereof, and the economic stability of the U.S. If what you suggest were true, whenever there was inflation we would burn money, not adjust the interest rate. Again, using your flawed logic or that of your former supervisor, we would replace the gold in Ft. Knox with cash, since currency should be protected. It doesn't make sense. <BR/>Whether the Lt. Governor should receive Executive Protection or not is one issue but attempting to relate that to the protection of Governor Richardson is not a valid comparison. One basic premise of executive protection which you don't seem to understand is the notion of risk. You protect executives based on a risk analysis (among other things) which is conducted after you assess the threat. Your question should be whether anyone has conducted a threat assessment on the Lt. Governor and do the results merit the degree of protection currently provided? That is the real issue, not what the Governor is getting. You are accusing the Richardson administration of playing politics with the Lt.Governor's protection yet you are guilty of the same thing when it comes to criticizing the protection afforded the Governor. <BR/><BR/>Bruce Alexander<BR/>Editor<BR/>Executive Protection News<BR/>www.executive-protection-news.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com