Columbian Hookers

By now, you’ve heard all the salacious details of our Secret Service agents partying with some legal Columbian hookers. As expected, Maggie McNeill has a good round-up of both the pearl-clutching hysteria in the media and the more reasoned response from libertarian quarters.

Suffice it to say, the idea that this was something unusual or particularly dangerous is a bit far-fetched. I really can’t see our Secret Service compromising the President’s safety rather than have their legal whoring revealed. This crosses me as the latest, “Hey look, sex!” distraction from the economy.

In fact, I would argue that seeing whores is a safer way for the Secret Service to get their jollies than picking up girls in bars. The thing about a hooker is that you know what she wants in exchange for sex: money. Women who don’t want money; who want, say access or secrets, are the danger. Do you remember the sex for secrets scandal of the 1980’s? That didn’t involve a hooker. It involved an amateur that a marine slept with and fell for and then exchanged classified information for access to.

All that having been said, the Secret Service has rules. They specifically have rules about contacts with foreign nationals. And if these agents violated those rules, it doesn’t matter whether the rules were reasonable or not: they agreed to abide by them. If they broke them, they should be fired.

But we can do that without our President and everyone else pulling grim faces about this “disgrace”. Amped-up men in dangerous jobs like to see working girls. That’s been true forever. Let’s not pretend it’s something new or unusual. And let’s not cater to the delusions of grandeur of the reporter who broke the story and now sees himself as the next Woodward and Bernstein.

Comments are closed.

  1. Dave D

    Again, Hal, you exhibit awfully lax standards. In my day (I’m 52), politicians and government workers who got caught doing ILLEGAL things like being a john or using drugs were frowned upon and severely disciplined/voted out. In Hal’s Brave New (judgement-free) World, this is merely a “slap on the wrist” offense; boys being boys. My how things have changed. For the worse, IMO. I surely don’t want my kids to see the Presidents chief security agents doing this.

    Thumb up 2

  2. richtaylor365

    Gee, the MSM/Obama enablers and Hal thinks all this kerfuffle is “much ado about nothing”. This whole tap dance sure does sound familiar, didn’t we see the same “boys will be boys” nonsense with Clinton and his bimbo eruptions? Rape, sexual assault, procuring government agents to facilitate sexual encounters, abuse of authority, boys will be boys.

    From your link:

    None of the agents or officers being investigated was part of the president’s personal protective detail and Obama isn’t based at the hotel

    From this link:

    U.S. officials have described the agents’ conduct as a potential security breach especially because all the agents involved had access to the president’s day-by-day, minute-by-minute schedule.

    Discounting the salient point that what they did was against policy, you do not bring anyone in to the “safe zone”-your hotel room, but soliciting hookers (and stiffing them in the process) falls under that “conduct unbecoming” jazz that they all know about. Getting pissed and starting a bar fight would have been a similar no-no.

    In fact, I would argue that seeing whores is a safer way for the Secret Service to get their jollies than picking up girls in bars.

    How about if they do neither. How long are these gigs, about a week? You can’t keep your Willie amused some other way for a week without banging hookers?

    The thing about a hooker is that you know what she wants in exchange for sex: money. Women who don’t want money; who want, say access or secrets, are the danger

    False assumption. Why can’t hookers trade sex for money, then while working procure other items that they can then barter for even more money? It was no secret where these guys were staying. You have the drug cartel capital of the world (how incestuous is the drug/terror business, you don’t think AQ is in the drug business and has a presence in Cartagena?) You don’t think there are protocols against this sort of thing in their handy dandy Secret Service handbook?

    I am easily bored with directing all these inquiries into the arena of termination for everyone, but they clearly violated a number of protocols and safety measures. To white wash this whole thing, although typical of MSM, is pretty shameless.

    I think they all should get put on the Michelle detail, that would serve them right.

    Oh, and I can’t forget this:

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/photorug.jpg/

    Thumb up 1

  3. Technomad

    FWIW, as I understand it, patronizing prostitutes or being a prostitute is not illegal in and of itself in Colombia. If no laws were broken, what’s the big whoop about?

    If we weren’t afflicted with Jesusite zombies who think every word in the Bye-bull was written specifically for us (instead of most if not all of it being intended solely for contemporary audiences) we’d likely have legal prostitution too, like sensible countries.

    Thumb up 1

  4. tika

    this is merely a “slap on the wrist” offense; boys being boys

    I was surprised to hear Charles Krauthammer qualify much of his upcoming comments with “boys will be boys” on O’reilly yesterday. Very disappointing.

    (and stiffing them in the process)

    That’s funny, I don’t care who you are!

    Thumb up 0

  5. Dave D

    Nice, respectfull dissonance going on here!

    So, there’d be NO problem with a high ranking government official going to a public stoning of an adultress in Iran and getting a few licks in himself? “Hey, it’s legal there! What the fuck!”

    Drugs are still illegal here. So is prostitution. Expecting our international representatives to obey our laws and standards while serving abroad is just too much these days, huh?

    Also, Bringing the “Bye-bull”, as you so disrepectfully note, into it has nothing to do with it. Although, us “Jesusite zombies” (as you again disprespectfully state) will do EVERYTHING in our power that we can under the law to keep those things illegal.

    Thumb up 1

  6. sahrab

    didn’t we see the same “boys will be boys” nonsense with Clinton and his bimbo eruptions?

    Your sure as shitting we did, but why go back that far? We saw it a few months ago, RIGHT ON THIS SITE

    Who knows, maybe the Secret Service Agents in question will be “described as veteran“s (then its ok right Rich?). And we all know, since you were kind enough to let us know, that the Agents would not “deviate from normal procedure” “no matter how good looking” the hooker was because its “not worth getting fired over“.

    Whats’ the big deal anyways “please, don’t tell me you have never had a nooner in your office.” Tap dance away there Michael Flately, according to you if any Agent “told me he has never done this before in his career, I would not believe him, people being people, sex happens, everywhere.

    Jesus fucking damn, you sing a totally different tune when its politically expedient (in this case its a chance to bash President Obama) verse one of your Brothers in Blue. You sure as shit make a good liberal hypocrite.

    Thumb up 2

  7. Mississippi Yankee

    U.S. officials have described the agents’ conduct as a potential security breach especially because all the agents involved had access to the president’s day-by-day, minute-by-minute schedule.

    Discounting the salient point that what they did was against policy, you do not bring anyone in to the “safe zone”-your hotel room, but soliciting hookers (and stiffing them in the process) falls under that “conduct unbecoming” jazz that they all know about. Getting pissed and starting a bar fight would have been a similar no-no.

    In a rational, reasonable discussion these two bolded fact should negate any and all ‘sweeping under the table’ of this behavior.

    Oh and the “stoning” analogy was great too!

    Thumb up 0

  8. Hal_10000 *

    So, there’d be NO problem with a high ranking government official going to a public stoning of an adultress in Iran and getting a few licks in himself? “Hey, it’s legal there! What the fuck!”

    Seriously, Dave? Are you seriously comparing a consensual act that is legal in much of the world, legal in parts of the US, was legal in all of the US until the “progressive” movement and smirkingly illegal everywhere else to stoning? That’s not a slippery slope; that’s an oiled cliff face.

    How far do you want to go with this? Should we start discharging soldiers who see prostitutes? Say goodbye to huge parts of the navy. I see no reason to indulge in our collective fantasy that whoring does not exist and young men in high-stress positions don’t do what they’ve always done.

    Rich, I should have put in the comment I tweeted last night: if security was violated, that is a serious offense. And there is a reason we require agents to disclose foreign contacts. I’m not saying these guys should not be fired: they broke the rules, possibly quite seriously. I *am* saying that this “OMG, whores!” vibe of the commentary is ridiculous.

    Why can’t hookers trade sex for money, then while working procure other items that they can then barter for even more money? It was no secret where these guys were staying. You have the drug cartel capital of the world (how incestuous is the drug/terror business, you don’t think AQ is in the drug business and has a presence in Cartagena?) You don’t think there are protocols against this sort of thing in their handy dandy Secret Service handbook?

    There are. That’s why these guys are in trouble. But if you look at the history of honeypots, you will find that they almost never involved prostitutes or women pretending to be ones. They involved professional agents seducing victims as though they were in love with them. A girl who services an agent, takes her money and leaves is much safer than one who motives are more nebulous.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Hal_10000 *

    In a rational, reasonable discussion these two bolded fact should negate any and all ‘sweeping under the table’ of this behavior.

    Agreed. Security breaches are serious. Whoring is not. Had these guys slept with some woman who was an agent for a foreign government posing as say a journalist, it would actually be getting less attention.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Hal_10000 *

    Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman, the two most pearl-clutching old ladies in the Senate, now want a hearing. Oh, joy.

    Thumb up 0

  11. salinger

    These guys are paid to adhere to a higher standard. They did not do their jobs – they and their immediate supervisors need to be gone. This is no way a one time occurrence, only the first time their being caught went further than the agencie’s four walls. There are plenty of men and women who could do this job with the honor it deserves.

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass gentlemen.

    Thumb up 1

  12. ryansparx

    How far do you want to go with this? Should we start discharging soldiers who see prostitutes? Say goodbye to huge parts of the navy. I see no reason to indulge in our collective fantasy that whoring does not exist and young men in high-stress positions don’t do what they’ve always done.

    We should also revoke the licenses of citizens that go to the UK or Japan and drive on the left side of the road while they are there, cuz here in Amurka we drive on the right side. It’s the law.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Mississippi Yankee

    I think the issue here is that they could have been compromised. Also, they were cheap.

    If $800 is cheap just how much are the hookers in the hollows of WV?
    Hell I could get 35 meth whores ’round these parts.

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT

    The issue here isn’t the prostitution. The problem is that people with responsibilities that if compromised can lead to security problems with horrible consequences, put themselves in a spot where thy made it easy for someone with a bad agenda to take advantage of them. That is a clear sign someone isn’t taking their job seriously. Sure, you could make the case that if prostitution was legal these people wouldn’t risk being blackmailed, but as we know, they had Obama’s itinerary right in their room where a spy could have just made a few photos with their iPhone.

    I am all for legalizing prostitution, not that I would feel inclined to use it ever though, but I still see the security risk these buffoons exposed themselves to even if popping some nice Columbian nookie was totally legal. We need to separate the two issues. Everyone here knows I hold very little respect for Obama, but the Secret Service fucked up here and put his security at serious risk. And I am not saying that simply because the one thing that scares me more than Obama staying president is Biden taking over.

    Thumb up 0

  15. HARLEY

    The issue here isn’t the prostitution. The problem is that people with responsibilities that if compromised can lead to security problems with horrible consequences, put themselves in a spot where thy made it easy for someone with a bad agenda to take advantage of them. That is a clear sign someone isn’t taking their job seriously.

    Bingo, they were there to see to the safety of Obamas ass, not get their dicks wet, in Colombian hooker ass. .

    Thumb up 0

  16. HARLEY

    If $800 is cheap just how much are the hookers in the hollows of WV?
    Hell I could get 35 meth whores ’round these parts.

    and about 35 cases of VD! ….

    Thumb up 0