WaPo's prostitution obsession

It seems to me that the Washington Post
has an obsession with making an issue out of male
government officials caught being involved with prostitution.
Here are some examples.

Aides knew of possible White House link to Cartagena, Colombia, prostitution scandal
By Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura
Washington Post, 2014-10-09
(Page 1, above the fold, spanning multiple columns)

As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military
were punished or fired
following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia,
Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that
anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that
senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that
a prostitute was an overnight guest
in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member —

yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.


[Let's try returning to sanity for a minute.
What if it were provably true that a White House aide,
while on a White House trip
had paid sex with a prostitute in Columbia (where prostitution is legal).
Why would this information be of sufficient importance
to justify a front page, above the fold, story
in the Washington Post?
Let us recall that when then-President Clinton
received oral sex from an intern, in the Oval Office,
there were legions of women quoted in the media declaring that
  1. this was an issue between him and his wife, and
  2. if it did not affect the performance of his official duties,
    then it did not deserve any punishment, in particular, impeachment.
Recall that a common statement from feminists
(which I do not happen to believe)
is that
there is no such thing as consensual sex
between a superior and a subordinate.
By that feminist standard, the sex was not consensual.
And the feminist definition of rape is any sexual act without the consent of the woman.
But did you ever hear a feminist calling for Clinton to resign?
I do not recall any such requests.

Where did the Washington Post stand on that?
I am not sure, but I don't believe they called for Clinton to leave office,
for this reason or any other reason.
(For a review of overall editorial opinion on the matter, click here.)
So why are they making such a big issue out merely
government professionals having sex with prostitutes in a country where that is legal?
Why is that any of their business?

And as to the case of Jonathan Dach, the White House aide in question here,
he had no evident role with White House security,
so the not-very-credible argument that contact with prostitutes
could harm the security of the president
is not relevant here.]

White House disputes report that aides had not thoroughly investigated Cartagena link
By David Nakamura and Katie Zezima
Washington Post, 2014-10-10


The reverberations from the 2012 scandal,
in which 10 Secret Service agents and 10 members of the military lost their jobs,
have continued to echo through Washington more than two years after the incident.

[Let us recall that the incident where Omar J. Gonzalez entered the White House
made plain the consequences of the Secret Service being understaffed in 2014.
Part of the reason for that understaffing is
the dismissal of 10 valued Secret Service agents
for no better reason than that their activities in Cartagena.
I very sincerely doubt that dismissing them for no better reason than that
was a wise move in the overall scheme of things.]

Labels: ,