© Agence France-Presse/Getty ImagesUS Secret Service and military personnel allegedly took as many as 21 women back to their hotel, ahead of Obama's trip to Cartagena
A partially redacted report into April's incident released Friday by the Pentagon revealed little that was not already known about how 12 soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors had taken prostitutes to their hotel rooms.
The team was in place as part of the security detail for Mr Obama's visit to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, and their behaviour came to light after nine civilian US Secret Service officers were caught for the same offence.
The report concluded that, while servicemen had breached US military law by consorting with sex workers and in some cases by committing adultery, and had shown bad discipline by drinking, they had not endangered national security.
According to the report, the Cartagena hotel where they were staying, El Caribe, allowed guests to entertain overnight guests - "commonly a prostitute" - and that no Colombian laws appeared to have been broken.
But investigators did receive complaints from local witnesses about the general behavior of the US personnel, including that the dozen suspects had kept "overnight guests" in their rooms after 6am in breach of hotel rules.
"Explosive detection dog handlers were allowing their animals to sleep in hotel beds, soil the linens and urinate and defecate in inappropriate locations on the hotel grounds, leaving the waste," the report added.
"Unidentified hotel guests, thought to be American, were bothering and propositioning college-age female greeters working at El Caribe with the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs," it noted.
April's scandal was embarrassing to the Obama administration and led to allegations that the servicemen and agents might have compromised national security or the President's safety by consorting with Colombian women.
The report, however, concluded there was no evidence that the women had ties to criminal drug-smuggling groups or terrorist movements, nor were they victims of human trafficking networks.
It really smears the men who were there.
But it claims these unprofessional actions did not result in any loss of effectiveness on post.
Are they trying to cover up something?
There has already been one suggestion from sources that have no direct knowledge of events, and thus are susceptible to disinfo, that this story is a cover for a failed attempt to kill the president. Ben Fulford among others forwarded this theory.
Let's step back - as we need to do with each and every story we read these days - from the supposed "facts" and look at what impression this story is attempting to make on the public.
It conveys the impression that Secret Service people are morally sub-par.
It also infers that the President may be vulnerable, opening the door for a later attack.
It also keep the "nuts" happy with a leak suggesting the worst intentions.
Are we being prepared for a more successful attack? Hidden messages buried in his event? Possibility.