I don't understand why soldiers patronizing prostitutes is so scandalous. Haven't soldiers always patronized prostitutes? Back in what many Republicans seem to regard as the "good old days" of the 19th century, prostitutes ("camp followers") followed armies around, presumably with the tacit or not so tacit approval of those armies' officers. I think the whole affair is even less scandalous because prostitution is both legal and acceptable in Cartagena. What's the big deal?
As for the Secret Service agents, let's face it — really they're nothing but paramilitaries in pinstripes, no matter how nobly they've been portrayed in the movies. Unless their escapades were being financed by the GAO, I don't see a real problem — assuming they got the job of preparing for the President's visit to the Summit of the Americas done before they began exploring the local culture.
As for the likes of Congressional "investigators" like Peter King and Darryl Issa, it's totally clear that their main goal is to make the "scandal" somehow rub off on the president. The real scandal at the Summit was the unsuccessful attempt by the United States to formally exclude Cuba from future meetings. We're ready to talk to the Taliban, but not to the Castros? (insert Bronx cheer)