From naked shower fights to…back wax…and a Capitol Hill gropefest…now, interns…and… “tickle fights”…ugh…x-ray tumors, oh dear…

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

From naked shower fights to…back wax…and a Capitol Hill gropefest…now, interns…and… “tickle fights”…ugh…x-ray tumors, oh dear…

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 9, 2010 02:17 PM

Scroll for more gross-out updates…

Okay, this week is grossing me out. Can we hit the reset button?

We’ve gone from crapweasel Eric Massa’s claims about naked shower summits with Rahm Emanuel to a Florida GOP Senate spat over…back wax.

Really.

FOX NEWS’ VAN SUSTEREN: And sort of a punch back which occurred previously is that you have said about your opponent, Mr. Rubio, that he is the greatest fraud perpetrated. So it sounds like you have had a couple of punches back as well. Why do you say that?

GOV. CHARLIE CRIST: Because he’s trying to pawn himself off as a fiscal conservative. And yet just in reason weeks, two weeks ago it has come out in news accounts he had a Republican Party of Florida credit card that he charged $130 haircut, or maybe it was a back wax — we are not sure what all he got at that place.

VAN SUSTEREN: Wait a second, stop. A back wax? Wait a second.

CRIST: I don’t know what it was, you know?

VAN SUSTEREN: I know, but was there a suggestion it was for a back wax or are you being flip?

No, he’s just being desperate. Rubio is now 32 points ahead of Crist.

***

RedState’s Erik Erikson is sending Crist back wax. What he really needs is stronger sunscreen. Yikes.

Now, where’s the reset button?

***

More grotesquerie in the Massa mess:

Former Rep. Eric Massa has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The allegations surrounding the New York Democrat date back at least a year, and involve “a pattern of behavior and physical harassment,” according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

Massa had said that the allegations were limited to his use of “salty language” with his staff. He apologized for making some inappropriate comments and argued he was being unfairly villified. Days later, Massa accused the White House and Democratic congressional leaders of trying to oust him from office to improve their chances of passing health care reform legislation. Massa could not be reached for comment Tuesday, and no one answered the phone at his home in New York or his campaign office. Staff at his former congressional offices declined to relay messages to him and said they did not know how to reach him.

According to two sources familiar with the probe, Massa’s former deputy chief of staff Ron Hikel provided the information about the staffers’ allegations to the House ethics committee three weeks ago. Hikel had earlier sought advice from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office about brewing internal complaints, the sources said, and had been urged to report the allegations to the committee.

Creep Factor: 11!

***

Update: It gets worse. Interns

The House ethics committee has received allegations that former Rep. Eric Massa groped at least three male staffers and conducted himself improperly with interns as well as full-time aides, a source familiar with the matter tells POLITICO.

One incident allegedly occurred when Massa traveled to San Francisco with an aide for a fundraising trip, a second source said.

Massa put himself outside the reach of the ethics committee by resigning his seat in a March 5 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that was submitted on the House floor Tuesday.

The ethics committee announced last week that it had launched an investigation into allegations against Massa.

The former congressman, who claims he was pressured to resign because he planned to vote against a health care overhaul bill, has several television appearances lined up for Tuesday afternoon and evening.

***

Just a reminder that I took a lot of crap from my friends on the Right for coming out early against GOP predator Mark Foley.

I know a creep-o-crat when I smell one.

***

Update 5:17pm Eastern…Massa is on Beck…he opened by saying “he wasn’t forced out” of office and that he took responsibility and “owned his behavior.” Well, he has spent the last 48 hours claiming he was forced out. Which is it?

A yucky little chat about sexual indiscretion followed in which Massa mentioned the “tickle fights” he engaged in and stressed that they were not, in fact, sexual.

And next…Massa’s displaying x-rays of his tumor…

5:39pm Eastern. “Please don’t be a commercial,” Beck asks Massa. Massa continues to be a Democrat campaign commercial. Now saying the solution is “campaign finance reform.”

FAIL.

Beck apologizes for wasting America’s time. It was a painful object lesson, but in the end, I think, a useful one nonetheless.

FoxNews.com has the wrap-up.

Obama Aims to Impose a Solution on Israel

Obama Aims to Impose a Solution on Israel

By Ted Belman
President Obama intends to impose a solution to Middle East disputes on Israel. Obama has surrounded himself with a host of vehemently ant-Israel advisers including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Gen Jones, many of whom advocate imposing a solution on Israel.
So it was no surprise when he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s best and most steadfast ally, and demanding a complete settlement freeze east of the Green Line, including Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the U.S. commitment set out in the Bush ’04 letter to Sharon, saying that there was no agreement at all. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter testified otherwise.
In January ’09, before Obama had gotten his act together, Haaretz reported that

Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands [emphasis added].

Within a few months, that commitment was history.
P.M. Netanyahu, who had campaigned on the rejection of the two-state solution and on continued settlement growth, attempted to deflect or resist the pressure. One can only imagine the Tools of Persuasion that Netanyahu was subjected to. Finally, on June 12, 2009, Netanyahu made a major speech at the Begin Centre in which he shocked Israelis by agreeing to a two-state solution.

We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

Never mind that Netanyahu had only limited sovereignty in mind.
He went on to demand as a precondition that “Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people” and that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, “with ironclad security provisions for Israel.
With respect to the contentious issue of settlement construction, Netanyahu affirmed that there would be no “building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” But he reserved the right to “natural growth” within existing settlements:.
As for Jerusalem and refugees, he declared: “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.” And he totally rejected the return of refugees to Israel.
At the time, the concessions were warmly received or hotly debated. Many complained that Netanyahu had caved to the pressure without anything in return. After all, this was not the platform that Netanyahu had campaigned on.
A month later, Obama met with Jewish leaders to reassure them, and by all accounts, the meeting went well. But shortly thereafter, some Jewish leaders demanded that Obama also make demands on Arab countries. Obama publicly took up the challenge during the summer, thereby admitting that Israel should get something in return. He was soundly rebuffed.
Undaunted, Obama then focused on getting Abbas to accept what Netanyahu had offered in his BESA speech when they met in September at the United Nations. Abbas refused to go along. Obama crapped out.
So it then came as a surprise that Netanyahu, on Nov. 26, 2009, announced a unilateral ten-month freeze of settlement construction except for the 3,500 units already announced and natural growth. But he emphasized that the freeze did not include Jerusalem. In fact, a few days earlier, a new project of 800 units was announced for the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. Although Obama complained about it, he probably agreed to it to help Netanyahu win over his right wing.
The right in Israel was incensed — first by the acknowledgment of the two-state solution and now by the freeze, all with nothing in return.
On the heels of Netanyahu’s speech, Sec Clinton made the following statement,

Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

This is little different from Bush’s wording:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. 

Clinton referred to these realities as “subsequent developments.”
Thus the borders probably will be moved to the east of these blocks, thereby limiting the number of Jews that have to be uprooted to about 50,000, give or take 20,000 depending on negotiations.
So why did Obama repudiate the Bush letter which his man, Sen. Mitchell, had two months earlier endorsed in his name?
There are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338,” leaving open the possibility that Res. 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be “based on the 1967 lines.” This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.
Whereas Bush wrote, “and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel,” Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It requires the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res. 194.
In the scheme of things, these differences are of little importance. Why take the heat for so little profit, especially when Bush had said that doing otherwise was “unrealistic”?
Perhaps there was another reason.
Bush had committed in said letter that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.” By challenging the whole letter in the first instance and endorsing most of it subsequently, save for this commitment, Obama has succeeded in ridding himself of the commitment. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan, as many in his administration recommend he do?
In case you haven’t noticed, neither Obama nor his administration refers to the Roadmap. That is because the Roadmap precludes an imposed solution.
It would appear that the Obama administration has no confidence that a negotiated solution will be achieved. Most pundits and politicians believe likewise, and that includes Netanyahu.
The issues are too intractable, in part because the Arabs, and more specifically the “Palestinians,” are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They haven’t compromised in ninety years. Why start now?
Abbas continues to reject negotiations. He prefers an imposed solution, too.
This standoff may lead to the disintegration of the P.A., which would invite unilateral moves by Israel, the U.S., or Hamas.
Will Obama push for a bi-national state or allow Israel to annex Judea and Samaria? Will he attempt to impose a solution? The New York Times, in a lead editorial this week, favored Obama: “Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble.”
Meanwhile, Obama has less than six months to decide to what extent he will cooperate with Israel in bombing Iran.

Ted Belman edits Israpundit.

Nancy Pelosi and the CIA: Who’s Lying Now?

Nancy Pelosi and the CIA: Who’s Lying Now?

By Jane Jamison

Along with her difficulties ramming health care down our throats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has an ugly, slightly “cobwebbed” credibility issue that is about to get dusted off and given full, sunlit exposure due to new documents being pried loose by court order.
Pelosi’s “credibility” is under scrutiny due to her unusually harsh criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency last year. When liberals began flapping indignantly a few years ago over “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding, which were used on detained terrorists after 9/11, the CIA defended itself in 2009, saying that certain members of Congress had been aware of the interrogations for years and had done nothing to stop them. It turned out that one of the most outspoken critics of the so-called “torture” techniques, Speaker Pelosi, attended a briefing or briefings.
Ensnared in her own word-web after she had so vociferously criticized the Bush administration for “torturing” terrorists, an indignant Pelosi called a news conference in May 2009 to make the remarkable or reckless assertion that  the CIA was “misleading the Congress of the United States” about her knowledge and/or complicit approval of any waterboarding or other tough interrogation tactics and that “they [the CIA] mislead us all the time.”
“The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed,” Pelosi said today, reading from a prepared statement.
Terror suspect Abu Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding 83 times in August 2002, the month prior to when Pelosi was briefed about enhanced interrogation techniques.
Republicans in Congress have been calling since last year for the CIA to release all briefing minutes to determine who in Congress knew what and when about “torture” or enhanced interrogations — and which, if any, approved of the methods. Democrats like Pelosi had called for a “truth commission” to investigate the Bush administration’s treatment of terrorists, but after the CIA released part of the briefing information, Pelosi, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, and the Obama administration backed away from the idea. What, did the truth not serve them?
Despite Ms. Pelosi’s “suggestions” to release all briefing memos, a major public interest agency has been forced to file lawsuits to get them.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a CIA “Top Secret” memorandum which may be one of the first pieces of evidence to show that Speaker Pelosi indeed was briefed about the tough interrogations of terrorists in U.S. detention. More memos are being sought which may show how many meetings she attended and what she asked, said, and did.
The following are excerpts from the Memorandum, dated July 14, 2004:
Summary of testimony by DOD Official, Lt. Gen. William Boykin: “At this point, General Boykin read a prepared statement to the Committee in which he asserted that interrogation is a critically valuable tool, and, citing observations made by service personnel at Ft. Bragg, said that the most [imp]ortant factor in the capture of Saddam Hussein was interrogation.”
Summary of testimony by member of the CTC (Counterterrorism Center), name redacted: “…Even today long term detainees like Khalid Shayk Muhammed and Zubaydah are providing good information because their histories go back a long way and often a tidbit they provide, while not initially operationally significant, ends up being the piece that completes the puzzle; DC/CTC closed by noting that he was personally persuaded that detainee reporting has saved lives.”
Rep. Jane Harman: “What do you think of the value of enhanced techniques?” John Pistole, Witness for the FBI: “In my view the benefits are huge and the costs are insignificant. Very few detainees don’t provide us with good information….”
Rep. Ruppersberger: “Are there procedures that we have stopped that should be resumed?” Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, the Army G-2, [now Director of the National Security Agency (NSA)]: “Yes. Diet and sleep management. Those, plus segregation which is still employed, are key…”
General Alexander also testified that field commanders wanted more “97E’s” (interrogators), “even to the point of trading off some of their combat troops.”
Saddam Hussein was not subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, but “friendly discussions with an eye to future public prosecution.”
In February, Judicial Watch released documents, previously marked “Top Secret,” indicating that between 2001 and 2007, the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The documents include the dates of all congressional briefings and, in some cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who previously denied she was briefed by the CIA on the use of these techniques, is specifically referenced in a briefing that took place on April 24, 2002 regarding the “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah.”
Again, return to Ms. Pelosi’s May 2009 news conference assertion that she was briefed “only once” about the interrogations and that the briefing was in September of 2002.  
April 15 is the court’s deadline for the CIA to produce the rest of the briefings memoranda to Judicial Watch per the court’s order, so it should be clear then who was at which meeting and what was said.  
“We are now beginning to get a very clear picture of what members of Congress knew about so-called enhanced interrogation techniques and when they knew it,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Intelligence officials repeatedly informed members of Congress that enhanced interrogation techniques are effective and save lives. It is little wonder why the Obama administration would try to keep these documents hidden, given the administration’s ideological hostility to these effective interrogation techniques.”
Once the full truth is known from the CIA memos, Pelosi will be caught in a web of her own making. Then what? It’s unlikely that the House Speaker will apologize or retract her accusation. The time and effort spent by watchdogs like Judicial Watch to bring out the truth years after Pelosi’s CIA slander (or careless words) may not reap any immediate penalty to her, but maybe it will affect her reelection in November. 
Ms. Pelosi has been entrenched in the Congress for 23 years, rarely challenged in her San Francisco district. Perhaps after this credibility “clunk,” even California Congressional District 8 liberals will finally be sufficiently offended or embarrassed by Ms. Pelosi’s many missteps. These would include but not be limited to Pelosi’s self-entitled $2.1-million expenditure of government funds over two years for an Air Force jet for her and her family’s use, including more than $100,000 for catering and alcoholic beverages aboard said jet, and $1.1 million of taxpayer funds to squire a delegation of 106 people to the purpose-challenged Copenhagen climate summit. Ms. Pelosi has also been listed as one of “Congress’ Top Ten Most Corrupt Politicians” in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Meanwhile, many federal dollars were no doubt expended to have CIA staff review, redact, and unsuccessfully fend off the release of records which are proving the House Speaker to be “misleading.” It is certainly very expensive to have Nancy Pelosi in Congress. There are two able Republicans running who hope to replace her.
Jane Jamison is publisher of the conservative news/commentary blog, UNCOVERAGE.net.

Pennsylvania Woman Charged With Recruiting Violent Jihadist Fighters

Pennsylvania Woman Charged With Recruiting Violent Jihadist Fighters

Tuesday , March 09, 2010

FC1

ADVERTISEMENT

A Pennsylvania woman known to authorities as “JihadJane” has been charged in federal court with using the Internet to recruit jihadist fighters to carry out murders and violent attacks overseas.

The woman, Colleen R. LaRose, was charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft, according to the indictment, unsealed Monday.

Sources tell Fox News the “Swedish citizen” who “JihadJane” was allegedly looking to kill is Lars Vilks, who drew one of the controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons. There was a series of arrests in Ireland earlier Tuesday that are reportedly connected to LaRose’s case.

In September of 2007 Al Qaeda offered a bounty for the murder of Viks.

LaRose and five unindicted co-conspirators are accused of recruiting men to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe and of recruiting women who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe for similar missions.

The accused co-conspirators are located in South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United States.

“Today’s indictment … underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face,” said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

In June 2008, LaRose posted a comment on YouTube under the username “JihadJane,” stating that she is “desperate to do something somehow to help” the suffering Muslim people, according to the indictment.

She was also know to authorities as “Fatima LaRose.” The indictment describes LaRose as in her 40s.

Court documents show LaRose was first arrested by federal authorities on Oct. 16, 2009, for allegedly trying to “transfer” a stolen passport.

The indictment accuses the American-born LaRose and her unindicted co-conspirators of using the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions, through the collection of passports and through marriage, according to a government release.

LaRose, who lives in Montgomery County, Pa., received a direct order to kill someone in Sweden, and to do so in a way that would frighten “the whole Kufar [non-believer] world,” according to the indictment.

It states that LaRose agreed to carry out her murder assignment, and that she and her co-conspirators discussed that her appearance and American citizenship would help her blend.

According to the indictment, LaRose traveled to Europe and tracked her intended target online, but it isn’t clear whether she carried out the mission.

“This case shows the use terrorists can and do make of the Internet,” U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy said. “Colleen LaRose and five other individuals scattered across the globe are alleged to have used the Internet to form a conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism, culminating in a direct order to LaRose to commit murder overseas.”

LaRose is one of the first American females to be charged with a terrorism offense in the U.S.

The only other one a Department of Justice official could recall was Lynne Stewart, a New York attorney and American citizen who was convicted of terrorism violations in 2005 for passing prison messages from the “Blind Sheikh” to his followers on the outside urging violent attacks.

Last month, Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani woman who lived in Boston for some time but was not a U.S. citizen, was convicted in federal court in New York in connection with her attempt to kill U.S. military and law enforcement personnel in Afghanistan.

Fox News’ Mike Levine contributed to this report.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers