[Guest post by DRJ]
Tom Maguire fisks Matt Yglesias’ support for the Obama Administration’s handling of the Underwear Bomber. Here’s my favorite part, and note that Maguire’s comments are in regular type and Yglesias’ quotes are in italics:
It’s true that as an investigative technique “convince the guy’s family to convince him to cooperate” isn’t quite as bad-ass as “use Khmer Rouge torture tactics against him.” On the other hand, the non-torture way actually produces reliable information.
And Matt knows the intel is reliable because…? People can’t lie when their sainted mum or beloved aunt is in the next room? I don’t know how the reality-based community gleaned this particular fragment of reality.”
More at the link.
[Posted by WLS]
The lastest in a long-line of Pulitzer prize winning “fakesters” appears to be Chuck Philips of the LAT, who wittingly or unwittingly seems to have stepped in it with his latest article seeking to shine a spotlight on the “origins” of the BiCoastal Hip Hop “war” that led to the deaths of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. The reason for the article is that Philips claims to have solved the heretofore unsolved beating/shooting of Tupac Shakur outside a recording studio in New York in Nov. 1994 — two years before he was fatally wounded in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas. Both shootings are unsolved, but in the aftermath of the 1994 shooting Shakur blamed it on Sean “Puffy” Combs and associates at his “Bad Boy” record label.
Philips’s article says that he has now obtained heretofore undiscovered FBI “302s” — memoranda of interviews — reflecting information given to the FBI by an “informant” establishing that Combs and his associates at “Bad Boy” knew about the shooting before it happened, and were responsible for it. Philips claims this “newly discovered information,” along with “interviews of people at the studio that night,” confirm that it was Combs and his associates that were responsible for the shooting.
But it’s now being widely reported that Mr. Philips has likely been the victim of an elaborate hoax by one Mr. James Sabatino, described by Philips in his article variously as a rap “promoter,” a “fixture” in Combs’s “inner circle,” and … oh yeah, the son of a Captain in the Columbo Crime Family in Brooklyn — according to unnamed “federal authorities.” According to The Smoking Gun, Sabatino’s father describes him as “a disturbed young man who needed attention like a drug.”
But, having read through the entire piece, I have a strong suspicion that it is Mr. Sabatino that is the “informant” mentioned throughout the piece. I have a long breakdown of the article after the jump.
Posted By WLS:
I’m in no way enamored of Obama — neither his style nor his politics.
So, I’m looking at his speech with a very jaundiced eye. And there are lots of things I don’t particularly like in the text:
I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together…
From what I’ve read over the last few days, he didn’t learn “togetherness” as a method of problem solving from Rev. Wright.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Which remarks have you condemned, and why did it take until this moment for you to condenm them? Were they not equally worthy of condemnation two weeks ago? Two months ago? Two years ago? Two decades ago — because he’s been saying them as long as you have been a member of his church. You are the one identifying — without specifying — that he has made comments in your presence that you disagreed with and considered controversial. Tell us which of his comments you consider controvesial — so that we will know which ones you DO NOT CONSIDER CONTROVERSIAL. That would tell the voters much more about you than you have told us in the 4 years since you hit that stage in Boston.
[Posted by WLS -- aka "Shipwreckedcrew" for all you coming from TPM]
The Leftwingnuts seem to believe that Chertoff is in line to be the AG — I happen to think otherwise, but that’s for another post.
But some clown named Spencer Ackerman, seriously lacking in an understanding of the Bill of Rights, or simply challenged in terms of reading comprehension, has a post up with a couple of links claiming that Chertoff lied in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when recounting events surrounding the decision to allow the FBI to interview of John Walker Lindh without the presence of the attorney hired by his parents.
At issue is a statement given to DOJ Inspector General investigators in 2002 by a DOJ Prosecutor named John De Pue, a 25 year veteran of DOJ.
Bottom line — anyone reading De Pue’s affidavit would come away with the exact opposite impression given by Ackerman in his post. Lets compare what Ackerman claims and what the affidavit states.
Lets start with the basics — what De Pue was asked to research. (more…)
Bolton’s role in diplomat’s ouster questioned
U.N. tribunal ruled arms-control chief’s dismissal ‘unlawful’
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:05 p.m. ET June 4, 2005
I thought of fisking this AP story earlier; but I honestly thought nobody could be so disingenuous as to cite it as some sort of justification of the Democratic attempt to vilify John Bolton, both preventing his ratification as ambassador to the UN and also, if possible, destroying his life and career. Foolish me. The ink was barely dry (the phosphors were barely glowing) before it was being quoted all over the place by triumphalist liberals: ah-HA! It’s the smoking gun!
Note that indented paragraphs are taken directly from the AP story; my responses are unindented.
I am generally not a fan of fisking. But Michael Kinsley’s op-ed this morning, titled Who Are the Activists Now?, screams to be fisked. It is so full of muddled reasoning and poor arguments that we’re going to have to take it apart completely.
If you would enjoy a good fisking of a piece that says “Bush is popular because voters are stupid” — you’ve got two choices, matey: the Captain or the Shark.
My advice: read ‘em both.
UPDATE: Zombyboy’s name doesn’t fit the whole sea metaphor thing I had going there, but he does a nice job on the piece as well. Thanks to Mahalo for the pointer.