January 14, 2026 / by 

 

The Powell Endorsement

As reported, Colin Powell just endorsed Obama, calling him a "transformational figure." He listed several reasons for his choice:

  • Obama’s response to the economic meltdown
  • Obama’s ability to reach all classes, races, and parties
  • Obama’s rhetorical ability and his substance
  • McCain’s erratic response to the economic crisis
  • Palin’s lack of preparedness for the Presidency
  • McCain’s smears
  • The wingnuttia of the Republican Party
  • The danger of two more conservatives on SCOTUS (he’s probably thinking about all the anti-torture decisions)
  • The attacks on Muslims (he mentions a Muslim woman burying her son in Arlington)–this was one of the most powerful parts of the endorsement

Just as interesting was what Powell had to say in a short availability after his appearance on MTP. His last question addressed the McCain campaign smears again. He called out Michelle Bachmann on her McCarthyist rant. Also, Powell made a really great defense of Obama’s tax policy, pointing out that all tax policy involves redistribution of wealth, it’s just a question of where it gets redistributed; he also pointed out that most people get their taxes back by using the services government provides. 

Say what you will about the value of Colin Powell’s endorsement. But whether you want it or not, please accept the importance in Powell calling out the McCain smears and attacks on Obama and America’s Muslims.


Trash Talk – All You Kneed To Know About Tom

In all the hubbub over the election, debates, McCain inciting racial strife and, of course, our economy continuing to fall off the face of the earth, the usually astute American public consciousness has lost track of a critically important story they usually would be all over. Tom Brady has undergone yet another knee operation. That is not good. Not to mention that Giselle must be getting cranky from the loss of consortium in their love shack. Peyton Manning demonstrated that knee surgeries now come in pairs though, so maybe it is nothing to worry about. You folks up there in Beantown better not let Randy Moss here about this though, because he was just starting to come out of his funk with Cassell.

National Favre League – Jeebus, it really is not a great week for captivating matchups. Check out the schedule, fairly bleak. Brett and the Jets visit Freep country up in Oakland. Maybe Al Davis will suit up, he may still be the toughest goat on the Raiders. Bolts at Bills, Saints at Panthers and Vikes at Da Bears are the only even halfway interesting regular schedule games. The real class, such that it is this week, are the Sunday night and Monday night games, Colts at Cheeseheads and Doncos at Pats, respectively.

Bowl Division, Smole Division (NCAA) – Okay, I want to come clean; I think the BCS is a bunch of shit. There; now I feel better. Big game of interest to Wheelheads seems to be the Wolvereenies at Joe Pa. Already the carping. Already the rationalizing from the Schembechler Whinery Region.

Kansas at Oklahoma appears to be a good game to watch. By far, the most interesting game would look to be Missouri at Texas. Chase Daniel is a pretty special kid, but so apparently is Colt McCoy. The battle between those two will probably be continuing on Sundays for many years into the future. For this year though, Texas looks to have too much for Missouri, and that and home field should carry the day. The other interesting game is LSU at South Carolina. Spurrier has a knack for these situations; Gamecocks in an upset.

MLB – The Sawx are dead. Long live the Sawx! I said when the season started that the Red Sawx may not be all that without their big prick, Curt Shilling. I am sticking with that prediction. Much to the chagrin of Ishmael, Bay State Librul, Neil, Phred and many other fine folks up Beantown way, I just don’t think they can pull it out this year. Say what you will about the Shill, but he has "it" when it comes to that last ounce of playoff toughness. It is not just with the Sawx either, the Diamondbacks couldn’t do it without the jerk either. MLB is going to commit hari kari, but the series is going to be Tampa Bay and Philly. Hari kari may be justified.

F1 Circus – This weekend is the penultimate race of the season, the Chinese Grand Prix in Shanghai. From FoxSports:

Championship leader Lewis Hamilton put himself in prime position to claim the Formula One title this weekend by taking the pole position Saturday for the Chinese Grand Prix.

Hamilton set a top time of 1 minute, 36.303 seconds, and will start Sunday’s race ahead of Ferrari pair Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa, who were second- and third-fastest.

Hamilton leads Massa by five points in the drivers’ championship with two races left in the season. To clinch the title here, he would need to finish on the podium and gain six more points than the Brazilian.

The front row for China is the same as the previous race in Japan, where Hamilton braked too late, forced Raikkonen off at the first corner and consequently received a pit drive-through penalty and finished outside the points.

Renault’s Fernando Alonso, who has won the past two grands prix and had vowed to try his best to help Massa win the title, will start from fourth on the grid.

BMW’s Robert Kubica, who still has slim hopes of snatching the title, put in his worst qualifying performance of the season and finished in the 12th spot, complaining of understeer.

Hamilton enters the Chinese GP five points ahead of Ferrari’s Felipe Massa and twelve up on Kubica. But with both Ferraris right next to and behind him on the grid, Hamilton is going to have to earn his first title; and it was not until the last race of the season last year that Hamilton lost grip, so it is not over till it is over. It ain’t over. Again, the race is tonight, not Sunday morning, on Speed TV.

Trash it up!


Colin Powell to Denounce the Lynch Mobs

We were discussing yesterday whether having the guy who lied to the UN to justify our illegal war in Iraq endorse Obama is a good thing or not. I wrote this.

One more thought on Powell.

I’m outtamyarse guessing that whether or not he endorses on Sunday, he will say something about the violence being stoked by McPalin.

It’s another moment–even more important one, IMO–like the UM affirmative action cases before SCOTUS, when he came out strongly for affirmative action. And this kind of racially-tinged violence would offend his sense of both decency–and what is necessary for a healthy country (you could even argue it hurts the troops when this kind of racism is stoked).

I even wonder (really outtmyarse) whether Powell was the one who got McCain to correct the woman who called Obama an Arab terrorist. Powell is one of the few people who could get McCain to do what he wants right now, bc McCain still wants to forestall an Obama endorsement. And McCain’s failure to call off the she-dog might well be enough to tip Powell. 

Apparently, my outta-arse is working better on politics these days than it is on football–at least for the first part of my guess (h/t karpaty lviv).

 Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is widely expected Sunday to denounce the personal attacks against Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

[snip]

The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday that Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s former chief of staff, said his ex-boss was "upset" by the "vitriol, bile and prejudice" aimed at Obama on the campaign trail.

"We’ve talked about this and I know it really bothers him and I’d expect him to talk about it," he said.

Say what you will about Powell, but unlike (say) Clarence Thomas, Powell has always done the right thing on race in this country. And the right thing, right now, is to shut down the ugly, violent racism driving the McCain campaign. 

If Powell is successful at shaming McCain into calling off his dogs, it will be a very important thing–not only for getting Obama elected, but also for governing this country going forward. 


Obama’s Firewall: Commie, Unpatriotic, “Fake” Virginia

So let me get this straight: All those civil servants and employees of the military-industrial complex living in northern VA are Communists.

They are unpatriotic and anti-American.

And they are not "real" Virginians.

I get that the McPalin campaign is all-but conceding that they cannot win the votes of those who know government best, including many many members of the military and national security community. I might ask why they’re conceding that, why they seem to admit they can’t gain any resonance with these voters, but whatever–I guess they’ve seen the polling.

What I really want to know, though, is how this is not, effectively, a concession for the entire race. McCain has admitted he needs to win all the Bush states that are currently still toss ups: FL, NC, MO, IN, CO, NV.

And VA.

(IA and NM, in which Obama holds big poll margins right now, would bring Obama to 263; VA has 13 electoral college votes.)

Yet his campaign seems to be pursuing a strategy designed to offend the largest chunk of Virginia’s population.


McCain Campaign Whines that NYT Paid Heed to Their Letter

There’s something funny about the McCain campaign’s complaints about the NYT’s front page piece on Cindy today. They released a letter that John Dowd sent to the NYT on October 1. He writes:

I write to appeal to your sense of fairness, balance and decency in deciding whether to publish another story about her. I do this well knowing your paper’s obvious bias for Barack Obama and your obvious hostility to John McCain. I ask you to put your biases and agendas aside.

[snip]

I am advised that you assigned two of your top investigative reporters who have spent an extensive amount of time in Arizona and around the country investigating Cindy’s life including her charity, her addiction and her marriage to Senator McCain. None of these subjects are news.

I am also advised that your reporters are speaking to Tom Gosinski and her cousin Jamie Clark, neither of whom are reliable or credible sources. Mr. Gosinski has been publicly exposed as a liar and a blackmailer on the subject of Cindy McCain. Jamie Clark has very serious drug and stability issues and has failed in a number of attempts to blackmail Cindy. She is simply not credible.

[two long paragraphs on Gosinski] 

Any further attempts to harrass or injure her based on the information from Gosinski and Clark will be met with an appropriate response. While she may be in the public eye, she is not public property nor the property of the press to abuse and defame.

[snip]

I ask you to let Cindy McCain carry on in her usual understated, selfless and dignified way. The fabrications and lies of blackmailers are not fit to print in any newspaper but particularly not the New York Times.

In short, this letter is primarily a thinly disguised (and, IM[NAL]O, legally suspect) warning against repeating the stories of Gosinski and Clark. Note, for example, that Dowd’s letter was written more than two weeks after the WaPo published a story heavily reliant on Gosinski as a source, which Dowd has apparently not responded to with threats of "an appropriate response." Nevertheless, Dowd wrote Bill Keller and tried to scare Keller away from reporting on Gosinski.

So, 18 days after Dowd wrote his letter, the NYT wrote their piece. Look closely at it. See what’s not in it?

Any reference to Gosinski or Clark. In fact, the totality of the discussion of Cindy’s addiction is,

Mrs. McCain busied herself with the American Voluntary Medical Team, a charity she founded to supply medical equipment and expertise to some of the neediest places on earth, like Micronesia, Vietnam and Kuwait in the weeks after the Persian Gulf war.

[snip]

In 1994, Mrs. McCain dissolved the charity after admitting that she had been addicted to painkillers for years and had stolen prescription drugs from it. She had used the drugs, first given for back pain, to numb herself during the Keating Five investigation, she confessed to Newsweek magazine. “The newspaper articles didn’t hurt as much, and I didn’t hurt as much,“ she wrote in an essay. “The pills made me feel euphoric and free.”

In other words, Dowd’s letter apparently achieved its intended objective–to dissuade the NYT from relying on two particular sources.

And look at the sources the NYT does rely on: "a friend," "[Cindy] has said," "friends say," "a former Arizona congressman who knows the couple [commenting Cindy’s willingness to do anything for the campaign]," "those close to Mrs. McCain," "some of Mr. McCain’s Washington friends," "fellow mothers at their children’s schools," "Diana Dunn, who socialized with the couple," "Lisa Boepple, a former chief of staff," "the friend from back home," "Peggy Rubach, a former aide," "Wes Gullet, a former aide," "G. Darrell Olson, a local jeweler," "Jill Hazelbaker," "friends." Plus a number of direct quotes from Cindy that appeared in other outlets. While there are a few sources who may not be friendly (I’m not sure whether McCain will be buying Cindy’s baubles from Darrell Olson this Christmas, for example), the sources for this story are by and large people close to the McCains and many of them portray Cindy as a very selfless person.

Yet still the McCain campaign is attacking the NYT for the story. 

The McCain campaign pushed back with unprecedented ferocity, with an 11:47 p.m. “Statement on New York Times trash report on Mrs. McCain,” by McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb: “Today the New York Times launched yet another in a series of vicious attacks on Senator John McCain, this time targeting not the candidate, but his wife Cindy. Under the guise of a ‘profile’ piece, the New York Times fails to cover any new ground or provide any discernible value to the reader other than to portray Mrs. McCain in the worst possible light. … It is a black mark on the record of a paper that was once widely respected, but is now little more than a propaganda organ for the Democratic party. The New York Times has accused John McCain of running a dishonorable campaign, but today it is plain to see where the real dishonor lies."

This is the same "propaganda organ" that Gov. Palin cited when (selectively but approvingly) quoting from a front-page article on William Ayers.

McCain aides also released what the campaign claims is a Facebook message sent by Times political correspondent Jodi Kantor on Sept. 29 to "a 16 year-old schoolmate of the McCains’ daughter, Bridget": “I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don’t mind, I’d love to ask you some advice about a story. I’m a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I’m reaching out to fellow parents at her kids’ schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I’m trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends– and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that’s right? Again, we’re not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like. Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to– basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions– that would be great. Thanks so much for any help you can give me.”  [my emphasis]

Now, I agree the story isn’t terribly flattering. With regards to Cindy, it calls her on some apparent false claims made by and about her–though it never accuses her or the campaign of lying. Otherwise, it just makes her sound lonely and sad–but no lonelier than she appears standing on stage at rallies. 

The real damage, I think, is how the story reflects on John McCain, whose mother-in-law used to call the local jeweler to arrange gifts from McCain to Cindy because he apparently "didn’t have time" to buy them himself. The story portrays McCain as someone totally unworthy of the devotion Cindy gives him. Frankly, I do think that’s useful news to tell voters.

But what I don’t get is why, if the McCain campaign wants to claim the NYT ambushed them with an attack piece, they at the same time provide evidence that the NYT backed off the specific topics the McCains wanted them to back off of. 


Big Time Newspaper Endorsements

Because this seems to be the weekend when all the big newspapers decided that they had better endorse Barack Obama. I will update this going forward–please alert me to endorsements in the thread [my emphasis throughout].

Chicago Tribune (has never endorsed a Democrat):

Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.

[snip]

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren’t a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation’s most powerful office, he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Los Angeles Times (has never endorsed a Democrat and hasn’t endorsed since 1972):

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That’s where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

[snip]

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama’s critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

Washington Post:

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

Atlantic Journal-Constitution (h/t rfw)

Different challenges require different strengths. Obama has demonstrated a calm, thoughtful leadership style that fits this time and this challenge well. He has laid out a wiser, more measured approach toward foreign policy that elevates diplomacy and negotiation while reserving the use of force if necessary to protect this country and its allies in a dangerous world. He understands that international respect and admiration can’t be forced at gunpoint.

Economically, Obama is better equipped to deal with a rapidly changing global situation, and his policies focus directly on the problems confronting the American working and middle classes. His tax plan, for example, proposes to cut taxes on 95 percent of American households while raising taxes only on households with an income of more than $250,000. That plan may have to be adjusted in light of a harsh new fiscal reality, but it demonstrates where Obama’s instincts and values lead him.

The same is true of his health-care proposal. It requires a comprehensive approach, including financial assistance to help small businesses buy insurance for their employees. It would also require large employers that do not offer health insurance to help their workers with the cost of buying insurance on their own.

Those are new approaches, crafted by a new generation of leaders drawn to Obama by the chance to write their own chapter in the American story. Their time has come. His time has come. Obama is a leader of rare potential, and that’s precisely what the job of our 44th president demands.

Boston Globe (h/t Ishmael):

COME JANUARY, a new president will take charge of a nation diminished, an America that is far shakier economically, less secure militarily, and less respected internationally than it was eight years before. The nation needs a chief executive who has the temperament and the nerves to shepherd Americans through what promises to be a grueling period — and who has the vision to restore this country to its place of leadership in the world.

Such a leader is at hand. With great enthusiasm, the Globe endorses Senator Barack Obama for president. The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans’ hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening.

Unlike many of his rivals this year of either party, Obama isn’t refighting the political or cultural battles of the 1960s. Instead, he is asking Americans to take responsibility for the nation’s problems now; no one else will take care of them, and the consequences of years of disunity and profligacy should not be visited upon future generations.

Denver Post:

In unsteady times, it may seem obvious to gravitate toward the veteran politician, but in this campaign, it’s been the newcomer who has had the steady hand. 

[snip]

If Americans were only worried about foreign affairs, McCain’s stalwart service in the military and experience on the national stage would make him the more credible commander in chief. But our eyes have turned homeward and, in this hour, Obama has the eloquence and vision to bring us back together.

As novelist Christopher Buckley said in endorsing Obama, the Illinois senator "has a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament."

With the help and prayers of the American people, we believe those talents can also make Barack Obama a great president.

Miami Herald:

In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates. That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world’s greatest democracy.

Chicago Sun-Times:

Americans are ready to be one country. By the millions, they yearn to bridge their differences, to find common cause, to rise above ideology, race, class and religion.

They have grown weary of the culture wars and the personal attacks, tired of the exaggerated lines that divide. They dare to imagine a more constructive discourse, a debate marked by civility and respect even in disagreement, a politics that begins with listening to each other.

[snip]

Often in America’s most difficult days, the nation has been blessed with extraordinary leaders who seemed just right for the times. We have in mind George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The times again demand an extraordinary leader. Our next president will take the oath of office in a country that is at war, heavily in debt, deeply divided and sliding into a recession. He will have to make hard choices — the money won’t be there for all his ambitious plans — and he will have to work with a Congress so lopsidedly Democratic that it may be veto-proof.

[snip]

Success will require audacity, in all the best meanings of the word: nerve, spunk, grit and, especially, boldness.

And success will require a president and a people ready to embrace hope, in all the best meanings of that word: A conviction that what we want and need can be had.

Barack Obama believes in the audacity of hope. He inspires it in others. He inspires it in us.

Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States of America.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (h/t Ishmael):

American exceptionalism — the idea that this nation by virtue of its history, political beliefs and the blessings of divine providence has a favored place in the world community — is easy to believe in this year of a presidential election that is in every way exceptional.

Titanic forces have been at work. It is as if history has been a glacier inching its way to the sea, coming together at last for a dramatic climax that most Americans could not have imagined when the journey began.

[snip]

But this election is not just about the shortcomings of Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin and the failed legacy of a philosophy that they seek to perpetuate under the hastily erected banner of maverick.

It is about the strengths of Barack Obama, whose rise to prominence is not a fluke or national infatuation but the consequence of his remarkable skills — a keen intellect, noble intentions and the wit and grace to express them in ways that have inspired millions across the country. He has a rare gift exactly suited to the fearful times — he knows the language of reassurance and hope.

Salt Lake Tribune (h/t ballerinaX):

The country desperately needs a new and well-defined road map for the 21st century and leadership that can unite the country behind it. We believe that Barack Obama can give us both.

El Diario/La Prensa (h/t rfw):

Nuestro próximo presidente debe tener la capacidad, juicio y visión para restaurar confianza, tanto aquí como en el extranjero. EL DIARIO/LA PRENSA respalda al senador Barack Obama como el líder listo para redirigir a Estados Unidos de América hacia su promesa.

[AP’s translation] Our next president must have the capacity, judgment and vision to restore confidence, both here and abroad. El Diario/La Prensa endorses Sen. Barack Obama as the leader ready to redirect the United States of America towards its promise.

La Opinion:

Estados Unidos se encuentra en una encrucijada, el país necesita una visión distinta y un enfoque nuevo para enfrentar problemas que por décadas se vienen arrastrando. Barack Obama es la persona indicada para iniciar un nuevo ciclo de reconstrucción, como presidente de Estados Unidos.

The United States is at a crossroads. The country needs a different vision and a new focus to the problems that have been dragging on for decades. Barack Obama is the right person to begin a new cycle of renewal as President of the United States.

SF Chronicle:

Throughout a campaign that has been intense – and at some points ugly – Obama has kept his composure and maintained a vision of optimism that has drawn an unparalleled wave of young people into the political process. His policies and his persona have offered hope to a nation that is deeply polarized, swimming in debt, mired in war and ridden with anxiety. He taps into that treasured American reservoir – patriotism – with his calls for sacrifice and national service.

Not newspapers, but see Dean Smith, Michael Smerconish, Christopher Buckley.


Another 16 Words: Boumediene Bites Bush Again

images3.thumbnail.jpegLaura Rozen rocks, and today she rolls up more jaw dropping malevolence and fraud on the part of the Bush/Cheney Administration.

A potentially explosive new court filing by the lawyers for Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Guantanamo detainees suggests that the Bush administration ordered the Bosnian government to arrest and hold the men after an exhaustive Bosnian investigation had found them innocent of any terrorism related activity and had ordered their release, in order to use them as props in Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union speech.

The filing–"Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners, v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al., Respondents, Petitioners’ Public Traverse to the Government’s Return to the Petition for Habeas Corpus"–lays out the case that the Bush administration threatened at the highest levels to withdraw diplomatic and military aid to the Balkan nation if Bosnia released the men, which its own three-month investigation had found innocent of any terrorism charges in the days leading up to Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union.

Faced with the threats of the withdrawal of aid and that if it released the men, the White House would order NATO troops to detain them, Bosnia transferred the men under duress to the custody of the US government in January 2002. Ten days later, Bush used sixteen words to warn Americans that, in "cooperation" with the Bosnian government, it had captured terrorists who had planned to bomb the US embassy in Sarajevo: "Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy," Bush told the nation.

But, six years later, the detainees’ petition says, after the US Supreme Court has sided with the detainees and ordered the US to give the detainees habeas corpus rights, the Bush administration has failed to repeat the embassy plot charges that Bush used in his State of the Union address, or to produce credible evidence of why the men should be held as enemy combatants.

It is hard to be shocked by these kind of revelations anymore, there has been so much criminal depravity on the part of the Bush/Cheney crew in relation to their torture and sadistic gulag detention programs that it just dulls the senses after a while. And it is not like we didn’t know that the case against Lakhdar Boumediene was bogus; that was evident from the prior litigation that led to the original Supreme Court Boumediene decision. The pleading containing the new allegations is here (pdf). For those of you perplexed by the title of the pleading, a "traverse" pleading is nothing more than a somewhat archaic term for a reply pleading.

The revelation that Boumediene has been, from the outset, about yet another 16 word intentional lie to the American public, and indeed the world, in the hallowed State of the Union Speech, in order to fraudulently gin up the basis for an illegal and immoral war of aggression, is heart stopping and hard to stomach. We already had a 16 word blatant lie by Bush for this purpose. Crikey, how many other 16 word lies are out there?

As I said, we knew the detention and persecution of Boumediene and the others known as the "Algerian Six" was unjustified and unsupportable, but the similarities to the other "16 Word" scandal are striking.

Both cases involved facts that the Bush/Cheney Administration possessed and knew were patently false, and yet cravenly used in the State Of The Union to sell their desire for war of choice and aggression. Both involved bordering Islamic countries in Northwestern Africa. Both were hurriedly put in the SOTU to gin up the war on terror and lay the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq that both Bush and Cheney were jonesing for since before they took office. And both were linchpins in the respective SOTU speeches in 2002 and 2003, seeking to sell and con the public for support by the Bushies.

Repetitive analogous conduct, in similar situations, over time. This is what in the law is known as pattern and practice evidence. Hard to say something is a mistake if you keep making that same "mistake" over and over and over. Well, the Bush/Cheney Administration has a crystal clear pattern and practice of using 16 word snippets of fraud to sell war to the American people. I wonder if Condiliar Rice will blithely laugh off the new "16 Word" fraud as overblown nonsense the way she did the original "16 Word" scandal?


Obama Counsel to Mukasey: Sic Your Special Prosecutor on the Republicans

The Obama campaign general counsel, Bob Bauer, has demanded that Michael Mukasey expand the scope of Special Prosecutor Nora Dannehy’s investigation to include Republican claims of voter fraud in this election.

As a reminder, Dannehy was appointed to investigate the US Attorney firings. Arguing that Republicans’ bogus claims of "vote fraud" are the same kind of misconduct as firing a bunch of US Attorneys in 2006 was, Bauer says Dannehy should include current Republican activities in her investigation.

The Dannehy investigation concerns, most fundamentally, abuse of the law enforcement process to advance, in the name of combating "voting fraud", a partisan political agenda. The appointment of a Special Prosecutor was required because the Department’s leadership was the focus of the investigation and unable to credibly undertake an independent, professional and credible inquiry.

Now, on the emerging evidence of recent conduct undertaken by Bush Administration officials, Republican party officials, and representatives of the McCain-Palin campaign, it appears that further misconduct of the same nature, directly relevant to the work of the Special Prosecutor, requires that the scope of the Special Prosecutor’s assignment be expanded.

Accordingly, I request that Special Prosecutor Dannehy’s inquiry incldue a review of any involvement by Justice Department and White House officials in supporting the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee ("RNC")’s systematic development and dissemination of unsupported, spurious allegations of vote fraud. It is highly likely that the very sort of politically motivated conduct identified in the Department’s investigation to date, necessitating the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, is repeating itself, and for the same reason: unwarranted and politically motivated intervention in the upcoming election. 

Shorter Obama campaign: Republicans are already under criminal investigation for this stuff. Don’t let them get away with the same kind of criminal conduct again.

We’re not dealing with 2000 or 2004’s Democratic Party anymore. 


How about DC’s Suburbs?

Sarah Palin has now clarified her insinuation that some parts of America are pro-America parts and some are … not.

We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe" — here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers — "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom. [my emphasis]

I’m curious. Aside from asking Palin where she draws the line–how big does a "small town" get before it gets unpatriotic, I’d like to know. Are DC’s suburbs pro-America?

It seems worth a follow-up, after all, because all those civil servants living in Virginia’s DC suburbs–the ones running our military and our intelligence services and our bureaucracies–they might want to know whether or not the Republicans’ VP candidate believes they’re pro-American or not before they vote. John’s brother Joe McCain has already called them Communists, of course, but perhaps someone could clarify whether the McCain campaign believes that those voters in a must-win swing state are unpatriotic Communists.

A big percentage of Virginia’s voters at least work "in" Washington D.C. I guess Sarah Palin doesn’t want their anti-American vote?


Sugar Momma? Did You Buy John a Lead on Intrade?

Congressional Quarterly confirms something Nate Silver pointed out some time ago. Someone has been trying to game the online market Intrade to make it look like John McCain was winning.

An internal investigation by the popular online market Intrade has revealed that a single investor’s purchases prompted “unusual” price swings that significantly boosted the prediction that Sen. John McCain will become president.

Over the past several weeks, the investor has pushed hundreds of thousands of dollars into one of Intrade’s predictive markets for the presidential election, the company said, resulting in repeated monetary losses through a strategy that belies any financial motive.

“The trading that caused the unusual price movements and discrepancies was principally due to a single ‘institutional’ member on Intrade,” said the company’s chief executive, John Delaney, in a statement released Thursday. “We have been in contact with the firm on a number of occasions. I have spoken to those involved personally.”

After an extensive investigation into the suspicious trading patterns, Intrade found no wrongdoing or violation of its exchange rules, the company said. [my emphasis]

CQ goes on at some length to explain what a stupid "investor" this person was and how much money she (or he) wasted telegraphing to other investors when she (or he) would be dumping large sums into the market and paying extra because she (or he) invested exclusively in this market. Whoever was doing the market manipulation, CQ concluded, had to be trying to influence appearances, not make a buck.

So who would dump money on a transparent (well, at least to Nate Silver) attempt to make John McCain look more successful than he was?

Honestly, there’s absolutely no reason to think it really was McCain’s Sugar Momma buying off the market. This person is, for the moment at least, just an anonymous someone willing to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into make the failing McCain campaign look better. Though Intrade completely discredits itself as a market by refusing to state whether McCain’s fan was associated with his campaign.

Citing privacy policies, Delaney would not elaborate on who the investor was or whether or not that investor was affiliated in any way with a political campaign. [my emphasis]

But just so you know, Intrade still wants you to believe that they’re "generally more accurate" than polls.

Intrade. Where all the fashionable trophy wives go to buy their men a lead.

Copyright © 2026 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/page/1126/