The British paper The Guardian Weekly has launched Operation Clark County. No, they do not mean our friends across the Columbia river. They mean Clark County, Ohio.

According to The Guardian:

You may not have heard of it, but it’s one of the most marginal areas in one of the most marginal states: at the last election, just 324 votes separated Democrats from Republicans. It’s a place where a change of mind among just a few voters could make a real difference.

I’m assuming that by “marginal,” what The Guardian means is “close.” “This is a place,” says The Guardian where a few votes could make a difference.

Operation Clark County pairs a Guardian reader with a Clark County voter. Entering an e-mail address in the provided registration box returns the name and address of someone in Ohio. The Guardian explains:

Writing to a Clark County voter is a chance to explain how US policies effect you personally, and the rest of the world more generally, and who you hope they will send to the White House. It may even persuade someone to use their vote at all. […] Of course, who you urge your voter to support is entirely up to you.

Helpful hints are provided, such as be courteous and charming, don’t make assumptions, explain why you are writing, etc. The Guardian promises to publish a selection of the most persuasive letters on October 20th.

And, although the reader is not advised which candidate to suggest, sample letters from British luminaries leave little doubt:

As the bumper stickers put it, “Re-defeat Bush”. But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother’s friends in Florida nor his father’s friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans – there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world – please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don’t let us down.

It’s always interesting how others see us.

The Transportation Safety Administration, the government agency in charge of airport security, spent nearly a half-million dollars on an awards ceremony at a lavish hotel to pat themselves on the back. Among the expenditures:

The event planning company, MarCom Group Inc. of Fairfax, Va., was paid $85,552 for its work and given an additional $81,767 for plaques, $5,196 for official photographs, $1,486 for three balloon arches and $1,509 for signs.

The reception included finger food, coffee and cake that averaged $33 per person. Seven cakes cost a total of $1,850; three cheese displays, $1,500.

[…] Awards were presented to 543 Transportation Security Administration employees and 30 organizations, including a “lifetime achievement award” for one worker with the 2-year-old agency. Almost $200,000 was spent on travel and lodging for attendees.

Sounds like a nice little party. But that wasn’t enough for the poobahs in the TSA! They apparently thought that more was owed to them that just a lavish bash:

The investigation by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general, Clark Kent Ervin, also found the TSA gave its senior executives bonuses averaging $16,000, higher than at any other federal government agency, and failed to provide adequate justification in more than a third of the 88 cases examined.

[…] Federal agencies on average gave cash awards to 49 percent of their executives in 2002, while 76 percent of TSA executives received them in 2003.

The inspector general reviewed 88 employees’ files and found that 38 percent “had no individual recommendation and justification for the performance award.”

“The legitimacy of such large awards is called into question by the lack of an appropriate selection process and the reliance on boilerplate justifications that could be applicable to anyone,” the report said.

The report also noted that fewer than 3 percent of nonexecutive employees received bonuses in 2003.

I guess the moral of that story is that it doesn’t pay to be a worker-bee in the TSA.

But what this taxpayer is really pondering is… how does this make us safer?

The New York Times reports today on the hue and cry in the blogosphere regarding the mysterious bulge in Bush’s jacket during the first debate.

First they [campaign and White House officials] said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.

And Bush accuses Kerry of being wishy-washy!

“There was nothing under his suit jacket,” said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.

“It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric.”

Ms. Devenish could not say why the “rumpling” was rectangular.

Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.

So the question remains… Was there a bit of Milli-Vanilli action going on during the first debate? Or not? And if not, what was that bulge?

Check out this picture.

Apparently Bush had a radio receiver fastened to his back during the first debate so he could receive messages (see the bulge marked by the arrow). Perhaps this is why his campaign insisted on a “no camera shots from the back” rule? Perhaps this is why sometimes he stumbled over his words? I know he does that anyway, but it seemed worse than usual.

It will be interesting to see how tonight’s debate goes. Since the candidates can get up and walk around the stage, it will be harder to hide a receiver.

I notice that the Electoral Vote Predictor in the side blog is projecting Kerry-280/Bush-239. This is the first time for a long time that Kerry has had enough electoral votes to win. I think it’s still a pretty tight horse race. Tonight’s debate is important to both candidates.

I’ve been meaning to blog about why keeping the electoral college is important. Maybe I will this afternoon if I feel better.

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year’s U.S.-led invasion, the chief U.S. weapons inspector said on Wednesday, in findings contrary to prewar assertions of the Bush administration.

[…] “The analysis shows that despite Saddam’s expressed desire to retain the knowledge of his nuclear team, and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program, during the course of the following 12 years (after 1991) Iraq’s ability to produce a weapon decayed,” Duelfer said.

Some chemical weapons were uncovered in postwar Iraq but they all predated the 1991 Gulf War, Duelfer said. His report said Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 and there was no evidence that it resumed production.

[…] On what has been a contentious issue, Duelfer’s report said there was no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991.

[…] A shipment of aluminum tubes seized in 2001 had been cited by U.S. officials as key evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. However, Duelfer said, “those tubes were most likely destined for a rocket program.”

The WMD hunt uncovered labs run by Iraqi intelligence that showed production of small amounts of poisons, including ricin — but for use in assassinations, not military weapons.

The Duelfer report, which includes assessments based on FBI interrogations of Saddam, said the former Iraqi leader intended to rebuild his weapons capabilities once U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Saddam saw Iran as the primary threat, followed by Israel, the report said.

Do we all get it now? There were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. None. Zero. Since 1992, the weapons programs in Iraq had decayed, despite Saddam Hussein’s interest in keeping it alive.

So, tell me again why we’ve gotten involved in this war? Said President Bush in a speech to the party faithful in Pennsylvania today:

“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks,” Bush said. “In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” he said.

Hmmm… a little fancy tap-dancing, there?

But, regardless of the numerous acts of prevarication coming from the White House, the fact remains that Dubya just doesn’t get it. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US. He may have been somebody to keep an eye on and address in the future. But attacking Iraq took the focus off of Afganistan. And that, in turn, led to the escape of Osama bin Laden. And that has led to the regrouping and spread of al Qaeda more than Saddam could have.

It’s too bad that Dubya got out of serving in Viet Nam. If he’d actually had to fly a plane into battle, he may have had a different take on why war should be the last resort, not the first. Of course, as we all know from the first debate, this Presidentin’ stuff is hard work. Maybe just a bit beyond you, Mr. President?

Iraq — this generation’s Viet Nam. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

This was yesterday:

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

This was a few hours later, in a new statement, published on a Pentagon web site:

A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA’s understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

Today at the Council, I even noted that “when I’m in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say ‘I don’t know, because I’m not in that business, but I’ll tell you what the CIA thinks,’ and I read it.”

Rumsfeld goes on to cite various evidence from the CIA that links Iraq with al Qaeda.

So which is it Donald?

This must be tough on Dubya. Various of his administration keep telling the truth, only to have to retract the story later in order to fit the party line.