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.

Kerry’s debate experience showed last night. If only he had more than one expression. I kept wondering how much botox, exactly, has come his way.

On the other hand, Bush looked, as my coffee lady Kathy put it, “like a baby with a bad case of gas.”

Seriously, though, I did think that Kerry came out ahead. Kerry came out slugging and kept the pressure on while still managing to respond to accusations of indecisiveness. Bush started out strong, but by the end of the first 30 minutes he was starting to stumble over his words and kept repeating the same scripted responses. There were times when he appeared to competely lose his train of thought.

Kerry had the best zinger of the night:

You can be decisive and still be wrong

He went on to say that, if you are wrong, you need to own that and correct your course. This is a point that Bush does not seem to understand.

I did think that Kerry missed an opportunity at one point late in the debate. Both candidates were asked to clarify if they agreed on the dangers of nuclear proliferation. Bush responded, “In the hands of terrorists.” I thought that Kerry’s response would have been stronger had he pointed out that this is a fundamental difference between he and Bush, as Kerry does not limit the danger to only terrorists.

In other news, John Eisenhower has changed his registration from Republican to Independent and will vote for Kerry. Eisenhower, the son of Dwight D. and a lifelong Republican, says that, rather than his own views changing, the GOP has left its own values behind. The article is an interesting read!

During the 2002-2003 school year, there were 16 school-associated violent deaths of students in the United States. This included 3 shootings, 6 suicides, 2 murder-suicides, 4 stabbings and 1 “other.” Granted that this is 16 too many, it still translates into less than one violent death per 1,000,000 students enrolled, or 0.0001%. Kids ages 5 to 19 are at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than in school. I’m not trying to discount these deaths. If it were my kid I’d be devastated, and my heart goes out to the families and friends of those that died. But the fact remains that I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than of having my kid die from violent crime at school.

Hudson, Mass., population 18,000 or so, is a quiet, predominantly white, relatively affluent community about 30 miles from Boston. Hudson bills itself as an, “unpretentious community with a strong sense of tradition, a tolerance for differences and a willingness to embrace change.” There are about 3025 students enrolled in Hudson’s 6 public and 3 private schools. The city-data.com crime index for this period is low — 66.9 vs. the US average of 330.6. In 2002, there were 255 total reported crimes in Hudson, of which 3 were assaults. There were no murders in Hudson, in school or out, in 2002. Zero. Nil. Goose egg. Nor were there any in 2001.

What does the second paragraph have to do with the first? This from an AP news article on Yahoo:

Election Booths in Schools Draw Concern

Tue Sep 28,10:23 AM ET Elections – AP

HUDSON, Mass. – Dozens of parents have signed a petition asking town officials to remove election booths from schools out of concern for terrorism.

Say what?!? Parents in Hudson are that afraid that terrorists are going to strike the small schools in their sleepy little town? Why?

Sally Morgan cited the potential for terrorists to try to disrupt the Nov. 2 presidential election, as well as the school hostage crisis in Russia earlier this month in a petition sent to the town’s Board of Selectmen.

Ah! I get it! Half a world away in the midst of a brutal, decade-long revolution, a school hostage crisis ended in a bloody battle between Chechen freedom fighters and Russian commandos. That’s sure to be repeated in Hudson! And because Dubya wants us to be afraid, in the vain hope that fright will (1)encourage us to vote for him and (2) keep the focus away from the real issues.

Somehow I think that Sally’s logic may be a little flawed. But Sally isn’t alone:

The petition, signed by 125 parents, asks town officials to move polling places to more secure locations such as the town library, fire stations and churches.

Is a church or library really more secure than a school? That makes me wonder a bit about Hudson’s priorities. Let’s keep our books and altars secure. Damn the kids! ???

Selectman Joseph J. Durant argued that pulling the election booths would rob students of an opportunity to see how democracy works. He also denied a threat to children exists.

“I think when fear and insecurity is introduced into Americans’ everyday lives in something as simple and fundamental as this, it is a sad state of affairs,” he said.

I have to agree with Durant on this. We should not be living in fear. We should not be teaching our children to live in fear. There isn’t a bogeyman behind every bush. There isn’t a terrorist stalking every school. Chances are very small that we will be blown up at our polling places as we vote. Chances are vanishingly small that doing so would interrupt the election enough to change the outcome. The citizens of Hudson are pretty darn safe.

Morgan has also taken her concerns to the town’s School Committee, which has reviewed voting day security at the schools.

Maybe that will calm Sally down a bit. If not, I have a lottery ticket to sell her.

The Americal Library Association’s Banned Book Week starts on 09/25. This week emphasizes the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.

Celebrate your freedom to read by reading a book from the Independent Booksellers Book Sense Picks of 10 recommended banned books for 2004, the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 2003, or the Top 100 Challenged Books of 1990-1999.

I’m happy to note that I’ve read 5 of the 10 Book Sense Picks, 5 of the Top 10 of 2003 and a goodly number of the Top 100. Now I just have to read my way through the rest!

In honor of Banned Book Week, I’m having the Listen/Read/Watch section rotate through the Book Sense Picks and the Top 10 of 2003.