Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002285.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002285.php on line 106
October 11, 2005
What's interesting to you?

Who would have guessed that Bolton would have turned out to be such an ass? Ummm...quite a few of us? Heh.

Wondering what charities to donate your aid money to for Pakistan? Over at Cliopatria, Manan Ahmed offers a list.

Jeff Alworth at Low on the Hog is asking, National Coming Out Day. If anyone has been waiting for the right moment....

Over at PressThink, Jay Rosen has a long entry about the NYTimes and Judith Miller. To be honest, I'm still confused by all of that. Miller has a rep for cozying up to government sources, and not just ones on the Right. She must have been producing stories her employer found important over the years, because she's been in the hotseat before and she's still employed.

I guess maybe my brain is still stuck on the question of why she, and not Novak, the guy who actually publishedValerie Plame's name, is under investigation. (I suspect someone explained this to me before and I've forgotten.)

Emergency evacuations plans for pets? Why is Congress going to be addressing that when we can't even get people out of harm's way? Prometheus 6 is right. This is some bullshit right here.

Avedon Carol, always good, has a couple of very interesting posts up right now. Check out Liberals for liberalism especially. (You may have to scroll down.)

Those of you pondering politics and wondering what's wrong with our politics today could do worse than to include some analysis of Republican Dirty Tricks over the last 25 years in your consideration. I intend to read the full article closely myself.

Over at HuffPo (is that the accepted abbreviation for the Huffington Post these days?), David Sirota posts on Making the "Strong," "Tough," & "Macho" Case for Withdrawal.

Today's, "Well, duh winner, unusually enough, is Josh Marshall, at Talking Points. He advances the astonishing theory (also linking to Matt Yglesias) that maybe the invasion of Iraq was doomed from the start and would have been doomed, regardless of who was leading it. Except he argues that if there had been WMD, then maybe we would have been successful. (And, you know, if I had won the lottery, then I'd be rich today, which goes to show how much postulating an alternative reality is worth. Because the odds were stacked heavily against Iraq having any WMD and many people were saying that, before we invaded them.) Or maybe he's not arguing that. I dunno. I don't usually have any trouble following what Mr. Marshall says, but that post confused me.

Alex over at ACSBlog says go here, think about it, and then post a suggestion.

Jerome over at Bad Attitudes reminds us that the "Family Research Council" thinks women would be better of dead than protected against cancer.

Maybe we should all be keeping an eye on Missouri?

(P.S. Why are the Democrats so impotent?)

Posted by AnneZook at 01:50 PM


" He advances the astonishing theory (also linking to Matt Yglesias) that maybe the invasion of Iraq was doomed from the start and would have been doomed, regardless of who was leading it."

I forget if Marshall initially supported the invasion. Those of us who did are left to wonder if it would have gone better with better leadership. I honestly thought Blair was going to play a larger role in shaping post-War Iraq, and I trusted Blair much more than I trusted Bush. Still do.

Posted by: Lawrence Krubner at October 12, 2005 02:12 PM

I think Marshall supported is...conditionally.

(Those of us who never supported it at all would like those of you who supported it to understand that there was almost no conceivable way it would have turned out any differently. Marginally better in some ways, with more competent, more honest leadership, yes, but more competent, more honest leadership would have invaded a tiny, nonagressive country even if it was making rude faces at us.)

Posted by: Anne at October 13, 2005 10:46 AM