note to the common ills community

'recover post' my ass. that's an option blogger has added.

this evening i worked on a post. i go to post and instead of being taken to the publishing process, i am taken to an announcement that blogger will be down for 1 hour for scheduled maintenance.
it was down for more than 1 hour.

i was upset and kept reminding myself that the 'recover post' feature had been added. this was added to help people who got error messages when attempting to post. i log in, i go to create post and see 'recover post.' thank god! my long entry isn't lost after all.

i click on recover post and nothing.

so it's down the tubes and lost.

gina and krista sent out an alert this morning advising people of some 1 who was piggy backing on c.i.'s fame. to do my part, i have entitled this entry 'note to the common ills community' as gina and krista asked. (and have no problem with doing so. let me know anytime you think i can help with something.)

i was in 100% agreement with gina and krista and had discussed my own feelings regarding the 'piggy backing' (which can be boiled down as it's really sad but not surprising that some 1 with few readers would attempt to make a 'name' for themselves off c.i. i'd noted how i'd dealt with that prior and that's why in my response a few weeks earlier i refused to name the piggy backer since it appeared that's what he wanted -- to get a little attention via picking a fight).

i'd also offered my thoughts on the huffington post and steered you to several posts there.
i will note (as c.i. did at the common ills) that rob reiner has a post. and i'll note john conyers jr.'s post because that was my favorite of all the ones up:

After reading this article and the leaked memo, I immediately crafted a letter to the president asking him to respond, and asked all of my House Colleagues -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to join me in signing the letter. So far, 88 Members, but not a single Republican, have joined me in putting truth to power. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this important story.
My own blog includes much additional information on the topic, including an audio of my discussion with Stephanie Miller on Progessive Talk Radio on the subject. It has been covered on the Web by independent sites such as Daily Kos, Raw Story, Brad Blog , Salon, Scoop Independent News, Progressive Democrats of America, and Atrios. Finally, on Thursday, the mainstream media, in the form of Knight Ridder, picked up on the disclosure and my letter. I need your help to encourage others in the media, be they tv, cable, newspapers, and radio to cover this momentous matter.

in the lost post, i'd commented on the memo that congressman conyers is blogging on. instead i'll just link to the sunday times of london and offer your a sample of it. if you're interested, please read it in full:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

this is big news. it's real news. and as c.i. and ava noted sunday, the times, the new york times, just doesn't want to know. (come on, i love fleetwood mac as much as anyone and stevie nicks wrote a great song with 'i don't want to know,' but i expect a newspaper does want to know and does want to inform.) from the common ills:

We'd like to recommend Douglas Jehl's "Tug of War: Intelligence vs. Politics" as worth reading. We can't. While it's true that it has some strong analysis, we've considered the first sentence and what's not in the article. Here's the first sentence:
For more than two years, critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.
Doesn't that sentence beg the reader to believe that the story The Times of London broke last week will be included in the "analysis" of this article. (The Times has labeled this "analysis." We're not mocking Jehl.)
We'll refer you to BuzzFlash's "Impeachment Time: 'Facts Were Fixed'" by Greg Palast:
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.
The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."
For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a " high crime or misdemeanor."
And if this ain't it, nothing is.
The Times (the Times refers to the New York Times) hasn't mentioned The Times of London's reporting and still manages to overlook it this morning. Do you think that they're unaware of it? Don't kid yourself. As with Naomi Klein's story about James Baker (which ran in The Guardian and The Nation), the Times is choosing to ignore what's what.
That is their choice. But the next time Bill Keller wants to hop on his high horse about what a great job the Times does and how mean bloggers pick on it for no reason, he might want to consider the fact that whether the Times puts it in print or not, people are aware of what's being covered and what's not being mentioned.

do me a favor, wally, discuss this in class today. everyone, discuss this with your friends. our press isn't getting this story out so we're going to have to get it out ourselves. we can do that.

wally e-mailed how happy he was that folding star was posting again and i see that there's no entry for today. i'll assume blogger maintenance effected folding star as well but i'll send you to this post at a winding road on harry reid.