excellent idea and extremely useful in national discourse.
i'll be patient
how about starting with a specific example, minus the time consuming documentation, of each of your categories. as listed above they are abstract (appropriately enough).
Posted by orionATL at November 15, 2005 07:32 AMman, do you ever sleep? thanks for all the good work.
Posted by benjoya at November 15, 2005 07:38 AMBe a service to the USA if you put your results (plus interim work) on Wikipedia .....
And I think many agree with you that Roberts will not pursue Phase II .....
Posted by CuriosityKilledTheCat at November 15, 2005 08:03 AMIt would also be a good idea to present examples of what Bush had in his intelligence reports and how they were altered when they appeared in reports to Congress. This is subsumed under Categories E & F which refer to "unclassified", but there were alterations in the intel reports to Congress which still may have been classified at the time, but have now become available to the public.
Posted by halfcreek at November 15, 2005 08:58 AMBe a service to the USA if you put your results (plus interim work) on Wikipedia .....
While a noble idea, Wikipedia has been found by the vocal right-wing, and they aggressively challenge and rewrite articles they don't like on a regular basis. I'm afraid the eRiposte would spend all of his time (where the F do you get it from?) fighting those battles to keep the information intact and not researching as much as he does.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 15, 2005 09:04 AMRe: Wiki
The wiki ides sounds like a good one in many ways so more people can become aware of and have access to eriposte's outstanding work.
A possible workaround to the right-wing editor problem:
Would it work if the section was set up to say that "this is what the eriposte wrote" rather than being just the info itself? Nobody could reasonably argue with whether eriposte did or did not write these things. Since eriposte has now been referenced by La Repubblica (international recognition of the work), it would seem reasonable to start a wiki section on eriposte's writings, wouldn't it?
How could the right wing argue with the veracity of the fact that eriposte did write these things?
It's a great idea, one that I've thought about doing myself but didn't due to lack of brainpower.
I'd drop the Wikipedia idea, but the wiki format would be perfect for a project like this, as it's easy to format and cross-reference. There are free, easy-to-use services available like http://pbwiki.com/
Josh Marshall is undertaking a similar project. Centralizing this effort would make sense.
Posted by halfcreek at November 15, 2005 12:04 PMCATEGORY N: Using payola when necessary, engagin the Times as newspaper of the record for public disinformation campaigns.
Posted by at November 15, 2005 05:34 PMCategory O, abbrev of OMG:
Using the same tactics to rush
us into war with Iran.
You may like to look at the Australian parliament's report Intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It's obviously much less well-known than the Butler report but it's worth reading,
Posted by Alan at November 16, 2005 04:34 AMAlan, thanks for the link.
Posted by eriposte at November 16, 2005 06:10 AM