Jump to content

Talk:Plame affair/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

new tag

I've added the NPOV tag since the article is being edited by people who refuse to log in and refuse to explain their edits other than to claim they are more "accurate." The objectionable area is the first sentence, which the anon (who appears to be 2 or perhaps 3 different anon editors but is likely 3 sock- or meat-puppets working together) changed to read "The Plame affair (also called the Plame CIA leak controversy) refers to the controversy which originally stemmed from allegations that one or more White House officials improperly revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment status." The consensus version of the page had the sentence "The Plame affair (also called the Plame CIA leak controversy) refers to a controversy stemming from allegations that White House officials leaked Valerie Plame Wilson’s status as a CIA operative." The latter sentence is more accurate as it points out that the allegations were not that they "improperly revealed" her "employment status" but rather that they improperly leaked that she was a covert operative. There are many people employed by the CIA who are not covert; the reason the Valerie Wilson leak is a problem was that she was working undercover. Her status was classified. To change this is to shift the POV to the Republican talking point that Plame was "not covert" -- yet all the evidence is clear that she was, and Fitzgerald has said she was. The leak, of course, immensely compromised US national security, which is why this is an issue in the first place. This is a significant POV problem for the page.--csloat 07:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect csloat, her status was ambiguous at the time of the alleged leak. We have gone through this time over time. You cite some article where literally unnamed sources from the "CIA" claim she was undercover. Others point to the fact, among many other things, that even if she were top secret undercover, she should not have been driving to the CIA every day if her affiliation with that organization was so secret that if revealed it would compromise national security. You have your say, others have theirs. The point is is that that your point of view is not an accepted "fact" of the Plame controversy. It is only one side of the controversy. Yet you continue to insist on editing this page from only your point of view and demand, often with bad language, that others do the same.
You are absolutely free to beleive what you want. But your beleif does not define the "Plame Affair". It is time to let go, and to recognize that the "Plame Affair" is more than what you think it is. It is bigger than you. Stand back and remove yourself and your politics from the page. Only then will you realize that the "Plame Affair" is really the confluence of two streams of thought converging to create a third stream. Focus on that third stream. Not on the one you believe. Evensong 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We have been through it over time, as has the Prosecutor, and of course the CIA. There would be no investigation if she was not under cover. The prosecutor said her status was "classified"; is it ok with you if the article says that word, if you don't like "undercover"? The crap about whether she should drive to work is totally irrelevant here -- the issue is that she was considered undercover by the CIA. They are the only ones in a position to say. If you think her cover was weak, take it up with General Hayden, not me, and not Wikipedia. The article should not present only Evensong's side of the story. The rest of your post is a weird personal attack; I'm not sure how to respond to that. Have a nice day.--csloat 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the reasonably clear, undisputed facts: a) Sometime prior to the Novak article (at least several years), Plame worked overseas in a CIA capacity, the discolsure of which, intentionally, would likely have been a crime, BUT, b) at the time of the disclosures against Plame, enough time had lapsed, that it was NO LONGER a crime to reveal her status publicy. This is why C) Novak was not charged with a crime - his public revelations about Plame were not criminal. For this reason, d) We are not to impute ANYTHING into the article from our own logic about Plame's status. But what we now know is that IT WAS NOT criminal - the disclosure of her status. Semantics aside, we need to stop bickering here. "Covert", "Classified", "Undercover" - all of these terms are disputed and POV and they are certainly all in dispute in the public sphere. so Fitzgerald says "classified"? Well you can bet your bottom $ that Libby's attornies dispute that assertion. And even so - Fitzgerald has NOT charged ANYONE which "leaking" - whether of "classified" or other information. Please lay off the sensationalism. We need a conflct free, neutral introduction. This is why I agree with:

The Plame affair (also called the Plame CIA leak controversy) refers to the controversy which originally stemmed from allegations that one or more White House officials improperly revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment status.

Also, I'd like to say that I feel CS's behavior has been very poor. His swearing and his false accusations of sock/meat puppetry and trolling (as in "Look, I really don't give a shit who you are or who your anonymous friends are" and "makes it clear you and your friends are trolling") are needlessly provacative and I feel, only engender unproductive hostility.

87.118.100.99 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "facts" are not "undisputed"; in fact, they are disputed. (a) - it has been stated by CIA officials that plame was working undercover on WMD issues at the time of her outing. (b) it has been stated by some that Plame had travelled out of the country within the 5 years before her outing and thus was in fact still covered by the IIPA (c) Novak was not charged because he is not the federal official who leaked the information (d) I agree we should not be putting our POV in about Plame's status. But we do not know that it was not criminal - in fact many people argue it was. (e) Libby's attorney's have not, to my knowledge, disputed the classified nature of Plame's employment status, though they have argued that she was not covered under the IIPA. (But of course, it is their job to defend their client). (f) yes Fitz has not charged anyone with leaking, but he has not said why that is the case, and it is premature at best to impute "facts" based on this. As you know, many crimes are committed that do not lead to charges when the evidence is not available. Your "conflict free neutral" introduction is problematic because it states that the controversy arose from something that is not controversial. It was controversial because Plame was undercover and because her outing compromised national security. A large number of current and former CIA officials were absolutely outraged at the leak. Former lifelong republicans turned against the Bush Administration, some of them vehemently so, as a result of the leak. That is why it was "controversial." If a government official had revealed Paul Pillar's CIA employment status there would be no "controversy." There was "controversy" because her status was "classified." Finally, your comments on my behavior are out of line. I was reacting to you and your anonymous friend's behavior, and if you are not the same person, you should log in so that we can see that. As I said, the only reason for not logging in when you are going to post this much is to create confusion about who is posting, which is why I find your behavior trollish. If you are not a troll, then please log in so we can distinguish you from others. You don't have to use your real name nor do you have to "improperly reveal your employment status." My apologies for any hostility engendered by my comments; but I was responding to your own provocations (or those of your friend).--csloat 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your E is disputed. By Libby's attorneys. But Fitz refuses to disclose that exculpatory information to them. Have you been following this case? Evensong 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes; my "E" made the distinction between "classified" and "covert" as per the IIPA, which uses a specific definition (i.e., including the travel outside the country). You're correct that Fitz has resisted Libby's attorney's well-known greymail strategy, for good reason. The leak has already compromised national security enough without compounding the problem by releasing every PDB for the past five years or whatever.--csloat 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"As I said, the only reason for not logging in when you are going to post this much is to create confusion about who is posting, which is why I find your behavior trollish." Just for your information (this is the other anonymous poster, by the way), there is another reason for not logging in. When I first posted here, I did not realize that you could make a login, which is why I posted anonymously. But at this point, I am continuing to post anonymously to make a point, which is that my arguments are valid, whether I post anonymously or under a username as non-cryptic as “MagnoliaFan2112.” Frankly, I am tired of the responses to my posts where someone makes a few points, I refute them with facts, and then the person avoids a response by saying, “Why should I respond anyway?? Anon is inherently unreliable!” It seems like a nice way to dodge a valid point, and I’m not going to pander to that by creating a login (which will just result in another dodge for some other reason). And by the way, Rewinn’s response of “Stop trolling, and just move this discussion to my talk page” is just another example of this kind of dodge. I guess he’ll never back up his airtight “That’s just silly” defense.--17.228.23.143 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
yes of course, I should have said the only reason to continue posting anonymously is to add to confusion and be trollish; obviously, at the beginning, most everyone posts anonymously for a bit. But you (and/or the other anon) have been aggressive enough on this page that a login would be helpful. I am not arguing that anon is inherently unreliable, only that it causes confusion with other anons, and makes it very difficult to keep track of who is arguing what. Instead of whining about who is dodging whose arguments, why not focus only on those arguments that improve the page content. You are not going to convince me or Rewinn that you are right, but if you want to, he has invited you to his talk page to continue the conversation. I have offered no such invitation because I am tired of fruitless discussions like that. I'm interested in a page that is accurate and npov as possible. As you can see earlier when you, or another anon, finally stopped arguing with me and put the quotes on the page that she/he/you wanted to put there, I did not cause trouble. You (or the other anon) may not like my attitude toward your arguments, but don't take it personally; it is your arguments I am attacking not you (or him or her or whoever). (Hopefully my parenthetical comments will convince you of the value of logging in here too - it is not an attempt to attack you but an invitation to be a member of this community).--csloat 01:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Evensong's POV edits

Well I just looked over Evensong's latest edits and, true to form, he has managed to create even more POV problems than we had before. Nice work. Adding two weasel words - "allegedly" and "supposed" - to the same sentence does wonders for readability. The inclusion of "thinly veiled" before "cover" is an absurd way to bias the article from the beginning - that info is already available later in the article, and it is irrelevant to the point in that paragraph, since the controversy started not because of whether her cover was thin or "thick" (about which there is plenty of debate), but rather over the fact that it was leaked at all. Phelps' denial was removed without cause, and Evensong even went so far as to act as an unpaid (presumably) spokesperson for Karl Rove, changing "Rove and his attorney do not dispute" to "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed" -- where did they "indirectly" dispute this? They either did or they didn't, and presumably they don't need Evensong to cover for them if they want something disputed. Anyway, I think this article has enough problems as it is, there is no need to create more with these weasely POV-shifts.--csloat 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Csloat. I am "one of them"!!! This is important stuff. Keep raving. Evensong 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said that. Since you ignore the substance of my points, I assume you agree that a revert is in order? Thanks.--csloat 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
List your points. Otherwise, all I see is a tantrum. Evensong 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you aren't reading very carefully. My points are above. Thanks.--csloat 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
List them please. Evensong 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I did.--csloat 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Not you did not. You blended your points with argument, and it is not up to me to separate the two if you want me to address them. List them if you want me to address them. This is the third request. Evensong 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, if you can't read, I'm really not sure what good "listing" them would do. The arguments are right up above for you to read. Good day.--csloat 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What are your points? Evensong 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
They are the points right above in the first paragraph in this section.--csloat 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are not points. That is argument blended with points. List your points, please. Evensong 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
His points are pretty clear. Read sentences 3-5 of his original comment. --waffle iron talk 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
List them. Evensong 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Man, I wish someone would make a cliff notes version of this talk page. All those damned words. --sigmafactor 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He calls me out with a pov call but he can't cite a real charge. Hey mate. Give me a list. I will answer. Evensong 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I did. You didn't.--csloat 05:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
List the charges. Evensong 05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of "weasely POV-shifts" cited by csloat above:

  1. Adding two weasel words - "allegedly" and "supposed" - to the same sentence does wonders for readability.
Sarcasm clouds his point. Also, he does not explain how these words, as used, were weasel words. Some things are "alleged" and should be labeled as such. Plame's status as a covert agent is, in fact, unknown. I added the word "alleged" to show that it is unknown. Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So how about "supposed"? One weasel word is more than enough and you are defeating readability.-csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The inclusion of "thinly veiled" before "cover" is an absurd way to bias the article from the beginning - that info is already available later in the article, and it is irrelevant to the point in that paragraph, since the controversy started not because of whether her cover was thin or "thick" (about which there is plenty of debate), but rather over the fact that it was leaked at all.
I provided relevant documentation that Brewster Jennings as a cover was thin. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/. Cslaot deleted it. There is nothing absurd about showing, with documentation, the degree of cover Brewster Jennings provided, particularly where that cover is being discussed on the page. Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That info is already in the article, and the fact is in that place it does not belong. The controversy does not rely on her "thinly veiled" cover; it relies on the status of her cover. The "thinly veiled" part is debatable and your change pre-judges the debate. There is no need for this information to appear a second time in the article.-csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Phelps' denial was removed without cause.
I Explained the cause for the removal. It was a long parenthetical statement awkwardly placed in the middle of a sentence. I also noted that it should be included elsewhere. There was a cause to remove it. Csloat may not like the cause, but that is not the same as "no cause". Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No; that is a cause to place it elsewhere, not a cause to remove it. I'm replacing it, and you can move it if you like but do not remove it.--csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Editor is acting as an unpaid (presumably) spokesperson for Karl Rove, changing "Rove and his attorney do not dispute" to "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed" -- where did they "indirectly" dispute this?
The insinuation that I am some sort of paid political operative of Rove is a personal attack, and stinks. I changed the wording in an attempt to avoid the fallacy of the unarticulated premise. For example, if I leveled the charge that csloat was beating his wife, then noted that he has not disputed this charge (which he has not), I have created a controversy where none existed before. Similarly, the way the page is written, a charge was leveled against Rove, out of the blue, and his lack of a response was used to enhance the credibility of that charge. However, since Rove has never been directly confronted with that charge, there is no reason for him to directly confront it. Hence the the phrase, "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed" the charge. Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The insinuation was a joke, but it was based on something real - the fact that you are making arguments for Rove's legal team that even they refuse to make. The charge is not leveled against Rove "out of the blue", which would be WP:NOR; it is leveled against him in an article that he and his lawyers have not disputed. To claim that Rove has not been "directly confronted" with the article is not something you could know. I find it unlikely that Rove and his lawyers are unaware of the publication known as TIME Magazine or this particular article. Your phrase, "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed the charge" implies that they have indirectly disputed it somewhere. Where would that be?--csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
These are minor changes but the overall effect is a not so subtle POV shift, in an article that already has severe POV problems as it is. I will leave in one of the weasel words in #1 above but the rest is going back.-csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

-- courtesy of 208.197.165.72 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made some compromises rather than reverting as there is merit to some of Evensong's claims above; in particular, rather than "Rove does not dispute" I have said "has not disputed" and I have left in one but not both of the weasel words on Plame's cover. As for Brewster Jennings, that cite is already in the article twice so please do not accuse me of censoring it because I am deleting this third instance of it. Thanks.-csloat 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

HEY 87.118.100.99

Look, dude, it's not that I think your edit is that big a deal (though it is destructive of readability without a consequent substantive benefit), but can you please explain it? When most of us non-anon editors make changes to this page, we at least have the courtesy to place a short explanation of the change in the edit summary box. If you take this simple step you may find that your edits last longer. You'll also find that if you log in, people will take your edits more seriously. Thanks.--csloat 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Csloat, hey man. I think we get along ok, so I hope you take this as just a little constructive criticism based on a pet peeve of mine. I totally agree that the anon would be better served putting in an edit summary explaining his changes. He/she really should do so. But on to my pet peeve...I -really- hate that anon's don't get much respect. I understand all the reasons for it, many are valid. But I think most of us were anon's at one point, and I at least was semi-bullied into getting an account due to reverts just because I was anon. Again, you are a great editor and a great contributor, so I hope this didn't come across wrong. Talk to you soon. Arkon 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries, and I apologize if I seem to be dissing people just for being anonymous. My problem is simply one of confusion. We have two, maybe three, anon editors who showed up at the same time, aggressively arguing the same point, and making changes without explanations. If 87.whatever wants to be anon, that is his/her right, but he/she has to realize it makes it hard to distinguish him/her from 71.whatever and whoever else. Even if the anon signed a pseudonym without actually logging in, things would be better. And there really is no privacy argument for staying anon, since an IP address is arguably a lot less private than a pseudonym. Anyway, I'll shut up about it, but I do hope these anon editors will see the value in logging in or at least distinguishing their contributions from one another in some easily recognizable way. But more importantly, I hope he or she or they will start using edit summaries to explain his or her or their changes. Again, to all the anons, sorry if I offended you.--csloat 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Answers like this are why I respect you. Have a great weekend. Arkon 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and I appreciate you saying so. You too!--csloat 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest unexplained anon edits

The ones I read were accurate. The leak wasn't "Joe Wilson's wife is a secret agent or covert operative" the leak was "Joe Wilson's wife works for CIA." This was classified at the time. I think that is accurate to reflect that her employment was leaked, not her status. I also removed some weasel words and some unneccesary rebuttal in multiple paragraphs. It is not necessary to say "alleged" after saying "indicted." A person is "indicted for perjury" not "indicted for alleged perjury." "Indicted" means the same thing as "alleged" and it is not correct to use both terms.--Tbeatty 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I like almost all of your changes; your change to the first sentence in particular strikes me as more reasonable than either my version or the anon's version. I notice you deleted this sentence however: "However, Cheney's office has since admitted that the trip was the result of a Vice Presidential inquiry." My understanding is that that is quite accurate. Do you have other information? Thanks.csloat 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is accurate that Cheney asked CIA to investigate the Niger claim. It's also in the previous paragraph. I thought it was unnecessary to have the same rebuttal arguments in both paragraphs. It might make more sense to try and separate out the Wilson/Cheney views into separate paragraphs completely so that tit-for-tat rebuttals don't keep compounding in the same sentence. I was trying to avoid the "Cheney says this but Wilson says this however Cheney replied but Wilson countered after Cheney alleged...". I will try to separate more and avoid redundancy and in-paragraph arguments. Any sentence that startes with "however" is probably bad. Generally, "however" can just be deleted. Once that is done, it makes some of the statements seem redundant. --Tbeatty 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The ever-recurring covert debate, again... latest anon edits and my changes

I've added a link where the anon had used a fact tag; this appears to be the only official correspondence from CIA that has been made public on this matter (though more avid Plameoholics than me should correct me on this matter if I am wrong). It is known that before this letter the CIA officially contacted the Justice Dept to ask for the investigation, so there is probably a more detailed letter somewhere to them. But it is clear that this letter notes Plame was "operating under cover" and that the CIA wanted DOJ to look into "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." The CIA does not send letters like this out without cause; it is clear that they would not have asked for an investigation if Plame was not a covert agent. All the talk of how "deep" her cover was and of whether she drove to work is beside the point. The fact was, an agent is "under cover" if the CIA says the agent is "under cover." We can dispute the CIA's competence in maintaining that cover or discuss whether agents should drive to work or go through some secret underground tunnel or something all day long, but that does not change the fact that her status at the Agency was covert or classified. We had this debate on these pages (look over the archived discussion) some time ago, and was eventually agreed by a consensus participants that her status was indeed classified and that the CIA considered her to be operating undercover. There was still dispute over whether it was "covert" under the definition established in the IIPA, but that is a different issue that is taken up elsewhere in the article. This dispute has been blown out of proportion by Republican talking points which keep coming back to the irrelevant issues - she drove her car to work (like most covert agents who have a desk at the CIA), her husband bragged about his CIA wife (doubtful, but also irrelevant to the case, as he never published these alleged boasts), her cover was thin, she didn;t leave the country, etc. The bottom line is that the only person or persons in a position to say whether or not she was under cover is her employer, and they have clearly indicated that she was. We also have published reports of acting intelligence officials talking to the press confirming that she was a covert agent and was in fact operating under non-official cover status. (See, for example this article). Fitzgerald has also indicated that Plame's "cover was blown" on the day Novak published his article.--csloat 01:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty plain that she had NOC or "non-official cover". I don't think she would have qualified under the law as "covert agent" for disclosing under IIPA. That is a higher standard than the simple release of classified information. So I think there are two standards at play here: one being the release of classified information and clearly Plames employment with CIA was classified. The second standard is whether Plame met the standard for a covert foreign intelligence agent. Clearly she did not. This is the standard that required her to be posted in foreign service in the last five years and all that stuff. Simply disclosing classified information is a crime and I think that's why the CIA didn't say IIPA in it's letter but simply said classified information. The prosecutor has to prove that the "leaker" knew the information was classified and that he was required by oath not to disclose it (i.e. security clearance and this is why Novak would never be charged). Libby certainly had security clearance. It is not clear that he knew her employment status was classified. The fact that he wasn't even charged with the lesser crime of disclosing classified information probably also speaks to any IIPA violations. I don't think any official with the CIA or Justice Department has discussed an IIPA violation, rather it has been speculation by talking heads and the press.
For clarity, it is probably best to say she had "Non-Official Cover" since that is the official definition. "Covert agent" is too loaded with IIPA language to be useful. I don't think it's debatable that she had "Non-official cover" or that her employment status was classified. --Tbeatty 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your edits; I have removed some further speculation from that section. I don't think you're correct that Plame "clearly" did not meet the higher IIPA standard, but that's something that we could debate forever. Without knowing the details of what Plame's assignments were, we don't know whether she travelled overseas in the past five years (and there are at least two reports, and a judge's opinion, that claim she did). But, again, that is neither here nor there -- I agree that "non-official cover" or NOC is a preferable term to use in the article.--csloat 03:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I found two things very strange. One being Wilson confirming that they were overseas 6 years ago but being vague about being overseas more recently. Instead relying on the "crime being committed" which could be just disclosing classified information. The second is the letter to Conyers that doesn't mention IIPA at all and instead simply says unauthorized disclosure of classified information. This is so vague that it could apply to the CIA official who according to Novak confirmed her employment. Wilson/Plame is now suing Rove et al for ruining her future with CIA which all but confirms her employment with CIA. There is no reason for him to remain vague about any postings she may have since the persons who knew her would now know her employment. "Wife of US diplomat" is also not a very good cover anyway. I think Wilson is being purposely vague with language, as all politicians are, as it suits his purpose. The civil suit I think will bring some of this out so we will see. --Tbeatty 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Court documents

Looking around I came across Scooter's grand jury testimony, which pretty much closes the case on the question the anon was debating earlier about whether Cheney was upset by Wilson's article. I'm wondering if we have somewhere a collection of all the court documents and related documents in this case? It would be nice to have that in one place without having to search for an hour every time we're looking for something... If such a list is not on wikipedia, perhaps it should be?--csloat 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

go here. i've tried to keep it updated, but i'm sure it's missing some documents.Anthonymendoza 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Moscowitz to Conyers letter

Three important facts which that letter establishes:

1) The CIA refers to "under cover" status. (And we can safely assume they mean Plame). This ends the debate as to how to refer to how the CIA viewed her status. We chall refer to it as "under cover". We shall not say "covert", "classified", "non-official cover", "secret" or anything of that type.
2) The allegation made by CIA to DOJ for investigation is for "possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified inform". The violation[s] are "possible" based on what CIA reviewed on its own (CIA's word). As for DOJ (which now has purview due to the referral), Fitzgerald can only bring charges, not conclusions, so nothing he says is determinative. The jury is literally still out regarding whether or not any actual laws were broken or violations committed.
3) It may very well be that it was a journalist and not the White House which made a "possible violation of criminal law" as the Moscowitz letter does not specify which "criminal law" is alleged to have been "violated". Clearly, it's possible that a journalist could have violated a criminal law regarding this affair. And truly, when seen against the fact that Cooper, Miller and Novak were all called before the grand jury, it's quite evident that the heat was on them too.

The entire framing of the introduciton has been loaded, biased and too narrowly focused solely on White House. There is nothing in this official CIA letter which says that White House staffers were the sole focus of either the CIA inquiry or will be the sole focus of the DOJ inquiry. The article introduction has been updated to eliminate factual errors, to add verbatim quotes from the Moscowitz letter and to re-frame to eliminate unfounded speculative POV. 87.118.100.99 11:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1)It is illegal for officials to leak this information, not journalists. No journalist has been charged or even investigated to my knowledge.
2)You're splitting hairs; it is clear Plame's status was classified information and that she was undercover; lookup the word covert in a dictionary.
3)If the CIA did not think a crime had been committed, why do you think they asked for this investigation? If the Justice Dept did not think a crime was committed, why do you think they have wasted three years on it?
4)I hope you were as nitpicky about the details of whether a crime had been committed when a President was impeached over lying about a blowjob.--csloat 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please understand and accept that writing this wiki has nothing to do with taking sides in a partisan dispute. I personally have no interest in, nor do I care about issues which relate to how a "President was impeached over lying about a blowjob". However, the fact that you raise that issue here, indicates to me that you have a partisan axe to grind. Even so, because I may be mistaken in that, I am willing to accept that you are just trying to make a point. Now, as for "nitpicky", please don't say things like that. What we are trying to do is introduce a contested topic using language which does not take sides in a partisan battle. From our perspective, though it may seem reasonable to try to infer what CIA or DOJ people may or may not think (or did think at the time), it's not our job to lobby for what we feel is their point of view. Rather, our job is to write accurate information which relies as closely as possible on accurate, reliable sources. Personally, I feel that the direct quotes from the Moscowitz letter is the best way to establish the introduction. An acurate, neutral introduction is best. And, I feel that I have achieved that. Here is my question to you: What textual changes, sentence by sentence, would you propose to make so as to achieve a more accurate or more neutral introduction? Please post them here and we can discuss them. 87.118.100.99 07:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a bit surly regarding the Clinton thing; your statement above is probably the most reasonable thing I've seen you (or whatever other anons have been participating in this conversation) say on this topic, and I wish you had addressed the issue like this to begin with, rather than deleting things in the intro without explaining it and trying to provoke revert wars. I do think your intro is unnecessarily detailed; the information about who Stanley Moscowitz is and what he specifically said can be later in the article, but he is hardly one of the central figures in the "Plame affair." But I don't have a big problem with the current intro if others don't; I agree it is more accurate. I also think the difference between "covert" and "undercover" and "classified" is being blown out of proportion. The only difference worth noting here is that "covert" as per the IIPA has a very specific definition that is different from its dictionary meaning. However, its general use in intelligence matters is not quite so specific, and the only reason people are being so nitpicky about it in public discourse is because this became a Republican talking point. Which is why I made (perhaps unfair) assumptions about your politics - you were repeating these talking points.--csloat 09:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me and reaching consensus. The Moscowitz letter you found was very helpful because it gave us some text to quote verbatim and thereby avoid loaded words or POV arguments. As for any "talking points" you keep mentioning: Please be assured that I am in no way afilliated with any Republican talking point. I am not on any email lists, etc., nor do I participate in any political blogs or things of that nature. Personally, I feel that you would build more rapport with other editors by avoiding suggestions along those lines. Even so, thank you again. 87.118.100.99 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just some comments: 1. Disclosing classified information is a crime if you have a security clearance. It's one of the reasons journalists don't get security clearances. Also, while it isn't illegal to disclose general classified information without a clearance, it IS illegal to violate IIPA without a clearance. A journalist who does this can be charged and prosecuted. No one in this case has been charged with a IIPA violation and that is telling. 2. Her employment status was classified and she had non-official cover. But using language to make a logical leap is not necessarily correct. Classified employment->non-official cover->covert agent->protected by IIPA is not a logical progression no matter how similar the language is or what the dictionary says. Particulary having non-offical cover does not imply covert agent as it is normally understood and it is not automatically covered by statutes that protect "covert agents". 3. Disclosing her employment status by an official with a security clearance is a crime. That could be as simple as a CIA officer confirming her employment to Robert Novak as Novak testified. It could also be Scooter Libby doing the same thing. The CIA would not move beyond the investigation that classified infomration has been revealed so don't read too much into the referral. CIA continuing to investigate beyond the stage of determining that information was improperly revealed would jeopardize any criminal case so they would immediately refer it to DoJ. That's policy for most government or government-affiliated organizations. No one has been charged with leaking classified information. 4. Just like Clinton, the crime was in the later discovery phase. Libby has been charged with events relating to the investigation. That is probably the extent of the crime and certainly to date, it is the only crime that is being pursued. I don't think that IIPA charges apply, and I think the classified information leak has too high a burden of proof to get Libby or Rove. Also, I don't think it would be conducive to justice to pursue the CIA officer who confirmed Plames employment. --Tbeatty 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Type of controversy

It would be best simply to state that this is a controversy. Not a political controversy or a legal controversy, both of which shape the way you look at it and so are pov; but a controversy. There are many, many dimension to it, not the least of it are the security aspects (leaking under cover identities; destroying an anti-WMD program; the impact on recruting undercover assets.) While I have tried to accomodate the editors who want to get in the words "political" and "legal" by adding the 3rd qualified "security", I think a better 1st sentence would be just to start that it's a controversy ... it's a long, weaselly worded sentence as is. Also cut as unnecessary "originally" "one or more" "improperly" "details pertaining to" and "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)" all of which are explained further in the article. We also don't need "(also called the Plame CIA leak controversy)" because we if we listed all the other things it's been called the article would be near infinite. leaving us with a bland, compact, and uncontroversial:

"The Plame affair refers to a controversy stemming from allegations that White House officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s "under cover" employment status."

"under cover" is a misleading word. Her employment status was classified. I don't think the original sentence had weasel words in it. I prefer the original sentence. --Tbeatty 06:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no preference as to "under cover" or "secret" or "covert" or what-ever. Please feel free (as far as I am concerned, which is not much) to use whichever term you feel is better. Mostly, I want short and npov. Cheers! rewinn 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In this instance TBeatty is simply mistaken. The terms "legal controversy" and "political dispute" clearly refer to the superceding salient points of this "Plame affair". Distilled to it's essence, the Plame affair is a political dispute over whether or not laws were broken for political advantage. And, once any formal investigation lays charges, as Fitzgerald has, then a bona-fide legal controversy exists. Does anyone doubt if the Democrats capture the House, that Bush will face impeachment over this? Of course he will. Would it be justified? I think not, but that's not for me to say. Direct challenges against a President/his staff which allege broken laws are always poltical and when a legal process starts, it's also legal. The current status of the "Plame affair" is indeed a legal controversy. Yet, it also was and continues to be a political football. I fail to see why the two camps of editors here are unwilling to write an introduction which is dryly analytical. That's what we need. That's what I've written. Stop messing with it please. As I said before, unless an editor can justify on this page that their edits make the intro more accurate and/or more NPOV, please leave it be. that said, I'll be watching for replies here. Also, the term "under cover" is a direct quote from the Moscowitz letter. That letter is the only official statement that the CIA has made regarding Plame's actual status. Under no conditions will I accept any modifications of that direct quote - unless and until a superceding primary source direct from the CIA is linked to which says otherwise. Please READ the linked .pdf file. I am DIRECTLY QUOTING the CIA. 87.118.100.99 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty. The original sentence was better. This is unnecessary detail - for the purposes of this article, "under cover" and "classified" mean the same thing. "Covert" too, although it has a slightly more specific meaning when used in the IIPA. Moscowitz is not a central player in the media coverage of this controversy and has no place in the introduction, even if we use quotes from his letter. Your comments are pretty irrelevant - I seriously doubt Bush will face impeachment no matter who is in the House, unless something more than this comes up. But it would not matter to this article; the facts should be reported independent of Democratic or Republican talking points. As for your demand that people "stop messing with" your introduction, please see WP:OWN: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]" If you want to own an article on this topic, publish it in a real book or magazine. (I think you'll find that you will need more of a byline than your IP address if you do). But do not come here issuing demands to other editors or ultimatums about what you will and will not accept.--csloat 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Initial sentences should be short. The original senence is way, way too long. "Originally stemming" is redundant: "stemming" implies "originally". "One or more" is unnecessary since that phrase covers then entire universe of positive integers. "Journalists" is unnecessary since the "original" problem was the (alleged) outing by someone with security clearance. Most of the other words I deleted are similarly unnecessary. There is a very long article following the introduction, suitable for discussing the political, legal and other ramifications, and no need to stick them in up front.
  • That said, I find it amusing that this article sucks up so much energy better put to better purposes. It's not as if a significant number of people come to this page not knowing something about the topic and are swayed to a particular pov. rewinn 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing down the article

This article is currently the longest article in the entire English Wikipedia that is not a list. That means it's longer than History of the world, History of western civilization, World War I, World War II, The Holocaust, Vietnam War, etc. We need to take some dramatic steps to reduce the size of this article by at least 50%. After all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a book. That may mean summarizing existing sections, moving some sections into separate articles, or deleting some sections entirely. I would like to see what ideas people have for editing this article down significantly. Kaldari 23:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

one way to dramatically cut down on size is to remove this section and simply provide links to each statute, although links may not even be necessary since no one was charged with any of these statutes mentioned. i propose we delete the entire section unless anyone objects. Anthonymendoza 02:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the IIPA section is notable and still being debated, though it seems pretty clear nobody is going to be charged under it. This whole section is notable to legal scholars and the like, but should probably be on a separate page. There are credible voices (esp. John Dean) who argue that the Fitzgerald investigation made a big mistake in focusing exclusively on the IIPA when other laws had most likely been broken; I think those discussions are notable, but not the central focus of this page. A paragraph on the IIPA with a link to a new page on "legal questions in the Plame affair" or some such should do the trick. However, I suspect that the IIPA section will stay the size it is if it becomes the focus of dispute about whether or not Plame was "covert" under its specific definition.--csloat 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
one sentence like this is all that is needed: Fitzgerald was thought to have investigated possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, among other statutes. a page devoted to "legal questions in the plame affair" is one solution, but since no one was charged with anything other than perjury and obstruction, i don't see the point of a whole page devoted to what it is believed fitzgerald could or should have investigated and interpretations as to why no one was charged with statutes x, y, and z. discussions like this are for blog pages and legal reviews, not wikipedia. and while the debate as to whether she was covert is interesting and ongoing, does it even matter anymore. no one was charged with IIPA violations, and that's all that really matters in a factual presentation of this "affair". Anthonymendoza 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to eliminate the debate about whether she was "covert." The fact that she was is at the heart of this "affair" and there would be no "affair" without that - all we need do is state that she was and move on. We can eliminate all the crap about her driving to work or about lying Generals in the green room, etc. The problem is that I don't think the pro-Libby editors will stand for such changes. Frankly, until after the trial, and until after emotions die down about this case, I don't think we're going to be able to shorten this article much.--csloat 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
or when the civil suit goes forward and valerie wilson will have to reveal what she did in the cia. i agree with you on one point: emotions involved with this case are high and are making it impossible to edit this page.Anthonymendoza 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles about controversial current events on Wikipedia. This is the only one that has completely failed to conform to reasonable standards of article length. Kaldari 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Are there any reasons not' to pare the article as suggested? No content will be lost, it'll just be re-arranged into other articles. I invite anyone else to go ahead and do it. rewinn 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Separate articles to extract from this page:

POLL: Split out All Major Sections into Own Articles?

As noted above, this article is far too long. It frequently repeats itself and/or other articles. If the topic is so noteworthy, it deserves summary style, in which this page would remain as, basically, a table of contents to the various topics. Is there any reason not to do this? Speak up, or very likely someone will do it. rewinn 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

INCOMING: Split Coming! Speak Now or FHYP!

Speak now or For-ever hold your peace! The split is Coming! This is intended to improve the article without deleteing any data. If you object, speak up now! rewinn 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How about some foreshadowing? What will be split where? I certainly don't object, though I'd like to see what we're getting into.-csloat 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of whatever makes sense. So what makes sense (throwing it back to you...)?
I suggest the following (based on the major sections of this page:
  • Plame Affair (...this would be the main pages, fundamentally an outline)
  • Plame Affair Time Line (merge with existing time line article)
  • Plame Affair Wilson Trip to Niger
  • Plame Affair Novak Article
  • Plame Affair Criminal Investigation (includes existing section Justice Department Investigation, Indictment, Legal Questions)
  • Plame Affair Civil Litigation
  • Plame Affair Conspiracy Theories
The "Criticism" section should be split up among the most relevant pages, e.g. criticism of Wilson's trip belongs with Wilson's trip
Well, that's my current thinking. Let me emphasize that in executing the split-up it is not intended to delete any text, merely to redistribute it. While I have doubts about the encyclopedic nature of much of the text, I must respect the split-up process. rewinn 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If you spawn all those - this will likely end up in arbitration as a big mess - like the "election" arb case. I urge you to re-think. As I see it, this so-called "affair" was nothing more than a fraud ginned up by media yahoos and partisan cranks - aggrandizing it by spawing new articles is in my view, a waste and a mistake. It's not even in the news any more and for all intents and purposes has fizzled. You do see that, right? 87.118.100.99 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You vote against the split. Fine. As for the rest, you are arguing (a) your POV, which is irrelevant, and (b) non-notability. If the split occurs, feel free to argue on each page that it is non-notable. rewinn 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
87, I said it before, to you or the other anon editor who happens to believe the exact same things you do -- go ahead and AfD this article if you think it is "nothing more than a fraud." If you don't believe the "Plame affair" is notable, please stop wasting your time messing up this article. Thanks!--csloat 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we not sure, given the overall fizzle of this, that this shouldnt be condensed as opposed to split? The IP is being a bit rude about it, but this is really a lot of detail for what has ended up being a lot of nothing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The encyclopedic answer is that wikipedia is not paper. For example, some people thought the conspiracy theories were notable; if we merely dl them, the contributors may have a case for replacing them. If the resultant pages are non-notable, feel free to flag them as such for deletion. The claim that the Plame Affair is "a lot of nothing" is simply unsupported POV; considering the damage done to American security by the destruction of the Brewster Jennings apparatus ... well, let's just not. rewinn 17:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair conspiracy theories (split)

In pursuit of Wikipedia:Summary_style I created Plame affair conspiracy theories based on the structure of September 11 conspiracy theories using the content in section "Other theories". I propose that "Other theories" be replaced with a link to Plame affair conspiracy theories . Any thoughts? rewinn 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me.csloat 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

soapboxing in the summary

I have modified the wording of the NY observer editorial since the anon editor wants to start another edit war over this garbage. But I don't think it belongs in the summary at all. There is plenty of room for this sort of soapboxing in the rest of the article, where editorials on both sides are presented. I think the summary section should stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and that there is already more than enough information on both sides of the question from editorials later in the article. So even though I modified it, my preference is to remove that sentence completely, or at least move it to where it belongs.--csloat 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an editorial drawing conclusions from asserted facts, and therefore does not belong in the summary. Conclusions are not summary. I have moved it to the Press Reaction section. rewinn 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are going into deletion mode, then all the unsourced assertion/characterization/summary, etc., must also go. That said, NY Observer quote is sourced and valid - I have re-inserted via revert. 87.118.100.99 06:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop the edit war now anon. The quote is already there and nobody is objecting to that. All that is problematic is the placement of the quote. That has been adjusted appropriately, so don't mess with it. If you would like to make an argument for its placement where you are inserting it, please do so here in rational terms rather than steamrolling edits that have been objected to. Thanks.--csloat 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
CS, sounds like you might have "ownership" issues here? 87.118.100.99 07:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
87, it sounds like you might have "trolling" issues here.--csloat 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that your edit also steamrolled over a bunch of other improvements to the article, including organization of the footnotes, proper url placement, and grammatical changes. Don't start revert wars without even looking at your changes like that or I will ask to have you blocked for vandalism, since that is basically what it is.--csloat 06:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate bully threats. Your comment sounds like one to me. Please refrain. 87.118.100.99 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

87.118.100.99: your summary edits contain numerous POV violations. Please stop. csloat is simply stating wikiProcedure, which is not a threat. If you violate procedure, the procedure will be executed. You really should get a logon. rewinn 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections 7, 9, 10, and 12

how about giving these sections of the "plame affair" there own page? they really add nothing to this article and could be expanded given separate pages? this could cut the article in half. Anthonymendoza 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly. I suggest
  • Section 12: This is the intent of the Plame affair conspiracy theories page. Feel free to replace existing Theories section with a link to that page. I want to go slow with unilateral changes so all may participate.
  • Section 10: Legal Questions. It should be merged with the existing page Plame affair legal questions
  • Section 9: Criticism of Fitzgerald. This should be combined with the Criminal investigation section or page, since that is it relevance to Plame affair; any of criticism of Fitzgerald that is irrelevant to Plame affair is irrelevant.
  • Section 7: Criticism of Plame/Wilson. I suggest these criticisms should be organized according to their relevance to Plame affair, e.g. sub-section Criticism of Plame/Wilson:Regarding Wilson's trip to Niger should go with section or page Wilson's trip to Niger, because the point of the article is to educate about the Plame affair, not criticism for its own sake. rewinn 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, i removed section twelve. Anthonymendoza 00:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
merged legal questions sections as well. Anthonymendoza 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good start

Hey guys, just wanted to give an e-pat on the back for the edits today. Good start on trimming this down. My own contribution are meager compared to you guys who keep this encyclopedia running. Keep it up! Arkon 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! A little goes a long way ... rewinn 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair criminal investigation

OK, I started Plame affair criminal investigation which is intended to cover the investigation, ignoring the politics, breathless newspaper reporting, and who-shot-who. This is intended to incorporate the following sections:

  • 4.5 Justice Department investigation
  • 5.1 CIA calls for leak investigation
  • 5.2 Contempt of court: Miller, Cooper
  • 6 Indictment
  • 9 Criticism of Patrick Fitzgerald

I have tried to just copy-and-paste the sections, but significant re-arranging was necessary to impose some order and concatenate redundancy. Feel free to edit away! rewinn 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

what should be done with the "public statements" section. i thought of adding it to the timeline page. thoughts. Anthonymendoza 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
i went ahead and moved section to timeline since it seems more relevant there. Anthonymendoza 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair criminal investigation vs. CIA leak grand jury investigation

Plame affair criminal investigation needs to be merged with CIA leak grand jury investigation, or vice versa. any thoughts?Anthonymendoza 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion, but I'd say merge into the CIA leak one. Either one would probably be ok though. Arkon 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
i'm in the process of merging the two. i split the template:Plamefull into two parts. template:Witnesses contains all known grand jury witnesses and is featured on Plame affair criminal investigation.Anthonymendoza 19:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
i've merged all relevant info into Plame affair criminal investigation. i'd appreciate someone looking at the two and adding info i've missed. then CIA leak grand jury investigation should be redirected.Anthonymendoza 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! Nice work, guys. I'm amazed at how long this article was; looking things over quickly, it is still pretty damn long, and I think it was at least double this size before your hard work - thanks! (I thought the poster comparing this to "History of the World" was exaggerating, but no way). My thoughts on the "criminal investigation" vs. "grand jury invstigation" is that they should remain separate and that stuff moved out of "criminal invest." with a link to the other page for the grand jury stuff. Then we have two reasonably sized articles on that topic rather than one long one that may get longer. The grand jury investigation article is neatly bookended as it is. In terms of continuing to shorten the article, I think the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section can have its own page, but it might possibly fit under the plame conspiracy theories section? I'm not sure - these items are not really a conspiracy theory but they do tie into them, and the people who believe these critiques seem to be the same ones pushing the Plame/Wilson conspiracy angle. Another idea is a "Disputed facts in the plame affair" or something to that effect, rewording the subheadings as questions -- "Was Plame covert?", "Did Iraq buy uranium from Niger?" etc. This section seems to have been the lightning rod for much of the most heated disputes here, so it may need its own page. Anyway, these are just some thoughts on the matter; again, thanks for doing this.--csloat 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

what if we merge the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section into the Plame affair conspiracy theories page. we could also change the name of that page to something like "Criticism of the Plame Affair", or something to that affect.Anthonymendoza 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't think so, since the CIA and Saudi conspiracy theories are not "criticism of the Plame affair" per se... though perhaps "Alternate theories of the plame affair" might work?--csloat 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
that would work. anyone object to this merger? Anthonymendoza 01:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
i moved "criticism of plame/wilson" to Alternate theories of the Plame affair. Anthonymendoza 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

why is this tag on the article? what are the specific complaints?Anthonymendoza 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

At one time this article was rife with POV and conclusory matters, due in part to its tendency to accept the conclusions of non-experts such as newspaper reporters. Before removing the POV tag, it should be curried thoroughly. For example, consider the conclusion "effectively ending the infestigation" that pops up now & then in the SummarySection. This conclusion is supported by a quote from a newspaper who heard it from someone else. That's POV because (a) newspaper reporters have no control over the investigation, so their opinion on whether the investigation is over or not is mere POV; (b) the person who has control over the investigation is not quoted as saying it is effectively ended. Some people will disagree with that assessment, which may justify the POV tag. rewinn 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
the article states "A source briefed on the case told the Washington Post that the activities of Cheney and his aides were a key focus of the investigation and that the vice president was not considered a target or primary subject of the investigation and is not likely to become one. There are no other outstanding issues to be investigated, the source said, though new ones could emerge." i inserted that the "investigative phase" is over, not the grand jury. i inserted this because i raised it in a discussion topic above and no one challenged the notion that the "active investigative phase" is over. i don't think it's pov, but if you object to it being included, then i won't argue. what is left besides the trial of libby? there have been no reports of grand jury witnesses since rove was told he wouldn't be indicted. Anthonymendoza 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The encyclopedia shouldn't speculate just because *we* don't know what else the grand jury might do. Armitage may be under investigation. Vallely thinks Fitzgerald should interview Plame. Dean thinks the investigation is too narrow. No-one will be harmed if this article holds off on stating whether an unnamed source thinks the investigation is closed. Cheers! rewinn 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary tag

any other suggestions for trimming down the article? Anthonymendoza 02:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest paring down "Section 5 Justice Department investigation" since its info is now in Main article: Plame affair criminal investigation.
I combined the stuff in the Plame affair legal questions section into the page Plame affair legal questions and summarized the former (hopefully not eliminating anyone's favorite theory). rewinn 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
i agree that paring down Section 5 should be the next task. i like how you edited the "legal questions" section. "justice department investigation" could be edited in the same manner. Anthonymendoza 02:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Air Force One memo?

Where should the "Air Force One memo" stuff go? Also "Karl Rove" is a really long chunk ... does it go into the Plame CIA leak affair grand criminal jury investigation investigation page?

there is a section on the Karl Rove page devoted to his role in the plame affair. perhaps that page should be expanded and the plame affair should just link to it. as for the air force one memo, since the memo has been declassified, i think the section could be removed altogether. for a long time, what was in the memo was the source of much speculation and intrigue. i'm not sure how it's relevant anymore.Anthonymendoza 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

name change

Great. Someone moved Plame affair to Plame Affair with the only justification being the unexplained assertion "it should be capitalized." No; it should not be. Wikipedia policy only uses capitalization of multiple words if that is the way it is for proper nouns that are usually spelled in most places you would find it; that is simply not the case for "Plame affair" (a title that is dubious even here but was chosen for lack of a better name). The problem is now we can't move it back without an administrator getting involved; can an admin come change it for us, or do we need to take a vote on this silliness? The Wikipedia "move" link is a little dangerous in the hands of new editors as it allows them to do a lot of damage easily that cannot easily be undone (there is no way to move a page back to its original name).--csloat 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created articles named Plame Affair legal questions and the like, redirecting to the proper articles, in case the user who made the name change is a troll; this will prevent him from wreaking more havoc with name changes. (It's not clear at all that he is, but I thought it telling that when I asked him to comment here, he simply deleted my note ratehr than commenting). Anyway, I'm gonna try to figure out how to get the name changed back to conform to Wikipedia policy.-csloat 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh, ok, never mind. We don't need an admin to move pages back, I just figured out. LOL. I guess that has changed since the past? I don't know, but I put the page back where it belongs. I'm gonna go do something else now :)--csloat 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Editting Section 'Other journalists with early knowledge'

That section is muddled.

  1. Cooper is already extensively discussed elsewhere in this article or set of articles
  2. Sidney's comment is hearsay about what someone else said; it should be replaced by a quote from that person
  3. Mitchell/Matthes "may have taken place after Novak's article", therefore not notable
  4. Pincus is writing firsthand about something that took place before Novak's article, therefore is notable
  5. Russert & Kessler's testimony is mentioned elsewhere
  6. Russerts' refusal to deny telling Libby is not sourced. When there's a source it might be notable
  7. Woodwards statements are about himself and pre-Novak article, therefore notable

I suggest all but Pincus and Woodward be deleted. There is enough information about Woodward to give him a sub-section. I'm not sure what to do about Pincus. rewinn 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Armitage's role

This Newsweek article was released over the weekend. Essentially, Isikoff has a book coming out which demonstrates that it was Armitage who accidentally (and not illegally) "leaked" Plame's name. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I fail to find the part of that article where it indicates "accidental" leaking of such information is not "illegal." More importantly, I fail to see where it exonerates the other "officials at the White House" who "also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence."--csloat 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, nothing's indicated any illegality anyway. My point was more to bring this article to people's attention so it can be reflected, since Armitige's name is mentioned once in the infobox. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
it shows what the headline indicates, that the central figure in this whole affair wasn't rove, or libby, or cheney, or the white house. this all started with armitage at the state department. this is a very significant development. rove and libby never told the reporters they talked to plame's name, but armitage did. therefore he's the leaker! and since armitage wasn't charged with anything, the leak wasn't a crime.
The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone. Anthonymendoza 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re-read the quote above Anthony -- officials "also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence." Where is your law degree from?--csloat 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
where is yours from? or do you still believe Rove is turning state's evidence?Anthonymendoza 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have one. That's why I'm not making grand claims about whether a crime has been committed here. As for what I believe, I believe that there are people spreading disinformation about this case in order to make it very difficult to figure out what is going on. I also believe Fitzgerald is being pretty tight-lipped about it. The result of those two things is that people on both sides of the fence are pulling what little information is out there together and making completely uninformed and inexpert judgements about what that information means (and yes, I include myself in this). For what it's worth, Leopold and Ash are sticking by their story that an indictment exists and that it appears the indicted party (they seem to have shrunk back a bit from certainty about who that is) is cooperating with investigators and that the investigators are still taking a hard look at the VP's office. I still don't understand what makes that story so hard to believe, but for now I am withholding judgement about it. Again, I think there is a lot of disinformation being spread here, so it wouldn;t be surprising if Leopold is disseminating some of it; however, it seems likely that his sources are in Fitzgerald's office, not Rove's. What we do know is that the only person who claims the investigation is over or that Rove is off the hook is Rove's lawyer; Fitzgerald has not said a word about that to the public. Perhaps he just enjoys being the center of intrigue, or perhaps he is still investigating. The Armitage stuff really doesn't seem to play a role one way or another here - Isikoff certainly doesn't say that the investigation is over or that no crime was committed, which people here are inferring from the article. That is what prompted my snide comment about the law degree.--csloat 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Armitage was againt the WH's policy in Iraq, his being the nascent leaker essentially destroys the argument that Plame's name was leaked as part of a White House criminal conspiracy to punish Wilson for his anti-Administration and anti-Iraq war statements. He's not part of the White House. He's not part of Cheney's inner circle. He was agianst going to war with Iraq. He's just a gossip monger with a juicy tale. Furthermore, Armitage being the first (known) leaker shows that Plame's name or identity appeared to already be part of the high powered, inside DC gossip circuit before Libby started talking to reporters. This is an important revelation, since Fitz's indictment alleges that it was Libby, and not Armitage, who was the first government official to talk to reporters. But I agree with you, Csloat. This revelation about Armitage does not mean a crime was not committed. But it does mean that the crime charged against Libby did not quite happen the way Fitz said it did, even though he apparently knew about Armitage all along. And it does mean that Plame's name was already out there with a least some reporters before this alleged criminal conspiracy got under way, which makes it a joke of a conspiracy if some out of the conspiritorial loop gossip monger beat them to it. So yes, a crime may have occurred, but it really doesn't seem all that likely now. Evensong 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote/Not-a-quote

Hey Anthonymendoza: I see your edit about the article not being a quote; however it is still in quote marks. If it's not a quote we should dump the marks. What d'ya think (I don't wanna step on your edits ... too often ;-)? rewinn 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

the sentence about woodward was not a direct quote. the rest of the paragraph was/is. i simply moved the woodward sentence out of the paragraph. simple edit. Anthonymendoza 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hadley

i remember bloggers being adamant about Hadley being woodward's source. i went back and found the source for this claim. turns out Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna reported this for the Raw Story.[1] i guess it's another story leopold got flat wrong, unless Isikoff and David Corn are wrong about Armitage. Anthonymendoza 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The amazing thing is you guys are fixated on who leaked the "name" first... it's silly. Plame's name was first "leaked" on her birth certificate. We know for a fact that the CIA and the DoJ believe crimes were committed, so it's strange that people jump on every inconsistency and conclude that "no crimes were committed." No crimes may be punished, but that is a very different fact. My car was stolen once -- the thief was never convicted. Does this mean no crime was committed? As for the case at hand, at issue is not whether Armitage said her name by "accident" first, but whether members of the Bush Administration leaked the fact that she was a CIA agent (whether or not they used her name) in order to discredit Wilson. It's pretty clear Isikoff thinks so from the above linked article. It's also pretty clear that these various obfuscations -- there was no crime committed; rove didn't actually say her name; her name is in who's who, etc -- are directly from the Republican talking points on this issue.--csloat 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What does discreditiing Wilson have to do with whether a crime occurred? Evensong 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If you ask yourself the opposite question, you just might begin to see why some people take this seriously. Whether or not a crime was committed in a prosecutable sense, burning an agent who risks her life for this country in order to discredit her husband for cheap political payback is bad. There are more specific words for just how bad it is, even if the court eventually tells us "crime" isn't one of them.--csloat 10:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
By "burning" I assume you mean "exposing her affiliation with the CIA". And by "cheap political payback" you must mean "punish" rather than "discredit". Those are two distict words, with two distict meanings, and as editors, we should use them with precision. Furthermore, I must respectfully warn you not to take such a one sided view of this Plame affair. There is very little evidence that the VP's office was engaged in any payback at all. There is substantial evidence, however, that the VP's office was trying to discredit Wilson's claim -- understood as it was at the time -- that it was in some way responsible for sending him to Niger and well aware of the essential aspects of his trip. There are two perspectives involved in this matter. If you are incapable of editing this page from both perspectives, I would advise you to broaden your research materials to better round out you understanding the issues. Evensong 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll thank you not to advise me about how to edit this page when I haven't actually been editing it at all. I'm not going to get sucked into another pointless debate with you -- suffice to say that I believe you are incorrect about what evidence there is, and that I will be happy to discuss it if it becomes the point of contention in another edit dispute. Otherwise, as rewinn points out below, let's try to leave the political soapboxing to the blogs.--csloat 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted my edits in the past and you have added/changed/modified my edits as well. So your claim that you havn't edited this page is completely false. As for political sopboxing is concerned, my previous post delicately called you out on that issue. The phrases regarding "burning" and "cheap political payback" is nothing but soap boxing. Since your political soapbox statements appeared on the talk-page, I issued a polite warning that the one-sided, blustering perspective you exhibited should not infuence your editing. Evensong 21:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not recently edited this page, no. Yes of course I have edited in the past but your comment was about current activities. As for my comments on the talk page, you can choose to respond to them or not, but I'm really not interested in reading metacommentary about them (especially from a rather extreme POV-pusher such as yourself). I mean, say whatever you like, but don't be surprised or insulted if I don't consider such comments serious enough to merit a response. But since you brought it up twice now, here we go: yes, by "burning" plame I mean destroying her CIA career and destroying the effectiveness of her cover company and the program she was working on (which, by all accounts, involved WMD and Iran, an important issue that we could use better intel on right now). As for "cheap political payback," you're right about one thing - it was not cheap. Losing intel on Iran is a significant price. But there is plenty of evidence that points to payback, though of course you are entitled to make whatever excuses you like for Cheney's office.--csloat 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think that this article must be editied with the point of view that the White House destroyed her career, that her company Brewster Jennings offered effective cover, that we lost intel on Iran because of her affiliation with the CIA being revealed, and that the WH was engaged in payback, and that any evidence to the contrary is disinformation, you are, per se, editing from a POV. Furthermore, I am not an extreme POV pusher. There is absolutely zero evidence for that. What you deride as "disinformation", "republican talking points", "Cheney excuses" or "POV pushing" is really just the other side of the argument in the Plame affair. It exists. You are absolutely free, and I will defend you freedom to do so, disagree with the other side. But you cannot go about accusing and belittleing your fellow editors, such as my self, who acknowledge the other side of the issue, as being "rather extreme POV-pushers" and mere "Cheney excusers". I am going to be blunt here. The fact that Armitage has now been pinned as the original leaker does, in fact, poke a lot of holes in the idea that there was a WH campaign to out Plame to punish Wilson. The fact that Fitz gave him a pass but hounded Libby and Rove for years raises even more questions about nearly everything you beleive to be true in this affair. For example, the only real difference between Armitage and Libby/Rove is that Armitage does dot fit the "punish Wilson" meme that has dominated the characterization of this entire affair ever since Corn started it in July of 2003. As I have always stated, that meme may not reflect reality -- there are other sides to the issue. With Armitage's exposure, that other side needs a long due and serious look. Your labeling me as an extreme POV pusher really is not helpful for getting that other side out. The problem with this page from the get-go was that it was written from a perspective that bought into the White House consiracy meme. Hence, the inclusion of the yellow cake forgeries, the downing street memos, the WHIGs, and a whole host of other quite conspiritorily driven connections, mainly inhabiting left wing web sites. There is a lot more I have to say. But you really need, as an editor, to stop your condescending, vitriolic, name-calling patterns on this page if you really want this article to reflect the level of preofessionalism it deserves. Evensong 03:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is this coming from? Can you point to the edits to the article that I made that you feel are POV-pushing? I realize there are edits to the intro being discussed below, but where in my edits to the article have I made these various claims about Armitage, about the campaign to punish Wilson, etc.? I feel you are wrong about these things, and on another day might be happy to debate endlessly about it, but there really is no point since at the end of the day you will believe what you will believe and I will believe what I believe. What you are calling the "White House conspiracy meme" is actually the view that appears to be shared by most mainstream journalists on the issue as well as the prosecutor, not something "inhabiting left wing web sites." Sorry if you think I am condescending and name-calling when I say what I believe, but I am going to continue to say what I believe. I realize sometimes my tone is objectionable -- as is yours, often, including in the above post -- I think we all could do some work on that issue, but it will continue to be tough with emotional and political hot buttons, which this case has become. That is why I tried to stop having these arguments in talk - let's not debate what Armitage's role has changed, if anything, in the whole "Plame affair," and let's stick to what improves the article. Sometimes such things will need to be discussed in order to improve the article -- e.g. the undercover vs. covert question -- but if it isn't going to lead to such, let's try not to make a big deal out of it anymore. I'm tired of this, and I gather others are too.--csloat 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There is something I have to add. Csloat, there is a great quality about you as an editor I feel needs an particular mention. You announce your edits, you put them up for discussion, you are open about it. The tone, not so hot. But the fact that you are so open about the changes really deserves open acknowledgement. So here it is. Good job! Evensong 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you Evensong, and I will work harder on the tone of my comments.--csloat 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of Wilson being discredited - his word holds a lot of weight. hell, he was the presidential daily breifer for ronald reagan! Kevin Baastalk 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I will leave a signed report, but the below author is correct. The SSCI report eroded Wilson's cred. Kerry dropped him as an advisor when it became public. It is a big part of the PlameAffair story. Check it out before you edit the page on that subject. Susan Schmidt of the WaPo may be a good place to start. Evensong 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Wilson was discredited in the congressional report. Wilson lied about how he went to Niger, what he reported and what he did while there. Its just the Kos-kids who still believe in his kool-aid. August 29, 2006 This unsigned comment added by 148.63.236.141 at 16:33, 29 August 2006
Please remember this is a talk page concerning the article, and is not a general-purpose blog. Frame all commentary in terms of improving the article. The claims concerning Kos submitted by 148.3.236.141 is not relevant to Plame affair and is not supported by evidence, and therefore has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article. The claims concerning whether the congressional report are amply addressed in the article. rewinn 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Covert but not a crime?

here's another excerpt from the Isikoff article: Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged. Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward. Isikoff doesn't attribute this info to his sources and it's public knowledge that Armitage was a crucial witness and has appeared at least three times before the grand jury. so i'm not sure if his sources told him plame was covert or it's his assumption, but either way, both sides of the debate may be right. She may have been covert, but leaking her name was not a crime.Anthonymendoza 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course she was covert, at least in the literal sense; that debate seems to have been settled when the CIA asked for an investigation. Whether she met the more restrictive IIPA definition of covert is a more disputed question (though everyone who actually would know the answer who has talked about has said that she was). Leaking her name was never a crime; leaking her status as an undercover employee of the CIA was (probably) a crime. If Armitage did not know her covert status, that means that someone leaked the info to Armitage, since he could not have found out from looking at Who's Who or whatever that she was a CIA employee. Again, I'm trying not to get sucked into debates about it -- there's a lot we don't know here, and it's best if the article reflects that. But the things that we do know - e.g. that the CIA considered her covert, and that their opinion on the matter is the only relevant one - should not be distorted by talking points every time a new article is published.--csloat 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
the newsweek article also states Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.). so he learned about plame from the state department memo, which i think has always been suspected as the true original source.Anthonymendoza 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And this memo, which was clearly marked CLASSIFIED, indicating all of the information in it was CLASSIFIED (including her employment with the CIA), was sent to him by whom? More importantly, the information was then confirmed by whom before to Novak and other reporters? Did the second "whom" know she was covert, and did they ask the reporters not to publish this CLASSIFIED information? Or did they seize the opportunity to destroy the career of the wife of one of their political enemies? These are the sorts of questions prosecutors might be asking about these events, even if they don't occur to Wikipedia editors.--csloat 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
i would think that fitzgerald has looked into all/most of those questions since it's reported he investigated Armitage aggressively. but as far as the IIPA goes, here's what Isikoff wrote in a previous article:
Fitzgerald has been said to be investigating whether any aides violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act—which makes it a felony to disclose the identity of a covert CIA employee: it requires showing the violator knew the agent's undercover status. (The State memo makes no reference to that.) But the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.[2]
so the CIA never asked the Justice department to investigate any violations of the IIPA. rather, only disclosed to the Jusice dept. that classified information had been leaked. so the covert question may be a pointless debate. the basic questions of this affair have all been answered. we know who leaked the information, and we know leaking the information wasn't considered criminal by fitzgerald. libby's trial will be very limited and rove is in the clear. what else is there to debate.Anthonymendoza 19:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't anything to "debate," I agree with that. We haven't answered "the basic questions of this affair"; what we have are a number of conflicting pieces of information from various sources of varying reliability, a tight-lipped prosecutor, and little in the way of an apparatus that allows to make sense of this mess. If that's enough for you to draw conclusions from, be my guest.--csloat 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to revise this article

This time is long past to revise this article with the facts. Armitage, who was a foe of the administration policy revealed Plame's name. This was not a smear job by the President and the White House has been COMPLETELY exonerated. -- 130.126.138.6 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I would support this change, as long as we source it clearly to "User:130.126.138.6," since that seems to be the only source for these conclusions.--csloat 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is another source. --Tbeatty 01:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Relax. This is an encyclopedia article, not a daily news report. Most of the stuff reported is noteworthy and if it turned out that the accused are innocent, that goes into the article too. Compare O.J. Simpson and John Mark Karr rewinn 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ha... an anonymous Wikipedia editor and a raving alcoholic showing signs of mental breakdown; ok, now we have two sources! Seriously, when the Washington Post reports that the White House has been "completely exonerated," I might be interested in the news. Until then, all we have is wishful speculation on both sides.--csloat 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of those who don't understand csloat's reference, the slate article proferred by Tbeatty was written by Christopher Hitchens <<< the preceding comment, made by me, has been editted by me for the sake of civility rewinn 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Discredited by whom, rewinn, and in what way? You were discussing the need to "[f]rame all commentary in terms of improving the article." How does this opinionated, conclusory and derisive dismissal of Hitchens help achieve that end? Evensong 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
On 2nd thought, I'll just delete the language which may be offensive. rewinn 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest Armitage's role appears noteworthy enough to promote his section in the article, as I have done. Some of the endless details and quotations in the Novak and Rove section may need spinning off into their own article, or on to those person's own pages. Perhaps some of the quotations should be eliminated or grossly reduced; as long as there's a link to the quotation source why are there paragraphs of this stuff in the article? rewinn 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Hitchens. Why was he discredited? "Slate" seems pretty credible and they continue to publish his articles. --Tbeatty 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I hesitate to discuss Hitchens here since he's not even in Plame affair but FWIW I suggest you note the article cited above is editorializing, not reporting (note language such as "paranoid myth" and "Wilson fantasy") ... scarcely the neutral language of a fair man, and references his prior articles in which he makes grandeous claims about proving that Saddam sent a nuclear diplomat to Niger in 1999, and repeats all sorts of irrelevancies such as "[Novak] was never told the name Plame but discovered it from Who's Who". If you want to discuss Hitchens more, feel free to continue on my talk page. rewinn 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

NYT says they've talked with a lawyer in the case that confirms Armitage's involvement: [3] Like I said above, this doesn't call for a wholesale purge of this article, but the careful editting retaining that which is noteworthy should continue, as it has for a while. rewinn 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CNN has now independently confirmed Armitage was novak's sources as well.[4] i agree that further editing is needed now that this essential fact of the case has been revealed. i'm going to start with the Rove section. most of it should be merged into the Karl Rove page. i've always been curious as to why rove has his own section in this article and libby does not. Anthonymendoza 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter what, Armitage's role as leaker of the information needs to be front-and-center. That's what started it all... Valtam 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job well done

Wow, I am amazed. In less than a month, this article was reduced from a horribly bloated 170K down to it's current size of 74K! That is some impressive editing. The article is much improved because of it. Well done. Kaldari 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i personally think the page is at a good length now. the longest section is the Novak article, but since the novak article is at the center of the plame affair i think it should be the longest section. any thoughts about further editing?Anthonymendoza 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, kudos. I don't know who is responsible, csloat, Anthony, or others. But you all really deserve a thumbs up. Good job. Evensong 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the article uses long citations completely irrelevant to the investigation. There are also many points relevant to the investigation (the crux of the Plame affair) not addressed in the article. Some are breaking. There is also an absence of objectivity by shifting the focus away from the outing of Plame to the methods and rationale in which one journalist was used to out Plame. This undermines the thesis that the outing was part of a conspiracy. As for comments about it being over, it is not over as long as Fitzgerald has a sitting grand jury. And even if Fitzgerald's investigation fails to indict any others, the political ramifications could broaden, as did Watergate when Congress got involved.

References

i'm going to begin the long task of properly labeling all the references. feel free to help :) Anthonymendoza 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

i condensed alot of information into the background section. i didn't realize how much duplicate info there was/is in this article.Anthonymendoza 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The references are biased towards Novak's defense, and detract from the core issues established in general coverage of the case. Ideally, references should be limited in a discussion of political events as they tend more towards sophmoric-level reporting rather than comprehensive analysis, which can never depend on single (and lengthy) citations in such a broad case. If there are to be references, would have to include 2 to avoid bias, if this is a two-sided issue.

covert nonsense again

I fixed some changes that had been recently made by someone (Ed Poor I think) attempting to claim that there is dispute about whether Plame was under cover. The Moskowitz letter settles that debate. I did not go through the whole article; just the intro and the background, where the disinfo was pretty blatant. There is debate as far as the IIPA's definition of the term "covert," but not about the fact that she was under cover. Let's not start all this again. Ed, or whoever made those edits, please read the moskowitz letter and review the discussion for the past couple years on this article; I don't feel like making all the arguments about this yet again. The discussion about some people thinking she was not covert or whatever belongs on one of the sub-pages, it should not be on the main page. I have a feeling this will be an ongoing problem resulting from shortening the page by breaking it up -- perhaps there should be a table of contents that includes the sub-pages at the top so people do not continue adding info to this page that really belongs on a sub-page?--csloat 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

csloat: While you may believe the Moskowitz letter settles the debate about whether Plame was under cover, that's just your POV. 71.212.31.95 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether she was or was not undercover is not the point, Csloat. There is, in fact, a dispute in the real world regarding her undercover status. You obvisouly do not agree with those who claim that she was not undercover, which is fine. But to delete any reference to the fact that a dispute exists, and to furthermore label it as "disinformation" is proof positive that you are editing from a POV position. You need to stop it. Evensong 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not my POV at issue here. The Moscowitz letter is from the CIA. The CIA is the only organization or entity that can speak with authority as to whether or not she was under cover, and they have spoken. The "dispute" is about how "deep" her cover was or about whether she was "covert" under the terms of the IIPA. But there is no dispute about whether she was actually under cover. Either she was or she wasn't, it's not a grey area; it is a definitional question, and the organization who decides the definition is the CIA, and they have said that she was. I am not arguing that there is no dispute about other questions - e.g. whether her husband told other people about her job or such - but there is simply no dispute about whether she was under cover. The CIA ended that debate when they asked for the investigation. Period.--csloat 04:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It is your POV. You can have five priests swear she was undercover, but the facts also speak. If by undercover you and the CIA meant that her affiliation with the CIA had to be kept secret, the CIA did a piss poor job of doing so. They stationed her at spy central CIA headquarters whence they required her to travel daily, with no objection from her. This is not, factually, the most discrete way to conceal one's affiliation with the CIA. If you have some other understanding which allows a CIA undercover agent to have such open contact with the CIA, I am all ears. Frankly, if the CIA labeled her as "undercover" but didn't treat her as such, then this is a case of the Emporer's Clothes. He's naked despite what the experts say, and so was Plame. It's a legitimate point of view based on the facts. Evensong 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not about priests swearing! If the CIA did a bad job of keeping her undercover, as is your pov, that does not mean she was not definitionally under cover. One is a definitional question, the other is a subjective question. The definitional question is settled by the fact that the CIA labeled her undercover. I'm not saying your POV is illegitimate (though it is dubious, IMHO), but I am saying it is irrelevant to the question at hand - was plame under cover? The CIA says yes, then the answer is yes. It's as if you have a job as assistant manager at McDonald's. There can be debate about whether you did a piss poor job of assisting or managing things, or about whether McDonald's did a piss poor job of outlining your responsibilities as Asst. Man., but the bottom line is that that is your title, and McDonald's is the only organization who can say whether it is or is not your accurate title. This is all we are debating about, and your claims about how good a job the CIA did at covering for Plame are obfuscations of this fundamental fact. Again, we have been having this debate for two years now and every time, your side has lost, and a consensus of sorts was developed that the term "undercover" - as used in the CIA letter - was the best solution to the dispute. This is why this debate gets so frustrating.--csloat 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The Moskowitz letter did not state that Plame was operating under cover. It stated that CIA had reported to DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and had requested that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation of the matter. Moreover, as Evensong pointed out, the question of whether Plame was operating under cover has been disputed, regardless of whether she actually was or was not. That is a significant aspect of the controversy which is the subject of this article. Your POV that the debate has been settled is irrelevant. 71.212.31.95 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Your POV that there is a dispute is what is irrelevant. The dispute is over whether her cover was deep, not whether it existed. She was under cover according to the CIA (please read the letter as you are wrong about what it says). We've covered this ground already, please review the discussion from a few weeks ago on this.--csloat 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There is also a dispute whether the Moon is made of green cheese and whether pi should be defined as 3. Not every dispute is notable. The putative dispute whether Plame's identity was secret is not notable. rewinn 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The dispute over Plame's status has been much discussed in the media and is clearly a part of the public controversy over the matter. To suggest that it is not notable is absurdly pov. 71.212.31.95 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Your claim is not supported by any authority. Several government officials who are in a position to speak with authority, acting in their official capacity, have confirmed Plame's undercover status. You must cite at least one official, whose job it is to make such determinations, acting in his or her official capacity, stating that Plame was not undercover ... to have any authoritativeness in your claim.
Let me make a suggestion which is intended to be helpful. Your contributions page documents that you have very little experience working on wikipedia, except for Plame affair. If you wish to be an effective editor (or to effectively push your POV) you would be well advised to branch out a little. Edit a few other places. Get to know a few other subjects. After a while, this editting issues will come easily to you. I don't know whether you will take this advice, but I hope you do so that wikipedia may gain one more good editor. rewinn 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the difference between the (unresolved) question of whether Plame was actually operating under cover, and the question of whether the assertion that she was operating under cover has been disputed. As I noted, the dispute about Plame's status is clearly a part of the public controversy, and should therefore be discussed in the article. I am not myself making any claims about whether Plame was working under cover or not. (As far as I know, she may well have been.) And thanks for trying to be helpful, but I can assure you that I have considerable experience with how Wikipedia works. 71.212.31.95 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you refuse to provide an authoritative source for your claim that there is any question whether Plame was operating under cover, there is no need to evaluate your likewise unsourced claim about knowing wikipedia policy. However, to the extent Plame affair is biographical, see Wikipedia:biographies of living persons. If you wish to push your theory that Plame might not be under cover, it would go in Alternate theories of the Plame affair. rewinn 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, the dispute about Plame's status is clearly a part of the public controversy, and should therefore be discussed in the article, regardless of your opinion as to its merits. Your prattle about my "unsourced claim about knowing wikipedia policy" does not impress. And Plame affair is not, of course, a biographical article. 71.212.31.95 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
71, you are raising a red herring. The dispute about Plame's status is discussed in the article already. Your prattle about this dispute is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. This discussion is not about erasing evidence of that dispute. This discussion is about whether the CIA nominally classified her as undercover, and they did. We have it in the letter, we have it in the statements of several acting intelligence officials, we have it in the explicit statement of Patrick Fitzgerald, and we have it in on the record testimony from Plame's former CIA classmates. We also have not one single official source -- not one -- saying anything otherwise. The dispute about how deep her cover was or about whether her husband was a blabbermouth is a separate issue, and the attempt to confuse these issues strikes me as dishonest.--csloat 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, csloat. I didn't see where the dispute about Plame's status was discussed in the main article. But it wasn't in the introduction, where "Valerie Plame's under cover status" was referred to as if it were an undisputed fact. However, I see that this has been changed to "Valerie Plame Wilson’s classified relationship with the CIA", so the issue may be moot. 71.212.31.95 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in the intro. Her undercover status is an undisputed fact. As we noted below, it is acknowledged in the CIA letter, among several other sources. What exactly is your point? Can you explain the alleged difference between her status being "classified" and being "undercover"? And can you suggest why it should be in the intro?? I agree with rewinn; your comments are positively surreal.--csloat 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
71 is also mistaken about Wikipedia:biographies of living persons, for it is to the extent that it is biographical. But what the heck ... this discussion is positively surreal. At this late date are we really discussing whether Plame was undercover? rewinn 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I agree with your recent edit regarding govt employees, but my recollection of what was settled before was that "undercover" was a better term to use since it is in the Moscowitz document. Of course, "classified" is in that document as well. I'm ok with either, but I am not ok with the Ed Poor and the anon editor changes, that claimed her nominal status was disputed.--csloat 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell would there be a big investigaion if she was just a regular employee? Kevin Baastalk 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
because her position was classified and it is criminal to reveal classified information. there are two sources, the moskowitz letter and an article written by isikoff for newsweek that show the cia didn't ask for an investigation because of violations of the IIPA; rather they asked for an investigation because classified information had been "leaked" to the press. the Valerie Wilson page also is sourced with articles that show that while she was a NOC, she wasn't a "deep cover NOC" because of her time at a us embassy under official cover. her marriage to Joe Wilson also would have made her cover difficult to conceal. again, if she was deep cover and national security was jeopardized because of the leak, why wasn't anyone charged with leaking her name? Anthonymendoza 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The CIA letter said she was "undercover." The difference between "deep" and "non-deep" cover is irrelevant for the purpose of the intro; it is only relevant as concerns the IIPA. The comment that being married to a diplomat would have made her cover difficult to conceal is utter nonsense; plenty of undercover agents have been married to prominent folks (at least, that is what agents have told reporters investigating this). Several CIA sources both current and former have confirmed that she was a NOC -- deep or shallow we do not know because we do not know her travel schedule and we are not likely to learn it, though we do know that the court believed that she had travelled in the past 5 years (pre -03) doing undercover work. All we know about that is that she did not live abroad, which is not necessary. A NOC is the most dangerous kind of undercover agent there is because if they are caught, they do not receive any protection from the US government.--csloat 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
To repeat, the CIA (Moskowitz) letter did not assert that Plame was "undercover". It stated that CIA had reported to DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and had requested that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation of the matter. 71.212.31.95 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Re-read the letter. It also says she was under cover. As I said, I am fine with either phrase, but there is no need to pretend there is a "dispute" when there is none. The dispute is not about whether she was undercover. The dispute is about whether she was protected under a particular legal definition of "covert." As has been pointed out over and over and over again. As you have been asked by others, please review the discussion above and in the archive concerning these matters.--csloat 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read the letter. Please quote in full the sentence in which you believe the CIA asserted that Plame was under cover. 71.212.31.95 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it in the 1st paragraph? It says, slightly paraphrased, Thank you for your letter to the DCI regarding any contacts the CIA has had with the DOJ "to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier this year of the identity of an employee operating under cover." Valtam 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the words "under cover" are in the first paragraph, but only in the context of describing Rep. Conyer's letter to DCI, not as an affirmation by CIA of Plame's status. The CIA reply to Conyer's inquiry does not address the issue of Plame's status directly, but refers only to "unauthorized disclosure of classified information". 71.212.31.95 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so the first paragraph just summarizes the claims in Rep. Conyer's letter. The "under cover" language is not used in the rest of the letter... Interesting... Valtam 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, does the rest of the letter make any correction to or offer any disagreement with the statement that the CIA requested an investigation into the disclosure of an employee operating under cover? I don't see it.--csloat 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance to article???

Nearly all of the controversy about covertness has nothing to do with improving the article. The passion on all sides is sincere but, please, let's not argue about subjects that just don't improve the article. Otherwise I shall have to comment on the question whether a CIA agent loses her covert status when she marrys an Ambassador. Geez. What better cover than as a blonde bimbo Ambassador's wife? You get to travel the world, play tennis with anybody, et cetera ... it's practically "I Spy" minus Bill Cosby. rewinn 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a semantic argument at best. As a term of art, she had "Non-Official Cover" (i.e. Brewster Jennings). I think that would be the only term the CIA would use. But CIA chose to report this as a violation of revealing classified information. Colloquially, "under cover" or "covert agent" implies more than what she was. She was certainly not a foreign agent or "spy" at least in the years leading up to this incident. They didn't seem to believe IIPA was violated. My objection to "undercover" is that it implies more in common usage than it means in usage by the CIA. She was an employee of the CIA, she worked at CIA headquarters but her relationship to the CIA was classified. I don't think anyone can argue that her employment wasn't classified. As far as I can tell, "classified" doesn't have colloquial meaning beyond the government meaning. It has been reported that the CIA PR person confirmed Plames employment. This alone would have triggered the referral to Justice for revealing classified information. --Tbeatty 06:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
First, the CIA said "under cover" as well as "NOC" as well as "classified." The only word there really is dispute about is "covert." Second, your claim that "she was certainly not a foreign agent or spy at least in the years leading up to this incident" is impossible for you to say with certainty, unless you yourself are a high placed CIA official or have personal knowledge of Plame's actions during the time in question. There's a reason people involved have been pretty tight-lipped about this, and I don't think we can assume that we know with any certainty what Plame was up to, where she travelled, who she interacted with, spied on, etc. We do have some evidence that she was working on WMD issues regarding Iran, which is disturbing, but we don't have much detail about precisely what she was working on, and we should not pretend we do. If her employment was "classified," that means she was "undercover." Your claim that "classified" doesn't have a colloquial meaning is misleading. "Classified" refers to information withheld by the executive branch for national security purposes. When someone's job and employer is "classified," that indicates she is working "under cover." Especially when there is explicitly a "cover" set up for her to operate in a "covert" manner. The only one of these words with a "special" meaning in this case is "covert," which has a specific definition in the IIPA. However, in it's colloquial meaning, Plame was certainly "covert" - that we can say with certainty (at least, assuming that Moscowitz, various CIA officers, Pat Fitzgerald, and her former classmates are not conspiring to lie to the the public about this), even if she did not meet the legal definition of "covert" in the IIPA sense.--csloat 06:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe you are wrong, merely that some terms are more disputable than others. "under cover" and "covert" to me, in a colloqial sense, implies spying and foreign service. It is simply a perception of the word. Since, as you say, we don't know any of that, it makes it disputable. I agree with you that she fits the dictionary definition of all those words. She had cover, therefore "undercover" technically fits. If she is "under cover" she could also be called "covert", etc, etc. You could even argue she was a "spy" because she worked for the "spy agency." Yet common usage makes me cringe at "covert" and "under cover" but not "classified." "Classified" seems more appropriate given what we know and the common usage of the terms. "Non-official cover" can be used to describe her classified employment as this really has no colloquial usage. --Tbeatty 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OK :)--csloat 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

I have a feeling this will be an ongoing problem resulting from shortening the page by breaking it up -- perhaps there should be a table of contents that includes the sub-pages at the top so people do not continue adding info to this page that really belongs on a sub-page? i agree with csloat here. someone just rewrote the intro to include info that's already in the background section. the problem is that people come to this page and add info without reading what's already in the article, and so the same fact is repeated three or four times, as i learned from rewritting the background section last night. how to fix this ongoing problem??Anthonymendoza 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps
Sub-Articles and Related Articles
and perhaps this should be inserted at the top of the article as has been suggested. Anthonymendoza 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

intro revert

csloat replaced the following intro:

Plame Affair refers to the U.S. political controversy and criminal investigation resulting from a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak which identified Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA "operative". Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged that her identity as an undercover agent had been intentionally exposed by White House officials in order to destroy her career, to punish him for publicly criticizing the Bush administration's justification for the war with Iraq. The CIA requested an FBI investigation of a possible violation of criminal law concerning unauthorized disclosure of classified information, but after more than two years a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, Patrick Fitzgerald, had not brought any charges concerning the disclosure.

with this:

Plame Affair revolves around allegations that one or more government officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s classified employment status.

csloat, In what way do you think that is an improvement? 71.212.31.95 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed before. Introductions should be short, so readers can tell quickly what the subject is about, and dryly npov, which has been a problem for this article. Your additional are redolent with pov. rewinn 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
rewinn, an intro should briefly summarize the essential information concerning the subject of the article, sufficient to satisfy the needs of a reader with casual interest. csloat's intro is clearly insufficient. Please be specific as to what you think is pov about my revision. 71.212.31.95 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please review prior extensive discussion in Talk:Plame affair. For one example, calling Plame affair a political matter is pov disparagement of the non-political aspects of the matter. rewinn 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
rewinn, please reread my intro. It says the Plame affair refers to a political controversy and criminal investigation. If there is some other aspect of the matter that you think needs to be mentioned in the intro, by all means feel free to include it. What are your other objections? 71.212.31.95 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
We went thru all this last month. Plame affair has legal (both criminal and civil), security, political, financial, journalistic and other aspects. Once you start expanding the introduction to include everything in the article, you are on the road back to making this article longer than History of the World, which would be undesirable. rewinn 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the intro summary cannot include every detail of all aspects of the subject. But it should briefly describe the essential facts regarding the most significant aspects. My intro is a good faith effort toward that end. If you think there's something else that needs to be mentioned, please add it. 71.212.31.95 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, please review the previous discussion. The word "political" should not be in the introduction becaue it places undue weight on an aspect of Plame Affair that is scantly, if at all, mentioned in the article. The article's content focusses on legal battles with a heaping helping of journalism; very little of the article concerns politics. Feel free to start Plame Affair (politics) if you want an article that emphasizes it; I'm sure that would be full of interesting content. rewinn 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing Rove section

User:Anthonymendoza et cetera: Good job summarizing the Rove section! One can quibble forever ... but the essence is there and a link to the article where more can be found. Good job! Of course, the reward for good work is to solicited for more. How about tackling the Novack section the same way? (I see that you're on it already...) rewinn 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

i finished all the references (i forgot to sign in on one edit). i think the article is a good length. i'll look over the novak section and see what can be merged with his page.Anthonymendoza 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, time for a WikiCookie

Relax! Let's have a cookie and think it over!

Relax! this is only wikipedia. No-one is going to change their opinion of the topic by what they read here. So sit back and enjoy a cookie! rewinn 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New WP article

Pretty much sums up the Plame Affair. They even call it an "affair." Pretty much nails all aspects fairly.--Tbeatty 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And here's the key, concluding, paragraph:

covert status settled

This pretty much settles the "covert" issue; it's clear now that Plame was working on intelligence issues as a covert agent with NOC status and that she had sensitive assignments overseas during the time period necessary to qualify for protection under the IIPA. I'm not saying the IIPA will actually be enforced, particularly with certain figures obstructing the investigation, but it's clear now both that Plame's status should have been protected under the law and that in outing her, Rove et al. not only destroyed her career but also greatly compromised national security by undermining an ongoing intelligence operation (as well as burned all her contacts and anyone else using the Brewster Jennings cover). The irony is that she was working on gathering intelligence to support Bush's case for war in Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the WaPo editors and others who have pounced on this forthcoming book as evidence that the "Plame affair" is over will have to say once the book actually comes out; based on what little has been published so far, it is clear that the authors have reached some very different conclusions.--csloat 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm no. It says her foreign assignment ended in 1997 (six years before the disclosure). Further, it says she was sent with government intellignece agents to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence which would imply that she did NOT enjoy NOC status while on this trip. Also, interestingly enough, it ties her to the Aluminum tubes. Since she was CIA, she was part of the report that said they WERE for nuclear centrifuges (the CIA claimed nuclear uses, Energy departement said possible rocket bodies). --Tbeatty 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, yes? The IIPA doesn't require a "foreign assignment." It requires that the agent be sent abroad on intelligence work - which she was (dates are not clear but some time between 2001-3). There is nothing indicating she did not "enjoy" NOC status in Jordan. And it's not just Jordan; it says she "occasionally flew overseas" during this period to monitor operations. I agree about the tubes; it is ironic that the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent who was working to find evidence supporting his Iraq war case. I guess people will continue to read only what they want to read into articles like this no matter how much evidence comes out, but it will be interesting to see where the spin goes when this book is published.--csloat 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The language says "served" overseas. Single trips outside the U.S. would not qualify jsut as it would not qualify as "served" in the military. Otherwise, GWB would be considered a combat veteran as he has toured Iraq as Commander in Chief. But my interpretation, as well as yours, is why it will not hold up to scrutiny since it is not clearly sourced. It should be left out unless/until a charge that uses the IPAA definition is brought. She should not be referred to as a "covert agent" after 1997 since the IIPA has a definition that is not consistent with her service (or at best ambiguous). As for the tubes, I was pointing out that she is one of the people who say the tubes are for a nuclear reactor. That was her report to Congress and she believed that Iraq was reconstituting in Nuclear weapons program. If Korn is correct and she was part of the team who evaluated the Aluminum tubes, it puts her at direct odds to her husband. I don't think the Bush administration burned her, I think it was Wilson they were after and this disclosure was inadvertant. --Tbeatty 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please cite your source for the bizarre definition of "served overseas" here; frankly, I think you're making it up. The Bush analogy is nonsensical; if Bush had been sent to Iraq on a mission for the US military as part of an ongoing appointment as a machine gunner or something, then, sure, we could say he "served," just like when Valerie Wilson went overseas as part of an ongoing appointment as a NOC dealing with WMD issues, she too was "serving." As for IIPA, I don't think charges will be brought under it, because we have some of the criminals involved disrupting the investigation -- hence the perjury and obstruction charges. That is independent of her status as a "covert" agent, which she clearly was in the general sense, and now the evidence points pretty clearly that she met even the more restricted definition of covert given in the IIPA. Whether or not charges are brought against anyone under IIPA does not change her status as covert. As for the tubes, I understand your point, and I agree that it is ironic that in their zeal to assault Wilson, members of the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent -- inadvertently or no -- who was basically working on their side.--csloat 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Criminals?" I don't know where you are from, but here in America, we have a concept called "innocent until proven guilty." I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with it - it would help in your editing Wikipedia. Valtam 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh please - high horse unnecessary; I did not and would not add that word to the article. I assumed it would be understood that I was expressing my opinion that the people who committed crimes here are "criminals," not a court's. I do support due process and criminal rights for Scooter Libby and anyone else charged with crimes in this situation. (However, I am extremely disturbed by the fact that certain people - specifically Mr. Rove - continue to enjoy security clearance. Revocation of such clearance does not need a court finding of guilt in this situation.)--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
maybe armitage "burned" her because she was working with the white house. the conspiracy theories can go on forever. corn's article basically confirms what was already known. she was an noc, but not a deep cover noc, since she served time at an embassy and, now we learn, worked with jordanian intelligence officials. so both sides of the covert debate can claim being correct. Anthonymendoza 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Armitage didn't burn her. Rove and Libby (and plausibly Cheney) did. Corn's article does confirm what is already known, I agree, but many people still seem to think that certain things were not known. There is no distinction made in that article (or anywhere else that I know of) between a NOC and a "deep cover NOC" -- I suggest that such distinction is based on guesswork by Wikipedia editors. I see no evidence that her work in Jordan compromized her NOC status, nor her cover as an embassy worker.--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
corn's article says this about NOC's: NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. but if plame met with jordanian intelligence officials, wouldn't she have been known to the jordanian government? and this is from a time magazine article from 2003: Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, [Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official] said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. and the chicago tribune stated that plame had diplomatic cover while serving at an embassy:A CIA veteran with 20 years of service was quoted in the Tribune article as saying "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period and that diplomatic cover would have meant she would have been known to "friendly and opposition intelligence services alike". so there is a distinction between an NOC and a deep cover NOC, and it's not my "guesswork". what i don't understand is why you are the only editor you doesn't see the significance of Armitage being the initial leaker. i know in the past you've commented on Rove being "frog marched" out of the white house, but he isn't going to be charged. and neither is cheney. and libby trial will have nothing to do with plame's outing. ask yourself this: if armitage hadn't of told novak about plame, would we have a plame affair? rove only confirmed what armitage already told novak, and all indications are that rove told cooper after he learned novak would be writing an article about it. libby told miller, but she didn't and never intended to write about it. nobody burned anybody or conspired against anyone. even the washington post and the new york times are distancing themselves from Joe Wilson. there was no conspiracy to out plame.Anthonymendoza 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So was she a NOC or not? You seem to be claiming both things here. The "deep cover" argument by Rustmann is the first and only place I've seen that, and his credibility on this issue has been called into question by several other former CIA officers. The anonymous guy who says having a diplomatic job means that she wasn't a NOC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, at least, if other CIA officials are to be believed on this. I still don't see any evidence of a distinction in kinds of NOC; Rustmann's comment sounds like he is making the distinction on the fly. Of course, neither of us works at CIA, at least I know I don't, and I don't believe you have ever claimed to, so neither of us can say with certainty whether that is an official distinction. As for the Jordanians, I have no idea whether they knew she was a NOC, and the article does not appear to make a claim either way on that issue. But it's nice that you're so sure of it. As for Armitage, which is the big issue here, the Times and Post are just wrong this time around. The Armitage info is nothing new. The book which this info comes from is coming out in a couple days I think; you will see then (assuming you read it, or about it) that its authors clearly do not agree with the WaPo assessment of the Plame affair as a big waste of time. Armitage was clearly not the only person spreading this information about Plame to the Washington press corps. Fitzgerald - who knew about Armitage back in '03 - stated in court documents that "there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14." According to WaPo (10/12/03), "two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists." That article reports that an administration official told them the disclosure was "unsolicited" and that it was "part of their broader case against Wilson." Rove called Matthews and said that Plame was "fair game" in the attack on Wilson (Newsweek 7/11/05). Your claim that Rove told Novak about Plame after Armitage told him is immaterial -- Rove talked to Novak about Plame the same day Armitage talked to him, and his confirmation of this information was a separate crime. We also know for a fact that Rove talked to Cooper 3 days later, offering up the same information (and no, I don't see any indications that Rove knew Novak would be mentioning it, though that is immaterial to any of this as well). If Armitage shot his mouth off first, that hardly changes the nature of any of this. It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this, but is also irrelevant to the question of whether there was a "Plame affair" or of whether there was something immoral, criminal, and detrimental to national security that was done by people in the White House and VPs office who wanted to attack a former Ambassador for doing his job.--csloat 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
so know Rustmann is not credible. ok. but yes, i am claiming both. she was NOC, but not enough to fit under the IIPA definition, and no real harm came from her outing, as andrea mitchell, bob woodward, and dana priest have all reported. but i see where you are coming from now when you write "It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this". you are waiting for another shoe to drop. i don't believe there are any other indictments to come involving this case, but let's wait and see. as for the armitage info being known, yes, some theorized it was him, but now that we know for sure, it does change the entire aspect of this affair. you cite the post to prove a big conspiracy, yet say they are wrong when they begin to distance themselves from Wilson. and yes, fitzgerald has said there is ample evidence that white house officials discussed plame, but he doesn't suggest it's criminal, or even immoral; rather, if you read the entire document, he uses that info to rebute claims by libby that he had other things on his mind and thus forgot about discussing plame. fitzgerald is arguing that wilson's column was at the forefront of cheney's mind and thus makes it more plausible that libby perjured himself and obstructed justice. we'll see what happens at libby's trial, as he is innocent until proven guilty, and we can't base our judgment solely on the documents of a prosecutor. but regardless, i believe your grasping at straws but i commend you for sticking to your guns. but if in the end libby is the only person indicted, the plame affair will only be remembered as a big conspiracy theory that didn't materialize.Anthonymendoza 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say I thought another shoe might drop. As a patriot, I suppose I am hopeful that one does, but I am not making any predictions, given how weird this case has been. Your claim that no harm has come from her outing is ludicrous given what we now know about what she was doing; Mitchell, woodward, and priest are incorrect if they have reported that (former CIA officials Johnson, Marcinkowski, Grimaldi, and Cavan, as well as former DIA officer Lang, as well as several current CIA officials who remain anonymous, have all reported otherwise. I trust their word over the reports of two reporters (neither of whom is a huge hack - well, perhaps woodward - but you haven't indicated where their info came from) and certainly over the word of Andrea Mitchell, who has been shown to have deliberately distorted this on occasion, who has a clear investment in the case, and who has admitted having "misspoke" about this. As for Armitage, there is no evidence that it "changes the entire aspect" of this affair. The crucial issue is that the White House went after Wilson and in the process of doing so they (willfully or ignorantly) burned an important national security outlet. Whether anyone gets hung out to dry for that is not something I will predict, though, again, as a patriot, I do not hide the fact that I have my hopes. That Armitage is a blabbermouth is beside the point -- the whole reason he was looking at a document with this info about Plame in the first place is because people in the White House had started up a smear campaign. As for my citing the Post and saying they are wrong about something else - I cited a report and said they were wrong in an editorial. Look, the Post publishes a lot of different things and has many different writers. It is quite possible they get some things right and others wrong. Are you suggesting the report I cited - a basic statement of facts based on Fitzgerald's investigation - was a lie? Finally, I must again emphasize that whether anyone else gets indicted is a separate issue. My car was stolen. The thief was never brought to justice. I doubt you would claim that the latter fact proves that nothing illegal or immoral took place. Sometimes the evidence is not there to convict a criminal for wrongdoing (especially when there is obstruction of justice and perjury going on!) I can't see how anyone can claim that what took place was not immoral. National security was compromised by the exposure of an undercover CIA agent who was working on WMD issues, and it was done for a cheap political attack on someone else who was working for the Administration. (And this after the Admin even backed off the claim that Wilson was refuting!) If a Democratic administration had done anything like this, we'd have seen everyone involved tried for treason by now. I'm not saying that should happen here, but I am saying I find it very difficult to understand how you can claim these actions as morally defensible. Plead ignorance or stupidity if you want to defend the Admin on this but claiming it was morally justified seems absurd. And, by the way, I have one final point - it doesn't matter if you believe Plame was doing anything important with WMD issues. The outing of plame was also an outing of her cover company, which was a large CIA investment and may have exposed other agents and operations. Chances are the CIA had to call it quits on everything Valerie was involved in, and possibly lost relationships with other assets abroad. But even beyond that - and this is crucial - the question of the longer term effect on CIA covert operations needs to be stressed. Being an undercover agent of any kind is already dangerous - especially being a NOC. An agent knows that they could be killed or worse if their identity is exposed. It's bad enough that the "bad guys" might figure out their identity, but it is a lot worse if they cannot trust their own government to not blab their identity to reporters! We can only imagine the longer term effect of this action on recruiting and retention of covert agents who do this dangerous work. If I were a covert agent in 2003 when this happened I might be looking for early retirement options. This is, I think, one of the reasons the CIA took this so seriously when it happened, and it's a reason conservatives should be taking it seriously too. We can debate liberal vs. conservative ideas all day long, but at some point there are certain issues where American liberals and conservatives both should be responding as Americans first rather than as representatives of political parties.--csloat 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
the car analogy doesn't work here since the reason no one was brought to justice for stealing your car was because he/she wasn't caught. in this case, fitzgerald knows who all the players are, what they said, who they talked too, etc, and no one was charged with leaking classified info. and i'm not suggesting fitzgerald's report was a lie, just that your misreading it. fitzgerald was making an argument that libby couldn't have forgotten conversations about plame because she and wilson were discussed deeply in the vp's office. but he doesn't suggest the fact that she was discussed was criminal. as far as everything else, Armitage has now stated that in 40 years of government service, reading and dealing with memos and classified documents, he has never seen a covert agents name printed in a memo. that tells you how thinly veiled her cover was. or perhaps the state department needs to review the guidelines for writing classified memos. i just think this is all so overblown. there's no question plame's career was ruined, but the fault lies with armitage and the author of the state department memo, rather than rove, libby , bush, etc. there just simply was no conspiracy to out her.Anthonymendoza 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The car analogy works. The reason no one was brought to justice is that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for the theft. That does not mean the theft was not a crime. The reason Fitzgerald has not charged anyone but Libby appears to be the same - there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with leaking classified info. The fact that Fitzgerald has talked to everyone does not mean he is confident there is enough evidence to indict -- in fact, the obstruction of justice that occurred likely made it difficult to gather all the evidence necessary. What did I misread in Fitzgerald's report? Fitzgerald said Plame was undercover until her cover was blown by Novak. Fitzgerald doesn't need to address whether this was criminal - he would not be involved if no criminal activity were involved. As for whether Plame was thinly veiled -- who wrote the memo? Not the CIA, but State, and you may be right that they should review their procedures for writing memos. And, again, it doesn't matter how "thin" you think her cover was; the fact is, if the CIA says she is undercover, that is what she is. Complain to them about doing a poor job, but that does not excuse whoever exposed her. And it does not excuse Rove and Libby and whoever else for contacting 6 news outlets (at minimum) in order to attack Wilson through his wife. This may be "overblown" too - I'm not arguing that it's not - but I do think this is serious, possibly more serious than actions that have brought impeachment proceedings against previous presidents. If the VP's office knowingly compromised national security in order to smear someone for criticizing actions that are already on tenuous moral and legal grounds (i.e. intentionally manipulating the case for war by ignoring key evidence or distorting other evidence), that is quite serious. Debates about how deep her cover was or whether there were other people hurt by her outing are secondary; the primary issue (at least in my opinion - and I acknowledge that's all we're discussing at this point, and that the only reason I'm continuing this conversation is that, as TheronJ noted, "speculation is fun") is the abuse of power by the executive branch and the placing of petty political revenge over national security concerns.--csloat 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
i'm confused. was someone arrested for stealing the car and not charged, or was no one arrested because of lack of suspects? i admire your passion on this issue and i too was drawn to this story because of all the issues you raised. but i stopped taking it seriously when joe and valerie wilson posed for vanity fair. to me, the whole affair became a political stunt after that. and as details continue to emerge, i think this was all a waste of time. but i agree there were serious questions involved here and the investigation was warranted, just way overhyped. we'll see where the civil suit goes.Anthonymendoza 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody was arrested, but what is the difference? If someone was arrested and not charged would that make the analogy more useful for you? Didn't happen to me, but it has certainly happened, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree there was still a crime committed if a car was stolen. As for the rest of it, I think we're nearing some common ground. I agree with you that posing for Vanity Fair was a lame move on their part. Then again, if Vanity Fair asked me to pose for them, I'm sure I would do it, and think about the fallout later. Certainly they wanted to get the word out about the scandal, and here was an outlet willing to do that. I'm not sure whether the civil suit matters much; it's a vehicle to keep public attention focused on this, I suppose, but to me this issue is important whether or not Wilson is vindicated by some kind of legal settlement.--csloat 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Plame worked out of CIA headquarters starting in 1997. Obviously, you can't be covert if you are walking in and out of CIA headquarters every working day... Valtam 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That is false. It's a canard that has been thoroughly refuted long ago. You think undercover cops don't go to the police station?--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is where it says she must be posted overseas in the last five years. Going to Jordan on a "business trip" would not count. Especially since she was going with Jordanian intelligence. "Served outside the U.S." implies a duty station not at CIA headquarters. A weekend trip or even a couple weeks would not suffice. In any event her "covert status" on this trip is certainly questioned as she went with Jordanian intellignece officials who almost certainly knew she was with CIA. It is still not clear that she meets the definition of "covert agent" within the IIPA. Korn's article didn't add any new information other than to confirm that Valerie Plame believed that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. --Tbeatty 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that indicates the trip to Jordan or the other overseas trips she took "would not count," sorry. That seems to be your interpretation. Same with your claim that "served" implies a duty station not at CIA HQ (and I also don't see any place where you learned where she was stationed in Jordan or her other trips). Nor do I see anything about how many weeks you have to be somewhere for it to count. I also see nothing in the Corn article or anywhere else that indicates that Jordanian officials "almost certainly" knew anything. As for what Corn's article added that was new - it's strange, since you've mentioned a few of the things yourself, otherwise I would just reply that you obviously hadn't read it if you think that was all that was new there.--csloat 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Being in Jordan is not "serving" in Jordan. Look at military billets. That's the way it works. If you go to Canada for week on business you aren't considered to be working in Canada. You don't pay their income or labor taxes, etc, etc. Going to Jordan as part of her work at a Langely desk would not count as serving outside the United States. As for whether Jordan intelligence official knew her status as CIA employee seems pretty self-evident. Why else would they talk to her? Here is the interesting bit. By tying her to Aluminum Tubes, Corn makes it clear that the statement "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons" a year before the invasion and after her husband returned from Niger. If her husband didn't believe that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, he didn't convince his wife. --Tbeatty 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Tbeatty, I'm not buying it. Where is the evidence that going to Jordan to do CIA business doesn't count in the IIPA? You are just asserting it, and it's not convincing. Where is your information about the other trips she took overseas? Where is your evidence that she didn't get paid, that this was "part of her work at a langley desk" (what a loaded pile, sorry) or that the Jordanians would not talk to her if she was undercover? You are just asserting things - I'm glad you're so sure of these things, but I'm sticking to what I actually see evidence for. Your link to the CIA 2002 document tells us nothing. I never disagreed that Plame likely thought Iraq was trying to acquire nukes. Frankly, I think Joe Wilson likely thought so too before he went to Niger and discovered otherwise. But that is neither here nor there - this information makes a Plame/Wilson conspiracy less likely, not more.--csloat 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The simplest thing is to wait for reliable sources to opine on the circumstances of Plames' trip and whether it renders her covert. However, since speculation is fun, let me say that: (1) I still think Fitzgerald's unusual effort to avoid saying she was covert suggests that he wasn't confident that she was; but (2) the trip is one more thing on the other side of the scale. (As to whether she was undercover on the trip, I would be very interested in seeing what the reliable sources have to say -- I can imagine that it would be hard for a Brewster Energy executive to get the Jordanians to talk about the specifications of aluminum tubes they sold to Iraq, but OTOH, there's a good chance that she at least traveled under her cover just to avoid being kidnapped. TheronJ 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think we already have Corn "opining" on the matter here. I believe the book comes out today; looking forward to further revelations. But I suspect instead of "reliable sources" you specifically mean Fitzgerald. I don't agree that he has gone through any unusual efforts to avoid saying she was covert - I think he has simply chosen his words very carefully in general, something he is well known for doing. He has said she was under cover, and a judge has said that he thinks Fitzgerald believes she was covert under the restrictive IIPA definition. We already know she was "covert" in the normal, non-restrictive sense. (The requirement for international travel is a legal fiction; it is not a part of the normal definition of covert in lay terms, as we have discussed in the past).--csloat 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Covert" vs. not "covert"

The confusion on this point stems from the fact that there are two aspects to Plame's confidential/discrete employment status. First of all, let's not dispute that as a CIA employee, it's fairly reasonable to accept that Plame was - at least to some degree - discrete about he employment actvities. However, let's not confuse the political aspect ie; Wilson, et al shouting "they outed Plame for revenge" with the legal, ie: Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with a making an illegal "leak". Based on the facts so far, it's pretty clear that Plame's employment privacy was not protected by law at the time it "leaked" out. However, as to whether or not she was keeping a low profile, hence working "covert", it seems that to some degree she was. At the same time, her status of "covert"/discrete or lack thereof, does not prove or disprove that there was a "leak" from the legal standpoint. If no applicable anti-"leak" was law broken (which, because Fitzgerald did not charge anyone, this seems likely), then it's important that we use care so as to not imply or suggest via the word "covert" that any legally sanctionable "leak" occured. To sum up, as I see it, legally there was no "leak"; pragmatically, Plame was previously working discretely, Wilson did make himself an adversary of White House via the Op-Ed, WH did seek to rebut and defuse him and it certainly looks smelly that Wilson/Plame as Democrat players, had their fingers in the get Bush pie on the "16 words" angle. Frankly, it seems to me that Wilson has only himself to blame for the exposure Plame got. Those two tossed the dice trying to stick it to Bush and it blew up in their faces. Why others here can't see this, puzzles me. I would say that up until the point where Wilson wrote that OpEd and invited scrutiny, a fair characterization of Plame's emplyment status would be "confidential". However, I feel that she willingly shirked that confidence when she got her blabber-mouth husband involved in his obviously agenda-driven trip and then failed to rope him in prior to his axe-griding OpEd. Wilson pissed in the punch bowl at the party and when he did that, it's quite reasonable to inquire as to how he got his entrance ticket. If Plame truly wanted to stay out of the spotlight, she would have kept a leash on Wilson. True under-cover agents do not allow their spouses to attract press and political attention to themselves.87.118.100.99 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse a lack of charges with a lack of evidence of criminal activity. We know Plame was covert in the general sense; the CIA has acknowledged over and over now that she was working under cover, and Fitzgerald has said as much, as has a federal judge. In the specific sense of the IIPA there has been a debate, though the Corn article seems to settle that debate too, since the only question about her "covertness" per the IIPA was whether she travelled out of the country on business during that time, and it now appears that she did so several times. Your claim that there was no law broken because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with breaking a law is a ludicrous argument. My car was stolen a few years back. Nobody was charged with stealing it. Are you saying no law was broken? My car was found some 25 miles away stripped and on cinder blocks. I am fairly certain there are laws against stealing cars and stripping them for parts in my state. Your claim that Wilson is the one who outed Plame is even more ludicrous. It's just nonsense. Wilson was doing the job he was asked to do and he wrote his op ed not to grind an axe but to do his duty as an American citizen. He was asked to do a job and he did it, and the Admin didn't like the answers he learned, so they stonewalled him and lied about it. He knew the 16 words were false and shouldn't have been in the speech, how could he have kept quiet about it? The nonsense that Plame sent Wilson or collaborated with Wilson on some kind of agenda-driven trip is complete bullshit, as you should know. Newsday June 22 2003 - senior intel officer notes "[Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." SSCI report p 40 - Valerie Wilson was not even at the meeting where the question of Joe Wilson going to =niger was raised. Wilson was picked for the niger trip because he was uniquely qualified for it. And the David Corn article confirms that the SSCI claim that Valerie "offered up" Wilson's name was a misunderstanding of something in a Douglas Rohn memo. It also points out that she was on the Bush Admin side in the whole WMD thing, so it's hard to give claims of a Plame-Wilson conspiracy any credence at all. And your claim about what "true under cover agents" do or don't do seems entirely based on your experience as an undercover wikipedia editor editing with an anonymous IP rather than any knowledge of how the CIA works - or doesn't work - here in the US.--csloat 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Commodore, you say: He knew the 16 words were false. Your statement is flat-out untrue - see the Butler Review, which says: [W]e conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded. The fact that you are either ignorant of the facts, or are willfully distorting them, casts any claims you make into a dubious light. Valtam 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Tenet, the 16 words never should have been in the speech. The Butler review is just wrong on this count. They never established any evidence of the 16 words being true; my guess is this was a CYA on their part. But my guess doesn't matter - my point was that the US has backed off of that claim because we knew it to be unsupported, based in part on what Wilson found when he went to Niger (but also based on other sources of information). The key documents here turned out to be forgeries. There is no need for personal attacks here; please read WP:AGF before engaging me in any further discussion. Thanks.--csloat 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Commodore, I am assuming good faith and I am not making a personal attack. You make a statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", which is demonstrably false. Why would you do such a thing? The only reasons I can think of is you are ignorant of the matter, or you are not, and are intentionally making a false statement. If there is another explanation, I'd love to hear it. How is your statement demonstrably false? The forged documents, which Wilson claimed to have seen, were not the only evidence supporting this claim. See the entry on the 16 words. It talks about Blair's testimony about separate sources for the claims, as well as Jack Straw's testimony that British intelligence supporting the claim had not been shared with the CIA, and was based on reliable intelligence. Your statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", is false. Valtam 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Claiming I am willfully distorting facts and that any claim I make is dubious is a strange way of assuming good faith. Claiming I am intentionally making false statements is simply not assuming good faith. Tenet admitted the 16 words were false; I misspoke if I attributed what the Bush Administration knew to what Bush the man knew. I don't know what Bush the individual knew; but I know what his Administration knew and what he should have known before addressing the nation. Sorry if my words confused you. What Blair and Jack Straw thought is not relevant here; what is relevant is what the Bush Admin thought, and that information should have been influenced by Wilson's report, among other information from IAEA and elsewhere, that suggested there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. And today we have the bipartisan SSCI's relatively authoritative conclusion on the matter - "Postwar findings tdo not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa.... claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious'.... The ISG found no evidence that indicated Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The ISG did recover evidence that Iraq explicitly turned down an offer to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo." With the release of this report I don't see how anyone can continue to defend the position that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.--csloat 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
SInce this is tied very closely to IIPA, I think we must use the more restrictive defintion. It is a disservice to use the same words with two different meanings and this is the heart of the matter. I think it is enough to say her employment status is classified. WE should also be the most conservative when we use the term in relation to the criminal provisions of IIPA. Saying she was a "covert agent" and then pointing out that revealing a "covert agent" is felony with regards to the IIPA, while at the same time, behind the scenes, trying to say "covert agent" means two different things is a poor argument. I think in the context of the Plame affair, where the violation of IIPA is a very real possibility but not yet reality, we must defer to the definition in the IIPA. That means until legal source says that IIPA was or wasn't violated, we should simply stay on the side with the most surety. Namely, don't say "covert agent", say her "employment was classified" or that she had "non-official cover". Both of those terms convey the facts without advancing the position that IIPA was violated. It is possible to use the dictionary to work your way from those terms to "covert agent" but in the end it comes down to IIPA and it will fail that test until charges are brought. --Tbeatty 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
At this point, is there still doubt that Plame was a NOC? Fitzgerald has already said that at the time of her outting her employment with the CIA was "classified" (see 1f of the indictment). 1d of the indictment also notes that the outing of individuals in Plame's situation would prevent their "future use in a covert capacity". However, that being said, Armitage outing her may not have been a violation of IIPA. In order to violate IIPA Armitage would have had to know that she was a NOC and he would have had to intentionally outed her. Granted I haven't read every single article on Armitage's outting, but all the news I've seen have said that he knew she worked for the CIA, but didn't know in what capacity she worked for the CIA, and that he released the information on accident. If that is true, then even though Plame was a NOC at the time of her outing, there is no violation of IIPA. It also appears that Fitzgerald has known about Armitage's outting since 2003. One would think that if Armitage did violate IIPA he would have been charged by now. All in all, the lack of any charges related to IIPA does not prove that Plame was not a "covert agent", it just indicates that no one that knew she was a NOC intentionally outed her. --Bobblehead 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Or it means that not enough evidence has been found to prove what anyone knew when they outed her. Of course, you're right that there is no serious dispute about whether she was covert. As for Tbeatty's argument about the specific IIPA meaning of covert, the solution is not to just use the non-intuitive meaning in all cases; rather, the solution is to be clear when you are using the more restrictive term. I definitely agree we should not confuse the two meanings, but just using "covert" to mean "covert + working outside the country in the past 5 years" is a bit deceptive in this context.-csloat 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
the indictment of libby also says fitzgerald was investigating possible violations of the IIPA as well. the question has always been why wasn't anyone charged with this. it goes to the heart of the whole affair. she was classified and an NOC. but she either didn't fit the description under IIPA, fitzgerald couldn't prove she was intentionally outed, or he found she wasn't intentionally outed. i personally find it interesting that the CIA requested an investigation into the matter not for IIPA violations, but solely for leaking classified information. isikoff's piece states fitzgerald couldn't prove armitage knew she was covert. and jason leopold wrote a piece for raw story last year that states fitzgerald couldn't convince the grand jury she was covert (though i don't trust leopold's reporting anymore). [5][6]Anthonymendoza 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Commodore: Apologies. I understand your argument, and I should have done a better job assuming good faith. Valtam 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that, and I'm glad the argument is more clear now.--csloat 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraq or Iran?

(She also assisted operations involving Iran and WMDs.) this sentence is the only mention of Iran in Corn's article. this is from the raw story article: While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran. anonymous sources drive me crazy!Anthonymendoza 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Newly Released Senate Intel Info

Now that the Senate Intel Committee has released its report demonstrating that the Adminstration knew its pre-invasion intel did not support its claims, do we have a clearer picture on the Plame affair?

i haven't read the whole report, but does it specifically mention wilson's claims? if it does, it should be included in the background; if it doesn't then all you are going to do is ignite an edit war about prewar intelligence here. this isn't the page for that. besides, the background section is now getting to be too long. can you clarify your inclusion of the report in the background? Anthonymendoza 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I would remove what is currently the 5th paragraph (starting "The Butler Report") from the summary/background:
  • The section is too long
  • The accuracy of Wilson's claims is not a major element of the Plame Affair. Indeed if Wilson were 100% INaccurate, the outing of Plame would be all the more ironic. At most, the summary or background might note there is a controversy about Wilson's report, and let the body of the article go into detail
  • If we evaluate one report for relevance to Wilson's claims then we should evaluate all of them; and do so in reference to what Wilson's actual claims about his trip actually are, not what the reports and Wilson's critics say Wilson said. That would be tedious at best

rewinn 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i completely agree with you on all your points. all of this belongs on a separate page, but not on this page.Anthonymendoza 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance

There are two main points of view about this "affair":

  1. That Valerie Plame's (classified) employment by the CIA was a fact which it would be a crime for a government offical to reveal; and that a White House offical revealed this fact (to hurt Plame and/or her husband Wilson)
  2. That Plame's CIA employment was classified, but that it would not be a crime to reveal; and that the fact was not revealed by a White House official

I'm not sure what proportion of people advocate these two POV's but they seem to correspond to Liberal (anti-Bush) and Conservative (pro-Bush) roughly.

I would like to see this article, as well as the Valerie Plame article itself, changed from a style which asserts POV #1 as "the truth" to a style which reports POV #1 as the point of view of whoever has been advocating it (like journalists at New York Times, politicians in the Democratic Party). --Uncle Ed 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Except neither option is true. ;) Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was classified and it is only illegal if the person outing her knowingly and intentionally leaked her employment status. As far as who advocates the POV that a crime may have been committed, should probably include the CIA and Fitzgerald in that list. Additionally, speculation as to who was the leaker should be at an end now that Armitage raised his hand. --Bobblehead 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the controversy is not just over whether there was a crime committed under the IIPA. There is concern over ethical, political, and national security problems created not just by the leaker, but by the White House officials who used the outing of Plame as an opportunity to discredit a perceived political opponent.--csloat 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Commodore, this POV needs to be attributed to its advocate. Perhaps you can clarify WHO made the charge that somebody "outed" Plame; or the charge that White House officials "used the outing" to discredit someone? And WHO expressed concern that the "leak" caused problems? (What problems do they say were caused?) --Uncle Ed 13:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. The CIA made the charge that someone outed plame, as did the special counsel. The charge that officials used the outing to discredit wilson was made by the counsel as well as by numerous intelligence officials who spoke with reporters (mostly anonymous, though some named former intel officials). And problems caused by the leak have been documented by several reporters, most recently including Isikoff and Corn.--csloat 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Uncle Ed --- what exact language do you find POV? This article has been extensively discussed with respect to POV and, at present, is about as neutral as possible. It appears from your comments that you are unhappy about the article but until you are specific, nothing can be accomplished. rewinn 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't yet identified any specific "language", but the tenor of the article is the (now hidden) assumption that:
  1. Plame was an "undercover agent"
  2. Someone outed her "on purpose"
  • Points #1 & #2 combined with the law against revealing a CIA agent's identity, amounts to law-breaking. (I agree with the validity of this argument, by the way. It's only the premises which are in dispute: liberals/Democrats say one thing, conservatives/Republicans say another.
I have therefore re-inserted, in the introduction, a clarification that the POV of the accusers is that the law was broken. It will be even better if, early in the article, we identify the accusers and summarize their justifications.
What we need to avoid is an article which implies (without ever coming right and saying it) anything like "White House officials did wrong". Even if they did, it's not Wikipedia's place to lay that blame. Wikipedia should report that some NAMED SOURCE blamed the White House (or the State Department) or "the Bush Administration", etc. --Uncle Ed 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Number 1 above is accurate; we've been through this. There are debates about the meaning of particular words in the legal sense - e.g. "covert" - but the CIA is the only entity with authority to tell us whether or not she was undercover or "classified," and they have indicated that she was. Fitzgerald has as well. Number 2 is not "hidden" in the article last I checked -- in fact, Armitage's role is pretty clear in the article, and speculation about the "purpose" behind things seems clearly sourced to specific reporters and commentators, though if you have complaints about specific I'm sure we can look at those. The POV that the law was broken does not belong in the intro, since the "affair" is not just about whether the law was broken but also about whether harm was done. I am not sure where you are getting your claim that Wikipedia is laying blame without sources here; again, if you cannot be specific about this, there is not much that can be done.--csloat 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted edits to the introduction that narrowed Plame Affair to Armitage and to illegal conduct. Those are very far from the only notable elements of the matter. rewinn 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame's status

Either Plame was:

  1. a known employee of the CIA (hardly anyone says this)
  2. an employee whose connection to the CIA was "classifed" (but was not "CIA agent" working undercover)
  3. a "CIA agent" working undercover

I hear there is a law which applies to the 3rd case. Like suppose your "cover story" is that you're a tourist or embassy clerk, but you are really a CIA spy in Russia. Somebody reveals your CIA connection, and you and/or your family are murdered.

But what about case #2 where you're not one of several hundred "secret agents" but just another analyst like tens of thousands of others? Does the same law apply? (And if so, who says so?) --Uncle Ed 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The law you've heard about is the IIPA, and it has a specific definition of "covert," not "undercover." The latter term has been used by Fitzgerald and by the CIA, along with "classified." This is (or was) covered in the article, and there have been numerous discussions of it on the talk page; it might be helpful to look through the previous discussions on this topic on this page and in the archive (search through the pages for "covert"; that covers a lot but there has been a lot of discussion on these pages of that dispute). Plame was a NOC (non-official cover), which many consider the most dangerous kind of undercover agent, since you travel without diplomatic protection -- if you're busted in another country, the CIA essentially pretends they don't know who you are (I'm oversimplifying of course). Few dispute that fact. That still does not mean she was protected by the IIPA, which is still a matter of debate for some people (and of course nobody has been charged under that law). Hope this clears it up.--csloat 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
One minor clarification. Plame's status as a NOC is protected by IIPA, but only from people that knew she was a NOC. So the fact that she was outed and no charges have been filed to date should not be taken as an indication that she was not protected by IIPA. It's just that Armitage may not have violated IIPA when he outed her. --Bobblehead 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does Introduction need reasons Wilson picked?

I suggest deleting the paragraph in the introduction that talks about why Wilson was picked for the trip to Niger. Introducing the controversy over that sub-topic distracts from the main flow of events leading to the outing. rewinn 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that it should be somewhere in the article, since it establishes conclusively that Wilson was picked for his expertise and experience, not because he was Valerie's husband.--csloat 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should be somewhere. However Wilson's full qualifications seem to be so extensive that they were largely editted out of the introduction. I sympathize with the desire for conciseness up front, but Wilson was so massively qualified for the gig that his qualifications may merit their own small sub-section. rewinn 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
i removed it because Wilson's qualifications can be found on his wikipedia page, and the intro has a link to it. if a reader wants to learn about his qualifications, they should read his page. that was my reasoning.Anthonymendoza 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Cmon, Wilson was picked because his wife pushed for him. He didn't have an real credentials for this and didn't do any real work while in Niger. However it doesn't belong in the intro sinec it is only a side part of the controversy, who leaked and why is the core. 131.107.0.75 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, sorry, but that's BS. Wilson was the best possible candidate for the job -- he had experience in Africa, he had experience with Saddam, he had relationships with most of the people he needed to talk to. And, in fact, his wife didn't "push for him"! That is a myth that has been pretty well shattered by the Isikoff/Corn revelations (and, in fact, the evidence prior to that was pretty clear anyway -- you have some vague statements about her "offering his name up" that turned out to be a misinterpretation, and you have clear statements from the CIA that she wasn't even at the meeting where he was chosen for the job).--csloat 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly were Joe Wilson's qualifications? No intelligence gathering experience. No security agreement. He was the best possible for the job? A high profile former US official with no cover was the best we had for a discrete mission? Sip your own BS, Cslaot, but I am not buying it. A lot of the misinformation you complain about comes from you. Evensong 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is what was removed from the article: "he is a former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital. He was also Director for African Affairs in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and had relevant experience as Acting Ambassador to Iraq during the First Gulf War under then-President George H W Bush" This was not a secret intelligence gathering mission. Wilson was sent to speak openly with the major figures who would have knowledge of such a transaction. Larry Johnson puts it this way: "Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets."[7] You may not like Johnson but his argument here is impeccable. And cut out the personal attacks Evensong, it looks desperate and feeble. You have turned out to be wrong on just about every issue (if not every single one) that we've discussed here.--csloat 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I got reverted for not properly explaining why I removed a majority of the EL. Here we go:

  1. I wasn't saying that only government sources are the only acceptable links to include in the section.
  2. What I was saying was that the external links section is not a dumping ground for links that editors feel should be included in the article, but don't want to take the time to put them in as an inline source. (see WP:EL#What should be linked to)

In my opinion, the only links in this section that didn't meet the dumping ground criteria were the State of the Union address and Fitzgerald's official website. The rest were a repeat of links that were already in the article and/or did not have any information in them that wasn't already in the article, so they don't meet the criteria listed in WP:EL. The external links section is not for linking to specific articles on the subject (unless it adds something substantive to the article in an NPOV manner, but can not be added to the article due to copyrights), it's for linking to entire sites dedicated to the article and unless the site is NPOV, they need to include a description of which POV they are pushing. As an example, a link to Think Progress's tag for the Plame affair with a description along the lines of "Plame affair articles on a liberal website critical of the George W. Bush administration" is acceptable, but links to specific articles on Think Progress is not acceptable as they should be in the article as references. --Bobblehead 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the State of the Union is a repeat of inline ref #2. Constructive 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me suggest that you do a couple at a time, then let it sit for a day or three, explaining in talk as you go? It will take longer, but would raise fewer hackles. Probably educate the other editors (such as myself) as well. I didn't do the revert but I can imagine someone reacting strongly to a large edit, especially since this is a contentious article. rewinn 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

According to Novak, the Armitage leak was not just idle gossip. And according to a conservative source who spoke with Robert Parry, Armitage and Rove have a lot closer relationship than it would appear. The source told Parry "Armitage isn’t a gossip, but he is a leaker. There’s a difference." Interesting. I don't know what all this means other than, it ain't over yet.--csloat 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What isn't over yet. Neither Rove nor Armitage will be indicted. The article is based on "A well-placed conservative source," which is just laughable. Why would Armitage conspire to "out" Plame? and obviously Fitzgerald is aware of Novak's account. so why wasn't Armitage then indicted? I just don't understand the fuss over all of this anymore. Anthonymendoza 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of the information we know about any of this comes from "well placed sources"; why is this one more laughable than any other? I'm not sure why you see indictment as the only thing that would make this worth fussing over. As I've said a few times now, that is one issue but hardly the only important thing going on here.--csloat 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I suspect Plame Affair the article ain't over yet. People are still editting Terri Schiavo and Flat Earth. Most substantively, Plame Affair will probably include information about the civil suits which ... I state without fear of contradiction ... will take years to resolve. rewinn 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice whitewash of the Rove section

Wow, I'm amazed. Reading the Rove section, I'm left feeling he was convicted of some crime. You'd never know from this article that after a 3-year investigation (and dealing with non-stop attacks on his character -- even being accused of treason) he was found to do nothing wrong. It's even more amazing if you look at the history of this article. At one point in time this article was one of the largest at Wikipedia and almost 80% of it delt solely with Rove. Bravo, my friends! Bravo! Goebbles would be proud of your abilities to whitewash information. Sadly, Wikipedia's credibility is right in the toilet because of this. --152.163.100.139 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. What specific edits would you suggest?
  2. You seem to be praising the effort that has gone into editting this page down to a managable length. On behalf of those who did the work (my part was small) I thank you. rewinn 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. While the editting of the article is noteworthy, I find this entire article a sad joke. It's entire focus changes on a regular basis. Once upon a time it's main focus was on Karl Rove, now its Armitage, tomorrow... who knows? I think there should at least be SOME mention in the Rove section that the man was hounded for three years and was being accused of committing crimes (including treason) yet was eventually found to not have done anything illegal. As the section is now written, it appears he has been found guilty of something that he was never charged with. If someone would like to fix this feel free. I have no intention in getting involved in this article. It's clear it's contolled mostly by a pack of wolves from Daily Kos who continually alter it at the whim of the latest headline or editorial. Ciao! --205.188.116.139 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow... I hadn't been paying attention to the news for a couple days and look what happens. Rove went on trial for treason and was acquitted? When did that happen? Can't seem to find anything on google, but I'm not that good with it. Can you help me out with a link or an article citation? Thanks.--csloat 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting test. Do you have your acquittal for treason in your hand? maybe you could provide a google llink to your acquital? Maybe that's why proving guilt is the standard and not the other way around. --Tbeatty 06:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I really haven't been following the news if I didn't notice that I had been cleared of treason charges! In fact, I didn't even notice being accused of treason! Again, I'm not good with google; can you help me out with some links to the news articles about my role in the Plame affair? (Just to clarify, for the humor-impaired; I was responding to the claim that Rove "was eventually found to not have done anything illegal." We're not arguing presumption of innocence; we're arguing about whether or not Rove "was eventually found" to have or have not done anything.)--csloat 08:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take long. Now someone has removed Armitage from the lead of the story claiming it's POV pushing! LOL! Their edit summary says it's undeniable that there were "previous suspects"! LOL! So let me get this straight: If someone is murdered and 5 people are suspected by police, but after 3 years' investigation it was determined one of the suspects is guilty and the others are not, then it's POV pushing to write an article with the guilty party in the lead! This article is hillarious!! LOL!! --205.188.116.139 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
To insist that Plame Affair be about only whether Armitage broke a law is indeed POV-pushing. There is much more to it. If you are sincere in trying to improve this article, get a logon. rewinn 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

the endless back and forth over the intro paragraph

perhaps we should start a debate here to settle the intro paragraph once and for all. the basic question is, What is the "Plame affair"? here's my opinion. the plame affair is the allegation that plame's name was leaked intentionally for political payback. the fact that armitage was novak's initial source, libby was indicted, rove was scrutinized but not indicted, and that no one was charged with leaking her name are all pieces of the story, but don't necessarily define what the plame affair is. the plame affair has always been about the allegations, not the criminal investigation. all the relevant facts of the case are for the body of the article and not the background. therefore i don't think it's necessary to include that fact that armitage was novaks source in the intro. a one sentence intro is fine stating that "the plame affair is the allegation that plame's name was leaked intentionally for political payback". Anthonymendoza 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "Plame Affair" has been used to refer to a political scandal that arose following various media reports and partisan accusations relating to the employment history of Valerie Plame and certain accusations made against the Bush White House by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. Properly speaking, the Plame Affair's inception could resonably be dated to July 14, 2003, though since that time, the focus and scope of this controversy has changed considerably.

How's this for an intro? 149.9.0.56 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"partisan accusations" - pretty vague, and how do we know they're partisan? also "Properly speaking": how so? who says so? sounds to much like original research/opinion. Regarding Antho...'s suggestion: I think he defines the affair too narrowly. As regards what we know now in relation to the intro: I don't think the intro should really change over time; if it has any time-sensitive material in it, well then that doesn't belong in the intro as it's not properly "introductory". I believe the article should read sort of like a narrative - chronologically. That way, skew from reality - which happened chronologically - is minimized, and more information - chronology - is presented in a clear fashion. Kevin Baastalk 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Chronological sequence is probably the most npov possible.
  2. The introduction should not characterize Plame Affair as only a political matter; as previously discussed extensively there are many dimensions including security, criminal, civil/legal, and of course political. Any attempt to limit the scope of Plame Affair in the intro is pov.
  3. This is a current event of great sensitivity and frequent twists. Stability is probably difficult, but more to the point, it is unlikely anyone is going to look to wikipedia for a definitive statement. So it is hardly worth the effort to do pov-pushing in the introduction. rewinn 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Plame Affair did begin as a political scandal, though it has grown beyond that over time. 216.32.81.2 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilson allegedly lied

Joseph Wilson, whose wife was outed as a CIA operative, was found to have lied about Iraq being disinterested in Nigerian yellowcake. Why does the article not reflect this? There is a liberal bias that permeates... never mind. Just get this article in the proper shape. As referenced in my sig, there's already one unsolved mystery bungled by authoritarian hacks. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm, you're wrong. Wilson was quite correct about that (and, in fact, he was only stating what the State Department's intelligence agency already knew).--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
However, Wilson was proven to be a liar in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, regarding the forged documents. See page 45 of the report[8]. Here's the relevant portion: The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article... which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. So Wilson is a known liar; whether he lied about the yellowcake, or merely misrepresented his own report, is not entirely clear. Valtam 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. He has long since acknowledged that he made an error with that comment - it was the State Dept intel who had come to the conclusion that the documents were forged. Calling him a liar on that point - which he has admitted he was wrong about - and then using that to say he was lying about his own report (which has been confirmed by every other investigation into the matter) is a bit hysterical, to say the least.--csloat 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ari Fleischer

as if this affair wasn't bizzare enough, now we learn fitzgerald granted immunity to ari fleischer in a very unconventional way. given what has been revealed so far, it's clear fitzgerald targeted the vice president's office in his investigation. while the press is abuzz over cheney's behind the scenes efforts, there are two interesting bits of info here. according to Cathie Martin, cheney had dictated eight "talking points" for his staffers regarding joe wilson and ordered Martin to "get all the facts out." yet none of the talking points mentioned valerie plame, and according to martin "It didn't seem appropriate or helpful for us to get that out...It gave me some explanation but we didn't need it as a talking point." so much for the conspiracy to out her. another point of interest is that fitzgerald has apparently sided with the senate intelligence committee and is trying to convince jurors plame played a part in planning joe wilson's trip. i can see why since that would bolster his case. one things for sure, libby has a damn good lawyer. he's been able to show the jury that each of fitzgerald's witnesses at one time or another had memory problems with regards to what they told who and when. and while everyone thinks it's a bombshell that rove may testify, he's being called by the defense and his testimony will actually back up libby's claim that he first learned of plame from russert, since rove will testify libby told him such. interesting stuff! [9] [10] Anthonymendoza 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"so much for the conspiracy to out her" - sure, except perhaps the conspiracy wasn't to out her, but to get Joe Wilson. Outing her was then likely a means to an end (or, to be generous to the veep, a side effect of the conspiracy). csloat 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why it doesn't matter

The CIA's assessment that Iraq was conducting a nuclear program was based off of aluminum tube orders and magnet production, not uranium from Africa. Also, does anybody know (or care) that Iraq has natural uranium deposits and intelligence officials believed they could get the bomb within 5 years without any imported uranium? 65.185.190.240 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire case seems so contrived to me. This whole thing is about naming names. Who cares? No one died or was injured. Yes, Libby should be punished but no more than a slap on the wrist. I really don’t see what the big deal is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.200.103 (talk • contribs)

It's certainly a big deal to anyone who works undercover or who considers working undercover doing something dangerous to protect the country; if they can't be sure their own government won't protect their identity, why would they agree to do such work? You may not care, but a lot of current and former intelligence officials certainly do. csloat 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Csloat that plame losing her classified cia status was no trivial matter. but now that a clearer picture is emerging, i don't think this scandal has lived up to any of the hype. and as the LA times put it, in the end it's the CIA who bears much of the responsibilty for plame losing her career.[11] fitzgerald is currently trying to establish a motive for libby lying, and it appears he's going to argue that once libby realized plame's status was classified, he backtracked and tried to cover up. this is all a far cry from the notion that the vice president's office or the white house deliberately outed her. joe wilson was running around telling anyone who would listen that he went to niger at the request of the vice president's office and that he single-handedly proved the white house manipulated the case for war. in the ensuing political battle that emerged, plame's name was tossed around (since, as prosecution witnesses have testified, she played a part in planning his trip) until her name and cia affiliation was published. in my personal opinion, wilson should have known that declaring war on the white house and writing op-eds would lead to press scrutiny, and that private aspects of his life were bound to come out into the open. it's the nature of politics and is an essential part of daily political life in DC. to say he outed her is wrong, put his actions did contribute, as did the actions of the CIA and the white house. i view plame's outing more as a political casualty than a conspiracy. Anthonymendoza 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no question there was a conspiracy to bring Wilson down; you're right though that she was a political casualty of that. Again, the bottom line is that the CIA's going to have a much harder time recruiting new undercover agents when it is clear that their undercover identity can easily be compromised by members of the administration when politically expedient. Sure Wilson played a part in this -- he found information that led him to believe the administration was lying, and he made it a point to make that information public. This is the real story here, that the admin was probably lying (or at least incompetent) and when caught, rather than coming clean, they played politics and (intentionally or no) sacrificed real national security interests in order to score a political point against Wilson. Should Wilson not have done what he did? I suppose his wife would have stayed undercover if he had kept his mouth shut, but it seems to me we should encourage those who find evidence of Presidential misconduct to come out with it rather than to shut up about it. Imagine if someone in the Clinton administration had outed a CIA agent to get back at those who exposed the blue dress... csloat 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[moved from current talk page; see explanation. --NYScholar 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)]

Please clarify [the] why...

...why Novak outted Plame as a CIA operative. Is it bad to be a CIA operative? Doesn't CIA work for USA too?
I have formed an opinion that she was outted because of a suspicion she sent(recommend?) her husband to Niger to investigate the yellow cake. Is that correct? And if it is, again, why is that a bad thing? By the way, I'm from Romania and maybe i'm missing some cultural background on this. -GeoAtreides 01:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Debunking the Armitage Myth

This piece is a pretty good read. I hope she's wrong but a pardon in december does make sense from the Bush Administration's perspective.--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is she debunking, exactly? Also, a pardon wouldn't be Bush's style. He was at 69 last year, and that puts him very, very low according to this list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope you're right! That list is cool; my guess is that most pres pardons occur as they're leaving office, so we'll see how low his number stays, but you're right, according to that it is extremely low. As for the article, she is debunking the claim forwarded by many that the Isikoff/Corn book Armitage revelations mean that there is no "Plame affair." Particularly notable is her point that at the time Armitage revealed the classified info to Novak, he was indeed a vocal proponent of Bush Administration policy toward Iraq, whatever his private doubts might have been at the time. The other notable info is that he appears to be making false claims or playing dumb about when he figured out that he was the source of Novak's article.--csloat 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone clarify how Novak came to the conclusion that Plame was an "operative"? Didn't Armitage claim that no classified information about Plame was included in the memo that was his source? If that is true, then Novak must have received classified information from another source. Anyone have a theory? Constructive 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Novak said he didn't know she was an uncover operative. He said he thought she was an analyst. Wasn't that made clear in the article? 71.212.13.204 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that that the article is clear on Novak's claim, as it is on others, including the Lexis/Nexis analysis of his prior use of the word "operative". If he remained consistent in his use of that word, then it begs the question of how he concluded that it applied to her. Just a thought. Constructive 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From a common sense point of view, if someone told me that someone worked for the CIA, I would automatically assume they were a spy unless they are listed on the CIA website. It's surprising that Armitage got off so lighty because he claims he was a gossip. In the old days he would be gossiping in prison after that. Even if somebody is an CIA analyst I would assume that they don't that publisised that so that they don't have people bothering them. It just seems like a bunch of nonsense. Doug rosenberg 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up in progress

Having been made aware of some significant discrepancies in the formatting of this article (notes, references, external links problems), I put a clean up tag on it today and attempted to correct some of these problems. In the course of that, I have made considerable typographical changes in formatting of some key quotations and in removing extraneous jpg files of some figures, due to inconsistencies that they created in this article. The history will show evidence of these revisions. I made them in an attempt to continue improving this article. See other linked Wikipedia articles' discussion pages for more information. --NYScholar 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved the section on "the Air Force One memorandum" to the article entitled disputed article alternate theories regarding the Plame affair; like other parts of that article, it contains several undocumented statements requiring reliable sources for verification W:Reliable sources. Full of speculations and innuendoes, it does not belong in this article, which is supposed to be factual and neutral and not to argue points of view; the section violates standards in W:NOR. --NYScholar 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

People--some posting anonymously--are reinserting material that is already present (including the links to the sources) in the cross-referenced article "Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair". There is no justification for placing such "alternate theories" and hypotheses and opinions from editorials in the "background" section of this article. The material is already clearly accessible and linked in the section about the subject (e.g., criticism of Joseph Wilson) in the alternate theories article (The material has been moved to that article quite some time ago; please consult it). The same editorial ("End of An Affair") is already cited and linked both in that article and in the main article on Joseph C. Wilson, which the opinion concerns. The unsubstantiated claim and pure opinion is not appropriate as "background." Criticism of a living person that is unsubstantiated and pure opinion (and highly questionable to begin with) expressed in an unsigned newspaper editorial is not appropriate in historical "background" section of a recent and still current event. It is absurd to continue to reinsert the link and the "it has been asserted" etc. kind of sentences. Lots of things have been said; whether or not these assertions are facts and worthy of inclusion as "background" is another matter. "Background" is a factual account of the history of the subject ("the Plame affair"). It is not the place for so-called "alternate theories" (opinions) about it.--NYScholar 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For the links, see the section of this article "Other perspectives on the Plame Affair," with its cross-reference to the "alternate theories" article; the section there is called: "Alleging that Wilson contributed to the outing of his own wife". Before editing and reinserting material already placed in related articles and already cross-referenced in this one, people need to consult this talk page.--NYScholar 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy that "Encyclopedic articles must be verifiable"; see W:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and W:Cite. Some editors are adding links to material that is unsourced, refers to sources that are not necessarily reliable, and that is not verifiable. Some statements in this article still need reliable sources and citations (see remaining tags throughout and please help with providing clear citations throughout to reliable and verifiable sources). Thanks. --NYScholar 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Brings a smile to my face

This article always brings a smile to my face when I visit it. I usually drop by every 2 or 3 weeks to see how the investigation is going and, sure enough, each time I do visit the article has taken on a completely new look and angle. It always makes me chuckle. I think this has got to be one of the most unstable and constanly shifting articles on Wikipedia. Very amusing. Whenever this article finally settles down some time in 2010 I think I will print out the final version as well as a version ever 3 months since its creation and wrote a book comparing and contrasting the various incarnations over time. Maybe I'll use this idea for my doctoral thesis! ;) --Jayzel 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because theories and interpretations on current events usually never change, ever. I, too, am shocked and outraged that people are still editing this article. --sigmafactor 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
With the trial going on and remarkable new information coming out, I'm kind of surprised the article is currently as stable as it is. csloat 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why does it make you smile and chuckle if a Wikipedia article has problems? Though, I'm not sure that being "unstable" is a huge problem in light of Sloat's point. Derex 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, checking back every month or three and saving the article and its versions is a nice solution. This would help in seeing how the article content was put into a frame and how the article evolved and also many parties. But one thing that has not changed is the article's investigative tone, where it often reads like one of Agatha Christie's best: 10 parties to the play or more and no-one knows exactly whodunnit :>.
With new information cropping up now and then, some things are clearer than before and some things are either obsolete or need little mention. The article has been divided into sub-articles, so people can collect this precious information and then enjoy the read :).
Perhaps the best part is how the article contains so many sources. Some articles are so important that sources to it are most essential and basically form the actual 'soul' of the article. In 2004 or 2005, when I read this, I mean, I think I read the article from beginning to the end (like a short book on something very-very interesting), it was just so sunspenseful; now I only check for changes in events and what has cleared up and what hasn't. CNN occasionally reports the news, but not as some breaking news item or anything Anderson Cooper would normally report on.
I think articles that report on current events should have some important snapshots created every now and then. Not just for comparison, but also for investigation on how events occurred and stuff like that. -Mardus 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page tag

See archived sections posted in January to February 2007: << This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plame affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. >> The past few sections added above by users in January and February 2007 are not appropriate here. This is not a discussion forum about the article's subject. Such comments need to be deleted by their users. There are plenty of other internet fora (forums) where one can discuss such matters. Wikipedia talk pages are not for such speculations and conversations. They are for discussion about specific improvements to articles (writing and editing matters). This subject pertains to biographies of living persons: see WP:BLP as well. Please delete these inappropriate sections and comments in them if one sees them in the future. Thank you. (If they are not deleted by the users who posted them, WP:BLP suggests that others delete them.) [Updated: I've deleted them from this current talk page and [temporarily?] moved them to archive page 7. Some other sections there also are not appropriate for such talk pages, espec. given WP:BLP.) Please stick to discussing only improvements to the article per se.] --NYScholar 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

references section

Do we really need every article written about this in the references section? I would prefer to stick to important and oft-quoted documents and trial documents rather than every opinion piece in Slate, the Nation, and so forth. I trimmed the 20-some Hitchens cites that were recently added, as I did on the Wilson page; apparently the person who added them got upset and stalked me to another page. I invite him to explain here why those cites are all necessary. This shouldn't be a repository of every opinion piece written about the plame affair. We already have footnotes where every article worth quoting in the essay is cited; do we really need all these articles here under references as well? csloat 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a references section at all, as it's completely redundant? If the article is properly cited in the main body, all the references needed should be in the notes section, and the entire References section can be deleted. Of all the actual sources cited, the vast majority are from secondary sources in the press, not trial documents. And I'm not upset, or stalking anyone. If you look at the edit times, you'll see my edits here were a few minutes after the ones in the Wilson article, several hours before you took the axe to them. I included the Hitchens pieces because he's written voluminously on the subject, and quite rightly eviscerated what was left of Wilson's credibility. Nathanm mn 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The "stalking" I referred to was that you went to the Clarke page and made the claim that my edits were vandalism without ever having participated in that discussion or having edited the page before -- you did this right after I deleted the Hitchens stuff; perhaps it was just a bizarre coincidence. I agree a lot of the references section should be trimmed down, not just the stuff I deleted. That stuff jumped out because it was a host of articles from a single (and extremely opinionated, not to mention drunk) source, but there is a lot of other cruft that could be removed. Or we could go the other direction - there are at least as many David Corn pieces I could add to the list, or pieces by Larry Johnson, or other pro-Plame sources. This thing will be lengthened without limit. I'd rather not see that and would prefer that editors agree to put only really important or representative articles in that section rather than trying to outdo each other with more articles representing opinions on one side of the issue. csloat 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Accusing someone of stalking also violates your beloved WP:AGF, and not just for mere edits, but an actual crime (in many jurisdictions). Hitchens is definitely opinionated and reputed to be a drunk, but nobody's successfully challenged the veracity of his writing on this subject. Corn tried to challenge Hitchens here, but repeated some now discredited theories, and Hitchens responded here. Again, why don't we just take delete the entire References section? If some of them have further relevant information for the article, cite them as a footnote. Nathanm mn 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion that Hitchens is right but that really isn't the point, is it? I think it's useful to have a references section with government documents, court documents, key articles that have specifically been commented on in the media in a widespread manner (e.g. the Wilson editorial, the Novak editorial, and such; even the Washington Post editorial perhaps), but putting every opinion piece that is relevant here makes this into a ridiculously long references section -- every article by hitchens goes in, then so does every opinion piece by Wilson, Corn, Isikoff, johnson, and so on, etc. ad nauseam. That's my objection to this slippery slope. csloat 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you even read my comments above? I'm suggesting deleting the entire section, not adding to it. Besides, the references section is already ridiculously long. As it now stands there are 37 references, including not one single court document. And the only government document is the "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence". If these references are already cited in the footnotes, they're redundant. If they're not, how about adding the relevant information from the source to the article, then cite them properly in the footnotes? Nathanm mn 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete it if you like. NY Scholar has presented a good argument not to below. csloat 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Delete it if you like": is not a consensual option. It is not acceptable to delete a whole section of information that is pertinent and sourced in Wikipedia articles. See the guidelines in Wikipedia:Editing. That is a "major edit" not a "minor edit" and affects the meaning of the article in that each source posted is meaningful (full of significant information). --NYScholar 03:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As one who spent a lot of time constructing the References section (to which others occasionally add non-permitted blog site posts and which I have removed), I would strenuously object to deletion of this section. Instead, I counsel vigilance in what is added to it. The additions must adhere to guidelines and policy in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, follow the linked guidelines and policies in the tags re: WP:BLP on this talk page, including format relating to Wikipedia:Cite. The purpose of a references section is to have major and reliable sources that are representative and used in the article accessible in bibliographical (not notes) citation format. It is thus an alphabetized source list. Technically, it is not "too long" as it is; and, technically, every item cited in the article's notes (source citations in notes section) could be converted into bibliographical format and listed alphabetically. This is already a "selected bibliography" list. I will add "Selected" to "References" heading if necessary. But, generally, "References" sections in Wikipedia articles are "selected" references. ("A Selected Bibliography" as opposed to a lists of all the works cited ("List of Works Cited") or of all the works consulted ("List of Works Consulted"); if the latter (within W guidelines pertaining to "Reliable sources," it would be even longer; as it is, it is a relatively-short "selective bibliography" with non-permitted personal blog site posts deleted, following Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

This is a controversial article and it is not the place for editing wars. Only notable reliable sources should be added, avoiding the appearance of POV editing, in order to be in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as well (of course). --NYScholar 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Today the prosecutor gave his post-conviction press conference on cSpan1. A high-level aide was convicted of perjury during the investigation. When a reporter asked about "a cloud over the administration", his response was that the reporter was referring to court testimony. The defense council had accused the prosecutor of creating such a cloud. The prosecutor responded that if there was a cloud, the administration had created it. When asked about any further investigation he said that he would pursue no further action. Are only the media pursuing the leak itself?

As has previously copiously mentioned, a cursory examination of the references reveals that most, (if not all), of them are from the popular press. Would this discussion not have more inherent worth if references were confined to government sources, or at least to those who might be more possibly consistent with our NPOV, than to inherently slanted views of pundits?--W8IMP 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:70.113.220.11 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Mr. Forgot My Account Info and don't feel like creating a new one right now. 2/19/07

Reminder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plame affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. (Scroll up to talkpage header.) --NYScholar 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you on this one. i deleted the above nonsense as i think it would lead to POV edits.Anthonymendoza 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraphs

Not sure how it can be edited cleanly, but currently they seem to say that it is definite that Plame was in a covert position when that has not been established. Is there a cite that defintively indicates that or should the wording be changed to indicate that it is alleged she was covert. I don;t want a sentence with three or four uses of the word "alleged" but it seems to need that. 148.78.243.123 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Frontline

i removed this from the article:

Beginning in mid-February 2007, the Public Broadcasting Service television program Frontline presented a special four-part series entitled News War; in Part One: Secrets, Sources, and Spin correspondent Lowell Bergman

it's already in the external links section and adds nothing to the main article, unless someone who watched it wants to add some quotes from the program. Anthonymendoza 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

i also deleted this section as i think it generally lowers the quality of the main article. it should be in external links section if it must be included:

*The plot of an episode of season 16 of the NBC television series Law & Order entitled "Kingmaker" (episode no. 369), which first aired on May 3, 2006, parallels aspects of the Plame affair.[2] Anthonymendoza 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting info

this is interesting. according to a document entered into evidence at the trial, Cheney was briefed about the Niger issue on Feb. 13, 2002[12]. and according to the Senate report, plame offered up Wilson for the trip in a Feb. 12, 2002 memorandum[13]. this would seem to suggest Plame was pushing for Wilson to go to Niger before the VP request. i'm not sure what this means or if it should be included in the main article. the only news agency to report this comes from the new york post[14]. at a Feb. 19 meeting convened by Plame, Wilson was briefed on the matter. so i guess it's technically correct to say wilson was sent to follow up a request by the VP, but he was being touted to go before as well. any thoughts to the relevance of this??Anthonymendoza 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right article? That Byron York article you linked doesn't mention these documents at all. Also, the memo you link is dated 2/13 and says "The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program." That does not say he was shown the assessment on 2/13; the memo was dated 2/13, which means that sometime before the memo was written, Cheney asked for the CIA's assessment. The claim that Plame "offered up" wilson is, of course, also disputed; the memo says Wilson "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity," but there is no indication that she was the one who made any decision to send him, and the CIA maintained that the person who used the phrase "offered up" was not at the meeting where the decision was made. And a Senior intelligence officer refuted this claim, telling the committee that "she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." Wilson's written response to this claim of the Senate report: "Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst ["second official", below] were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in [Roberts'] 'additional comments.' I urge the committee to re-interview the officer and publicly publish his statement." Wilson was chosen for the mission because he was qualified (as Libby acknowledged), not because his wife sent him. csloat 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, i'm sure i have the right article. the memo regarding cheney states "Briefing Date", meaning he was briefed on the 13th. Wilson's name was being offered up before that. as far as her role, prosecution witnesses bolstered this claim. unless fitzgerald wanted to give the jurors a false impression, i think it's safe to assume she played a large role. or maybe fitzgerald and the witnesses he called are ignorant of the facts on this too, which i find hard to believe. Anthonymendoza 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm; and I find it hard to believe that the Wilsons engineered a conspiracy in 2002 to bring down Scooter Libby. It requires them to have had a crystal ball knowing ahead of time how badly the VP's office would mishandle the information that Iraq was not buying yellowcake from Niger. As for the NYPost article, I just don't see anything about the memos in there - am I missing it or was there another point you were making with that? The Briefing date does not tell us a lot - was that the day cheney was briefed about Niger? The day that he asked for the CIA's assessment? "Prosecution witnesses bolstered this claim" -- it's really not clear that that's the case either, and this memo indicates that Wilson didn't even want to go to Niger - he told the CIA he would only go if they thought it made sense, and the INR thought they could do without him in Niger. Of course, we'll never know for sure, but I find the Plame/Wilson conspiracy theory to be a stretch. csloat 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
all i'm pointing out is that this is interesting info, not cause for a conspiracy theory. here is an exchange between chris matthews and kate o'beirne on hardball:
MATTHEWS: OK. It was well established in court by two CIA officials and a State Department official that the reason for the trip to Africa by Joe Wilson was a query put by the vice president. That was the paramount reason for the trip.
O‘BEIRNE: One thing we learned in the jury trial—and you were paying close attention, I know—was his wife recommended...
MATTHEWS: That‘s true. That‘s also true.
O‘BEIRNE: His wife recommended him...
MATTHEWS: That‘s true.
O‘BEIRNE: ... before Dick Cheney had a question about the Niger intelligence, the day before Dick Cheney had that question.
MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s a good point, then.
O‘BEIRNE: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: But the fact is that the trip was justified by the query from the VP, who had commanding presence...
O‘BEIRNE: That is not possible...
MATTHEWS: ... in this White House...
O‘BEIRNE: ... given that she recommended he go the day before Dick Cheney asked a CIA briefer was there any more intelligence.[15]
the court document says cheney was briefed on Niger on Feb. 13 and asked the CIA for an assessment on the matter. according to the SSCI, plame produced a memorandum on Feb 12 outlining joe wilson's qualifications. i find this interesting, that's all. does it change anything? i don't know, that's why i brought it up in the talk page.Anthonymendoza 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

overquoting

This article has waaay too many quotes - 37 uses of the purple quotes, and countless other smaller quotes. Dont many of these come from copyrighted sources? --Astrokey44 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is well within fair use guidelines of U.S. (and international) copyright law to quote passages from copyrighted works for purposes of inquiry; the quotations are from sources being used to document the subject. The article properly identifies the sources of the quotations. (A practice that is the opposite of plagiarism; quotation marks establish identity of the sources of quotations.) See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite. One can quote passages to illustrate and to support controversial points: WP:POV. Your statement that the article "has waaay too many quotes [quotations]" is a POV on the article. When there are fewer quotations to support points, other people object to their being "too few" supporting quotations and so on. The article is a controversial article and has a contentious editing history. The quotations give evidence to avoid people's objecting that statements are not being adequately documented. In the article sources' views are cited and documented with quotations from those sources for that reason (in my view). People have edited this article adding very POV statements of their own without adequate documentation from the sources that they have cited; the quotations reduce that kind of distortion and help establish the verifiability of points claimed. --NYScholar 06:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Secrecy of employment

How important is the secrecy of someone's CIA employment? Are all CIA's employees secret? Even janitors and secretaries?

All I know about CIA is from reading Tom Clancy novels, which I presume are somewhat fact-based. Characters such as John Clark and Jack Ryan are not like agent 86 and agent 99 fighting KAOS, but against the real-life KGB and so on. But how realistic is Clancy's depiction of things like the Senate Oversight committee, or the chain of command?

More to the point, when the Jack Ryan character began consulting for CIA, his connection to the agency was kept quiet - but would it have been a crime for anyone to reveal this? Or would it have been a crime under British law for him to deny this?

The John Clark character, on the other hand, was a field operative: he went out and spied on people, blew things up, kidnapped suspects or enemies, etc. I assume he was a "covert agent".

So what was Valerie Plame? More an office worker, whose connection was kept quiet for political reasons (rather than for her personal safety)? Or what?

And how "bad" was it for anyone to reveal her connection to CIA? No one charged Novak, and Armitage seems to have gotten a pass.

What is the complaint about "outing" Plame based on? That it's simply against the law?

  • The law must be followed, but when (blank) told (blank2) she was with CIA, he violated (blank3).

I'd like the article to clarify the following:

  1. Who objected to the "outing"?
    • On legal grounds
    • On political or other grounds
  2. Who told whom, and when?
    • And what laws if any did each violate?

For example: A, B & C each told Robert Novak. This was (or was not) a crime. Novak then revealed the info in his column; this was (or was not) a crime.

  • Richard Armitage told Robert Novak. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, knew this since (blank) but did not change Armitage.
  • Libby told someone. etc.
  • Cheney told someone.
  • Karl Rove told someone.

Basically, I'd like to separate out the two points of view on this, as well as trying to come up with the objective facts. Events that neither side disputes can be considered facts for the purposes of this article. Events or assessments which are disputed, would then need to be described from each side's viewpoint.

The whole article will need a full rewrite for this, and I wish I had time to do it. --Uncle Ed 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all CIA employees are covert. Valerie Plame was covert; prosecutor Fitzgerald made that abundantly clear. It is a crime for a federal employee to reveal the name of a covert agent if s/he knows that agent is covert. This is why you see people denying they knew of her covert status.
Since, for obvious reasons, the CIA isn't going to tell anyone what the consequences of her exposure were, the public will probably never know what this really cost us. DMorpheus 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fitzgerald made it abundantly clear she was classified, not covert (in the legal sense of the word). the article should continue to maintain that point. Ed Poor, you pretty much summed up the questions we all have with regards to this case.Anthonymendoza 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fitzgerald made it abundantly clear she was classified, yes. He never said she was not covert, and he implied that she was when he said "her cover was blown." A judge examining this said that she likely met the legal definition of covert. The distinction between "classified" and "covert" is one that appears to be made up by bloggers and pundits rather than something actually used by the CIA. Corn and Isikoff make it clear she was covert in the legal sense, and every former member of her CIA class who has spoken on the matter agrees. csloat 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
DMorpheus: The public has learned in some form what the consequences were published in a way earlier version of this article, where there was a published photograph of a CIA book of operatives who have died during service under the CIA. For the year 2003, when Plame's identity was revealed, there was one item (person) marked with a relevant star (that the person had died during service), but the name had not been written into the book, considering how hot this issue still is. -Mardus 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see some confusion in the media over what Plame's status was. Was she "covert" or "classified"? (or both? ;-)

What sources assert that she was a "covert agent"? Does anyone make the following argument?

  1. Plame was a covert agent of the CIA.
  2. (blank) revealed her connection to the CIA.
  3. Revealing a covert agent's connection to the CIA is a federal crime.
  4. Therefore, (blank) committed a federal crime.

Or, if they don't fill in the blank with a particular person, does anyone assert that the Bush administration secretly "got someone" to commit this crime? If so, who? I'm assuming it was her husband who made this complaint, but I've also seen it implied, insinuated or hinted at innumerble times. I'd sure like to be able to read the article and see precisely who accused whom, and then compare that to what Fitzgerald and the courts determined. I mean, isn't that the whole point of the article? --Uncle Ed 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has been indicted or tried for revealing that she was covert. There are claims that she was covert and claims that she was not. However there is no proof or statement from the CIA to support either right now. It is simply speculation that she might have been covert. 148.63.236.141 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between:
  • covert agent, i.e., spy - revealing their identity can get them and others killed
  • confidential employee, i.e., an academic whose connection to CIA is unknown, but it's not a big deal if the public finds out (no one would be killed)
Now we might not know which status Plame had, but it's important to know which status people were saying she had. The whole ruckus started because certain parties alleged that the White House revealed her status
  1. to punish her or her husband (put their lives at risk!)
  2. to discredit her husband
I think I've seen info about discrediting her husband, like Cheney didn't send Wilson, it was his wife's idea.
We also need to clarify better in the background that the Wilson trip (suggested by Plame?) is related to one of several reasons Bush gave Congress for his proposed invasion of Iraq. It's complicated, I know, but perhaps the flames of contention have died down enough for us to describe it clearly and neutrally now. --Uncle Ed 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The distinction you're making between types of covert agents is WP:OR. It's also incorrect, according to everything I've seen about this topic. csloat 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in conducting original research. Even if I had time for it, I wouldn't be able to put it into a Wikipedia article.
If there is no real distinction between a covert "agent" (spy, kidnapper, killer) and a covert "analyst" (sits in an office, sifting through reports) then our work is done here.
Unless there's a legal distinction. That's all I'm asking. Legions of Tom Clancy fans will come to this article wondering what the big deal is. If we can say that the law makes no distinction between "operatives", i.e., that an analyst who sits in an office has precisely the same legally protected confidential/secret status as an "agent" or "intelligence officer" who goes into the field, then that ought to satisfy them.
Surely there's an article somewhere at Wikipedia you can point me to? I'm not good at searching; I prefer links. --Uncle Ed 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's more complicated than it sounds. There isn't a legal distinction between these categories, but there is a legal definition of "covert agent" in the IIPA that has some specific requirements. (Plame does appear to meet those requirements, but it is really a non-issue since nobody has been charged with violating the IIPA). But there isn't a legal definition of "classified agent" or "covert analyst" that I am aware of. There are a lot of pundits who make the distinction but it appears to be specious; it is certainly not borne out by any analysis from the CIA itself or from former agents and officials of whom I am aware.
I think the bottom line is, not all CIA work is Tom Clancy glamor stuff. That plame was a covert agent doesn't mean she was an assassin ... her life would potentially be in danger even if all she did was go to meetings in another country posing as a representative of an energy firm (which it appears that she did). We do know that Plame was a NOC -- she had non-official cover, which means that if she was "found out" and was in another country, she could not rely on the US Government to bail her out. Agents with "official cover" have a front at a USG agency and a diplomatic passport to get them out of trouble; Plame didn't have this, which means her job was actually more dangerous than an agent with official cover. In any case, it doesn't really matter how "dangerous" her job was for the purpose of this discussion, I think - there's no commensurate distinction between "covert" and "classified" based on levels of danger. csloat 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Covert vs. non-Covert?

How can a CIA operative be covert when he or she walks into the CIA building everyday in plain sight? Anyone watching who goes in and out can figure out that she works for the CIA and is thus not "covert". Simple, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Lots of people walk into that building. How can a narcotics officer be undercover if he walks into the police station? This is silly. Valerie Plame testified under oath to Congress this morning that she was a covert operative. I think this debate is over. csloat 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ News War, Part 1: Secrets, Sources, and Spin, Frontline Public Broadcasting Service, first broadcast, WXXI-TV (Rochester, New York), 13 February, 2007 (streaming video accessible online); see "Introduction" (Synopsis) 13 February, 2007, accessed 14 February, 2007. [Chap. One of Part One is entitled "Prologue: The Plame Affair."]
  2. ^ See Summary of Episode "Kingmaker" at Tv.com (CNET Networks Entertainment), accessed February 19, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plame_affair/Archive_5&oldid=1276760043"