Talk:Plame affair

The Plame affair page is linked from Jurist, an Internet site. Added April 20, 2006

Template:TrollWarning

Archives

• Talk:Plame affair\Archive1
• Talk:Plame affair\Archive2
• Talk:Plame affair\Archive3
• Talk:Plame affair\Archive4

Question (s):

Let me ask a quick question: why don't we have a single picture of Valerie Plame in this entire article? User:Ich Ich 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(moved to own section by rewinn 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) )

I think it'd be ironic to include the photo of an outed spy. Better, perhaps, to use a photo of her cover organization; at least it cannot be injured by further publicity. rewinn 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Analysis

If true, this could indicate that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA employee prior to Novak's column being published. Some believe that statements by Rove claiming he did not reveal her name would still be strictly accurate if he mentioned her only as 'Wilson's wife', although this distinction would likely have no bearing on the legality of the disclosure. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leaks. Whether Rove's statement to Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in fact violated any laws has not been resolved.

This unsourced bit of analysis looks interesting. Is it based on anything in print? --Uncle Ed 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim was floated around as a Republican talking point immediately after the controversy began in 2003, but it has been pretty much dropped by conservatives after enough ridicule. ("Rove didn't say Valerie was a CIA agent; he said Joe Wilson's wife was -- that could be anybody!") Stephen Colbert brilliantly parodied this when he pointed out Plame at the White House Correspondents' dinner. It quite obviously has no bearing on either the legality or the morality of the leak.--csloat 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "original research" to point out that "Joe Wilson's wife" narrows down the field of women to only a handful of people - only one if Joe had no former wives.

This is a stunningly long article for something that has not been proven in any way. Maybe a couple paragraphs would be enough. Look at the Ted Kennedy/Chappaquidick article for a way to do this in a concise fashion. June 20, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.51.25 (talk • contribs)

I agree. But I think it's long, in part, because we're still in the middle of it. For example, there are a lot of tentative assertions, and counter claims, and balancing going on that can be excised once a number of facts come out at trial. There are other reasons, too . . . but I'm patient, and truly believe that a good amount of excizing can be done once the Libby trial concludes and Fitzgerald is finished. -- Sholom 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What Republican knucklehead said (1) that Rove didn't identify Valerie but only (2) that Rove identified "Joe Wilson's wife"? Even a sometime fan of Republicanism such as myself would like to that in print! --Uncle Ed 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember who said it offhand, and I don't feel like looking for it at the moment, but that's my recollection. I also agree it's not original research -- in fact, I think there were many critics of the argument that we could quote directly if the point is important.--csloat 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

here is an excellent analysis of the entire plame affair from realclearpolitics.com:[1]

In fact, several new questions arise as a result of Bob Novak's disclosures.

If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and that it wasn't Libby or Rove, why did he later call them to testify before the grand jury? Was it simply to determine whether he could trap them into making perjurious statements, something the law does not permit?

If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and knew it wasn't Libby, why in August of 2004 did he represent to the Court that Miller's testimony was "essential to determine whether or not Lewis Libby... has committed crimes involving the improper disclosure of national defense information or perjury"? Keep in mind that Miller spent considerable time behind bars to compel her testimony.

If Fitzgerald has known since January 12, 2004 of the name of the leaker, why is he still protecting him, and why is he treating the leaker's (that is, Armitage's) source, who is almost certainly Marc Grossman, former Under Secretary of State for political affairs, the man reportedly the source for the first accusations against Libby and Rove, as an impartial witness to the events? In the discovery process it turned out that Grossman was a longtime friend of Wilson's, dating to their college days at the University of California--Santa Barbara. Is it likely that the famous prosecutor missed this fact?Anthonymendoza 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Investigation over?

Does this letter imply Fitzgerald is turning to other matters?Anthonymendoza 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PDF won't open for me :( Arkon 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No.--csloat 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, perhaps Fitzgerald continued his other investigations during this entire period. That might explain why it has taken him so long to accomplish so little. As far as I know, Fitzgerald has not dropped his prosecution of Libby. As long as that is moving forward, his office will continue to work. Since Rove has been cleared, I would not be surprised if they are no longer actively investigating any other persons. When asked that question specifically, his office declined to comment. RonCram 07:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i didn't mean to imply libby's prosecution won't go forward, but Novak has now revealed that Fitzgerald has told him the investigation is over, thus enabling him to speak about his role.[2]Anthonymendoza 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Novak writes: "his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded." I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.

jump tĞo conclusions?? the investigation is over. there is no indication whatsoever fitzgerald is still actively pursuing anyone. except, of course, if one still believes leopold's article. 74.131.118.67 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From Novack's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Ouch! Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove. Novack's article Scribner 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact that Wilson had a wife is not what this case was about.

true. but one thing is now for certain. no one leaked her name. her name was made public through joe wilson's Who's Who entry. fitzgerald may have found this significant too, considering no one was indicted for a leak of classified information.74.131.118.67 11:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually her name was made public when she was born. It's on her birth certificate. The issue has never been Plame's name; it's her identity as a CIA asset hunting WMDs. rewinn 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i think you missed my point. if the leak was an intentional, malicious act, don't you think the white house would have told novak her name? the fact that they didn't shows, and fitzgerald probably has found, that the "leak" was inadvertant and not criminal.Anthonymendoza 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Why would the leaker need to give Novack the name when it's common knowledge Wilson has only one wife? Any reference to "Who's Who" is pointless. And the greater point is this: you never disclose classified information, either by confirming nor denying it. Giving Rove every benefit of the doubt, his obligation to the nation is to say "no comment" whenever a reporter says, "Hey I heard some secret information, is it true?" Failure to obey that rule may or may not be provably criminal, but it's a danger to our nation.

tell that to the new york times. but the fact her name wasn't disclosed shows she was likely revealed to novak in an offhand sort of way with no malicious intent, just as he describes it. intent is the key word here. as for this whole affair being a "danger to our nation", that's pure speculation that hopefully will be laid to rest in the civil trial. plame will have to reveal exactly what her role in the cia was in order to justify the lawsuit. Anthonymendoza 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

more proof the investigation is over: Former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, filed suit in federal court today against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, top Presidential advisor Karl Rove and other unnamed senior White House officials, for their role in the public disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status.[3] since civil suits are usually filed after criminal investigations are over, i think it's safe to say fitzgerald's prosecution of libby is the only matter left for his office in this investigation.Anthonymendoza 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Civil, follows criminal, however since there are NO criminal charges relating to the "outing", the civil process begins. Some Plame defenders remain in a total state of denial, still looking for those Fitzmas surprises that never materialized. Scribner 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a Plame defender? Someone who thinks it's a bad idea to out an operation hunting WMDs? Perhap (if the topic is specualition) as with the O.J. case, the civil system will establish a truth that the criminal system will not. rewinn 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do keep inserting that "as of yet" regarding criminal charges. Do you know something Fitzgerald doesn't. You cannot accept the fact that no charges were brought against anyone for the alleged "outing" of Plame. We'll leave the "as of yet" ignorance in the article. Sorry Fitzmas didn't work out for you. Scribner 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Why are you changing the subject - do you refuse to answer the question in this thread: "What is a Plame defender? --- the phrase you introduced? At to "as of yet" ... which is another question entirely .... it is entirely factual. The sentence from which you have repeatedly reverted the edit (without discussion) contains an implication that is not accurate without the edit. 3. Since the sentence in question merely repeats information contained in the next paragraph, since it is pov without the edit and since you don't like the edit that would make it npov, I have deleted the sentence. 4. If and when the investigation ends will be the factually correct time to unconditionally state the number of indictments Fitzgerald does or does not issue. 5. Now, I have answered your question; will you answer mine? rewinn 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"As of yet" implies that there will be indictments. We don't know that for certain, and from analysis of the news, is also highly unlikely at this stage. "As of yet" probably doesn't belong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been misinformed. Look at page history. "As of yet" was not the text in question. The text was "as of this time" which is not the same as "as of yet". Agreed "as of yet" has inappropriate connotations; but the sentence before the edit connoted a significance to the number of indictments that it did not document (if the implication is that a paucity of indictments is significant, the text should document that assertion); "as of this time" connotes very little. But .... the sentence has already been deleted, mostly because it duplicated some of the content of the next paragraph, but also because of the difficulty of expressing this bit of trivia npov. rewinn 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

and this from last month: 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...In a series of court filings in that case, Fitzgerald has indicated that he may call Cheney as a witness, an unsettling prospect that could expose the vice president to the uncertainties of being questioned in a criminal trial. The decision to decline to prosecute Rove effectively ends the active investigative phase of Fitzgerald's inquiry; Rove was the only person known to still be under scrutiny.[4] the investigation is over, barring any new developments. Anthonymendoza 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Fitzgerald duped ?

"If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and that it wasn?t Libby or Rove, why did he later call them to testify before the grand jury? Was it simply to determine whether he could trap them into making perjurious statements, something the law does not permit?" [5]

Legal Fees

Libby isn't the only one reaching out to the public for assistance:

Coinciding with the filing of the Complaint, the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust has been established. Funds from the trust will help the Wilsons pay the substantial legal costs forced upon them by the unlawful leaking of Mrs. Wilson's covert CIA status. The objectives of the trust include: Counseling them in connection with their potential witness testimony during the upcoming trial of Scooter Libby; and Helping them to prepare the civil suit that will uncover the truth surrounding the leak, ensure all relevant public officials are held accountable for actions depriving the Wilsons of their privacy and constitutional rights, and serve as a deterrent to similar wrongdoing being committed in the future. The Trust was established with the Wilsons' approval and provides that should the suit result in a payment to the Wilsons in excess of their legal costs, they will reimburse the Trust for all legal costs paid by the Trust. That money will then be distributed by the trustees to a charitable organization(s) that works to protect the rights of government whistleblowers. Contributions to the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust can be given at www.wilsonsupport.orgor sent to P.O. Box 40918, Washington, D.C. 20016-0918.[6]Anthonymendoza 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Listing lack of indictment for grand jury in sessino is inherently pov

SListing the crimes for which Fitzgerald has not at this time issued indictments is not encyclopedic; it is also inherently pov since its only function is to make unprovable and unsourced implications about what indictments will be issued and what facts have been found. If this absolutely must be included in the article, it would not be in the heading summary, but in a lower section, such as "Basis for specualiation on what will actually occur". rewinn 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Civil Suit

does the civil suit even stand a chance of going forward? here's an analysis from Time[7]:

The Supreme Court has ruled that Presidents have immunity and that cabinet officers have "qualified immunity," meaning that they cannot be sued unless, for example, they violated someone's constitutional rights and had a pretty good idea they were doing so. That leaves open the question of whether Vice Presidents get immunity, but the consensus among constitutional scholars is that they do, so Cheney lucks out. As behind-the-scenes guys, Rove and Libby probably get only qualified immunity, which means they'll have to show that the complaint fails to state any legal claims, if they want to get rid of it quickly.

And they may succeed on some counts. Plame and Wilson contend, for example, that the Administration violated their free-speech rights by taking "retaliatory action" after Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to several nations, wrote an op-ed piece questioning a central reason for attacking Iraq: President Bush's claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Presumably, the retaliation was the outing of Plame as a CIA official, but there's room to debate how much harm came of that act. She didn't lose her job or get demoted or suffer any other obvious damage. And even if the outing violated federal law (and there's still no evidence that it did), that wouldn't make it unconstitutional. So "the claim is much weaker than the typical claim" of harming speech through retaliation, says Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at UCLA law school. If the judge believes the claim is weak enough, he will throw it out. --- Above Revision as of 01:36, 19 July 2006 by User:Anthonymendoza

The analysis however continues: Which is not to say that the couple has no case. On several of their claims ? that "vindictiveness and illegitimate animus" caused the Administration to treat them differently from others in similar positions, for example, or that the defendants wrongfully disclosed a private fact about Plame ? there may be enough ambiguity about what really happened to propel them beyond a motion to dismiss and into discovery, a process that allows each side to demand piles of information from the other. That's a prospect an already shaky White House surely wants to avoid.

Let us not be so quick to dismiss the outing of a CIA agent as no harm to that person. There are places in the world where CIA agents can come to harm and where Plame (and her children) would now be well advised never to visit. rewinn 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

if the Wilsons can get the lawsuit into the discovery phase, it will be very significant. but from every analysis i've read, that likely wouldn't happen until after 2008. and since no criminal charges were filed with regards to the outing, each defendant in the lawsuit could plead the fifth if they wished too, and the Wilsons couldn't do anything about it. so it's a long shot for sure. but as a political liability for the white house, i think this plame affair is at an end. Anthonymendoza 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Brewster Jennings material in intro

I don't think the introduction should have a full paragraph devoted to the cover status of Brewster Jennings, but since another editor put it there, I just editted it to eliminate what appeared to be non sequiturs (the purpose of a front company is to look like a real company, so you make sure people put it on their internet resumes ... and send people to conferences so they can acquire the information for which the front exists.) Someone else could move the para, if you agree. rewinn 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheney's Involvement

I've read it alleged that Cheney's office had nothing to do with Wilson's trip to Nigeria. Has this been explored? unsigned comment by 05:17, 25 July 2006 72.192.138.6

Unsourced allegations are not encyclopedic. There is no need to explore this until it is reliably sourced. rewinn 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon rewrite

I found the anon rewrite (Be Bold!) to have both the original material balanced with more perspective from Novak's side and the Senate investigation. For example, the Novak article really questioned why Wilson was sent. It was tangential (but important) that Plame's name and CIA affiliation was mentioned. The rewrite is more aligned with the tangential release and therefore closer to the facts and tone of reality. I found it more neutral and balanced. It didn't subtract any information but added perspective. Comment? --Tbeatty 07:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor completely shifted the POV of the article to that of Bob Novak. The previous version already mentioned the information that Novak questioned why Wilson was sent. The rewrite states bizarre conspiracy theory as fact -- e.g. "Showing that Wilson's wife recommended him for the mission to Niger was material to the story, since it brought into question the objective nature of the trip, and demonstrated that Wilson's trip was part of an organized effort to debunk the administration's claims." It also deletes material on the other side -- e.g. "Opponents counter this speculation by arguing that such officials would still have a duty to diligently avoid exposing undercover officers or other confidential information." and "However, Cheney's office has since admitted that the trip was the result of a Vice Presidential inquiry." The rewritten passages are

all focused on debunking Wilson. I understand some here don't like Wilson, which is all fine, and that some even believe the bizarre conspiracy theory that states that Wilson and Plame predicted a year ahead of time how Cheney's office would respond to published statements (that have all turned out to be true BTW). It's fine to have different viewpoints on these things, but our edits to the page should focus on accurately stating the various viewpoints, not on hammering one viewpoint and deleting evidence of another.--csloat 07:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with liking or disliking Wilson or Novak. It's important to understand and make sure it's caputred in WP the motives and reasons. According to Novak, he was trying to show that Wilson was not sent by the VP's office, but by CIA without the VP's knowledge. He also was trying to show that Wilson was selected for the job, not by the VP's office but by CIA and the connection to CIA was Wilson's wife. I didn't read any conspiracy theories in those edits but I may have missed it. This article, epsecially in the intro, does not show the stated intent of Novak. Instead it implies a more sinister motive of conspiracy within the VP's office to intimidate Wilson. I don't think it is the place of WP to assert any conspiracy theories. Give wilson's view. Give Novak's view. Give CIA's view. The intro lacks any perspective except Wilson's and that is not neutral or complete.--Tbeatty 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is pretty clear in this sentence -- "Showing that Wilson's wife recommended him for the mission to Niger was material to the story, since it brought into question the objective nature of the trip, and demonstrated that Wilson's trip was part of an organized effort to debunk the administration's claims." I'm not objecting to it being a conspiracy theory - after all, Wilson believes Libby conspired with others to discredit him through Novak - though I do think that one theory is more far-fetched than the other. I think it is fine to present the information that Novak was trying to show that Wilson was not sent by the VP (though Wilson never claimed the VP sent him), but that is already in the article without having these pov-pushing edits. Adding a sentence to make this point about Novak's alleged intent clearer would be fine, but I see no reason to delete the additional material I quoted above or to insert the POV that Novak was right about all of this. If you have POV issues with the intro, address those, but these anon edits do not help.--csloat 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is already too big. Theories why the event occurred would be better in the body of the text. rewinn 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As the anonymous editor, I wanted to correct what I saw as Wilson-biased areas of the text, to provide a more balanced perspective. The point of Novak's article was to cast doubt on Wilson's qualifications and the accuracy of his report, and revealing the identity of Wilson's wife was incidental (but material) to this point; however, the numerous descriptions of the event generally say (paraphrasing), "Wilson submitted a report questioning the Administration, and eight days later, Novak wrote an article revealing the identity of Wilson's wife." This strongly implies that the entire purpose of the article was to reveal Plame's identity, as a way to get back at Wilson. Since many will not read the article past the introduction, I think it is important that the facts are presented in a non-biased, factual manner, not a factual declaration that strongly implies maliciousness on the part of Novak or the Administration. Other edits were similarly themed, such as the excerpt that stated, "Wilson concluded then that there "was nothing to the story," but the Bush Administration nevertheless reasserted the claim that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger." Again, that implies that the Bush Administration heard Wilson's report and intentionally ignored it, when the truth is (as stated in the Senate Intelligence Report) that Wilson's reported his findings to the CIA, who did not then pass those findings along to the Administration. Saying "the Bush Administration nevertheless reasserted the claim" is inaccurate and unnecessary, since the Administration did not receive any new information that would cause them to doubt that claim. The article implies a causal relationship that is simply not there. I would recommend changing these instances back to accurately reflect these points, since apparently my earlier changes were overruled.

Your earlier changes included deletions and additions that had nothing to do with the points you make in the above paragraph. The issue of Novak's piece being written to discredit Wilson rather than to expose Valerie has been dealt with, I believe, but the other changes you made seemed to state conspiracy theory - that Plame and Wilson planned all from the beginning this to hurt the president (or something) - as fact. It may be true that Novak believes that nonsense, but what he believes should not be stated as fact. You are correct that this rule cuts both ways; certainly Wilson's beliefs should not be stated as fact either. But I don't think that was the issue in your changes.--csloat 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue in my changes was exactly as stated: to remove the strong implications that Novak's article was written with the express intent to "punish" Wilson for his article. As for the "conspiracy theory" that has been stated as fact, again, let me rely on the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee that contradict the article: Wilson was a former ambassador, not a current ambassador, when he was sent to Niger; Plame did in fact "[offer] up his name" for the trip; she specifically talked to her husband and said, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq, which strongly implies that she expected Wilson to refute the report, not objectively determine its truth; the administration was not specifically informed of Wilson's findings upon his return, which makes the "Bush Administration nevertheless reasserted the claim" phrasing unnecessary and misleading; Wilson's investigations consisted of asking Nigerian officials if they had been involved in any uranium transfers, or if any uranium had been missing; although Wilson concluded that there was "nothing to the story," CIA officials actually found evidence in his report that supported the claim that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium from Niger; Wilson claimed that names and dates were wrong on the CIA documents, but it was later revealed that he had never seen the CIA reports and had no idea what names and dates were on the report; Wilson admitted that he may have "misspoken" when claiming that the documents were forged; the CIA analysts "did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales."; the CIA did not brief the Vice President on the report, because they did not think the report added any new information to clarify the issue. These are all points taken directly from the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence. If these facts were added to the article (as I was trying to do piecemeal), as well as a link to the report in question, it would clarify the importance of Wilson's report, and the fact that Wilson claimed his report proved that the Administration was lying, even though the CIA did not feel the report added any new information to the issue, and thus did not pass it on to the Administration. Frankly, when you point out how irrelevant Wilson's report was to debunking the Administration, it makes it seem much less likely that they sought to "punish" Wilson for it, and more likely that they just wanted to point out its irrelevance. ---unsigned content apparantly added by 17.228.23.143 at (22:30, 26 July 2006)

The introduction is still too long. The other points are not worth arguing. rewinn 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, the other points "are not worth arguing"? I made changes to the article that were subsequently removed; I am now trying to discuss those changes, pointing out that they are correct, so that they can be reinstated. Therefore, I would like to continue the discussion for that purpose.

For heaven sake, the other points are all covered in the article; I have no wish to debate all this again. We had this debate over a year ago and your side lost it then. You are picking and choosing what you like from the SSCI and ignoring the rest. The CIA disputed many of the claims you state as fact. I never said the report was irrelevant to debunking the admin, and I'm not concerned with trying to convince you that your conspiracy theory is bogus. To me it is illogical to believe that in 2002 Valerie and Joe Wilson (the latter of whom had worked under Bush Sr, been called an American hero by the President, and had publicly faced down Saddam Hussein at the outset of the Gulf crisis) suddenly decided to plot against the Bush Administration and successfully predicted what Bush would do in his 2003 State of the Union speech in order to make the plot come together. But if Novak believes that, fine, let's indicate that Novak believes that, but let's not pretend that it is therefore true. What we know for a fact is that the VPs office asked the CIA to look into the niger issue, that the CIA denies that Valerie Wilson had anything to do with Joe Wilson being sent, and that Novak believes otherwise. Let's not blow the rest of this out of proportion. Oh, yes, and former ambassadors are called "Ambassador," just like you would call Bill Clinton or Gerald Ford "Mr. President." But really, again, none of this belongs in the intro.--csloat 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the points may be mentioned in the article, but others are completely ignored in favor of language which, while technically factual, strongly implies malicious intent. I am not "picking and choosing" from the SSCI; I am specifically stating their conclusions that they arrived at based on all the evidence, including CIA testimony. If you have evidence that refutes their conclusions, then I would be glad to hear it. As for the plot being "illogical,"?no, I don't think that the Wilsons plotted against the Bush Administration and predicted what Bush would mention in his State of the Union speech; however, I do think that Joe Wilson has overstated both the evidence that he found from his trip to Niger (which, as the CIA has pointed out, actually bolstered the case that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger), and the fact that the Bush Administration knew about his findings (which the CIA admitted were not deemed important enough to report to the administration). I think these are important facts to point out. Oh, and while I am sure that you would address a former ambassador as "Ambassador,"?you will still refer to him as the "former ambassador"; you don't see news reports about Carter saying, "The President met with foreign officials today...."

Since you refuse to sign your work, there is no point in responding. As an exercise in futility, however, I will point out that you refuse to source your speculation and, at best, are offering original research as to the motive for outing Plame. This is not encyclopedic. rewinn 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The stated “motive for outing Plame” is cited numerous times in the current article: Wilson and others claim that Plame was outed because the Bush Administration believed that Wilson’s findings were a threat to their credibility. I am simply suggesting including the facts that show that Wilson’s findings were not a threat to their credibility, and letting the reader decide whether the suggested motives are accurate. So again, why are you objecting to the inclusion of cited, verifiable facts in the article?

Since you refuse to sign your work, there is no point in further discussion. Anon is inherently unreliable. rewinn 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Have any of you actually read the Novak article? It did not discredit Wilson. 71.212.31.95 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the original article by Wilson, and Novak's response, should both be linked on the page. As for whether the Novak article discredited Wilson, I offer the following quotes from the article: "CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances" (supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee findings). It also mentioned the Iraqi delegation seeking to establish commercial contacts with Niger, which was also supported by the Intelligence Committee findings. Both of those seem to discredit Wilson's claims that his trip to Niger proved that the Administration was lying.

Oddly enough, both of those article are linked to this page, and have been for months. As for whether Wilson accused the Administration of lying, I suggest you read the actual Wilson article: "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." rewinn 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I never disputed that Wilson accused the administration of lying; I simply said that his findings did not prove that the Administration was lying. Those are two different things. Since his accusations against the Administration were hardly damning (as the Senate Intelligence Committee report supports), it seems unlikely that the Administration would undertake a smear campaign against him. It seems far more likely that they would simply point out the errors in his evidence. Based on the Intelligence Committee report, I think that the article should be changed to more clearly point out where Wilson's findings were in error, and how they did not, in fact, prove that the Administration was lying. ---The previous is an unsigned anonymous comment

His accusations were not of lying but of exaggerating, to be precise, but it doesn't matter - what was "damning" here was that the President used 16 words in his SOTU speech that he later had to admit should not have been used. It doesn't matter though - there is no need to speculate on why the admin undertook a smear campaign that may have included criminal activity; that cuts to questions of motive that we really can't determine.--csloat 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is "no need to speculate on why the admin undertook a smear campaign" because there is no evidence that it did. 71.212.31.95 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The President used 16 words that the CIA had approved, and which continue to be true: The British government believed at that time, and still believe, that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. As for questions of motive, when you demonstrate (as Novak did) that Wilson's article was really not a threat to the administration, then that removes the motive for a smear campaign. Thus, it is very significant to point that fact out.

Dear anonymous :

1. Please sign your contributions as per wikiPolicy.
2. This article is about Plame's outing; whether Wilson's findings were correct has nothing to do with the outing and is therefore not relevant to the article
3. Your theory seems to be that Plame wasn't outed because, according to you, the Administration had no reason to attack Wilson. Can you source your claim? rewinn 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about Plame's outing, and one theory is that Plame was outed as retaliation for statements he made against the Administration. Another theory is that Plame's name was revealed in the process of demonstrating that Wilson's findings were not correct. Therefore, whether or not Wilson's findings were correct has everything to do with it, since it is the motive on which the entire accusation rests. As for the source for my claim, it would seem to be self-evident: If the Administration was trying to punish Wilson because his accusations were threatening them, then if his accusations were false, they wouldn't have any reason to punish him.

Fitzgerald's indictment charging Lewis Libby with perjury says this: "On or about June 11, 2003, Libby spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip." This would seem to indicate that the CIA, not the Cheney cabal, was the source of the claim that Wilson's wife was involved in sending him to Niger. 71.212.31.95 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Except (1) Libby is being charged with perjury, so his statements are hardly credible, though they do establish evidence of perjury (2) the CIA took the official position (as documented in SSCI) that Plame did not send Wilson on the trip, (3) everyone else involved - Plame and Wilson first and foremost - confirm that Plame did not send Wilson on the trip, and (4) Plame had no authority whatsoever to send Wilson on the trip; the most we have is that she may have "offered up his name," but even that is contradicted by CIA statements to SSCI. It seems that Plame may have been asked about the choice of Wilson after the decision was made and that she then offered her opinion about it. Hardly the making of a conspiracy. But you're avoiding the real problem with this conspiracy theory, which is, how the hell did Plame know a year ahead of time what Wilson would find in Niger and what Bush would say in his SOTU speech? The question is purely academic since, as I have said, there really is no use in debating this here -- the article should simply state who said what and leave it at that. We're not going to resolve whose conspiracy theory is less sound.--csloat 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since the article "should simply state who said what,"?then after Wilson reported his findings to the CIA, why don't we point out that the CIA never reported those findings to the Administration, didn't feel that they shed any new light on the subject, felt they actually bolstered the case, and remove the part where it says that the Administration continued to claim that the story was true? After all, since the CIA findings weren't reported to the Administration, why would they have any reason to change what they believed? As it is phrased now, it implies that Wilson's findings were immediately reported to the Administration, who intentionally ignored them.

The quotation above is from Fitzgerald, not Libby. And neither the position taken subsequently by CIA officials or statements by Plame and Wilson refute the assertion that Libby was told by a CIA official that Plame was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip. The point is not whether Plame actually was or was not reponsible for Wilson's trip, but whether the idea that she was responsible for the trip was invented by the White House to discredit or punish Wilson. The evidence is that it was not. 71.212.31.95 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's from Fitzgerald reporting what Libby said. And the CIA has refuted the assertion that Plame is responsible for sending Wilson, no matter what Libby claims a CIA official told him. And Plame had no authority to send him. Your claim about the White House's motives does not seem relevant to the discussion, nor is it something that we can possibly figure out anyway.--csloat 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for your claim that Fitzgerald was merely reporting what Libby said? Moreover, the infamous Air Force One Memo showed that the State department liason also believed that Plame was responsible for Wilson's trip. There is no evidence that the idea originated in the White House. The claim about supposed White House motives is not mine, but Wilson's, and is fundamental to the allegations which are the subject of this article. That seems relevant to me. 71.212.31.95 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim about the White House's motives is central to the discussion, since it is the entire basis for accusations that the Administration tried to smear Wilson because they felt threatened by his article. If Wilson's article was not true, and he was not the person "who did the most damage to the Bush II administration," then why would the Administration have any motive to smear him? Of course, if you just assume they were trying to smear him (as many here seems to believe), then no, I guess you don't need to discuss motives, since you've already assumed they are guilty. However, for everyone else, it seems logical to present the evidence, and let people make up their own mind about whether or not the Administration started a smear campaign.

Just a random point, but the SOTU thing is not neccessarily in regard to Niger. The Brits still stand by it. Arkon 03:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Brits may stand by it, but they have never indicated another source for that information. At issue, of course, is not the brits, but Bush, whose admin has since backed away from the statement and indicated that the "16 words" should not have been uttered in that speech. I'm not sure why the Brits allegedly stand by it - perhaps to avoid embarrassment - but the only one still standing by it in this country seems to be a Brit himself. It's kind of funny how many people are still invested in proving that this was true three and a half years later, when we have had every opportunity to find the alleged nukes and/or actually see them used against us, and we have found nothing. It is clear now beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 16 words were false, and yet some people still will bend over backwards to claim that they were still true. Amazing. Makes me want to re-read Eric Hoffer and Charles Mackay.--csloat 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What's funny to me is that people are still trying to disprove something as innocuous as a claim that Iraq was looking to buy uranium from Africa, and thinking that Joe Wilson interviewing Nigerian officials somehow constitutes proof. And how does not finding nukes prove that Iraq was not looking to buy uranium? I don't own a Ferrari; does that prove I haven't gone shopping for one?

Talking to everyone in Niger that would have anything to do with such a sale would be helpful, certainly, and if the claim was "innocuous," how is it that it was mentioned in a SOTU as a justification for a war that has at this point claimed the lives of at least 2500 American servicemen and women, and 40,000 Iraqi civilians? That doesn't sound innocuous to me.--csloat 07:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As the CIA stated after Wilson’s findings were reported, denials by Nigerian officials were hardly conclusive proof of anything, since they would likely deny it even if there were a connection to Iraq. And in fact, CIA analysts found that Wilson’s report actually supported the claim that Iraq had been looking to by uranium from Niger. So, again, the claim from the State of the Union address has not been disproven, and certainly not by Wilson’s report. When are these facts going to be entered into the article, such as, “The CIA did not believe that Wilson’s report contained any new information on the subject, and so those findings were not passed on to the Administration”? Or is there a particular bias that is keeping these facts from being included?

How did this happen? I said I did not want to try to convince you that you are wrong because it is pointless, yet here I am sucked into this argument. You are distorting things, of course; it is well known that Iraq sought uranium from Niger in the 1980s but that is not what is at issue in Wilson's trip. But that is neither here nor there and there is no point in arguing about it; the real issue is, what do you think needs to be changed about the article? I am not sure where the quote you cite comes from, but if it is from the SSCI or some other official source, I don't have a problem with it being included in the article. The rest of this I am done arguing about - you are entitled to whatever superstitions about Iraq, Niger, the CIA, Joe Wilson, and Lee Harvey Oswald that you desire to hold.--csloat 08:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What am I distorting “of course”? As stated by the SSIC report, Wilson’s report cited the Nigerian Prime Minister saying he was approached in 1999 to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq, which he took to mean that they wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. From this, the CIA believed that the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was actually bolstered, not refuted as Wilson had claimed. As for the quote from the SSIC, here it is: “Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.” Based on this fact, I would also like to remove the phrase, “…but the Bush Administration nevertheless reasserted the claim that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger” following the statement that Wilson concluded that there “was nothing to the story.” The second half of that sentence is misleading, since it implies that the Administration received the report (which they didn’t), and that they intentionally reasserted something that they believed was false (which they didn’t, since they were never presented with that evidence in the first place). This is only one of several corrections that I believe are appropriate, but it’s a start. Objections?

I don't have time to debate you on these things, and my arguments will not change your mind anyway. Do what you want; if I see blatant editorializing disguised as fact, I will revert it. If I see falsehoods stated as truths, I will remove them. Other editors will do the same. I am not the gatekeeper of this article. But you'd better be able to source your claims if you expect them to stay.--csloat 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since your responses of “I don’t have time to debate you” and “my arguments will not change your mind anyway” aren’t valid arguments against the facts I cited (with sources), so I’ll assume that is your gracious way of conceding the facts I have mentioned. Since I was told to present proposed edits here for discussion, I was expecting better than accusations of “superstition” and other methods of avoiding the factual citations I mentioned. I’ll make sure that I cite my sources when I make the changes.

Since you refuse to sign your work, there is no point in further discussion. Anon is inherently unreliable. rewinn 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not I sign my work does not change the validity of my arguments. I have shown that I am consistently reviewing this discussion, and presenting my case with factual evidence supported by citations. On the other hand, you and others accuse me of “superstition,” and make excuses to avoid refuting the facts I present. What is the point of discussing proposed changes here, if this is the response that I get?

Whether you sign your comments does not change the validity of your arguments, and won't change the substantive response you get, but it would make the discussion page easier to follow. It's about clarity, not credibility. Just include four consecutive tilde (~) characters at the end of your comment and a signature will be added automatically. 71.212.31.95 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to sign your work while posting tenditious materials identifies you as a troll, to be ignored. If you are serious about being encyclopedic, you will learn the customs. Your claim that I used the word "superstition" lacks factual basis. rewinn 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who used the word superstition to refer to the anon's belief in bizarre conspiracy theories that involve Plame and Wilson having a crystal ball. I refuse to try to convince the anon that he is wrong; he is entitled to believe whatever he wants about this. I am not conceding his arguments; I am simply refusing to debate them. I'm sure he can find another worthy opponent. I am more interested in the article than the talk page; if I see him putting disinformation on the article it will be reverted. It's that simple.--csloat 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I concede that I need to learn the customs, but I believe my arguments prove that I am not a troll. As for my “bizarre conspiracy theories that involve Plame and Wilson having a crystal ball,” you are completely mischaracterizing the evidence against Plame and Wilson. But of course, if I go ahead and respond to your argument, you will respond with “Oh, but it’s not worth my time to argue with you.” So you continue to make your arguments, but refuse to argue when they are challenged. As for the article, I am also interested in it; however, when I made changes previously, those changes were subsequently reverted, and I was told to present proposed changes here for discussion. So I did that, and was told to cite my evidence. I cited my evidence, and was told that it wasn’t worth your time to argue with me. And now I’m being told, “I am more interested in the article that the talk page,” which seems to imply that I should just post changes directly to the article. So which is it? I tried both methods, and have been told each time to try the other instead. Or is this all because I haven’t signed my work, and suddenly everything will be sunshine and light if I do, with my proposed changes greeted with thoughtful discussion and an open mind? Based on the evidence so far, I highly doubt it.

The one thing I can tell you is that no matter what you do, everything won't be "sunshine and light." Enjoy!--csloat 23:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you are getting the run around. That's how it works here. You will not get thoughtful discussion, only endless debate. You will never get your edits past the left-wing censors who control the contents of this article. 71.212.31.95 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried thoughtful discussion with him and there was no point - I've learned the hard way that this isn't a place to try to convince people on the opposite side of the political fence that they are wrong. I don't care to convince the anon he is wrong. But nobody is censoring anyone! I have said over and over that he is welcome to put in whatever sourced and relevant claims he wants. I only objected to blatant editorializing disguised as fact. I am not the gatekeeper of this article and you or he do not need my permission (or the permission of any "left-winger") to edit it. In fact, this particular article has been dominated by pro-Libby voices (I hesitate to describe them as "right-wingers," as some conservatives take offense at being identified with the pro-treason wing of the Republican party). It has not been censored by the left; there are voices on both sides but, if you look at the debates over the last year or two, there have been more pro-Libby editors involved in this article than pro-Plame (again, these terms are inadequate to describe the two sides here). Now, if you have something to contribute, do so. If your contribution is sourced and relevant and you are not posing opinions as fact, I think you'll find that editors from all political perspectives will not delete your contribution. There is little sense in trying to drag me or others into a debate that will convince neither of us.--csloat 00:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn’t try thoughtful discussion with me. You asked me to present my arguments with sources; I did; you then responded with, “I don't have time to debate you on these things, and my arguments will not change your mind anyway,” which is two different rationales for avoiding thoughtful discussion. Since you have no response to my cited sources, then yes, I will include my sourced and relevant claims in the article. But please, do not claim that you “tried thoughtful discussion with him and there was no point.” You didn’t try. You simply accused me of holding “superstitions” about things like “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Please don’t try to paint me as irrational or illogical. I presented my arguments, and you refused to respond. That’s fine, but at least be honest about it.

Right, see, I said that because instead of a thoughtful discussion on the facts, you insisted on debating issues that would not find resolution, such as motives, and conspiracies involving Plame and Wilson and a crystal ball. Again, I have had this debate for over a year now and I am sick of it. I will not change your mind; you will not change mine. Either focus on adding factual information to the article or leave it alone.--csloat 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please drop the “crystal ball” argument. I did not say or imply anything about a crystal ball. I presented factual corrections to the article, and you ignored them. I will submit them now, with citations. I trust they will not be removed.

They look good to me. Was that so hard? There is no need to come here looking for a fight.--csloat 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Important Slate article

Please read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/ and stop all the craziness. Wilson is a fool and a liar. Any reasonable look at the true facts shows this.

LOL... yeah, and we can trust Hitchens, because booze doesn't lie.--csloat 07:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...was that an attempt to refute the logic and facts in his article, or just an ad hominem attack?

Neither; I was saying that I don't trust Hitchens. I think he's a liar and an attention whore, and I think his alcohol problem has severely distorted his once-agile mind.--csloat 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So if you believe that he is a liar, does that mean you believe his quoted sources are liars as well?

Where did I say that?--csloat 08:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed you said it; I asked a question. Here's another one: So, are we going to cite this Slate article in the Wikipedia entry as well, or can articles only be cited if they editorialize that the Bush Administration outed Plame in order to scare Wilson?

I don't have a problem with that article being cited, and it probably already is. If it's not, go for it. The only problem I had with your edits is the blatant pov-pushing disguised as fact. You want to cite this boozehound's opinion, go for it, just make sure it is cited as his opinion. Your claim that the article only cites anti-Bush sources is totally at odds with the facts. This article has been editwarred over for a couple years by people on both sides; pro-Libby wikipedia editors have made damn sure the anti-Plame "story" is well-represented here. --csloat 09:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Bush bias of the article is obvious. And the reason is clear. As you said earlier: "We had this debate over a year ago and your side lost it then." You have no interest in the substance of the recent report by Hitchens, or any of the other evidence that refutes your POV. 71.212.31.95 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The anti-fact bias of the Hitchens article is obvious. Let me cite one example. The article you wish to cite [8] claims that Wilson's claims have been "thoroughly dispelled", using as authority an earlier article by Hitchens himself. But that article's evidence is a set of irrelevancies, e.g. that Novak approached officials instead of being approached by them; that Novak got the name of Wilson's wife from Who's who; etc. None of that evidence is probative as to the question whether the Administration sought to discredit Wilson. The article you seek to cite lacks authoritativeness. rewinn 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The allegation which is the subject of this article is that Novak's reporting of Plame's CIA affiliation was a deliberate attempt by the White House to "punish" Wilson for his public criticism of the administration. Novak's statements refute this. Novak, not Hitchens, is the source concerning the circumstances of his reporting about Plame. And his statements are clearly probative evidence concerning the allegations that his disclosure about Plame was an intentional White House retaliation against Wilson. The recent Hitchens article correctly points out the accumulating evidence against Wilson's allegations concerning the Plame disclosure. But it also directly cites further evidence concerning reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain nuclear materials from Niger. This evidence bears on Wilson's original claim that his trip had disproved such reports. 71.212.31.95 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you for signing your contributions, per wikiPolicy. Your contributions would be more credible if you would create a login; anon contributors are inherently noncredible
2. The Plame scandal is about the outing of a WMD-hunting spy and her WMD-hunting operation. The motivation, while important, is secondary.
3. Whether Novak got Plame's name from "Who's Who" is not probative of whether the disclosure of her identity as a CIA asset was deliberate.
4. Whether Novak called the WH or the WH called Novak is not probative of whether the disclosure of her identity as a CIA asset during that conversation was deliberate, because Novak has frequent WH contact
5. Whether Wilson's assessment of Niger was correct is not probative of whether the disclosure of her identity as a CIA asset was deliberate or not.

Proud to sign my name to my work: rewinn 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated by Wilson and others, Plame's name was revealed specifically to punish Wilson specifically because his earlier report of findings in Niger was a threat to the Bush Administration. Thus, whether Wilson's assessment of Niger was correct is specifically relevant to the issue, because if they Bush Administration did not feel that his article was a threat, they would have no motive to reveal Plame's name, and Wilson't argument falls apart. All I'm suggesting is that the accuracy of Wilson's assessment of Niger should be noted in the article, so that others can come to their own conclusions about the accusations.

Non sequitur.

1. Whether Wilson's theory of the motivation behind the leak is correct is not probative of whether the disclosure of her identity as a CIA asset during that conversation was deliberate.
2. You have not quoted anyone at the WH that Wilson's article was not a threat. Your own theorizing on the subject is original research and not encyclopedic.
3. The article is too long to include speculation on every side issue. Feel free to create an article on the subject if you think it's important.
4. If you insist on putting into the article a denegration of Wilson's assessment, you will have opened the door to an analysis of the trustworthiness of other parties to the matter. Do you really want a list of Rove's previous dirty tricks on this page? I assure you, it will not serve your purpose.
5. Please sign your work. Anon is inherently unreliable. Shows pride in your work, or no-one will trust you. rewinn 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One by one:

1. The theory of the motivation behind the leak is completely relevant, because without motivation, you can not make a case that the disclosure of her identity was deliberate.
2. Wilson (and others) have never quoted anyone at the White House saying that they perceived Wilson's article as a threat. They simply assert the correctness of Wilson's report as proof that the Administration saw Wilson as a threat, and logically deduce his motivation from that. Therefore, refuting the correctness of Wilson's report serves to refute their proof. I don't need to cite evidence that the While House did not find Wilson to be a threat; all I have to do is refute evidence presented by Wilson's side.
3. You say it's a side issue; I say it is the main issue. The alleged motivation for the leak is mentioned in the first sentence of the article, so the evidence appears to be on my side.
4. I am talking about including discussion directly related to the allegations listed in the very first sentence of the article. Since that is accusation the article is about, the evidence supporting or refuting that accusation is pertinent. Listing Rove's "previous dirty tricks"?proves nothing about whether this accusation is true, while listing evidence that the Niger report was untrue removes the motivation attributed to the Bush Administration.
5. I have pride in my work, as demonstrated by the fact that I continue to post here and make my arguments in a thoughtful manner, supported by evidence which I cite. Other signed contributors accuse me of superstition and crackpot theories; therefore, I see nothing inherent in signing my name which makes my arguments more or less reliable.

Wilson's argument fails

Wilson's basic allegation is that White House "outed" wife Plame for "revenge". Quite apart for the self-aggrandizing nature of such a claim (as in "I am such an important person, those in power seek to punish me...", we are left with the core issue which is: 1) Novak has stated quite clearly that HE is the prime mover of getting Plame's name out there and 2) Nothing in the record ANYWHERE contradicts this point. People can speculate and allege all they want BUT, Rove DENIED under oath that he was the initiator on this and Fitzgerald DID NOT charge Rove with perjury. Therefore, we can take it that: A) NOVAK asserts he moved the Plame identity public and B) the prosecutor accepts that Rove did NOT. These simple points when looked at, moot this entire article. That is, unless you now want to invent a novel theory based on a contention that Novak was engaged in CONSPIRACY at the behest of the White House and has been lying through his teeth about this all along. However, I for one, will not go there. Why? Because if that were true, Fitzgeraldd would have found that out already AND the media would have long ago sniffed it out. The simple truth is that Novak is a very good reporter and he came along with a timely scoop on others. Personally, I think that Richard Armitage is Novak's source and the only reason this was even a "scandal" is the media jumped at a chance to pin the tail on a Rove donkey. But now that it's clear that Rove DID NOT do anything illegal, immoral or unethical here, we are only left with fools lying and speculating about falsehoods. There is no "Plame affair". There never was any "Plame affair" and this entire controversy was nothing more than a media generated hype-storm.

Sure, there is no spoon. If this is what you believe, propose an WP:AfD and see how it goes.--csloat 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is needed is not deletion of the article, but rather its revision to accurately present the facts concerning the matter.

Although Novak has not identified his primary source, he has repeatedly stated that his source was not a "partisan gunslinger". (On Meet the Press, Tim Russert said that many lawyers involved in the case have said that Novak's primary source was the same as that for Bob Woodward of The Washington Post. Russert quoted Ben Bradlee, former executive editor of the Post, as saying of Woodward’s source: “That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption.”) Novak has stated that the information about Plame was not volunteered by his source, but was given in response to Novak's specific question as to how Wilson was selected for the Niger trip. Novak afterward contacted Rove and a CIA official (Harlow) for confirmation. There is no evidence that the information about Plame was given to Novak in an effort to discredit or punish Wilson. 71.212.31.95 02:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly one point of view that should be presented alongside the others. In fact, it appears it already is, although the Armitage quote should be included, so feel free to add it.--csloat 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilson v. Rove: do you REALLY what to know?

Let us not confuse the issue whether Plame was outed, and the issue why Plame was outed. The former is beyond dispute and harmful to the United States. That makes this article important.

The question of motivation for outing Plame is secondary. But if you want to get into it, well, if that argument is to include the motivation of Wilson, it must also include the motivation of Rove, Cheney and Bush. Between them and the Wilsons, which is more likely to be truthful?

• Ambassador Wilson has a sterling careers of service to our great nation, and actually risked his life in facing down Saddam during the First Gulf War.
• Plame has a distinguished, but necessarily secret, career hunting WMDs for America, against our enemies.
• Rove has a history of partisan dirty tricks, and has admitted to both theft and forgery.
• Cheney comes from the Nixon White House, and has been caught on record lying about the evidence concerning Iraq (for example, calling the hydroden trucks "mobile weapons labs" months after he knew they were not);
• Bush has a history of untreated drug abuse and alcohol abuse; it is common knowledge that you "never trust a junkie". He has frequently ordered the disclosure of classified material for partisan purposes (e.g. selected parts of NIE). He has engaged in crude, erratic behavior (most recently at the G8).
• All these facts are material in figuring out which of the parties are more reliable.

Anon wants to argue that Ambassador Wilson is a liar because, according to Anon, the White House was not really worried about Wilson's editorial because, according to Anon, the report was false. However, there is plenty of evidence that the White House was concerned about Wilson's editorial, beginning with notations on the Vice-President's copy of the editorial in the VP's own handwriting, suggesting that the Niger trip be called a "junket". Thus the whole argument advanced by Anon cannot be supported because the WH itself provide evidence against it.

Now if Anon wants to put his (or her) theory on the page, well enough, but that other material must go there too, to let readers determine for themselves who to believe. I will hold off a bit on this, but it could be fun. rewinn 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush was a "junkie"? What does that have to do with anything? Look, the simple,w unrefuted FACT is that Novak ferreted out the Plame information on his own initiative in his role a journalist and Novak's activities in that regard were NOT at the behest or direction of Rove, Bush, Libby or White House. Anyone who says otherwise is making unsubstantiated assertions because the is NO information in the record which contradicts this point. Rove's testimony - which DENIES being the initiator of the Plame information to Novak has NOT been challenged as false by Fitzgerald. For this reason, reasonable people will accept that Rove DID NOT move the Plame details to Novak, but rather, as Novak has said, Novak asked Rove for confirmation. Now, as to whether or not Rove should have confirmed it to Novak (the record says that he did), what are the facts? 1) Plame WAS NOT "covert" within a near enough time-frame to make discussing her status - even if the conversation focused on a "covert" angle, a crime b) since Novak moved the story, there is at MOST "passive" revenge against Wilson, ie; Rove saw an opportunity to give Wilson a "smack-down" and took it. There was NO conspiracy against Wilson/Plame and there are NO facts which support allegations that contend there was. Now, to turn this around: Please think way back when this story 1st broke - Almost as soon as the Wilson allegations of "leaked my wife's name" came out - the Democrats and the media were pointing fingers at Rove. But how could that be UNLESS Novak had told others that Rove confirmed his already established information (gleaned from Armitage)? The point is that the only way the Dems/Media would have known for CERTAIN (as they clearly did from the beginning) that Rove was as close to the center here as he turned out to be, was is IF they already had some information from other sources. And clearly, those "other sources" could only have been Novak. This means the Dems/Media already KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING, that Rove did NOT "leak". That being pointed out, it's quite clear that the attacks on Rove by the media on the Plame issue were indeed a media-driven attempted coup against Bush. This is disgusting "gotcha" yellow-journalism at the worst. If you can't see that, then what more can I say?

Whether the Plame disclosure resulted in significant harm to the United States is disputed. Regardeless, the evidence is that it was unintentional. The public controversy resulted from allegations of deliberate improper if not criminal acts from political motives. The evidence does not support these allegations.

The Bush administration was understandably concerned about Wilson's attacks, because his claim that his findings in Niger were definitive but deliberately ignored was false. But the White House response to Wilson's attacks was substantive. There is no evidence that Plame's CIA affiliation was intentionally disclosed in order to punish Wilson.

The early accusations against Rove, beyond the extent to which they were purely speculative, were more likely based on Cooper rather than Novak. But the focus on Rove throughout was largely due to wishful thinking on the part of his political opponents.

Irrelevant ad hominem attacks on Bush et al. may be fun, but have no place in Wikipedia. 71.212.31.95 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude! Get a blog. Your theories are not relevant here. Either make suggestions about improving the article or go elsewhere. No offense - it's a lesson I am learning myself. This isn't a debate club, as fun as that might be at times. Have an excellent afternoon.--csloat 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewinn, no offense, but you completely misunderstand my argument. Let me correct your statements one by one:

• "The question of motivation for outing Plame is secondary." No, it’s the main point. Wilson and others are accusing the Bush Administration of outing Plame, and they specifically mention the motivation of retaliation against Wilson’s report from Niger. Thus, if their motivation can be disproved, then so can the accusation.
• "…if that argument is to include the motivation of Wilson,…" I’m not bringing Wilson’s motivations into it at all. I am making no claims about whether Wilson and Plame deliberately tried to make the Bush Administration look bad, or whether Wilson truly believed that his findings were conclusive. All I am addressing is the supposed motivation of Rove to out Plame.
• "Between them and the Wilsons, which is more likely to be truthful?" And here is where your argument goes off on a complete tangent. Instead of debating the truth of the statements specifically related to this issue, you bring up questions of general trustworthiness. Again, that is beside the point, since I am not claiming that Rove is trustworthy or that Wilson is not. All I am claiming is that Wilson’s report was not a threat to the Bush Administration.
• "it is common knowledge that you 'never trust a junkie'." Oh, right, I forgot this compelling argument. Case closed! Bush used to drink, so any accusations against him must automatically be true. I bow before your superior powers of logic.
• "Anon wants to argue that Ambassador Wilson is a liar because, according to Anon, the White House was not really worried about Wilson's editorial because, according to Anon, the report was false." Wrong, and wrong. I made no claims that Wilson is a liar. I believe that Wilson’s report was an accurate portrayal of what he found in Niger. However, his conclusions are completely different from those of the CIA, who found nothing in the report that cast any new light on the Niger subject, and did not brief the Vice President on the findings. Wilson, on the other hand, thought his report was conclusive proof, and was sure that his findings were reported to the VP. I make no claims about whether Wilson was lying, ignorant, or simply mistaken.
• "However, there is plenty of evidence that the White House was concerned about Wilson's editorial, beginning with notations on the Vice-President's copy of the editorial in the VP's own handwriting, suggesting that the Niger trip be called a 'junket'." Look up the definition of "junket." There is a difference between "an extravagant trip, particularly one enjoyed by a government official at public expense" and "a trip with findings that are particularly damaging to this administration."
• "Thus the whole argument advanced by Anon cannot be supported because the WH itself provide evidence against it." You are completely mistaken in my argument, and the White House has done nothing to disprove it. The SSCI found that the report added no new information to the Niger deal (except possibly supporting the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium), and that it was not reported to the Vice President. Thus, Wilson's argument that the Administration read and ignored his report is false, which makes it seem highly unlikely that they were threatened by him. Add to this Novak's testimony, and you have the conclusion that the Bush Administration did not out Plame, and certainly not out of retaliation for Wilson’s report, which everyone seems to have dismissed except Wilson.
• "Now if Anon wants to put his (or her) theory on the page…" All I put on the page are facts. If you have facts that refute them, please present them.--75.31.58.240 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL... an "extravagant trip" ... to a landlocked third world country .. .in the African desert... where do I sign up? Joe Wilson used to surf in Santa Barbara. Do you really think if he wanted his wife to send him on a "junket" he would go to Niger? seriously, dude, get a blog. And figure out how to get a userid if you want to contribute to this encyclopedia; it's not that hard.--csloat 08:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Got a blog, thanks. And for "junket," you must have missed the "enjoyed by a government official at public expense" part. Oh, and you might want to look up "extravagant" if you think that a trip to Santa Barbara would be more extravagant than a trip to Niger. Hint: "Extravagant" doesn't mean "a lot of fun." And of course, this is all besides the point that Cheney calling the trip a "junket" (which it is, by definition) hardly qualifies as evidence that he was concerned about Wilson's editorial. All it shows is that he thought the trip was worthless, which, according to the CIA analysis of the results, it pretty much was.--75.31.58.240 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I mean blog. Mind telling us where it is? Thanks.--csloat 09:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Based on the response I have gotten from you and others here, I don’t anticipate a friendly, rational response to my arguments.--17.228.23.143 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're more likely to get a response to them on your blog, since they don't belong here. It's obvious you are afraid to admit who you are. Which is silly, since if you have a blog, anyone can access it. I don't see how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even be bothered to get a pseudonymous userid. In any case, as I said, your arguments belong on your blog, not here.--csloat 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon argues that he's only addressing the question of Rove's motivation, yet he refuses to discuss Rove's motivation in terms of Rove's past history of crimes (theft, forgery, et cetera) and the past history of his bosses' (Bush's drug and alcohol abuse; Cheney's lies.) Anon argues that "Wilson’s report was not a threat to the Bush Administration" yet he claims Cheney's written concerns about it are irrelevant. It would appear that there is no factual evidence that Anon would accept as refuting his beliefs. Anon claims that the outing of Plame's anti-WMD effort may not have done harm to the United States, despite repeated claims by the White House itself that WMDs are a grave danger to the USA. Anon's argument is therefore not falsifiable, and therefore is not encyclopediac. rewinn 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

>sigh< Once again, let’s address them one by one…

• "Anon argues that he's only addressing the question of Rove's motivation, yet he refuses to discuss Rove's motivation in terms of Rove's past history of crimes" Please tell me what a “past history of crimes” has to do with the motivation for outing Plame. Even if Rove were the worst liar and thief in the history of government, he would still need some motivation. Luckily, Wilson (along with countless editorials) has stated what he believes this motivation to be: retaliation for publishing an article that threatens the Administration. Since Wilson has already brought up the question of Rove’s motivation, then any facts supporting or refuting that question are fair game. Sorry, but “he did bad things before” isn’t really a valid motivation.
• "Anon argues that 'Wilson’s report was not a threat to the Bush Administration' yet he claims Cheney's written concerns about it are irrelevant." Oh, right: Calling it a "junket" is certainly damning evidence.
• "It would appear that there is no factual evidence that Anon would accept as refuting his beliefs." Sure, there is plenty. For example, if you could provide some factual information supporting Wilson’s claims: that his report refuted the State of the Union address, that the CIA considered his report new and valid informtion, that the Administration saw his report, and that they deliberately ignored it. Oh, and that Rove intentionally outed Plame because of all this. Of course, the facts seem to point to just the opposite, but if you have some new information, please present it. Hint: Saying “there is no factual evidence that you would accept” is not the same thing as actually presenting that evidence.
• "Anon claims that the outing of Plame's anti-WMD effort may not have done harm to the United States" Oh really? Where did I claim that? Please cite exactly where I said it.
• "Anon's argument is therefore not falsifiable, and therefore is not encyclopediac." You misunderstand my argument, so you do not have an accurate assessment of whether or not it is falsifiable. Oh, and besides, I never presented this argument on the article page. All I presented on the page was factual evidence, with citations. If you have factual evidence to refute it, I look forward to seeing it.
• Oh, and for your information, your compelling “never trust a junkie” argument is hardly encyclopediac either.--17.228.23.143 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Anon asks: "Please tell me what a “past history of crimes” has to do with the motivation for outing Plame"'

Thank you for asking! A past history of wrongdoing is always relevant (although not always admissible in court) in considering the likelihood that a person committed another wrong. In this matter, it is evidence that Rove, Cheney and Bush have a very low threshold of motivation for released classified information for political purposes. An ordinary patriot would have a very high threshold, but someone who has committed theft and forgery (Rove); lied about weapons trailers (Cheney); or ordered the released of a classified NIE for partisan purposes while being an admitted untreated alcoholic and drug abuser (Bush) is more likely to require very little motivation to release classified information (Plame's role with the CIA) for partisan purposes.

• Anon asks: 'Calling it a "junket" is certainly damning evidence.

Correct. The act of Cheney developing a line of attack against Wilson, which line of attack was actually used, is one of many bits of evidence showing that Cheney was interested in the Wilson editorial. Cheney's a busy man; if he didn't care about the editorial, he would not have developed a counter-attack. Anyway, the whole argument you make about the White House not caring about Wilson's editorial is unsupported by any facts ... no statement by Bush that he didn't care about Wilson's editorial for example.

• Anon says: Please cite exactly where I said it.

If you insist. You wrote "'Whether the Plame disclosure resulted in significant harm to the United States is disputed."' In fact, no reasonable person disputes that destroying an anti-WMD operation does not significantly harm the United States. The WH has too often trumpeted the threat of WMDs and the dangers of outing out secret operations. Do you really want to pursue that line of argument?

He didn't write that, I did. Bob Woodward has reported that his CIA sources said an internal review concluded there was no significant damage from the Plame disclosure. What is the basis for your claim that it destroyed an anti-WMD operation? 71.212.31.95 00:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anon says: "if you could provide some factual information supporting Wilson’s claims"

Don't try to change the subject. The issue is not Wilson's report, but Wilson's editorial. The WH reacted to the editorial, not the report. You refuse to accept evidence that the WH reacted to the editorial.

• Anon says: "I never presented this argument on the article page"

So why are you arguing about it on this page? Just trollin' along?

• Anon says: " “never trust a junkie” argument is hardly encyclopediac

Yes, that's why it's not in the article. However, I would question the judgement of any person who trusts the word of a junkie, such as George W Bush, over that of proven patriots such as Plame and Wilson. rewinn 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the politics of the smear tactic! Once again, let’s address the points in turn:

• "…is more likely to require very little motivation to release classified information" Even if that were true, the facts indicate that there was no partisan motivation for the leak. Given that evidence, your speculation about who might be “more likely” to release classified information is irrelevant.
• "The act of Cheney developing a line of attack against Wilson" Calling the trip a “junket” can hardly be called a “line of attack.” Any other evidence for this “line of attack” theory?
• "Anyway, the whole argument you make about the White House not caring about Wilson's editorial is unsupported by any facts ... no statement by Bush that he didn't care about Wilson's editorial for example." Strawman. The burden of proof is on the accuser to show that the Bush Administration was threatened by Wilson’s editorial. You don’t assume guilt, then force the defendant to prove that he is innocent.
• "no significant harm to the United States" The fact that Woodward reported from his CIA sources shows that the issue is at least disputed.
• "Don't try to change the subject. The issue is not Wilson's report, but Wilson's editorial." The factual support for the editorial was (surprise!) Wilson’s report. If the White House felt threatened by the editorial, then that means they thought the report was relevant and important. Furthermore, the events that Wilson described (his report finding no basis for the Niger deal, and being presented to the Bush Administration) would have to be at least somewhat accurate. However, none of those were true: The CIA found that the report added nothing significant to the story, and did not present it to the Bush Administration. Therefore, Wilson’s editorial was false and not grounded in fact, so it seems highly unlikely that the Bush Administration would feel threatened by it. It seems much more likely that they considered Wilson to be unreliable. Occam’s Razor.
• "So why are you arguing about it on 'this' page? Just trollin' along?" No, I am having a discussion of the issues. Since it is not on the article page, your claims of not being “encyclopediac” are pointless. In fact, it’s obvious you know this, because when I turned around and responded to you the same way, you said…
• "Yes, that's why it's not in the article."

The fact that you have to resort to name-calling (“a junkie and an alcoholic”) shows just how weak your argument is. Do you have any evidence that President Bush is currently a heavy drinker and a drug abuser? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Try to come up with some factual arguments next time.--17.228.23.143 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, the politics of the smear tactic!

You smear Wilson. I merely point out the facts.

• "…is more likely to require very little motivation to release classified information" Even if that were true, the facts indicate that there was no partisan motivation for the leak.

You offer no facts to back that up. But it IS a funny line. Thanks!

• "The act of Cheney developing a line of attack against Wilson" Calling the trip a “junket” can hardly be called a “line of attack.”

Yes, it is. Your denial is unsupported by fact or logic

• "Anyway, the whole argument you make about the White House not caring about Wilson's editorial is unsupported by any facts ... no statement by Bush that he didn't care about Wilson's editorial for example." Strawman. The burden of proof is on the accuser to show that the Bush Administration was threatened by Wilson’s editorial

Your insistence that the WH didn't care about the NYT editorial lacks factual support and is absurd.

• "no significant harm to the United States" The fact that Woodward reported from his CIA sources shows that the issue is at least disputed.

Now you're changing the subject. The harm to the USA is incontrovertible, Woodward notwithstanding. Why are you supporting people who harmed our great nation by exposing an anti-WMD program?

• If the White House felt threatened by the editorial, then that means they thought the report was relevant and important

Non sequitur.

• it seems highly unlikely that the Bush Administration would feel threatened by it

And yet they did. According to you, they were irrational about it. OK, maybe they are nuts - you win that point!

• The fact that you have to resort to name-calling (“a junkie and an alcoholic”) shows just how weak your argument is. Do you have any evidence that President Bush is currently a heavy drinker and a drug abuser?

There is no cure for alcoholism, only a lifetime of staying away from the stuff. An alcoholic who is not currently drinking still is an alcoholic. The damage done to the brain by a decade of coking is permanent, according to D.A.R.E. Do you think that all that drug-resistence education you got in school is a lie? It is not name-calling to state a fact: Bush is a junkie and an alcoholic. That makes his word unreliable and, more to the point, it not unlikely that he would seek revenge against a perceived attack. After all, he has done it before. He has even released secret information (NIE selections, and the fact that A.Q.Khan was now working for us) for political purposes.

Your entire argument is that the WH was not really worried about the NYT article. That is just silly. But I hope you are having fun supporting the junkie in the WH whose top political brain outed a WMD-hunting spy and destroyed a WMD-hunting operation. No-one who loves America can support such a thing ... but WikiPedia is open to editting by enemies of our great nation as well. rewinn 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewinn, there's no need to belabor this, we understand your argument: Bush et al. are evil, so anything bad that's said about them must be true. You think this unassailable logic obviates further debate. And I must admit, I see no way to argue with that kind of logic. 71.212.31.95 04:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

: Although that is a bit of a non sequitur, it seems that no-one else is interested in this discussion and it has, at any rate, moved far from this page. If you wish to continue, I invite you to do so on my talk page. Otherwise, fare well! rewinn 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've confused me with the anon user who's been futilely trying to reason with you. My comments have all been signed: 71.212.31.95. If you wish to continue, I'd suggest you do so at Bush Derangement Syndrome. :-) 71.212.31.95 04:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who know if you are two different people? neither of you have the courage to log in. But who cares? because you're anonymous, no-one will ever care what you write. Your non sequiturs are unpursuasive, at best, and put you in a bad light. Congratulations! rewinn 05:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And you think that, because you log in, someone cares what you write? (Well, obviously, you care. You've made it clear you're very proud of what you write. But I mean someone besides yourself.) I've already conceded that your logic is unassailable (in your mind), so of course I have no expectation of persuading you. Is it supposed to trouble me that you see me in a bad light? 71.212.31.95 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• "You smear Wilson. I merely point out the facts." I merely said that Wilson was mistaken when he claimed that his trip proved anything about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. The findings from the SSCI back that statement up. That is hardly a smear. You, on the other hand, seem to delight in calling Bush a junkie and an alcoholic.
• "You offer no facts to back that up. But it IS a funny line." My mistake. I just assumed you were familiar enough with this case to realize that Novak has said Plame's name was not mentioned as part of an organized leak by the Bush Administration, others have testified that her name was known before Novak's article, and so on. From now on, I’ll make sure and hold your hand and walk you through the points one by one.
• "Yes, it is. Your denial is unsupported by fact or logic" A junket refers specifically to a government trip taken on public expense. Technically, any trip taken on the government's dime can be called a junket. You said before that there is "plenty of evidence" that the Administration was worried about Wilson's article; Do you have any other evidence to support your claim, or was that "junket" statement really the best you could come up with?
• "Your insistence that the WH didn't care about the NYT editorial lacks factual support and is absurd." Innocent until proven guilty. Wilson claimed the White House was worried about his article. Where is your proof?
• "Now you're changing the subject. The harm to the USA is incontrovertible, Woodward notwithstanding." No, I’m right on the subject. The statement was that the claims of harm to the U.S. are disputed. I have shown someone who disputes that claim. Therefore, it is disputed. You saying, "The harm to the USA is incontrovertible" does not prove anything.
• "Non sequitur." I’m sensing a trend here: I make a point that I back up with facts, and you either state that I’m wrong or that it’s a non sequitir. By all means, don't let any evidence get in the way of your arguments!
• "There is no cure for alcoholism" Do you have any evidence that Bush is an alcoholic?
• "The damage done to the brain by a decade of coking is permanent" And this proves what about the Plame case? I’m sorry, but I think the point has been lost by your mindless desire to call the President a junkie.
• "It is not name-calling to state a fact: Bush is a junkie and an alcoholic." Then I’m sure it would be easy for your to find evidence to support that fact. Prove that Bush is an alcoholic. I’ll wait.
• "That makes his word unreliable" I await your evidence that all alcoholics and junkie are also liars.
• "it not unlikely that he would seek revenge against a perceived attack." And where is your evidence that Wilson's editorial was a "perceived attack"? Oh, I forgot: Cheney called a trip that was paid for by the government a "trip that was paid for by the government."
• "Your entire argument is that the WH was not really worried about the NYT article. That is just silly." How can I possibly refute the "that is just silly" defense?? I mean, all I have are the facts that Novak says that the Administration did not leak Plame's name, Woodward stated that the name was known to him before the leak, the CIA saying the leak did not do significant harm, and no evidence that the Administration was worried about the NYT article that made numerous claims that were later refuted by the SSCI. But of course, you say that that's "silly." Case closed!--75.32.21.219 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you are welcome to continue this at my talk page. No-one else is interested in your trolling. rewinn 09:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And you think someone is interested in your name calling? You started this topic as a deliberate provocation. And now you're complaining about trolling? 71.212.31.95 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Rewinn starts a topic as a troll; we proud anonymous contributors correct his arguments with facts and logical arguments; Rewinn responds by saying we’re wrong (without factual support) and calling us trolls. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.--17.228.23.143 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see anon troll #1 agrees with anon troll #2. But, as I said, no-one cares; as evidence of this, I offer the lack of support for your trolling except by other anon trolls. Remember, it was one of you anons, not me, who started the troll topic "Wilson's argument fails" - so don't try to re-write history. The key point: the fact that Plame was outed, to the very great harm of our United States, is far more important than any amount of anons on talk pages. rewinn 05:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

anon vandalism

An anonymous editor keeps vandalizing the first line of this page and won't explain his edits. I've already reverted him twice; can someone else do it now? Should he be reported?--csloat 05:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several anon editors on this page and I am one of them, though tonight I made my 1st anon edit. Frankly, with all the harsh invective on this page, I would never expose my user name to the arguments here. In any case, I've reviewed the edit which you call "vandalism" and I happen to agree with it. It's much more accurate than the POV angle some editors here are pushing. 205.196.222.18 05:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I really don't give a shit who you are or who your anonymous friends are. Why you're afraid to pick a pseudonym is beyond me -- it would allow your claims to be taken more seriously and it would help people distinguish you from other users for the purpose of clarity; it has nothing to do with attacking your claims. (Just for the record, a pseudonym would make you far more anonymous than your IP address, which would tell a sleuth who your internet service provider is and where your physical location is; so the only purpose of not choosing an id is to intentionally create confusion, which makes it clear you and your friends are trolling). If you are afraid of the "invective" then don't edit the page. Look, I don't care what you want to call yourself; all I'm asking is that if you make significant changes to the page that you explain them and be willing to discuss them. How hard is that to understand?--csloat 06:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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:

• Plame Affair Conspiracy Theories
• Plame affair timeline - hey wait a minute, that already exists! so why is it duplicated here? Best to dl the whole timeline section
• Patrick Fitzgerald - hey he's got his own page too. So why does he have his own section?

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.[9] 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 Baas^talk 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.[10]

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 the thoroughly discreditted Christopher Hitchens. That poor fellow deserves our sympathy, but not our reliance. He's not an authority on the state of any case but his own. rewinn 01:53, 30 August 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)

You will note that I was explaining a comment by csloat, for the sake of people who didn't know who the raving alcholic is. As for documenting Hitchens' reliability as a source, see my remaks below at 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC). rewinn 23:54, 31 August 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: [11] 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.[12] 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)

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)

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)

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 Baas^talk 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)

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)

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

• Alternate theories of the Plame affair
• CIA leak grand jury investigation
• Fitzmas
• Karl_Rove#Plame_affair
• Plame affair criminal investigation
• Plame affair legal questions
• Plame affair timeline
• Yellowcake forgery rewinn 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)