Talk:Plame affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Plame affair:
  • Condense material at Template:Plamefull (vertical sidebox for the main article) to a much more consise Template:Plame, for use on related articles. Template:Plame may better work as a center-formatted footer box. A choice of both may also be good.
  • The article needs to be revised. Citations are needed throughout articles according to Wikipedia policy. Claims are made in this article that are neither substantiated nor documented by reliable sources. [removal of point-of-view and biased claims].
  • References are especially necessary in documenting opposing points of view.
  • Eliminate biases while striving to achieve more neutral point of view.
  • There is a separate article now on the CIA leak scandal timeline, which is cross-referenced in this article. This article and that timeline (which still needs much revision) need to be made synchronous ("brought into synch"). For help with editing chronology in this article and the timeline in the CIA leak scandal timeline, see the external links to published timelines from reliable sources in the latter article.


I think now that this event has run its course, and the emotions involved with this affair have died down, it's time to reorganize and rewrite the article. some of the main figures in this affair may write books later offering new details to be included, but for now this event is for the history books. i'm going to be making some edits in the near future, and i would hope others would contribute as well. i'm not an active wikipedia user anymore, but i do want to improve this article. the main goal, i think, is to cut down the size and make it more readable. Anthonymendoza (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and reorganized the article. I'll check back later to see if there are any disputes with my edits.Anthonymendoza (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This topic is indeed arguable, and for that reason, sweeping changes should not be attempted. Users should instead make individual changes and provide edit summaries for each. Explain exactly what was wrong with the old version, for example. Dynablaster (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. my edits were purely cosmetic. i simply rearranged the article without adding or deleting material in an attempt to make the article more readable. i am going to revert my edits, this time piece by piece with edit summaries. rearranging the article is a good place to start in terms of editing the content. since you are the only user who has replied, i hope you will participate and not simply revert changes i make.Anthonymendoza (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You say no material has been added or deleted, but this article was 177,385 bytes in length, yet it's now 147,470 bytes in length. Dynablaster (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I will go back and double check my edits. i did remove duplicate information. for example, i found three paragraphs in the article detailing that libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction, and two paragraphs detailing how rove was revealed to be novak's second source. i condensed this information, thus making the article shorter. Anthonymendoza (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of it is badly in need of a rewrite, for instance section Valerie Wilson's role in Joe Wilson's selection is truly a mess, it is plain to see that both sides, in promoting their own politically motivated POV, have injected passages in complete contradiction, leaving an objective reader with no factual conclusion to be made within. One passage is bizarre to say the least,

After being consulted by her superiors at the CIA about whom to send on the mission, Valerie E. Wilson, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, suggested that she ask Ambassador Wilson, her husband,

Which would appear to make no sense at all except to Valerie Plame, who has argued someone she can't recall the identity of suggested in passing that she pursue the nepotism of suggesting to her superiors Wilson should go on the trip. Those on her side of the polical fence have done everything possible to obscure the matter, it's quite simple: The Senate report concluded via written evidence and sworn testimony, that Ms. Plame, and I quote directly, offered his (ambassador Wilson's) name up to her superiors for the trip. While she was not responsible for the final decision it was a trip to the armpit of the earth nobody wanted. Wilson may have known people in Niger and spoke the language but as the Senate report also mentions, he was not an employee with a reporting record which means CIA agents are trained to go someplace with a question, bring back an answer, and file a written report with that answer conclusively expressed. Wilson by his own admission drinks tea for 4 days and verbally debriefs with the CIA. Cheney didn't get his answer because of Ms. Plame's influence in sending a man from an entirely different agency not specifically trained to do the job requested. So of course she seeks to downplay her involvement but the level of denial is stellar if one believes had Joe Wilson, employee of the State Dept, not had a wife in a key position in the CIA, that Joe Wilson would have even been in the realm of discussion within the CIA when Cheney sends a request for them to get to the bottom of the Niger matter. IMO which of course is irrelevant, this page shouldn't even exist as the testimony by Judith Miller that Libby told her on June 23- a full 2 weeks before Wilson's op-ed- puts the whole "they leaked her name in retribution for his op-ed!" claim in the toilet. Her name came up because Wilson was making claims to 29 media outlets he shouldn't have rationally been a person to be making- and had he, he couldn't have- CIA personnel cannot "kiss and tell" about missions like that. (the Amicus Curiae filed by 34 media companies on behalf of Miller makes it quite clear what this matter was about- the CIA, not just Ms Plame but her superiors, botched the job in sending an unqualified man, then worse not having him sign a non disclosure statement. They played victim over her to obscure their incompetance- and what of the precedent of the executive office asking the CIA to answer a question and the man they send attempts a political attack on them later? Think the next President will trust the CIA he commands? This is a very bad precedent re: national security)I will conclude by adding that amicus curiae by the media, which was rejected by the supreme court, but nevertheless revealed the preposterous nature of the whole case, was widely available at the time but quickly buried by the media- their own motion! so they could continue to sell this story as a scandal.Batvette (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your POV (or Judith Miller's POV, as it were), but I don't see how this is helpful other than a pile-on of the very partisan bickering you claim has harmed this page. csloat (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I had a longer comment but it's unnecessary after seeing your user/discussion page. Sorry if you didn't like the facts I exposed you to. Looks like others have had the same problem. LOL! Batvette (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks when you find yourself incapable of discussing the material at hand. Thanks. csloat (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I simply referred to your user discussion page, yet you consider this a personal attack? Why? Does the truth of self reflection hurt? As for "incapable of discussing the material at hand", are you serious? I doubt Tolstoy would have left a longer commentary than I did above, and not a single point raised have you addressed. You are welcome to do so now or continue your irrelevance, whatever the case the forecast calls for embarrassment, so bring an umbrella.Batvette (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not the reference, it's the LOLing and the statement that I "don't like facts" or that "others have had the same problem." You continue these personal attacks when you tell me you're going to embarrass me and to bring an umbrella. But of course you already know this. As for your capacity for discussion, my problem is not the number of words you are capable of producing but rather the extent to which they ooze political diatribe. It's fine for a blog but not necessary here. Have a good day. csloat (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That makes 3 replies now on the topic "batvette" (and/or you) and nothing relevant to the many points raised on Plame/Wilson. Hopefully I haven't offended you in any way in pointing this out. If so, here's a tissue. Seriously, why are you still here? I raised MANY topically relevant points, talk about them! Try this- Joe Wilson, and not a CIA employee, got the Niger Mission because of his wife's involvement! That's as simple as it gets, arguing against it will require a bizarrely obfuscated jumble of points and conflicting comments that make no sense at all. Just as I pointed out. We can downplay or maximize that involvement till the cows come home but at the end of the day he'd never be in the picture if she wasn't. Conceding this is key to finally realizing why "leaked for vengeance for his criticism" is nonsense and her identity was relevant to any discussion by or about Wilson. That's why you want to talk about ME and not the Plame affair. If you have something to say about me, keep it to yourself. This whole issue is so insane it's gone this far. Batvette (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to pick a fight over politics there are plenty of forums to do that in. If you think linguistic expertise, experience as an ambassador, and direct connections with key players is a "bizarrely obfuscated jumble of points," I'm not sure what value there is in a discussion with you. As long as you keep your speculation and bias out of the article, I don't have any need to disabuse you of your basic misapprehension of the facts -- please, go on thinking whatever you like about Plame, Wilson, Cheney, or anyone else you like; this is merely an encyclopedia. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't dodge the point. In that list you forgot security clearance and "verifiable reporting record". Why would the CIA send ANYONE BUT A CIA EMPLOYEE when the Vice President asks them to send a man to Niger, except for his wife's influence?
The FACT is, no misapprehension possible, that the Senate Intelligence report clearly stated that Valerie Plame OFFERED HIS NAME UP to her superiors, and subsequently gave a list of glowing recommendations why he was qualified. Thus when the press is wondering "why is a state dept. employee being sent on CIA missions?" you'd be in extreme denial to think her role is not going to come into question. That's not politics, it's common sense.Batvette (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not dodging the point. Security clearance has nothing to do with the mission, as far as I can tell, and I'm not sure what you mean by "verifiable reporting record" -- are you suggesting there was evidence that Wilson had lied in previous reports? Either way I'm not sure what benefit is gained by second guessing the CIA's decision to send an expert to do a particular job, no matter who "offered his name." For heaven's sake, what are you implying with all this anyway? This is an article about the scandal surrounding the revealing of a covert operative's identity, not about whether the CIA should have picked a different expert to talk to officials in Niger. If you want to start the article Questions on the CIA's judgment concerning sending an ambassador to answer a question be my guest. csloat (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Security clearances have nothing to do with the mission- are you joking? Do CIA employees go on missions and return and write op-eds and books on them? No, they do not. They can not. That's why when he did people wondered why an ambassador was sent on a mission a CIA employee should have been sent on. This you choose to feign ignorance about: When the White House asked the CIA to send a man to Niger, the CIA would have, and should have, sent one of their men- a CIA employee, with a security clearance which bound him to non-disclosure of the mission. Instead, they sent a man who was employed by a different government agency. That would never have happened without the actions of Valerie Plame. Batvette (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This was a diplomatic mission, so they sent a diplomat. This appears to be what you "choose to feign ignorance about." You seem to be implying some sort of malfeasance on the part of Plame and the CIA, perhaps in order to justify the outing of Plame's covert status as some sort of punishment? I don't really know what it is you're trying to say but it's clearly not geared toward improving the article, so you'll forgive me if I don't engage you much further on this. Cheers, csloat (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you haven't done much editing to this article because your grasp of the facts is lacking. Diplomatic mission? Ms. Plame worked in the CIA's counterproliferation (WMD) division and that's where Cheney sent his request. Fitzgerald's own court filings are specific-
The purported Wilson cable refers to the classified CIA debriefing of Wilson, according to sources who have read the document. Wilson never himself authored a cable on his Niger mission. Rather, the CIA Directorate of Operations, which sent Wilson to Niger in February 2002, produced a March 8, 2002 report based on Wilson's debriefing by intelligence officers. The report did not name Wilson, or even describe him as a former ambassador, but rather as a "contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record" to protect the-then covert nature of the trip.[1]
This echoes almost verbatim the findings of the Senate report. Joe Wilson KNEW people. Joe Wilson was not trained and had no track record of going someplace with a question and filing a written report with a concise answer. A CIA agent is trained to do that, it's his job- an ambassador's job is to wine, dine, and help grease the palms of local politicos. Where it all got fouled up was Wilson was not an agency employee and Plame's superiors totally neglected to get a signed non disclosure form from him- as you both imply, ambassadors could be asked to furnish info on such a sensitive matter BUT would always be required to sign a non disclosure form if no security clearance is held. (I held a secret clearance in the Navy) This would have prevented by penalty of prison term, Wilson from ever discussing this trip with anyone- thus protecting Plame's identity.

Why are you people so willing to sacrifice your personal integrity in ignoring these obvious facts just to smear a mediocre ex-president? He's a dope, it's not worth it. Batvette (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette wrote: "When the White House asked the CIA to send a man to Niger, the CIA would have, and should have, sent one of their men"
The CIA often tapped diplomats (and scientists) to obtain specific information from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Purchase a copy of Allen Dulles' The Craft of Intelligence: America's Legendary Spy Master on the Fundamentals of Intelligence Gathering in the Free World. Superb book. Dynablaster (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, since you've obviously read it, you'll save me some hard earned dollars and cite the page numbers and passages in which Dulles explains why Cheney and the Press Wilson is leaking information about his trip to, are supposed to expect his direct request to the CIA to send an agency employee to Niger is instead performed by a State dept employee who is not automatically bound to non disclosure via his security clearance? Does the Spy Master also claim to not understand why security clearances are relevant here? I'm tryingn not to be a deek here but go buy this book and find the part which forms my argument for me doesn't fly anywhere. ever. Batvette (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here, I will be far more charitable and make you form my argument for me, for free![2] Is the Post a reputable source? Batvette (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's see, your point is that CIA people with security clearance write better memos than diplomats? You're making no sense, sorry. Cheney didn't ask the CIA to send an intelligence agent, and even if he did, what does it all matter? The press is not talking about that; that will not form a part of the lasting history of the scandal; in fact, you seem to be the only person who thinks it is important. If you want to start an article explaining why this is important, be my guest, but I don't see how it is relevant to this particular article, which is not about whether the CIA had poor judgment in sending Wilson on a diplomatic mission. What is really bizarre is your implication that Valerie Wilson deserved to be outed because in your estimation the CIA had poor judgment about sending Joe Wilson -- even if you were right about that, why would it have any impact on any of this? Are you simply suggesting Valerie Wilson was "punished" by her outing? The problem is really not the effect of the outing on her personally at all -- much more important is the impact on national security and on the practice of intelligence itself. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My arguments have been quite clear, there is no use to continue them if they are merely to address somneone who thinks continued feigned ignorance is a viable position. You yourself point out the absurdity of the issue: What was this big retribution the White House was seeking in "outing" Plame? She'd simply have changed jobs to another department. There was nothing to gain as revenge at all. There was however, one reason why her name was relevant to discussion in the media: Why a diplomat ended up going on a mission a CIA agent was expected to have gone on. Batvette (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Please stop personally attacking me. Read WP:NPA and WP:AGF for details. (2) Your speculation sounds great for a newsletter or screenplay, and I wish you luck with that project. But it really doesn't have any place here. (3) I'm not going to continue to argue details beyond that with you. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop personally attacking me. Yes, Ma'am!
Personal Attack? These are clearly statements expressing a position of feigned ignorance-
what does it all matter?
but I don't see how it is relevant to this particular article,
why would it have any impact on any of this?
Are you simply suggesting Valerie Wilson was "punished" by her outing?
Calling someone out for playing stupid is hardly the same as calling them stupid, you DO understand the difference, do you not? Batvette (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

i guess i was wrong. emotions are still strong on this topic. perhaps the article is fine as it is, for now.Anthonymendoza (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs a more factual slant by someone who is aware that the Central Intelligence Agency has people they send with questions asked by lawmakers and return to file written reports with the answers, and the State Dept, an entirely different agency altogether, has diplomats they send to drink sweet mint tea with foreign officials- and thus does not feign ignorance that a Vice President accused of a heinous action should wonder why the latter occurred when he requested the former. (Or prior. you get it.)Of course I'll be labelled partisan for pointing that out...My apologies as the ranting is decidedly unencyclopedic but so is much of the partisan intentional ignorance displayed in the main article. Batvette (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
but the article quotes George Tenet as saying:
With regard to Wilson's findings, Tenet stated: "Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials."
I think your concerns are adequately addressed. Nowhere in the article does it say that Cheney was briefed on Wilson's findings.Anthonymendoza (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If this was known from the beginning, why would anyone give Wilson the time of day when he said the administration knew the Niger Yellowcake claims were false? Would this article even exist today? Because Wilson said otherwise: He said, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there." [3] To many people. You claim the article doesn't state this, well it doesn't have to. Everyone who thinks this is a scandal on the part of the administration believes Joe Wilson is an "honest critic of Bush policy", why would they want his lies included to taint this article with the actual truth of the matter?Batvette (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So Anthony, assuming you are the primary editor of this page as it appears now, don't you think it is irresponsibly devoid of facts to state that Joe Wilson's public disclosures of his role in the Niger matter began in July with his Op-Ed? See the above link to Matt Continetti's story, which is well sourced with material from the Senate Inquiry report. Batvette (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Joe Wilson overhyped his role in the intelligence communities assessments on Niger and told anyone who would listen that he single handedly disproved Bush's assertion made in the state of the union. i'm not sure our opinions of this story are far apart. i've tried to make this article balanced. if you feel this article is missing something, add it. i am by no means the "primary editor" of this page and i don't want to be. i'm just trying to improve it and i agree it needs alot of work. i've asked others to help in the process and so far you are the only one who has seriously responded. please edit as you see fit.Anthonymendoza (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed like an attack on you, it wasn't meant as such and from the looks of it you are one of the more objective editors on the project.Batvette (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have specific edits to suggest, go for it! It's just not all that helpful to come here attacking other editors and adding rank speculation to the mix. Follow our editing guidelines, make sure your edits are verifiable, and then go for it. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to my FIRST POST in this discussion which SUGGESTED THIS SPECIFIC EDIT- Some of it is badly in need of a rewrite, for instance section Valerie Wilson's role in Joe Wilson's selection is truly a mess, and I went on to clarify factual details which needed to be addressed and in no way shape or form did that post attack ANY editors. It's gone downhill from there, if anyone wants to see who was here to discuss the issues VS editors it's all there in plain English. If you are feeling dejected and lonesome because I gave him a compliment, sorry, can't help ya, fella.Batvette (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I might add that any objective editors might confirm what he calls "rank speculation" as indeed factual in the amici curaie filed for Judith Miller by 36 media agencies: [4] who promptly buried the document once it served their purpose of getting her sprung, then commenced to call this nothing a "scandal" to increase circulation. Batvette (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilson's "report"[edit]

The section titled "background" and state of the union address" contains a report which ends with the passage "wilson presented his report" which was obviously added by someone with no grasp of the underlying facts here. Joe Wilson never filed any "report" concerning his trip to Niger, he gave a verbal debriefing in his home with CIA personnel, a portion of this information was used in a larger CIA report some months later which never reached the white house. there is no "Wilson" report and in fact his trip was not conclusive in any way on the yellowcake matter. Batvette (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

new revelations[edit]

Not sure yet where to put this yet; at first glance we really don't have anything on the (lack of) pardon, which is the context in which the following is written:

And there was a darker possibility. As a former Bush senior aide explains, "I'm sure the President and [chief of staff] Josh [Bolten] and Fred had a concern that somewhere, deep in there, there was a cover-up." It had been an article of faith among Cheney's critics that the Vice President wanted a pardon for Libby because Libby had taken the fall for him in the Fitzgerald probe. In his grand-jury testimony reviewed by TIME, Libby denied three times that Cheney had directed him to leak Plame's CIA identity in mid-2003. Though his recollection of other events in the same time frame was lucid and detailed, on at least 20 occasions, Libby could not recall details of his talks with Cheney about Plame's place of employment or questions the Vice President raised privately about Wilson's credibility. Some Bush officials wondered whether Libby was covering up for Cheney's involvement in the leak of Plame's identity.[5]

also, just for fun: [6]. Cheers csloat (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

interesting read. i've always personally believed that Bush was pissed off at Libby for his foolish testimony and that if the judge hadn't sentenced Libby to an excessive prison term Libby might have actually done jail time. but as far as this wikipedia article, i still think we need to wait until Bush and Cheney release their books before we add anything having to do with their personal opinions of the whole ordeal. As far as a Cheney cover-up, "some Bush officials" wondering isn't enough to include it in the article in my opinion.Anthonymendoza (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I would offer that when the focus turns to almost exclusively trying to catch people's stories not matching in the he said, she said forums of the media, and not the alleged crime itself, there probably wasn't a crime in the first place. Therein lies much of the problem with critics of this administration, but it's not a unique problem. Under Bush our country saw the most blatant loss of civil rights, freedoms, privacy, and the two principals residing at 1600 Penn enriched their personal portfolios immensely. Yes, they are criminals. However critics with little ability to research details latched onto the stories that sounded juicy and let the rest slip through the cracks, and instead of seeing this they just grabbed tighter with their nothing charges. The Iraq war was one of them, they weren't stupid and dotted their i's and crossed their t's on it. Iraq, to Wilson, to his wife, now to a Libby Cheney coverup. There's nothing because they didn't need to get revenge on Wilson or his wife because he never had any dirt on them lying to go to war in the first place. Everyone got that?
Meanwhile the NSA is datamining all our phone calls and emails, we have hundreds of thousands of Stasi snitches reporting our activities to Gov't Fusion Centers, and several DOJ agencies have through the wall surveillance equipment deployed that can count the change in your pocket. In 2-3 years that capability will be aloft with SAR imaging. See the ACLU's report on surveillance today. That affects YOUR life, Joe Wilson and Velerie Plame do not. Sorry for the irrelevance.Batvette (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Article length[edit]

I realise this is a very complex topic that needs to be covered in detail, but this article is also very long - 178KB, last time I checked. That makes it quite awkward to read and edit. Could any of these sections be split out into separate articles, per WP:Summary style, to bring it more in line with our style guidelines? Robofish (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yellowcake or Yellow Elephants?[edit]

  • I saw the film yesterday originally in Germany. The page is informativ, but not telling what is happening in the film. Where is the Plot? I saw a mission to political corectness and a real bad story-lining, the script may be either. So the message should be democratic and the build up scences are just telling how dull or stupid are decisive politicals. Talking about tubes, dealing with plates and not even able to lead the possible construction of a bomb from unranic material.

Strategies doesn't exit, acting on overflowing not content media informations. "Joe" Wilson asking, where he had been, who has sent him, means the democratic section of america needs a pschychiatrist.Family and professional borders are vice versa changed! [ best wishes from Don Carlos] Penn doesn't plays a figure, he is subversive on a big five.So plot the film! : Miss Pam has problems with her Aunt!-- (Folio>>> Elenor Roosevelt)Raskollnika (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Nation break[edit]

Regarding the following:

The suggestion that naming Plame as an agent is a serious crime first appeared in an article by David Corn published by The Nation on July 16, 2003, two days after Novak's column.

The citation for this links to David Corn at The Nation. Now, it's ok to use the The Nation as a citation for facts contained in it, about the Plame affair, except that they can't be considered independent with regard to whether they were the first to make the suggestion. Without such a source, we can only say they did make the suggestion when they did. --Rob (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad Links and a Suggestion: This page needs a Timeline[edit]

Someone should do a check of the links on this page. The link in footnote 57 ("Isikoff, Michael (August 28, 2006). "The Man Who Said Too Much". Newsweek.") points to:

which is a non-existent page. The correct link would appear to be:

That footnote is not the only one with Newsweek articles pointing to "" rather than "" so there are probably other bad links around. I suggest a check of every link.

I agree! I've been trying to use the links, and a great many of them are broken, especially those to newspaper and magazine articles, as older articles and editorials have been moved into archives. How does one go about initiating a Wiki project to find new urls for material that is probably still online? Teri Pettit (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, a suggestion. With all due respect, this page is burying the reader in a mountain of complex detail. Way too much of it! While that detail is definitely useful to have, clarity is even more important, especially for those readers with less familiarity or knowledge of the affair who are coming to this page to find out more about it.

In particular it is pretty much impossible from this page to work out the sequence of events. Or alleged events.

For example, Doug Liman, the director the "Fair Game" movie, made the claim on this page:

that "we should never forget that Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame to Miller in June 2003—more than two weeks before Richard Armitage outed Plame to Novak". Whether that is true or not I do not know, but given that much of the controversy, including Libby's trial, deals with who said what to whom and when, readers need to be provided with some way to more easily grasp what these sequences (or claimed sequences) are so they can work out for themselves whether such claims are true or not.

My suggestion is that this be done via timelines.

This NY Times page:

(which is already among the links on this page) offers a couple of useful ones to model them on. The ones there are for June/July 2003, one derived from the prosecution evidence at Libby's trial and one from the defence evidence.

I suggest this page put in a similar pair of competing timelines for that same period, plus any other timelines which will help clarify the sequence of events for this affair for readers. (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

that "we should never forget that Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame to Miller in June 2003—more than two weeks before Richard Armitage outed Plame to Novak".
except, of course, that Armitage told Woodward of Plame's CIA affiliation prior to Libby telling Miller. but i see your point. perhaps a timeline style article would make all this information easier to comprehend. (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
the director of the film "Fair Game" did cause a stir on the blogs and amongst liberal commentators when he made the statement "we should never forget that Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame to Miller in June 2003—more than two weeks before Richard Armitage outed Plame to Novak." for some reason this was seen as a brilliant statement. However, according to the washington post and court testimony, Armitage told Bob Woodward of Plame prior to libby's meeting with miller which would once again make Armitage the ORIGINAL LEAKER!! [7] i checked this article again after these comments were made and found the armitage/woodward conversation buried too deep in the article. i completely agree a timeline type body would suit the article well so that readers can more easily understand the facts. i'd like a consensus before i attempt this. any thoughts?Anthonymendoza (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Factually wrong and sloppy.[edit]

There are factual errors and sloppy writing in this article and my attempt to correct them was reverted immediately by User:Capitalismojo. Let me point out one crucial one. In the Wikipedia article, as it stands now:

In 2002, Plame recommended her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, to the CIA for a mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country. Wilson initially bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts, but after President George W. Bush made the same claim during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson denied his initial pre-war assessment.

The statement that Joseph Wilson "bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts" of an Iraq/Niger Uranium deal references a Washington Post article by Susan Schmidt, who's past writing have been shown to spread false information. In fact, from the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence from July 9, 2004 that is linked in this section, starting on page 44:

First, the former ambassador described his finding to Committee staff [..] as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approach Niger to purchase uranium.

The report states, without any ambiguity, that Joseph Wilson returned from his Niger trip stating that there was no evidence of a Iraq/Niger yellowcake deal, that such a deal could likely never take place, and that the documents that stated such were likely forged. This article is therefore factually wrong and must be fixed. It should also be noted in the report that Wilson's trip to Niger was not the only one conducted. Rabit (talk)

The Washington Post is Reliable Source. Your belief that this author wrote incorrect information in other articles is irrelevant. I would note the "rescue: article you reference (and disparage) above has two Washington Post reporters on the byline, not one. The section is well ref'd. If you think the WaPo is not RS for this take your thoughts to WP:RSN. It is inappropriate to delete longstanding and well ref'd material without gaining consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Judith Miller 'guided' in her testimony?[edit]

Judith Miller wrote in her book that Patrick Fitzgerald "steered" her "in the wrong direction" during testimony prep. (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this has been fairly widely reported in the media over the last several days. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Real Clear politics is reliable source. Simon and Schuster is RS. Books are often given early to reviewers. WaPa and Daily Caller have seconded the reporting. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are now six refs supporting the statement that Judith Miller has asserted that Patrick Fitzgerald improperly guided her testimony. We could easily add six more. Is there anyone who believes that these are insufficient for the simple statement? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
These are all opinion columns containing serious allegations against a BLP. Let's wait until a factual, neutral secondary source weighs in on the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
They are not "all opinion columns" that is entirely incorrect. What is the BLP issue in saying "Judith Miller has said x"? She has most certainly said it. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Which one is not an opinion column besides her book, which no editor has consulted yet since it was published two days ago? Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The RCP is an article, as is the National Review article by Arthur Herman, the Daily Caller is brief and spare reporting, the Weekly Standard piece is an article by Fred Barnes. Since Fred Barnes also has columns, I looked at it extremely closely. I judge it as one of his straight reporting articles and reliable for the simple fact of Judith Miller's assertion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, advance copies of major publications most certainly are commonly and regularly available to reviewers and mainstream news outlets. The idea that no one has read it is clearly not the case. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So please add the page number you are citing from your advance copy to the citation. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
These edits should not be reverted again off of the Plame affair page. I have reverted them back on since this book is now available at any Barnes and Noble and other book stores for us to confirm. Yes, it is mainly op-ed articles which have referred to these sections of Miller's book, but it cannot be helped that the liberal media refuses to be more forthcoming in its reporting. That should not influence this wikipedia page, since we can verify this information, which I am going to do below.
The passages as cited by Peter Berkowitz in the WSJ can be verified and proven, as you can see with this following link that goes to Google Books:,+had+been+trying+to+plant+her+employer+with+me+at+our+first+meeting+in+June%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oYOJVY-HLpO_sQSBhK2YCw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22a%20seasoned%20bureaucrat%2C%20had%20been%20trying%20to%20plant%20her%20employer%20with%20me%20at%20our%20first%20meeting%20in%20June%22&f=false
Google Books states that it is page 323 in the PDF version, but in the printed version it is page 309. The chapter that these facts appear in are the final chapter, the epilogue, which are pages 300-325. This way, for any future editors who wish to proceed with keeping these facts on the wikipedia page can do so now by directly referencing the book.

Enough is enough with this facts revisioning on this wikipedia page already by hiding behind these tags of BLP or any other that will no doubt be cooked up to prevent this from entering the verifiable record. (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC) I have no advance copy. I need no advance copy. We have multiple RS publications who have stated this, clearly they have either had advance copies or purchased and read (Chapter 18) of the book. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you should not cite the book in your edit if you have not used it as a source. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't add it initially, but we have multiple RS supporting it. And when I pick up the book and find the page you will be fine? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Most importantly, what is the BLP violation in stating that a prominent national reporter has stated that a major public figure has done X. I note that there are dozens (hundreds?) of articles here that have well ref'd "Allegation" sections. Cosby jumps to mind, as an example. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Partisan opinion columns are not appropriate sources for such an allegation section. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that's why none of the above [[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]]are opinion columns.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess we define opinion columns very differently then. The RCP piece is basically a rewording of the author's Wall Street Journal opinion column, except here it's called an "essay". Jennifer Rubin is an "Opinion Writer" for the Washington Post. The Daily Caller is not a reliable source. None of these are news articles. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have not picked up the book yet to confirm that the page numbers mentioned above by the IP are accurate. The Googlebooks link above didn't work for me for some reason. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've picked up the book. The Google Books link provided above by the IP says (at least when I click it) "Some pages are omitted from this book preview." Specifically, the bottom half of page 310 and the top half of page 311 are missing, which includes what she actually says about Fitzgerald. She avoids (intentionally, I assume) affirmatively accusing the special prosecutor of misleading her or "steering" her to give false testimony, and only questions herself in her book. The source cited (Daily Caller) is also careful to only say Miller "suggests", rather than accuses or claims, but abuses a bit of creative license when it morphs her question "Had Fitzgerald's questions...steered me in the wrong direction?" into a "Fitzgerald “steered” her “in the wrong direction” to potentially give inaccurate testimony" statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Plame affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plame affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)