Talk:Plame affair/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RonCram here is one more conspiracy theory

Are we nearing the finish?:

Sources close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson have revealed this week that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not turned over emails to the special prosecutor's office that may incriminate Vice President Dick Cheney, his aides, and other White House officials who allegedly played an active role in unmasking Plame Wilson's identity to reporters.[1]

First they are pulling a Nixon on us (disappearing e-mails) and now they are refusing to cooperate.Holland Nomen Nescio 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheney to Fitzgerald: "Want to go quail hunting this weekend?"-csloat 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Cheney is suggesting that when he authorizes it, sharing classified information is not a crime:

Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters.[2]

Nice to know, it sounds like the Unitary Executive theory, which says that if the President does it it cannot be against the law. Not surprisingly Cheney was involved in the Nixon debacle, and he too used that argument.Holland Nomen Nescio 12:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) That's not an accurate statement of the unitary executive theory. (2) It is true that Cheney has the legal authority to declassify information in some circumstances. That doesn't really help Libby, however, since he's being charged with perjury, not illegal leaking. TheronJ 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not accurate according to Yoo et al. But there are professors of law that think this is what UET stands for. As with any law, one can discuss how to interpret things, but it will take a court ruling to solidify the meaning through precedent.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Tapes Cause Government to Reexamine WMD in Iraq

Apparently the post-war intelligence has been as bad as the pre-war intelligence. According to a news story in the New York Sun titled Furor Erupts Over Recordings of Saddam, some in the Intelligence Community are now willing to reexamine the issue of WMD in Iraq. Wikipedia articles should reflect this new information. Here is some excerpts from the story:

The 12 hours of recorded conversations are part of a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotape, and photographs captured in Iraq during the war. Whether this information will be examined for clues to the whereabouts of WMD stockpiles is a matter of debate within the intelligence community.
The CIA, FBI, and directorate of national intelligence have resisted calls from Congress to reopen the hunt. But an interagency outfit known as the Media Exploitation Center, administered by the Defense Intelligence Agency, last month started its own search of these materials to attempt to discover the location of the weapons of mass destruction.
"There are elements in NSA and DIA that believe there is enough evidence to warrant further re-examination and a relook at all the material," a congressional staff member told The New York Sun yesterday. "This includes the imagery, documents, and human sources. They also think a more extensive debriefing of knowledgeable human sources and third party nationals is in order."
The quiet re-examination parallels efforts from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican of Michigan, who is in the early stages of his own review. He told the Sun last week that he checked the authenticity of Mr. Loftus's recordings with the intelligence community and confirmed that it was Saddam's voice on them.
Mr. Hoekstra has also been pestering the directorate of national intelligence to translate and make public what he claims are nearly 36,000 boxes of captured documents and materials from Iraq that may shed clues on the WMD front.
The Defense Department now appears to be working on the directorate to make other Iraq files public as well. A February 6 letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Rumsfeld is working with the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to release Iraqi files sought from the Harmony database, which catalogs material on terrorism secured since September 11, 2001.

The story can be found here.[3]RonCram 21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

John Loftus? Yer kidding me! Get real. To say that he's an "outlier is an understatement. Here's a sample quote, from him, in the article you cited: "Mr. Loftus said Mr. Cherney was framed by the Russian mob as part of a scheme to extort him." Can you use a source that's a bit more reputable? Sholom 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's something else Ron leaves out of the Sun story: "A spokeswoman for the Directorate of National Intelligence would not comment on the resignations of Messrs. Deutch and Woolsey. About the Saddam recordings she said, 'Intelligence community analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs, nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey Group report. The tapes mostly date from the early to mid-1990s and cover such topics as relations with the United Nations, efforts to rebuild industries from Gulf War damage, and the pre-9/11 situation in Afghanistan.'"--csloat 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sholom, Loftus is a former federal prosecutor who now heads a private foundation that organized the upcoming Intelligence Summit. He really does not have much to do with the story. He did not find the tapes but they were released to the public through him. I would not consider Loftus a "source" for the story. The tapes have been authenticated as ABC News and Bill Tierney explained last night.
csloat, it is true Negroponte (Director of National Intelligence) does not want the tapes and documents released. Fortunately, he was not able to stop the release of the tapes that came out last night. I am still very interested in the chain of custody. ABC News reported the tapes were found by the CIA but given to the FBI for translation. That is laugh out loud funny. The CIA has far more capability in translation than the FBI. It looks to me like some low-level CIA type did not trust his bosses at the CIA to do the right thing, so he found a way to get the tapes released by going through the FBI. Good for him! RonCram 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Ron, because everyone at the CIA (and DIA, who also examined the tapes) is part of a vast-left-wing conspiracy that includes John Negroponte. These former conservatives read Al Gore's book and decided to dedicate themselves to committing treason because now they can't wait to bring America to its knees before dictators like Saddam. Surely they're all Marxists too - just the other day George Tenet gave a speech about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Valerie Plame and Larry Johnson were holding hands in the audience. And You should just listen to John Negroponte wax poetic about the withering away of the state...--csloat 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutor Says Libby Seeks to Thwart Criminal Case

A federal prosecutor has said I. Lewis Libby Jr., former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is trying to sabotage the criminal case against him by insisting through his lawyers that he be given sensitive government documents for his defense.[4]

Actual damage caused

The article currently says

A possibility has been raised by several sources that a death may have occurred as a result of this leak. Under the Espionage Act, this could lead to a death penalty case. The CIA Wall of Honor has stars representing agents killed on duty. Named stars are used where information is not classified, and anonymous stars are used when the agent's name cannot be released. Below the stars is a chronological Book of Honor. An anonymous star was added to the wall between named stars that can be dated to deaths on February 5, 2003 and October 25, 2003. The anonymous star thus fits the timing of the Plame leak.

I find this extremely speculative (as well as somewhat sensational); further, I noted that none of the "several sources" are actually mentioned here. Can we either get a citation, or get rid of this? Sholom 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not put that in, but there used to be citations there that were erased by another user who did not like the source. I'd like to see the sources put back in as well.--csloat 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the history, I found this as a source: Wayne Madsen, a reporter and former NSA employee, has claimed, "CIA sources report that at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak." However there is no direct proof that the anonymous star has anything to do with the Plame scandal.,,
I have to say, if those are the only sources, we ought to ditch the paragraph. I haven't heard anyone reputable alledging that a CIA operative was killed because of her outing.
I think a link to Wayne Madsen is sufficient to satisfy those curious about his qualifications. This paragraph is speculative, but it reports accurately that this speculation exists, and the facts are clear about the anonymous star. I don't see any problem with keeping this in if it is properly sourced and the claim is adequately qualified -- instead of "a possibility has been raised by several sources" how about "Wayne Madsen speculates that..." Until the CIA's damage assessment is released (if ever), we won't know for sure anything other than the fact that there is an anonymous star that fits the timing in the book. --csloat 18:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like I didn't like RonCram's use of conspiracy theorists' websites, I don't like this one either. I took at look at Madsen's site, and right on the front page there is this: "The Bush Crime Family: Texas Yankees in the Gulf Emirs' courts: Dubya, Poppy, Neil, Marvin, and Jeb. How many people died so Poppy Bush could be awarded Kuwait's Order of Mubarak the Great?" My position is: there needs to be a credible source for this or we should ditch it. We just went through protecting the site against right-wing conspiratists, I don't want to have stuff from left-wing conspiratists either. Sholom 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'm certainly not wedded to keeping this, and I agree that Madsen seems pretty sensationalist, or at least a flake. I don't really know what to make of phrases like "Kuwait's Order of Mubarak the Great." But even with Ron's conspiracy theories we kept in the factual information about the claim that backed up his conspiracy theory (and in most cases even kept in his use of disreputable sources to support these theories, simply adding stuff like "The Weekly Standard claims..."). It is a fact that the book in question exists and that there is an anonymous star there. (I'm also not sure this is a conspiracy theory per se -- not even Madsen is asserting that this unknown CIA officer died as a result of some conspiracy to kill him or her.... perhaps the conspiracy to bring down Wilson via Plame had the unintentional effect of getting this person killed, but that is a different point.--csloat 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

At a minimum, the paragraph should be tightened to make clear that it's a blog statement from Madsen, not "several sources." I don't know what to make of Madsen's actual blurb either -- the CIA bombshell is at the end of a bunch of stuff that got leaked, Drudge-style to Madsen from another news editor. It's not clear if the "CIA sources" leaked to Madsen himself or if Madsen heard about the alleged leak third hand, so I'm not even sure what Madsen is trying to assert. He certainly doesn't treat it like the bombshell it would be if it were true. TheronJ 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen's credibility, to say the least, is rather thin, considering he spends considerable ink pounding away on the “Jews took down the WTC” nonsense. Ten Dead Chickens 22:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This one is cute too: According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ." Ten Dead Chickens 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt your claim that Madsen said these things, but I'm at a loss where you want us to look with your "jews" link above -- the st911 site has information from a lot of people but I don't see Madsen's name there; am I missing it?-csloat 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Get a load of If those are actual Madsen articles, then let's ditch anything that is sole-sourced through him. He's also the author of the book Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden Color me skeptical. Sholom 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No no, I raised this issue to Sloat a while ago and swore to Madsen's credibility. And for the record, Madsen did not write Forbidden Truth he only wrote the forward. But, according to Sloat, just because Madsen thinks that GW is the antichrist, a missile hit the pentagon, and that remote controled cargo planes combined with a "controled demolition" took out the WTC, means nothing when it comes to his credibility on Wikipedia. Ten Dead Chickens 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Please re-read my comments above TDC, all I did was ask what was the deal with your jews link, and you still haven't answered. Please show me where I "swore" to Madsen's credibility - I had barely heard of Madsen until you started talking about all his theories a while ago, and I had forgotten about him since. Unlike you, I do not spend a whole lot of time thinking about Mr. Madsen. Above I agreed he was not credible and called him a flake. But I guess it's easier for you to believe that everything I say must perforce be the opposite of everything you say. The only reason I find this story about the anonymous star believable is because the evidence supports it -- not because of anything about Madsen. I am fine with references to him being removed, though I think there's a double standard when some people insist on elevating the opinions of Bill Tierney or John Shaw. My only claim is that when such writers' beliefs are included that they be named as the theory of a particular writer and a link to that writer's page be included so that people understand that this source also believes in raiders from planet Mubarak or whatever. But it doesn't matter much; unless the CIA's damage assessment is leaked, we're not likely to ever know whether Cheney's recklessness with the Plame affair has gotten anyone killed. What little we do know -- that a program that tried to stop Iranian WMD development has been destroyed and that the leak compromised the identities and missions of other NOCs -- is certainly pretty devastating on its own.--csloat 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to add that there is another source for this speculation -- Mike McCurry, though his statement is far less specific than the Madsen theory. McCurry is already quoted in the article.--csloat 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing... Now that you've sparked my interest, I've been looking around and it seems that the theory has many believers in the blogosphere other than Madsen, some who point to eight redacted pages from Judge Tatel's opinion that could refer to the death. But this is pretty much all speculation, and, in an ironic twist, some of the speculation may have been fueled by Madsen's material being included on this wikipedia page in the first place.--csloat 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that McCurry is "far less specific than Madsen" is a mild understatement. McCurry is well versed with libel, and would not be such an idiot to make a similar claim as Madsen has. Bill Tierney and John Shaw have nothing to do with this, so kindly leave that strawman in the field. Since you have so kindly entered the realm of what ifs with the following: The only reason I find this story about the anonymous star believable is because the evidence supports it, perhaps another novel "what if" from myself. An equally beleiveable reason for the stars on the plaque is the fact that the CIA's clandestine services are more active now than at any time since the cold war, just notice the drop off after 1989 and the start of the GWOT. And since we are playing "what if's", I think it is agreed that since Plame's idendity was known to the Cubans and they are on such good terms with the Irainians Mullas, is it inconcievable that the DGI informed the Iranians of this. All speculation, and none of it is notable enough or is verifiable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. I think the only reason you find this story believable is because you want to beleive it. Ten Dead Chickens 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
First, why are you picking on me? Seriously, this is not an issue I consider important until there is further evidence than a star in a book. I even removed the entry, since I agree with you that this guy looks like a crackpot based on the information you have presented. Second, your claim about libel law has nothing to do with anything, since there is nothing libelous about speculating about the harms a public official may have caused when he broke the law. Nothing, at least according to U.S. libel law. Third, your claim that Plame's identity was known by the Cubans is a blatant assertion. The CIA book at least exists. Fourth, I do not have any reason to want to believe this story. In fact, I hope it is incorrect; the leak has done more than enough damage as is based only on what is known. The only reason I found it believable is because it was presented in a believable manner by a source that I did not know at the time was so unbelievable. Fifth, I never said I *believed* the story, just that it was believable. As I said above, it is all speculation based on what little evidence exists, but the fact is we have no information about who that star was or where he or she was killed. Until the CIA assessment is made public (which will probably be never), there's really nothing certain we can say about this.--csloat 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A "blatant assertion" is quite on the mark. It was filed as a Freind of the court brief on behalf of Miller and Cooper, and claimed that Plame's idendity had already been compromised some time back to the Cubans and Russian. Unlike most information speding around the web about this story, this one has the distinction of credibility because perjury is a crime. Secondly, I pointed out in the Wilson article the credibility issues of Madsen, and it was rejected. Ten Dead Chickens 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't read that Amicus brief and this is the first I've heard of it, but I'm not sure what point you're making about that anymore. As for the Wilson article, why are you bringing that stuff here? Go to the Wilson article and remove Madsen if he is there, I don't think you'll get much argument from me, since I removed him myself on this page!--csloat 05:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
First time you have heard about it? What, it wasn't featured prominently on Wayne Madsen, or on the Raw Story? Ten Dead Chickens 02:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More indictments coming?

Evidence is mounting that senior officials in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council conspired to unmask Plame Wilson's identity to reporters in an effort to stop her husband from publicly criticizing the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence, according to sources close to the two-year-old probe.[5]

LOL... just saw this too: meanwhile, Scooter has launched a website and started a legal defense fund ... that's right, his lawyers want your charitable contributions to help him defend against the charges of perjury. What's next, a bumper sticker campaign, "Have you hugged a traitor today?"[6]--csloat 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


What exactly is Rawstory, I see it is used as a source quite extensively, but what is it, and why is it used so much? Ten Dead Chickens 22:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Raw Story is a web-based alternative news outfit that does its own investigative reporting as well as summarizing news pieces from elsewhere; kind of a progressive Matt Drudge but with a better reputation for accurate reporting. I'm not sure it is "used so much" but it has broken some important stories on its own and these have been picked up by the mainstream media; I think it should probably only be cited when it is the outlet breaking the story.--csloat 23:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
A. What major story has it "broken"? B: What credentials does its staff have to write on national security issues C: By whose stick is its "reputation for accurate reporting" being measured? Ten Dead Chickens 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A- see "examples" on the page, or see the stories you noticed in the first place when you asked this question; B- there is some info about that on the page too, and I'm sure you can look around the raw story website for information about contributors as well as I can; C- by how seriously it is taken by the mainstream media; the stories they break get reported and taken seriously by the mainstream media and I'm not aware of their credibility beibng attacked. You might want to go to the page and read it rather than asking such questions here; in fact, I'm pretty sure that page has a "Talk" page just like this one where your questions might be answered by people with more knowledge of this area than myself.-csloat 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A: So, Raw Story "Broke" these stories, care to cite something on that, because prima facia aint a gonna cut it. You know, like "The NY Times on a tip from Raw Story", or "The WAPO following up on a story first reported in Raw Story", something verifiable. B: Fair enoughL after a review of the main editors listed on raw story we have a 24 year old comparative lit major (John Byrne), a Community Organizer and "activist" (jesse kanson-benanav), a special education teacher (katie mcky) and oooh oooh a recent college grad who resisted all attempts by "the state to break his will and mold him into an obedient bureaucrat" (Michael Dempsey). Quite a lineup. C: Refer to A; please cite an incident where the MSM has taken thier reports seriously. Just because no one has criticized them, and I am sure some have, does not mean they have credibility, ala Wayne "Hasidic Diamond Merchants Killed Paul Wellstone" Madsen. This is at the heart of WP:RS, and the root of why it looks like Media Matters wrote this article. Ten Dead Chickens 04:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ten Dead Chickens raises good questions (that ought to be asked of all the sources). Drudge breaksk some stories that are taken seriously by the mainstream, but he is extremely unreliable and biased. Similarly many blogs (left and right). (And perhaps Madsen). I don't know enough about the Raw Story to venture an opinion. Sholom 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I, really, which is why I asked Mr. Chickens to bring this up on the talk page where it is relevant. I'm not sure how it's relevant here. I just checked the page again, Mr. Chickens, and the Examples section seems to answer your questions. There are links to mainstream news sites citing their stories as accurate. If you have evidence to the contrary, please introduce it on that page.--csloat 04:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In short WP:RS. Ten Dead Chickens 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, you're both right. I'll agree that Raw Story is not a reliable source. But I just went and looked at the body of the article, and it doesn't seem that much -- if anything -- relies on it! Sholom 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What evidence has Mr. Chickens presented that the source is not reliable? All he has done is made fun of its staff. Additionally, what is his point with all this? There is an article with a talk page of its own already where his comments might be relevant. Not here.--csloat 04:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not have to demonstrate the reliability of Raw Story, I think it does not meet the WP:RS (as is becoming far too common in Wikipedia these days), and it is up to you to answer A, B and C with something of substance. Ten Dead Chickens 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

1- I did answer; these questions are covered under the article where this is relevant, it is not relevant here. 2- if you are starting a purge of quotes from sources that do not meet WP:RS, you cannot do it for POV reasons. Take a more thorough approach to such a move, and eliminate everything from the Weekly Standard, from a weblog, from all the various pundits of all political stripes who are quoted on numerous wikipedia pages. The fact that you want to start here on this page (without even looking at the The Raw Story page) makes your sudden jihad on this issue feel like a personal attack just because I happened to take the bait when you asked what the Raw story is in the first place.--csloat 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm now looking at the raw story staff, and while Mr. Chickens makes fun of them, there is a lot more information on the pages than he lets on. The "24 year old lit major" has experience in print journalism that Mr. Chickens would like to keep hidden, "including a stint as a local correspondent for the Boston Globe, a Washington bureau reporter for McClatchy newspapers and the editor of two college newspapers." He founded his own newspaper in college as well. Mr. Chickens chooses not to mention at all larisa alexandrovna, who actually wrote the story Chickens seems to want to censor here, who also writes for HuffingtonPost and has a regular show on Pacifica Radio as well as being a regular guest on Air America radio -- at least that's what her Wikipedia entry says. Raw Story claims to have broken numerous stories and claims that "Raw Story has been linked from and featured in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The New York Post, LA Weekly, Roll Call and various other publications." I have seen no evidence to the contrary, and no, I don't think it is my job to check if they are lying about that. Just for the hell of though, I put into Nexis "major papers" and found the site mentioned eight times in mainstream sources. This all seems like a red herring for Chickens to try to censor information he is unhappy exists.-csloat 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

First, this is not attempt to censor, as I made the same case about WP:RS on another article today from an entirely opposite POV throwing out a link from FPM. As far as Alexandrovna credentials with the HuffingtonPost and AAR, WOW, she's like a regular Alex Baldwin or John Cusak! As far as raw story's claims that they have been linked "from and featured in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The New York Post, LA Weekly, Roll Call and various other publications", show me the money. Find the source on any of the above, and this debate is closed as far as I am concerned. Ten Dead Chickens 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
First, you show me the money? What the hell is FPM? If you are going on a crusade to remove unreliable sources, it should not be tied to your POV, whether right or left wing - I suspect whatever you're talking about with FPM has to do with another source you disagree with rather than a general move to get rid of unreliable sources. Second, I told you I confirmed some of the above at lexis/nexis. Here ya go:
1. NSA used city police as trackers; Activists monitored on way to Fort Meade war protest, agency memos show, The Baltimore Sun, January 13, 2006 Friday, FINAL EDITION, LOCAL; Pg. 1B, 1109 words, DOUGLAS BIRCH, SUN REPORTER
As the article states, Kevin B. Zeese was the source of the documents used int he story, they were avaiable for all to see at Raw story and So not, nothing was "broken" by rawstory here. Ten Dead Chickens 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
2. A Chance Peek at Warner's Ambitions; Web Site Discovered While Being Built, The Washington Post, October 4, 2005 Tuesday, Final Edition, Metro; B04, 481 words, Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writer, RICHMOND Oct. 3
Statements from Warner regarding a pres run in 08 predate 10/4/2005, but RS was cited as a source although there is no indication it "broke" the story.
3. Rep. Smith sticks by wayward memo on immigration debate, San Antonio Express-News, September 24, 2005 Saturday, STATE&METRO Edition, METRO AND STATE NEWS; Pg. 3B, 515 words, Jaime Castillo
Bing, you got one hit.
4. Spotlight on Romney's Abortion Stance, The Washington Post, June 12, 2005 Sunday, Final Edition, A Section; A04 , SUNDAYPOLITICS Dana Milbank and Charles Babington, 864 words, Dana Milbank and Charles Babington
Cited as a source on a Pelosi interview, no story "broken".
5. LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT MY RECORD AND FILIBUSTERS, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), May 18, 2005 Wednesday, SOONER EDITION, Pg.B-6, 389 words
Interesting, because the only reason RS was cited here was to clear up an issue with it poor accuracy, and the paper made a correction.
6. POLITICAL ANIMALS SNIFF THE WINDS OF CHANGE, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), May 11, 2005 Wednesday, SOONER EDITION Correction Appended, Pg.A-2, 759 words
See response to 5
7. Vitter fund-raiser put on by lobbyist; Backer faces probe of charges to tribes, Times-Picayune (New Orleans), March 17, 2005 Thursday, NATIONAL; Pg. 6, 603 words, By Bill Walsh, Washington bureau
Another hit.
8. Activists consider ethics, efficacy of outing; After voters frown on same-sex marriages, gay rights proponents take stock of options, The San Francisco Chronicle, NOVEMBER 14, 2004, SUNDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. A1, 1594 words, Rona Marech
Cited for outing closeted gays, hardly "braking news"
All the above cite articles that had broken a story. I am still not sure what your point is with all this; if you think someone is lying it is not my responsibility to prove they are telling the truth; you have the burden to prove they are lying. Also you may not like Pacifica Radio or Air America, but they are nonetheless well regarded news outlets, even though they have a known liberal/left bias.--csloat 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So, for your 8 citations, 3 of them were used as a material source critical to the story, and in one of these cases the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette retracted RS's information because it was bull, nuch like RS's drum beating of Cheney is going to be indicted. You are really not making a good case on why RS is featured so prominently in the article, considering the plethora of other sources which meet SP:RS. Pacifica and AAR are hardly "well regarded news outlets". And since you sarcasticly compared Drudge with Raw Story, who has broken more stories? Who has more influence? And which is recording 12mil hits a day? Ten Dead Chickens 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again why are you doing this, Mr. Chickens? What's your point, other than picking a fight with me? There is one point at which the article cites Raw Story, which is where it broke an important story. I did not sarcastically compare the site to drudge; I compared the site to drudge. It is a legitimate news outfit, in spite of your nitpicks. As you said, "Find the source on any of the above, and this debate is closed as far as I am concerned." There it is. If you have a reason the specific revelations of the raw story article quoted here should be doubted, please voice that reason, instead of making vague claims about the source's "reliability." Again, you may not like PAcifica or AAR but these are legitimate news outlets that are well regarded as journalism. The bias is a different question from the expertise. It's telling that you collapse these things.--csloat 02:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were writing a term paper for college or researching for a non-fiction book, would you cite Raw Story? of course not. I'm a frequent viewer of Raw Story and even subscribe to their newsletter, and i can tell you they've gotten a lot of stories flat wrong. at one point during the height of the Plame investigation, Raw Story put out an article defending it's investigative reporting to try and convince it's own readers it was a reliable source. Raw Story had reported Karl Rove had been indicted, among other mistakes. if you read the comments posted on raw story articles, dissenters are usually told to go read Drudge. Raw Story is a liberal blog page and should be cited as such. any attempt to cite Raw story as a legitimate source degenerates Wikipedia. Raw Story is the only outlet currently reporting Valerie Plame was working on Iranian nuclear ambitions. If this story was true and/or reliable, don't you think the press would have picked up on it. the fact that the story only exists in the blogosphere is telling. anthony 15:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Raw Story is not reliable, and in fact I demonstrated above that it had been cited by other sources. The only debate left was how many stories they actually "broke," which is irrelevant for a news source that has only been around a couple years. When did they report Rove was indicted? Let's have a link; I don't recall hearing that. It should be cited as "Raw Story," and have a link to the page about the news source rather than have it stated misleadingly that it is "a liberal blog." A blog does not have experienced reporters doing original research. It is fine to state that this story is from Raw Story but it is not ok to mischaracterize the source. What is amazing to me is that you and TDC want to have this argument on this page, but neither of you has seen fit to mention these things on the actual page about The Raw Story. Which tells me that you are more interested in bashing the source for POV reasons related to the Plame affair than you are in actually creating factual articles. If you have something relevant to say about The Raw Story, please post it there.--csloat 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Raw story was way off on this[7]and this [8] Look, use it as a source and make all the justifications you want. I'm just saying it looks bad for a site that is supposed to be an encyclopedia. anthony 3:41 pm 26 february 2006 eastern time
We don't know that yet. The article only quotes sources close to the investigation who suggest that Fitzgerald is seeking indictments against Rove as well as Libby. Your link is to an actual blog called "anonymousliberal" who says he's skeptical. The story itself suggests that Fitzgerald is seeking indictments, not that indictments are forthcoming soon, and in fact the article even suggests that Rove would not be indicted for actually outing the covert agent. There is nothing "way off" here -- there may still be indictments coming, or perhaps the grand jury will not be convinced by what Fitzgerald has to say -- in either case, the story that sources close to the investigation have revealed that Fitzgerald is seeking indictments against Rove is not "way off" and in fact is quite believable.
Of course nothing here has anything to do with the attempt to characterize Raw Story as a "blog" on this page. If you want to state that they once had a story that may not have been accurate, there is a page where such a claim would be relevant -- please put it there rather than using phony credibility issues as an excuse to remove stuff from this page. I can show you stories the New York Times got wrong -- should we remove all NYT quotes from articles? It's obvious that you are gunning for the Raw Story for POV reasons associated with Plame. In any case, I have added clarification to this page (check my most recent edit here) that should satisfy you and other critics of the Raw Story -- attributing the statement clearly to the reporter from the Raw Story rather than leaving it unattributed as it was before definitely improves the page. --csloat 21:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I said the Raw Story article was way off because Fitzgerald, in his news conference detailing Libby's indictment, stated "Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded", yet Raw Story was reporting he was still pursing Rove and might indict him the following week. Sounds way off to me. the first article i linked stated Fitzgerald was seeking four indictments (click the raw story link from the blog page) and that Rove was definetely one of them. when Rove wasn't indicted, raw story published the second article i linked saying he would likely be indicted the week after fitzgerald's news conference. there "sources" seemed adamant about this. yet here we are in February, and Rove isn't even mentioned anymore with regards to the plame investigation. i didn't mean to start a fight with you. i follow politics on a regular basis and have learned to take Raw Story with a grain of salt. i like the way you re-wrote the passage, however, and consider this issue closed. since it is a current event piece, sourcing raw story is fine. --anthony 22:11 26 February 2006 UTC

Fair enough. I don't really think the evidence about that particular story is as conclusive as you do -- the investigation may be over long before the process of seeking indictments is over. In either case there is no evidence that Raw Story made up the story, which is what seems to be implied -- they may have been misled by their sources but that can happen to any news outlet (and it has). In either case, I agree such things should be taken with a grain of salt, and I think we agree about properly representing the source in this article.--csloat 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
the link to the plame/iran story is no longer valid. i've looked for other links but can't find one. the story is also no longer in the raw story archives. does anyone know if this story has been retracted? i've sent an email to raw story asking them about this.Anthonymendoza 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll be interested to hear how they respond. I poked around on the website and it looks like it has been redesigned by someone who didn't know what they were doing, or only finished halfway. Most of the "archive" points to outside sources, not previous rawstory articles. I sent a note too; I'm not sure what this means (if anything) but I'm not sure there's any value to jumping to conclusions about these stories being "retracted." Did you check on The Raw Story talk page?-csloat 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
i noticed the web page has been redesigned too, but links to other stories have remained. the only story i can't find is the plame/iran story. the article is featured in full on several blog pages but i'm not sure if that is a good substitute for a direct link. i just wondered if anyone had heard it had been retracted. i have yet to hear from raw story. Anthonymendoza 04:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

the link has been reestablished. Anthonymendoza 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Larry Johnson

Which brings me to Mr Johnson. Unlike Madsen, Johnson actualy has verifiable credentials and does not prescibe to the koolaid of the month club. But as Mr Sloat would point out that some source's inuendos are blown out of proportion and we really shouldn't be citing them at all.

  • "What is so pathetic is that both Vallely and McInerney present themselves as military experts on special operations when neither has held any position of any importance with those forces. In fact, neither has ever held compartmented clearances required to know about those special programs. Given their track record of getting military facts wrong there is no doubt they are wrong about Joe Wilson."

Had Mr Johnson taken the time to even do a simple Google on the two he would have discovered that McInerney had 243 missions as a CAC, and Valley spent 15 years commanding SF and counter terrorism operations. If that does not qualify the the two as knowledgeable in SF ops, perhaps Johnson could educate us all and tell us what does?

So are Johnson's inuendos "blown out of proportion", or is he a thoughtfull source, who is carefull with his statements? Ten Dead Chickens 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Chickens, that is the second time you have used that diff of one of my edits to try to prove that I want certain sources removed from wikipedia. Please look at the edit yourself; what I did was actually leave the cite in there and added information contradicting it rather than censoring the cite itself. That is a practice you should emulate rather than simply deleting material you don't like after you whine about the source. As for Johnson, he may have gotten Vallely's and McInerney's records wrong - I am just taking your word on that - but I'm not sure how that destroys his credibility or makes him an unreliable source, when he is clearly taken seriously and cited frequently in the mainstream media. People sometimes make mistakes, and Johnson may be a bit of a hothead, but what is your point? I'm not surprised he gets something wrong once in a while; he is a Republican, after all. You removed the objectionable sentence about Vallely and McInerny and I did not put it back in. That seems reasonable to me. But if you are just preparing for a purge of Johnson quotes from Wikipedia -- well, I would sternly object to that; he is as I said a notable source that is frequently cited in the mass media. If that's not what you have in mind, take it to the Larry Johnson page, and feel free to include a paragraph on that page noting that Johnson was once mistaken about these generals. Frankly, I've listened to Johnson, and I've listened to Vallely, and I know which one seems credible to me.--csloat 05:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sure you know which one is more credible, the one who tells you what you would like to hear. I am not arguing for removing Johnson, as I said, he does have credibility and notability, but he is used on six occasions in this article, far out of proportion. As for the edit difference link, this is not the best palce for this discussion, so I will drop you a note on it. Ten Dead Chickens
It has nothing to do with what I want to hear; it has to do with what they say and how they say it. I'm not sure what your standard for wikipedia entries is that requires proportionality of source citation -- if you want to put in other sources to change the proportions, feel free, as long as they are saying something relevant, but don't delete sources for purely mathematical reasons.--csloat 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Proportionality has to do with why the article has that nice little POV sicker on it. As I have said before, Johnson's comments are notable for some things, but he is bieng over used here to push a POV. Ten Dead Chickens 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a point? I don't feel like wasting time on this anymore. If there is a specific quotation you feel is inappropriate then make your point; I don't think mathematics is a good reason to delete valid information. The article has a NPOV sticker because someone put it there. They have been asked to provide specific information about what is POV here that can be addressed and they have not done so. --csloat 02:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Libby knew CIA spy by name before it was published


Handwritten notes taken by the CIA show Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide knew the name of CIA spy Valerie Plame Wilson a month before her cover was blown.[9]

Oops, I posted it at Valerie Plame. This would be more apt.Holland Nomen Nescio 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is longer than the actual indictment on Libby

We seriously need to trim this. It's an encyclopedia, not a chapter of a book. --Jbamb 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. How about breaking it into sections? I think if we start removing information from a politically charged article like this there will be a lot of backlash from both sides of the aisle.--csloat 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
WP is also not a debating forum. I totally agree -- I don't know if there are too many cooks here, or we're just trying to satisfy too many people, but we do need to start removing material. The "Criticism of Plame Wilson" section is ridiculous, including things from sources I think should not be used (Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, FoxNews interviews). Lest I be accused of being one-sided, please note that I (succesfully) advocated the removal of any implication that Plame's outting was the cause of an unknown CIA agent death, and I am hereby also advocating the removal of speculative stuff that is single-sourced by RawStory (e.g., in the "Actual Damage Caused" section). It seems to me that apologists of both sides have been angling to get stuff in, in order to either minimize or maximize the appearance of the crime and/or the damage done, and it's gotten way out of hand. -- My two cents -- Sholom 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The Plame Leak scandal required a 3-page spread to chart for Newsweek or Time, if I recall. It's complex and there are many specific facts and numerous individuals have been involved, each with their talking points and allegations, etc. When an important news item comes out in the press, it usually makes it's way here, and then it bears scrutiny and is edited accordingly, as the story unfolds. The problem is that there have been so many claims raised, and either they have been proven, remained unverified or they have been debunked.
  1. the proven facts of note tend to stay here,
  2. the unverified ones continue to be questioned and re-edited, and
  3. the debunked allegations and claims are often removed.
A careful balance has to exist between the three. Irrelevant facts should be pruned for readability, the latest spin or allegation shouldn't be posted if it's too scanty or sketchy, and the debunked ones are sometimes noteworthy enough to stay (like the misinterpreted comment of Wilson's about the day Novak publicly named Plame in his column.
We need good editing, this is true - but to paint it in 'partisan' terms about minimizing or maximizing appearances is to disrespect good faith editors on both sides. I'd hope you didn't think that of my editing, for example. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As for me, I"m talking about sentences (or paragraphs full of stuff) like: On November 8, 2005, Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran of the CIA appeared on FOX News Radio and said "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as 'my CIA wife.'" as well as, frankly, almost everything else in that section. The section on Theft of Government Property -- irrelevant in my view after a quick read. And so on and so forth. Sholom 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm with CSloat. Break the article up and reduce the individual discussions to summaries, but don't cut anything. Breaking up things actually makes a lot of sense -- stuff like Plame's covert status, criticisms of Wilson, etc. are relevant to Plame, Libby, Plamegate and other pages, and an independent discussion of each topic could be linked to from the various pages. (Also, Fox News may not be your favorite, but I'm pretty sure it's a valid news source by Wiki standards - otherwise, we'll have to start cutting articles from pretty much any European newspaper as biased to one side or the other). TheronJ
I did not Fox News as a source above -- I questioned the value of a statement made by a guest who appears on the show to be interviewed. I would like to hear folks' opinions on the following:
  • The statement On November 8, 2005, Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran of the CIA appeared on FOX News Radio and said "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as 'my CIA wife.'" should be cut.
  • Other statements like it should be cut
Sholom 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issues Sholom raises with news sources are interesting ones that affect the whole of wikipedia and should be raised on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources rather than used to separate wheat from chaff only on particular pages. If a WP policy develops of excluding such sources as Raw Story and Cybercast News Service, I would support it across the board rather than just on pages where I think it might make a particular POV difference. (I don't doubt Sholom's intentions with regard to this, but I note that the "reliable source" issue was brought up on this page by TDC and anthonymendoza specifically as a reason to remove claims on this page for purely POV reasons -- neither of them has shown any interest in raising these issues on The Raw Story, for example. Anthonymendoza, to his credit, backed off of the point after the Raw Story story was more properly credited). In any case, my point is I would support a NPOV standard for determining which kinds of sources belong in wikipedia and which don't -- but a subjective and ad hoc standard based only on whichever editor feels like complaining about a particular claim is inappropriate. As I said before, my tendency is to err in the favor of more information, not less. But I will gladly back off of support for the Raw Story claims in the context of a larger move to eliminate all such sources regardless of POV. I'd like to see such a movement look at more than just the Plame articles, however. --csloat 00:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to wade into a whole Wiki-wide debate at this point. I'll have more to say later. Nevertheless, I think you are only addressing the second of the two bulletpoints I raise above. The first bulletpoint is a particular statement of the following kind "person X said on an interview on network-Y". My concern is not the reliability of Y but of X. In this case we have one guy alleging that folks all over town knew that Plame worked for the CIA. I don't care what network he said it on or who was interviewing him. Who is this guy? How do we know he's reliable? My standard is the same: I'd like to see this source by an reliable source. So, what are your thoughts as to that one sentence? -- Sholom 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree, Simmons is a fruitcake, and he made this comment twice on air and in neither case clarified whether he actually witnessed said "traipsing" or just heard about it from a friend of a friend... But the answer to the question "who is this guy" is answered in the article, and he is not that much more of a fruitcake than General Vallely, and certainly much less of one than William Tierney, both of whom are cited on Wikipedia. I would definitely support a move to remove such quotes, but how do we draw the line between Simmons, whose claims I think are ludicrous, and Larry Johnson, who I think is an important part of this debate? I think you would get a strong argument from many who have edited on this page claiming the exact opposite. Both Johnson and Simmons are long time vets of the CIA; their qualifications are similar. I can tell you why I think Johnson is a more reliable source but others will have other arguments. The problem is not that I disagree with you but that I fear a slippery slope here whereby lots of notable material will get deleted, and then a year from now when someone else is editing this page they will find this stuff missing and start adding it in and this debate will start all over again. I'd rather see the material added in, and refuted with additional material, rather than simply ignored. Again, I would change that if there were a more concentrated move across wikipedia to eliminate such sources; a rule could be established that would apply to all articles, not just the Plame articles.--csloat 01:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I fear the slippery slope, too. But, on the other hand, if we just add material in, and refute it with additional material, then we get into a situation that started this thread: an article that's just too darn long. Must we present both sides of every assertion of fact? (Over on the "Hitler" page, people are questioning the assertion that close to 6 million Jews died). In the instant case here, if the assertion (traipsing around) were in a newspaper it would have more validity than just a guy saying it in an interview. On to the larger issue: I don't know where we draw the lines. Perhaps we go by Potter Stewarts famous quote: "I know it when I see it."? (Of course, others will "know it" differently, yes). But to include every wild claim, and then attempt to refute it is, in a way, analogous to graymail. It buries and/or obfuscates the truth, and puts too much of a burden on those trying to fair minded and common-sensical about it. -- Sholom 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you almost completely; I just don't think it's going to work. Delete the claim and I am sure it will be returned to the article in due time -- not necessarily through a revert but eventually someone unaware of this week's discussion will see that it is not there and add it in the article. That's why a wikipedia-wide sourcing discussion is probably the only way to address this issue. --csloat 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, one last try before I wade in there. At [Reliable_sources] the section Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence, I see that two factors are: (a) Surprising or important facts which are not widely known; (b) Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media. So, my claim for removing at least that one sentence is as follows: (i) it's an exceptional claim (or else the CIA would not have initiated a complaint); (ii) it's not widely known; (iii) it hasn't been reported by reputable news media (note: Fox News didn't report it themselves, they only interviewed a guy who said it). It seems to me on that grounds, we can remove such a thing. Thoughts? -- Sholom 02:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're asking for my thoughts, I agree, but I think others will have a different definition of "surprising or important."--csloat 03:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I should say that I agree with CSloat on the larger picture -- I think the degree to which Plame's identity was confidential-in-fact is still highly debateable, and I would strongly prefer to keep all the quotes in Wikipedia, albeit in a separate page where we could arrange the evidence pro and con. If you want to say that the assertion that Wilson did not discuss his wife's identity is as historically certain as the holocaust, or even global warming, we're just not there yet. TheronJ 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

rv'ed the removal of the 'legal questions' section

User:Harmil attempted to deal with the article size problem by removing the lion's share of the 'legal questions' section. While I agree with the desire to cull this article down, this approach seemed to be to the detriment of the reader and to the completeness and readability of the article, and the section. Here's the diff: [10]. Please discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I did not know where to start with this article, so I removed all redundant material, as much of it was repeated in the article several times. I also removed most of the quotes, summarizing them and leaving the source in. Much of the material is also covered in the timeline, so a good deal of that was removed as well. Ten Dead Chickens 19:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You removed lots of material that is not "redundant." You also removed numerous facts and quotes that you have not explained in your brief summary. I am reverting. If you "did not know where to start with this article," let's take things more slowly, a couple changes at a time, rather than just charging through the article like a machete through a cornfield. You probably have some reasonable changes here but I don't think this is the right approach to "sneak" them in along while deleting massive chunks of the article.--csloat 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I am going to add that I support TheronJ's proposal above; let's have a separate page discussing the "was she covert" controversy. There is new information about this that needs to be included, and there will continue to be; rather than putting it here where it will be deleted for brevity and then put back in for POV reasons let's have a separate page that deals with all the information pro- and con- in turn. Not sure what to call it though....--csloat 21:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Long quotes belong in Wikiquote, not choking the article. Most of the factual information removed, was also reflected in the timeline article. I added very little information to the article, two or three sentences at most, so I was not "sneaking" anything into it. The article is far too long, and the removal of quotes is a good place to start. As far as redundant material, there is no good reason to mention similar information several times in an article whose length already exceeds 100k, Therefore I am reverting. Ten Dead Chickens 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
TDC you "snuck" in deletions that have already been discussed here on the talk page; your sudden concern for the article size is being used as a way of avoiding actual discussion of the issues. Again, let's make small changes here rather than massive deletions, especially when you are deleting material that has been agreed to in talk. In addition, your latest reversion has also reverted the other changes I made in more recent edits. Instead of instigating a revert war, how about discussing these changes specifically? Your blanket assurance that you have only removed "redundant" material is false (e.g., material removed from the section on "Actual damage") and many of your changes are clearly POV. If you are truly making such changes in good faith, let's have them one by one so they can be disputed. --csloat 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

unauthorized "allegedly"

I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for the last edit by anon ip -- it is true that Cheney may have "authorized" the leak, but it would still be "unauthorized" from the perspective of the CIA, and I think that is what is referred to there.--csloat 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Third motion of Libby to compel discovery names names

In my opinion, the Libby defense team is now officially off the reservation (39 pp. PDF) in their high-stakes perjury defense comprised, so far, of discovery requests for sensitive documents. Libby's attorneys revealed the names of a handful of previously unknown CIA officials who may have communicated Plame Wilson's classified CIA work to Libby:

  • Robert Grenier, 51, head of the agency's top counterterrorism office, fired last month because he opposed using torture tactics against al-Qaeda suspects at secret detention facilities abroad, Grenier was station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan on September 11, 2001. Former CIA Director George Tenet promoted Grenier in 2002 to head up the Iraq Issues Group, a position created specifically to prepare for the March 2003 Iraq invasion.
  • John McLaughlin, former deputy director of the CIA who resigned in November 2004 over bureaucratic infighting.
  • Craig Schmall, CIA/White House liaison/briefer.
  • Peter Clement, CIA/White House liaison/briefer, who has worked at the CIA for nearly 30 years. He was the director of intelligence for the agency and has published books on Soviet foreign policy, Russian domestic politics, and politics in Central Asia.
  • Matt Barrett, CIA/White House liaison/briefer.

Fitzgerald continues to deny the discovery of red herring sensitive documents:

"We are trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald said during a February 24 court hearing on issues related to additional evidence Libby's attorneys were trying to obtain from Fitzgerald's probe. "What I am going to say to the jury in opening and closing and rebuttal is that Mr. Libby knowingly lied about what he did. And the issue is whether he knowingly lied or not," Fitzgerald added. "And if there is information about actual damage, whatever was caused or not caused that isn't in his mind, it is not a defense. If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it's not a defense if you lie in a grand jury under oath about what you said and you told people I didn't know he had a wife. That is what this case is about. It is about perjury...." [11]

Who doesn't love the American system of justice for those who can afford it, at the expense of everything else? Someone should add this stuff. I'm too angry to attempt neutrality at the moment. --James S. 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because Plame was never covert after all. If Libby can show that Plame wasn't covert (as all evidence suggests), Fitzgerald should himself be brought up on perjury charges for making that assertion to the Court. LOL!--Mr j galt 08:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Armitage? Kevin Baastalk 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Feel free to speculate:

In a late night Friday filing (made available by RAW STORY here,) attorneys for Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, named key witnesses in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Included for the first time in formal documents was National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.[12]

Holland Nomen Nescio 10:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Section

Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division. The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.

why is this paragraph indented under the heading "Claim of Plame-Wilson conspiracy" and does anyone else think this particular paragraph needs to be reworded? Anthonymendoza 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a direct quotation.--csloat 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
i'm putting it in italics. Anthonymendoza 01:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)