Talk:White House Iraq Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It cannot be concluded that Plame was an undercover covert agent when Novak named her in his column. On March 23, 2005, every major news organization, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters, and the White House correspondents, joined to file a friend of the court brief on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. They said:

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the “deep cover” required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. § 426 (“covert agent” defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington – not stationed abroad – for a number of years."[1]

October 28, 2005, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asked if Plame was covert and he responded:

"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."[2]--Mr j galt 06:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are duplicating your same (erroneous) argument from Talk:Plame affair. Please stop spreading an erroneous, unfactual argument and return to the dialogue there. Your activities are disrupting Wikipedia, to prove a flawed point. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The sources are impeccable and well documented. I am attempting to restore NPOV to the article. Stop wikistalking me.--Mr j galt 06:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your sources do not prove your point. Just like on the dozen or so other articles you've disrupted in the last 24 hours with these cites, they do not substantiate your point. The lack of logic on your part has been made clear, and you simply move to another article, and repeat the process, never responding... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (as an aside, please excuse the erroneous, 'autofill' from a prior vandalism revert).

Contents 1 RfC opened for Mr j galt 2 POV 3 I don't see why this articule's neutrality is at issue 4 Changed invasion of Iraq date.

[edit] RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article sets off the old POV alarm. The "marketing arm" of the Republican Party? Let's try to be neutral. Isopropyl 01:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't see why this articule's neutrality is at issue

I removed the "undercover" part of the CIA/Plame investigation.

As for the reference to the White House Iraq Group being the "marketing arm" of the White House, it was the Bush Administration's own Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, who is credited with coining this term. In an interview with the New York Times, Andrew Card did not mention the WHIG specifically but hinted at its mission. When asked about selling the war to the public, Card said "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Card was part of the WHIG. Marketing the war was exactly what they did. So why not call a spade a spade?

[edit] Changed invasion of Iraq date.

Hello, I changed the invasion of Iraq date to March 19, 2003 from March 20, 2003 and provided a link. Thanks!Sowsearsoup 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)