Talk:CIA leak scandal (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Africa Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CIA leak scandal (2003) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	To-do list for CIA leak scandal (2003):	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Please clarify [the] why... 3 Debunking the Armitage Myth 4 Clean up in progress 5 Brings a smile to my face 6 Talk Page tag 7 references section 8 Boondoggle link corrected 9 Reminder 10 Introduction Paragraphs 11 Frontline 12 Allusions to the Plame affair in popular media 13 Interesting info 14 overquoting 15 Secrecy of employment 16 Covert vs. non-Covert? 17 Plame's testimony 18 Who recommended Wilson for the trip to Africa? 19 Opening paragraph 20 James Knodell's testimony 21 Covert, again 22 Introduction needs updating 23 Intro sandbox 24 Request for consensus 25 Proposed wikiproject 26 Biased implications in introduction 27 Revert, please 28 Testimony of other reporters 29 Article name 30 The Huffington Post and the Plame Affair 31 Debate about article title 31.1 data 32 Vote on article name 32.1 More data: "Scandal" vs "Controversy" vs ""Affair" 33 Consensus

[edit] Archives

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6
• /Archive 7

[edit] Please clarify [the] why...

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

[edit] Debunking the Armitage Myth

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

What is she debunking, exactly? Also, a pardon wouldn't be Bush's style. He was at 69 last year, and that puts him very, very low according to this list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right! That list is cool; my guess is that most pres pardons occur as they're leaving office, so we'll see how low his number stays, but you're right, according to that it is extremely low. As for the article, she is debunking the claim forwarded by many that the Isikoff/Corn book Armitage revelations mean that there is no "Plame affair." Particularly notable is her point that at the time Armitage revealed the classified info to Novak, he was indeed a vocal proponent of Bush Administration policy toward Iraq, whatever his private doubts might have been at the time. The other notable info is that he appears to be making false claims or playing dumb about when he figured out that he was the source of Novak's article.--csloat 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Novak said he didn't know she was an uncover operative. He said he thought she was an analyst. Wasn't that made clear in the article? 71.212.13.204 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that that the article is clear on Novak's claim, as it is on others, including the Lexis/Nexis analysis of his prior use of the word "operative". If he remained consistent in his use of that word, then it begs the question of how he concluded that it applied to her. Just a thought. Constructive 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Clean up in progress

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Brings a smile to my face

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

Because theories and interpretations on current events usually never change, ever. I, too, am shocked and outraged that people are still editing this article. --sigmafactor 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With the trial going on and remarkable new information coming out, I'm kind of surprised the article is currently as stable as it is. csloat 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why does it make you smile and chuckle if a Wikipedia article has problems? Though, I'm not sure that being "unstable" is a huge problem in light of Sloat's point. Derex 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page tag

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

[edit] references section

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

Why do we need a references section at all, as it's completely redundant? If the article is properly cited in the main body, all the references needed should be in the notes section, and the entire References section can be deleted. Of all the actual sources cited, the vast majority are from secondary sources in the press, not trial documents. And I'm not upset, or stalking anyone. If you look at the edit times, you'll see my edits here were a few minutes after the ones in the Wilson article, several hours before you took the axe to them. I included the Hitchens pieces because he's written voluminously on the subject, and quite rightly eviscerated what was left of Wilson's credibility. Nathanm mn 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "stalking" I referred to was that you went to the Clarke page and made the claim that my edits were vandalism without ever having participated in that discussion or having edited the page before -- you did this right after I deleted the Hitchens stuff; perhaps it was just a bizarre coincidence. I agree a lot of the references section should be trimmed down, not just the stuff I deleted. That stuff jumped out because it was a host of articles from a single (and extremely opinionated, not to mention drunk) source, but there is a lot of other cruft that could be removed. Or we could go the other direction - there are at least as many David Corn pieces I could add to the list, or pieces by Larry Johnson, or other pro-Plame sources. This thing will be lengthened without limit. I'd rather not see that and would prefer that editors agree to put only really important or representative articles in that section rather than trying to outdo each other with more articles representing opinions on one side of the issue. csloat 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of stalking also violates your beloved WP:AGF, and not just for mere edits, but an actual crime (in many jurisdictions). Hitchens is definitely opinionated and reputed to be a drunk, but nobody's successfully challenged the veracity of his writing on this subject. Corn tried to challenge Hitchens here, but repeated some now discredited theories, and Hitchens responded here. Again, why don't we just take delete the entire References section? If some of them have further relevant information for the article, cite them as a footnote. Nathanm mn 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion that Hitchens is right but that really isn't the point, is it? I think it's useful to have a references section with government documents, court documents, key articles that have specifically been commented on in the media in a widespread manner (e.g. the Wilson editorial, the Novak editorial, and such; even the Washington Post editorial perhaps), but putting every opinion piece that is relevant here makes this into a ridiculously long references section -- every article by hitchens goes in, then so does every opinion piece by Wilson, Corn, Isikoff, johnson, and so on, etc. ad nauseam. That's my objection to this slippery slope. csloat 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read my comments above? I'm suggesting deleting the entire section, not adding to it. Besides, the references section is already ridiculously long. As it now stands there are 37 references, including not one single court document. And the only government document is the "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence". If these references are already cited in the footnotes, they're redundant. If they're not, how about adding the relevant information from the source to the article, then cite them properly in the footnotes? Nathanm mn 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete it if you like. NY Scholar has presented a good argument not to below. csloat 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Delete it if you like": is not a consensual option. It is not acceptable to delete a whole section of information that is pertinent and sourced in Wikipedia articles. See the guidelines in Wikipedia:Editing. That is a "major edit" not a "minor edit" and affects the meaning of the article in that each source posted is meaningful (full of significant information). --NYScholar 03:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Boondoggle link corrected

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

[edit] Reminder

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

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

[edit] Introduction Paragraphs

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

[edit] Frontline

i removed this from the article:

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

“

examines the relationship between the Bush administration and the press, the use of anonymous sources, and the consequences of the Valerie Plame leak investigation.[1]

”

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

[edit] Allusions to the Plame affair in popular media

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

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

[edit] Interesting info

this is interesting. according to a document entered into evidence at the trial, Cheney was briefed about the Niger issue on Feb. 13, 2002[1]. and according to the Senate report, plame offered up Wilson for the trip in a Feb. 12, 2002 memorandum[2]. this would seem to suggest Plame was pushing for Wilson to go to Niger before the VP request. i'm not sure what this means or if it should be included in the main article. the only news agency to report this comes from the new york post[3]. at a Feb. 19 meeting convened by Plame, Wilson was briefed on the matter. so i guess it's technically correct to say wilson was sent to follow up a request by the VP, but he was being touted to go before as well. any thoughts to the relevance of this??Anthonymendoza 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right article? That Byron York article you linked doesn't mention these documents at all. Also, the memo you link is dated 2/13 and says "The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program." That does not say he was shown the assessment on 2/13; the memo was dated 2/13, which means that sometime before the memo was written, Cheney asked for the CIA's assessment. The claim that Plame "offered up" wilson is, of course, also disputed; the memo says Wilson "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity," but there is no indication that she was the one who made any decision to send him, and the CIA maintained that the person who used the phrase "offered up" was not at the meeting where the decision was made. And a Senior intelligence officer refuted this claim, telling the committee that "she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." Wilson's written response to this claim of the Senate report: "Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst ["second official", below] were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in [Roberts'] 'additional comments.' I urge the committee to re-interview the officer and publicly publish his statement." Wilson was chosen for the mission because he was qualified (as Libby acknowledged), not because his wife sent him. csloat 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, i'm sure i have the right article. the memo regarding cheney states "Briefing Date", meaning he was briefed on the 13th. Wilson's name was being offered up before that. as far as her role, prosecution witnesses bolstered this claim. unless fitzgerald wanted to give the jurors a false impression, i think it's safe to assume she played a large role. or maybe fitzgerald and the witnesses he called are ignorant of the facts on this too, which i find hard to believe. Anthonymendoza 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; and I find it hard to believe that the Wilsons engineered a conspiracy in 2002 to bring down Scooter Libby. It requires them to have had a crystal ball knowing ahead of time how badly the VP's office would mishandle the information that Iraq was not buying yellowcake from Niger. As for the NYPost article, I just don't see anything about the memos in there - am I missing it or was there another point you were making with that? The Briefing date does not tell us a lot - was that the day cheney was briefed about Niger? The day that he asked for the CIA's assessment? "Prosecution witnesses bolstered this claim" -- it's really not clear that that's the case either, and this memo indicates that Wilson didn't even want to go to Niger - he told the CIA he would only go if they thought it made sense, and the INR thought they could do without him in Niger. Of course, we'll never know for sure, but I find the Plame/Wilson conspiracy theory to be a stretch. csloat 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

all i'm pointing out is that this is interesting info, not cause for a conspiracy theory. here is an exchange between chris matthews and kate o'beirne on hardball:

MATTHEWS: OK. It was well established in court by two CIA officials and a State Department official that the reason for the trip to Africa by Joe Wilson was a query put by the vice president. That was the paramount reason for the trip.

O‘BEIRNE: One thing we learned in the jury trial—and you were paying close attention, I know—was his wife recommended...

MATTHEWS: That‘s true. That‘s also true.

O‘BEIRNE: His wife recommended him...

MATTHEWS: That‘s true.

O‘BEIRNE: ... before Dick Cheney had a question about the Niger intelligence, the day before Dick Cheney had that question.

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s a good point, then.

O‘BEIRNE: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: But the fact is that the trip was justified by the query from the VP, who had commanding presence...

O‘BEIRNE: That is not possible...

MATTHEWS: ... in this White House...

O‘BEIRNE: ... given that she recommended he go the day before Dick Cheney asked a CIA briefer was there any more intelligence.[4]

the court document says cheney was briefed on Niger on Feb. 13 and asked the CIA for an assessment on the matter. according to the SSCI, plame produced a memorandum on Feb 12 outlining joe wilson's qualifications. i find this interesting, that's all. does it change anything? i don't know, that's why i brought it up in the talk page.Anthonymendoza 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] overquoting

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

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

[edit] Secrecy of employment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like the article to clarify the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Not all CIA employees are covert. Valerie Plame was covert; prosecutor Fitzgerald made that abundantly clear. It is a crime for a federal employee to reveal the name of a covert agent if s/he knows that agent is covert. This is why you see people denying they knew of her covert status.

Since, for obvious reasons, the CIA isn't going to tell anyone what the consequences of her exposure were, the public will probably never know what this really cost us. DMorpheus 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fitzgerald made it abundantly clear she was classified, not covert (in the legal sense of the word). the article should continue to maintain that point. Ed Poor, you pretty much summed up the questions we all have with regards to this case.Anthonymendoza 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fitzgerald made it abundantly clear she was classified, yes. He never said she was not covert, and he implied that she was when he said "her cover was blown." A judge examining this said that she likely met the legal definition of covert. The distinction between "classified" and "covert" is one that appears to be made up by bloggers and pundits rather than something actually used by the CIA. Corn and Isikoff make it clear she was covert in the legal sense, and every former member of her CIA class who has spoken on the matter agrees. csloat 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We need to distinguish between:

• covert agent, i.e., spy - revealing their identity can get them and others killed
• confidential employee, i.e., an academic whose connection to CIA is unknown, but it's not a big deal if the public finds out (no one would be killed)

Now we might not know which status Plame had, but it's important to know which status people were saying she had. The whole ruckus started because certain parties alleged that the White House revealed her status

1. to punish her or her husband (put their lives at risk!)
2. to discredit her husband

I think I've seen info about discrediting her husband, like Cheney didn't send Wilson, it was his wife's idea.

We also need to clarify better in the background that the Wilson trip (suggested by Plame?) is related to one of several reasons Bush gave Congress for his proposed invasion of Iraq. It's complicated, I know, but perhaps the flames of contention have died down enough for us to describe it clearly and neutrally now. --Uncle Ed 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction you're making between types of covert agents is WP:OR. It's also incorrect, according to everything I've seen about this topic. csloat 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in conducting original research. Even if I had time for it, I wouldn't be able to put it into a Wikipedia article.

If there is no real distinction between a covert "agent" (spy, kidnapper, killer) and a covert "analyst" (sits in an office, sifting through reports) then our work is done here.

Unless there's a legal distinction. That's all I'm asking. Legions of Tom Clancy fans will come to this article wondering what the big deal is. If we can say that the law makes no distinction between "operatives", i.e., that an analyst who sits in an office has precisely the same legally protected confidential/secret status as an "agent" or "intelligence officer" who goes into the field, then that ought to satisfy them.

Surely there's an article somewhere at Wikipedia you can point me to? I'm not good at searching; I prefer links. --Uncle Ed 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than it sounds. There isn't a legal distinction between these categories, but there is a legal definition of "covert agent" in the IIPA that has some specific requirements. (Plame does appear to meet those requirements, but it is really a non-issue since nobody has been charged with violating the IIPA). But there isn't a legal definition of "classified agent" or "covert analyst" that I am aware of. There are a lot of pundits who make the distinction but it appears to be specious; it is certainly not borne out by any analysis from the CIA itself or from former agents and officials of whom I am aware.

I think the bottom line is, not all CIA work is Tom Clancy glamor stuff. That plame was a covert agent doesn't mean she was an assassin ... her life would potentially be in danger even if all she did was go to meetings in another country posing as a representative of an energy firm (which it appears that she did). We do know that Plame was a NOC -- she had non-official cover, which means that if she was "found out" and was in another country, she could not rely on the US Government to bail her out. Agents with "official cover" have a front at a USG agency and a diplomatic passport to get them out of trouble; Plame didn't have this, which means her job was actually more dangerous than an agent with official cover. In any case, it doesn't really matter how "dangerous" her job was for the purpose of this discussion, I think - there's no commensurate distinction between "covert" and "classified" based on levels of danger. csloat 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covert vs. non-Covert?

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

Lots of people walk into that building. How can a narcotics officer be undercover if he walks into the police station? This is silly. Valerie Plame testified under oath to Congress this morning that she was a covert operative. I think this debate is over. csloat 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plame's testimony

"I've served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. Today, I can tell this Committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."[5]

Hopefully that puts an end to the nonsense that Valerie Wilson was not covert.csloat 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied anyway. First-person testimony to the U.S. Congress tends to sway me. Gives me goosebumps all over!

The only questions remaining are:

1. Was she outed by "administration officials" (meaning anyone in the Executive Branch Armitage, who didn't know he was providing a leak)?
2. Was she being punished by "White House officials" (meaning Cheney, Rove, etc.) as payback for undermining Bush's "go to war" rationale?

I don't expect a neat answer for these latter questions. But what do you say, Commodore? --Uncle Ed 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes and yes, but you're right, the answer isn't "neat," and there will be plenty of disagreement. I've been involved in this page for long enough to know that the ensuing debate about those issues won't be very productive. :)

I'm currently watching Victoria Toensing at the Congressional hearing, by the way, and she still claims Valerie wasn't covert under the IIPA based on the (specious, IMHO) argument that the CIA did not take affirmative measures to protect her identity. So I guess even the "not covert" argument won't go away even though Plame testified under oath. Rep Waxman is grilling her now and he claims that Gen. Hayden (DCI) told him that Plame was in fact covert. From my perspective, if the CIA says she was covert, she was covert. It's like if my employer - a state university - says I am an "associate professor" then that's what I am. As for the IIPA, the CIA created a front company and cover identity for Plame. Perhaps they weren't diligent enough in protecting her identity, but they did take "affirmative measures" to protect it. I think Toensing is splitting hairs. csloat 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Waxman just quoted Hayden: "At the time, Ms. Plame's status was covert. {her CIA employment} was classified." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Toensing just said in response to questioning by Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) that she stands by her comments that "under the (IIPA) law, Plame was not covert." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a case of the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is one reason I'm not a registered Republican. I simply refuse to associate myself with people of such low intellectual integrity.

There are three possibilities:

1. Her employment status was classified, and they took SUFFICIENT measures to keep it secret - but some irresponsible dope or dirty rat outed her: i.e., she was "covert"
2. Her employment status was classified, and they took SOME measures to keep it secret, but they didn't really try "hard enough"
3. Her employment status was classified, but they hardly made any effort at all to keep the secret: i.e., she wasn't really "covert"

It's that middle category that politicians like to ignore, which I want to bring out. If I leave a bicycle leaning up against a pile of trash near the curb, and you take it, are you stealing? No, I obviously didn't want it any more. If I leave a bicycle chained to a fence (each wheel separately locked, mind you), and you cut those chains, are you stealing. Plainly, yes! But what if I lean my bike against a wall near a store, while I go in, and you take it? Or in a bike rack outside a school?

Sometimes the "defense" will grasp at straws and try to twist the facts. (The "prosecution" does this too. Is there no honesty in this world?) --Uncle Ed 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not sure category 2 is distinguishable from category 1 for any legal purposes. I suppose, were there an indictment under the IIPA, this distinction would be hashed out in court and a jury or judge would make a decision. It is clearly a subjective judgement -- what the CIA considers sufficient and what Victoria Toensing considers sufficient are two different things. For Toensing and others to claim that the answer is obvious seems to me to be intellectually dishonest. csloat 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the question I have: Am I mistaken, or was Plame asked under oath today, y/n at the time of your 'outing' were you covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and didn't she say "no"? If so, that part of this debate must be settled, right? Samdira 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a transcript? I missed her testimony and the Q-A unfortunately, but her testimony is available online. If she said that, it would seem to contradict what she said in her testimony, which seems unlikely. csloat 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched most of Plame's testimony. She indicated that the CIA considered her employment covert, but that she wasn't a lawyer and had no opinion as to whether she was technically covered under the criminal statute (and I think she also said that no one specifically told her that she was covered under the criminal statute). I would also like to add that she appeared to testify that she had worked undercover overseas within the last five years (from today's date). And, as I understand it, Toensing maintains that she has not (how she knows where plame has worked, I don't know). But I think that Toensing's assertion that Plame has not been overseas is a major part of her arguement that Plame wasn't undercover (as defined by criminal statute). R. Baley 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how I understand the situation (views of Toensing, Plame/CIA) as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point Plame and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: While being questioned by Rep. Davis (R) (on 03.16.07), Davis asked Plame "have you ever been told that you were covered by the IIPA?" He also asked her had she been told that after he covert cover was broken by being in the news. That point, he asked this way: "After your name came out and your covert status revealed, did anyone at CIA tell you 'you were covered by IIPA' so those who spoke of you did wrong?" Granted, these are not his exact quotes, but I am sure you can find the video at cspan.org and get the exact words.

My point is that Plame's response (which also included her concession that she had never been told she was covered) included an assertion by Plame that she had served overseas within the prior 5 years in a covert role. Regarding that particular point, revealed as it was during the questioning, I'd be interested to know: Is Plame authorized to declassify that fact? The simple fact (which Plame asserted in the 03.16.07 hearing), if we take her at face value, is that she did serve overseas covertly within 5 years of the "outing". Well that greatly interests me, for as I see it, Plame just "leaked" a classied salient fact regarding her activities while she was "covert". So why is it that Plame can unilaterally reveal classified facts? Is that what she did in the hearing? It seems so to me. Samdira 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That fact had already been "leaked" by several sources prior to Plame's testimony, including Isikoff and Corn's book. It's unlikely she would have "unilaterally revealed classified facts," especially when she made a point to say that much of the story was still classified. csloat 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken on that. Government secrets remain secrets until an official in the know confirms them. Regardless of whether or not the authors you cite have already written "yes, Plame was overseas with 5 years" as you contend (and by the way, unless Plame/Wilson had already leaked that fact to those authors, how did those authors know this?), unless and until the assertions of the authors are confirmed by an official who knows, then whatever they write is unconfirmed blather. If, at the time those authors wrote those assertions about the 5 year period, the authors had definite information which made clear the assertions were true, then someone leaked classified information to them back then. My guess is Plame/Wilson did. On the other hand, those authors may have been lying simply to bolster the contentions of their literary works. In either case, no matter what the authors wrote, the dissemination of that fact "Plame was overseas with 5 years" is not confirmed by the authors, but it is confirmed by Plame (unless she is lying - and certainly CIA agents do lie from time to time) during her testimony at the Waxman hearings. I see irony in this. A formerly secret fact is disseminated publicly and the contention is that this fact was already out there. This is exactly what some have said about the release of Plame's CIA status. It was a formerly secret fact and some contend it was already known. Why should Plame get to mention former government secrets to bolster her case, but White House does not? It seems silly to me. On the face of it, after reading some of the things I've read about Plame, I'd be inclined to count her as a liar. Indeed, there is much public reliable source commentary which says about the same thing [6] [7] and this one zeros right in on the conflict between Grenier and Plame's testimony: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said. That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip. Another illuminating one is by Washington Attorney Clarice Feldman "March 17, 2007 - The Waxman circus" Samdira 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument that Plame leaked classified information that she was not at liberty to leak, and lied to congress, is absurd on its face, no matter how many conservative bloggers you can cite to support it. I really don't see the point of debating it; you're certainly entitled to believe as you wish.csloat 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Absurd on it's face? Why is it absurd to suggest that perhaps Plame is a liar? According to The Associated Press, published, March 16, 2007, Plame's testimony at the 03.16.07 Waxman hearing, "conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip".[8] As I see it, there are only 3 possibilities -

• Both Grenier and Plame are telling the truth, but their memories differ. However, this 'differing memories defense' didn't work for Libby, so that's not valid.
• Grenier is lying. But, he doesn't have any motive to lie, so that's discounted.
• Plame is lying. Ah, but she does have motive to lie. She's got a big book deal to protect and she's got a lawsuit to pursue.

And, among other things, it's important that she keep the attention off herself in the WMD scandal. After all it was Plame's responsibility to provide CIA HQ with accurate WMD information, but as we famously found out, her boss at CIA, George Tenent was dead wrong when he said it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq had WMD.

I could go on, but I'd rather not argue. Let's give it a rest. Instead, please consider the textual change which I want to make to the opening sentence. I have explained it below and would like agreement about that particular point before I make the modification, as I'd rather only make changes that have consensus support. Samdira 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The "differing memories" argument didn't work for Libby (1) because he was lying and (2) because he was tried for the crime of perjury -- that is not the situation here, as is obvious. Grenier, however, has acknowledged his confusion (read the trial transcript, or read this earlier report), and Plame spelled out the issue when questioned by Cummings. A lower level staffer wrote a memo that was misinterpreted. This confusion was also uncovered by Isikoff and Corn. It's a little odd, by the way, that you claim not to believe Plame when she says she was doing WMD work overseas, yet you cite that very work as her motive for lying. Very odd indeed. csloat 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what I am saying is that whatever her job history was, at the point of her name revelation, it did not meet the precise requirements of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This is evidenced by the fact that no official has said that it did. Samdira 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the discussion was about above; the discussion above was about your claim that Plame lied to Congress and leaked classified information. The debate about the technicalities of the IIPA is a separate one. csloat 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's more from 'thinkprogress' on the recent 'Plame lied' talking point [9]. Basically, in her testimony Plame indicated a memo exists - a memo upon whose alleged testimony the Commission wrote its report - that contradicts the conclusions the Commission came to. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who recommended Wilson for the trip to Africa?

I'd like a section or subsection on the source of the suggestion to send Ambassader Wilson to Africa.

• Some say it was Plame (Wilson's wife)
  • Plame denied this, right?
• Others say it was Cheney.
  • Did Cheney deny this?

It matters (if not historically, than politically) because there's a political and/or legal dispute over how her CIA identity became public knowledge. One theory is that Armitage innocently told Novak, not knowing that (1) she had covert status or (2) that Novak might blow her cover. This raises a question in my mind, which is whether it's only illegal to tell a reporter, but not illegal for the reporter to tell the public?

There's also the theory that SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT Cheney sent Wilson, and the White House wanted to let reporters know the suggestion to send Wilson didn't come from Cheney. (But I'm not sure why it's important whether Cheney sent him.)

The whole thing is confusing, and needs a thorough rewrite. There are different aspects, which are getting messed up.

The easiest aspect to understand is the gotcha factor. Administration opponents wanted to claim that the administration deliberately outed Plame - ostensibly to get revenge on Wilson. (For being a dodo? Or just for discrediting Bush?) Anyway, they seemed to hope they could pin a law violation on someone close to Bush, either for revenge (the pleasure of kicking an enemy in the balls) or to discredit Bush ("see, a White House official broke the law, they're all like that, vote Democrat for integrity!").

Now, an encyclopedia article can't be expected to discover anyone's true motivations so close in time to the events. We'll have to wait decades for people to write their memoirs (posthumously, perhaps). But any pertinent facts (or sworn testimony, or official statements) would definitely be of interest to our readers. --Uncle Ed 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the most widely-understood rationale for the leak of Plame's identity was to discredit Wilson and to delegitimize the trip Wilson took by claiming his wife sent him. What we have learned is that Cheney directed the CIA to determine whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, and CIA sent Wilson. Wilson's report was a direct rebuttal of what was stated in the SOTU and Wilson had to be discredited as a partisan. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I've been reading. What I've read about this is Wilson's false claims that Cheney sent him were what Cheney and his squad were interested to focus on. As I understand it - as the Senate Committee also agreed, Wilson's core claims about the yellowcake (and other op-ed assertions) were false and were harming WH public support. And indeed, to discredit Wilson was an aim of WH - and provided the discrediting was based on truth, the WH expected it would work. As I understand it, Cheney's goal of proving that he did not send Wilson, was to be accomplished by showing who did - Plame @ CIA. I suppose they thought that by showing Wilson to be a liar on that point, it would be easier to discredit his phoney op-ed. Perhaps in a sedate world where the MSM isn't trying to boost their sinking circulation numbers by ginning up controversies, that might be true. But this was a real newsmaker for the media and people who don't take that into account when they measure the direction and emphasis the media went with this story, are missing an important point. Samdira 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilson never claimed he was sent to Niger at Cheney's request, and it was the CIA's Directorate of Operations, Counterproliferation Division (CPD), that authorized the trip, not Plame. That's a fully discredited GOP talking point, a falsehood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wilson claimed Cheney's office sent him on a fact-finding mission that questioned intelligence President Bush later relied on to go to war." [10]

"Martin said Cheney's talking points disputed Wilson's allegation that Cheney had authorized the trip to Niger." [11]

"Today, before talking to Russert, Imus again uttered the Wilson Cheney sent me lie. Imus was corrected by one of his underlings, who read Wilson's actual statement about being sent because the CIA was responding to a query from the VP's office." [12]

"Former CIA Iraq Mission Manager Robert L. Grenier appeared as a government witness in the trial of Libby on charges of obstruction and lying. He testified he told Libby that the idea of sending ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger was the brainchild of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, who worked in the CIA office that sent him in 2002" [13]

"new documents suggest that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip before the vice president made his request." [14]

Samdira 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting a number of editorials and blogs, while my source (mediamatters) actually lists Wilson's words (which is the point here, not misattribution and misquoting). What is 'sweetness-light', anyway? Here's the link to the AP article that blog post references [15] and one detailing the 'evolving' testimony of Grenier [16]. Cheney requested CIA investigate. Plame neither recommended nor suggested Wilson, CIA sent Wilson. Your quotes don't bring any of those facts into question, so far as I can see - they do, however, attempt to confuse 'who ordered the investigation', 'who recommended Wilson' and 'who sent Wilson'... three different questions. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The one by Byron York at National Review 02.07.07, (my 5th link - see above), directly quotes documents which indicate a timeline that disproves the contention that Wilson was selected after Cheney requested information. Rather, as Byron indicates, it seems that CIA/Plame were already getting ready to send Wilson before Cheney asked for information. Personally, I feel that is very potent. If true, it indiates that Plame/Wilson/CIA were indeed in cahoots to discredit Bush policy - in that they already had a trip in mind for Wilson before Cheney asked for anything... "new documents suggest that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip before the vice president made his request." [17] Samdira 06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Plame herself testified today that she neither recommended nor suggested him for the trip.

"11:15 a.m. Democratic Rep. Lynch: We've made 5 or 6 requests over the past four years, this hearing is a long time coming. This goes back to your husband's trip to Niger. The people on the chart attempted to destroy his credibility. Were you involved in sending your husband on the trip? Did you make that decision?

"VPW: I did not recommend or suggest him. I did not have that authority. In February 02 a young junior officer came to me very upset after just getting a call from the Vice President's office. As she was talking to me, another officer walked by. He suggested sending Joe. I was not overjoyed at the idea. We had twin two-year-olds. We went to my supervisor who asked me to ask Joe that night (to come in for a meeting) and he asked me to Email the chief of the counter proliferation division. A portion of that Email out of context is in the Senate Intell Cmtee report.

"Lynch: That report says you made the decision.

"VPW: Not true. And those views were written exclusively by three Republican senators."

Your view that this was a consipiracy, while 'very potent' to you, doesn't strike me as nearly as plausible, it seems like intentional misdirection based in blatant untruth and out-of-context misquoting, yet another in a long series of attempts to avoid accountability for destroying Plame's covert career. Thankfully, WP isn't a platform for such political agitprop, it's an encylopedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it proper under WP:NPOV to credit Plame's testimony as being accurate, while entertaining suggestions that Robert L. Grenier's is not. Until either of them is convicted of perjury (or at least charged), it's pure speculation on our end as to which one is telling the truth. And, while you might have links to suggest that we shouldn't believe Grenier, the fact remains that he did testify under oath in the Libby trial that Plame recommended Wilson. I would say that makes this point an insoluable factual dispute, one on which, if we take sides, we are being biased. And it's not my view that this is a conspiracy. Rather, all I pointed out was, if the timeline is as Byron York thinks it may be, that is potent evidence that Plame/Wilson/CIA had plans ahead of Cheney's request. If they did, they certainly were jointly planning something. Whether that included torpedoing Bush, who can say? Samdira 07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Grenier testimony even rises to the level of notability for the article, it's not POV to state that Grenier's testimony was questioned due to his varying recollections and that it (and the misstatements in the 'Bipartisan Commission' report) was directly contradicted by Plame herself in sworn testimony. Like so much of the other disinformation presented by allies of the administration, it's 'pure speculation' whether that editorialist's claims prove Plame lied on the stand. Without concrete, verifiable proof it's just more wingnuttery, grasping at straws, talking points and lies.

Your entire premise is based on two words - 'if true' - and you would claim it a claim made by an editorialist as valid as the testimony given by Plame. It's not. That claim is not NPOV, it's extreme political POV. Plame's identity was leaked by the administration to discredit her husband... that's the mainstream interpretation, that's what testimony and the evidence supports (including the words of Cheney and Libby) and that's encyclopedic NPOV fact. Unfounded conspiracy theories (designed to distract from the truth of the matter) have no place here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to be accurate, if you go and say that "Grenier's testimony was questioned", you'd have to say by whom, how so, when and in what context. If you mean that he was cross-examined, well that doesn't tell us anything. Any witness in a trial may be cross-examined and it's no slur on the veracity of his/her testimony if they are. Now regarding what any pundits, etc. might say about Grenier and his testimony, if we are to be reasonable, we have to allow that the lack of a perjury charge against Grenier by Fitzpatrick, is a defacto concession that Grenier testified accurately - so who cares what any pundits might say? As it stands, Grenier testified in a court of law and his testimony was accepted by the court without sanction or penalty. As I see it, testimony under oath is the the most truthful of all statements and unless we have official allegations of false testimony, it's not for us to say 'Plame testified truthfully - so we accept hers...' but 'Grenier's is questioned by some, so we don't accept his...'. With that line of reasoning, we'd end up in an arms-race of competing pundits/news comments, each trying to pile on more sources that the other to "prove" that one is true and the other false. This is not my aim and I hope it's not anyone else's either. All I did was point out that (2) distinct facts sets (#1 - Grenier's testimony) and (#2 - differing dates on the documents pointed out by Byron York) can, if looked at in aggregate, cause a reasonable person to think that Plame was somehow involved in the selection of Wilson for the trip, notwithstanding her testimony to the contrary. But as to whether or not we are going to try to work York's observations into this article, it's no big deal to me. And frankly, some of the words you have directed at me ("wingnuttery, grasping at straws, talking points and lies") make me think that I should not expect cordial interaction from you. If that's true, I think it best if we stop talking for now. Samdira 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As it appears you are taking my comments about the claims of various sources personally, I agree we should leave it at this for now. Honestly, have a good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

The article's opening paragraph:

The Plame affair concerns allegations that Bush Administration officials illegally revealed classified employment information about Valerie E. Wilson (born Valerie Elise Plame; also known as "Valerie Plame") indicating that she may have been a covert operative of the United States CIA investigating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

should probably be re-written as of today. I watched quite a bit of the Waxman hearings on CSPAN and it seems to me that the public facts as known today do not include anything to substantiate that the Bush White knew Plame was "a covert operative" or that WH knew her employment status was "classified" when her connection to Joe Wilson was communicated to various reporters. Did I misunderstand what I heard on TV about that? Did anyone else watch the hearings? Samdira 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the trial, and not the hearings, that substantiate what Cheney knew. It's not as clear what Bush knew, IMHO. csloat 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An addition - we did learn today from Knodell (the WH Director of Security) that despite administration promises [18] [19] that President Bush wanted to 'get to the bottom' of the question of who leaked Valerie Plame's role within the CIA WMD counter-proliferation division to the press, no such investigation ever took place.

Another addition - according to Murray Waas in the National Journal we do know some of what President Bush knew and communicated to Fitzgerald. He told the prosecutor that he ordered Cheney to 'disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson', but said also 'that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so. ' [20]

In addition, we know that during his trial Libby claimed that Bush had authorized the release of the information in the NIE [21]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am coming late to the dialog on this page, but what I am pointing out is that it now seems clear that there is no longer any official allegation - not by Fitzpatrick and not by Waxman, etc., that the WH people who in fact did the talking to reporters possessed actual knowledge that Plame's status was "covert / classified". Am I wrong in this? Is anyone making that allegation officially? And if not, it seems we are making a partisan WP:OR violation if we infer it. It seems to me that the established facts support the following:

Wilson went overseas

Wilson came back and wrote an op-ed

This op-ed did not sit well with some at White House (WH)

Cheney may or may not have been particularly bothered by the Wilson op-ed.

Various WH people told various reporters about the Plame/Wilson connection

Repubs say that was to highlight the nature of Wilson's selection/trip/op-ed/etc.

Dems say that was to be vindictive to punish Wilson by hurting Plame

The 1st to discuss Plame with reporter was Richard Armitage

Armitage did not know Plame was "covert / classified"

If these points are true, I do not think it's reasonable for us as editors to conclude or infer that perhaps Cheney knew Plame was "covert / classified". Armitage certainly would have been able to find that out also. If we are to give Armitage the benefit of the doubt, we have to also give Cheney the benefit of the doubt. We can't simply leap to the conclusion that Cheney is partisan, but no others are. In fact, subsequent events with Wilson - in that he got on board in an official role with Kerry 2004 [22] Pres campaign could reasonably be interpreted to mean that Wilson had a pre-existing bias.

This, if true, would tend to support the view that the discredited ("A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of [Wilson's NYT Op Ed] claims were false."[23]) op-ed by Wilson was a hatchet job by Wilson intended to raise his standing with Democrats by hurting Bush.

Another point could be this: Who among us can say that Wilson himself doesn't work for the CIA? Personally, I think this is very plausible. And if true, would explain a lot. After all, there were many others at CIA/State Dept. more qualified that Wilson to go overseas and "drink sweet tea" (er, "investigate") than Wilson. There are so many appearant deviations from sound CIA practice with the Wilson trip (risk of nepotism allegations, could risk wife's covert status, no confidentiality agreement, blabbing in NYT instead of confidential report, etc), that Wilson being picked to go seems odd...

And, an interesting point I heard on CSPAN was that the CIA failed in it's affirmative duties regarding Plame. Toensing testified that CIA should have warned those WH officials who inquired about Plame that she was "covert / classified". This seems reasonable to me. If indeed Plame's cover was important enough to complain about when broken, it's certainly enough to protect in advance.

Another point I was thinking about is this: If Plame was a WMD specialist, isn't she partially to Plame for the erroneous WMD assurances that CIA/Tenent gave about Iraqi WMD (ie: "slam dunk" [24])? After all, the MSM gambit and Dem's contention is that Bush was wrong and lied about WMD. Well, what about Tenent and CIA and the "slam dunk"? The CIA was cock-sure that Iraq was a WMD problem. Who got CIA to be so sure? Plame?

Also, after seeing how many witnesses at the Libby trial also had very bad memories, I do not think it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Libby defense of "bad memory" was implausible. And, I am guessing (among other points) that the Judge's refusal to allow a Russert recall for impeachment about Russert's knowledge of Grand Jury procedures will get Libby a re-trial.

And what about Plame today? She testified under oath that she did not recommed, put forth, etc. Wilson for the trip, but the Senate Committee already concluded she did. And more so, some at Libby trial testified that she was responsible. These are mutually incompatible views. Will Plame get charged with perjury? ...

I think we need to be careful about writing articles regarding highly politicized disputes because we can easily slip into WP:NPOV risk areas. My view is that the White House engaged in ham-handed "push-back" against Wilson and his op-ed but it blew up in their face because Plame's true status was unknown to them. However it was unknown to them because CIA failed in it's affirmative duty to protect Plame's status.

Lastly, what about Fitzpatrick? At no time have I ever heard him say what statute he claimed to be investigating a violation of when he was questioning Libby. After all, a responsible investigator would have already determined whether or not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act applied to Plame (it did not). And since Fitz already knew that, in his pre-interview research, shouldn't he already have an idea what law he was looking for a violation of? If not, how would he recognize the violation when if he found it? Personally, I feel that Fitzpatrick's investigation was a fishing trip in the purest sense. At least when Martha Stewart got investigated, the statutes regarding "insider trading" were suspected of being violated. Can anyone point me to what statutes Fitzpatrick was supposedly looking for violations of? I can't find that anywhere. Samdira 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an essay. I don't believe the section you quoted makes any claims as to what various administration officials 'knew' as you put it. It restates the notable facts and allegations that the Plame affair comprises. However, to answer that issue directly... if the administration was investigating whether Plame sent Wilson on a CIA junket in order to use that information to discredit Wilson, and bearing in mind the fact that her CIA WMD role is known to the adminstration, do you think it's plausible or adequate to reason to say that they simply 'didn't know' she was covert? Wouldn't following formal declassification processes be a crucial step of due diligence in order to answer the question of whether naming her as a 'CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction' to a reporter would be a violation of national security, and endanger Plame's network of contacts? Or, if you take the cynical view, would it instead be politically adroit to simply avoid the question and leak the information without proper declassification, in order to simply claim future ignorance of her status? I don't consider it adequate or informative to simply restate that "we don't know what 'xx' knew" in light of the facts we actually do know:

1. Plame was covert (as she testified, and as supported by the current head of CIA Hayden)
2. The administration had a responsibility to protect that covert status and not to endanger national security by identifying her (the most fundamental requirement for anyone with a security clearance)
3. The administration instead publicized that information for political purposes (in order to discredit Wilson with insinuations of nepotism)
4. Libby obstructed justice, committed perjury and made false statements regarding the disclosure of Plame's identity, preventing additional investigation (vis-a-vis Fitzgerald's 'sand in the umpire's face' comment)
5. The Bush administration did not conduct an investigation into the leak of Plame's identity despite public assurances and despite the requirements of Executive Order 12958 as signed in March 2003. (The order requires the White House to "'take appropriate and prompt corrective action' whenever there is a release of classified information," according to a statement by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), before whose committee WH Security Director Knodell testified today). ( -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple other things -- Plame did not perjure herself. Her claim that she did not send Wilson was likely quite accurate. While it may be inconsistent with a comment in the SSCI report, it is incorrect to call that a conclusion, and the Corn/Isikoff book has shown that the comment was incorrect and has been retracted by the person who made it. Second, the claim that Wilson was not the most qualified person to go there is at odds with what both Libby and Cheney thought, according to the trial transcript. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who you think was more qualified than a US ambassador with extensive experience in Africa? I can't think of anyone, and I find the claim that Wilson is working for the CIA to be a bit absurd; are you suggesting that the CIA has a program in place to attack Republicans? Unlikely, at best. csloat 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, two more things. The CIA did take affirmative measures to protect Plame's identity, regardless of Toensing's testimony. The CIA provided her a fake job at a front company. Perhaps that isn't enough for Toensing, but that has no significance in the real world. Second, at the time Armitage made the leak, he was acting as a "partisan gunslinger" for the Iraq war, regardless of what Novak said about him. He privately disagreed with the war but was publicly supporting it at that time - so it's incorrect to portray him as a disinterested third party. Overall, though, the whole lot of it is speculation that isn't really much relevant to the article at hand. csloat 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In the opening sentence which I refer to, I would like to replace the words "indicating that she may have been" with "which impacted her status as". I feel this would make clear that no one is claiming that people at WH knew her status. But rather, it will now say her status was impacted as a result. As to what degree and how severly, know one will ever be able to say, so let's not speculate. Also, I would still like to know, can anyone point me to which statutes Fitzpatrick was supposedly looking for violations of? I've never seen that reported anywhere. Samdira 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Knodell's testimony

We should probably add to the article the revelation today that after the Plame leak, despite Bush's statement that he would start an investigation and "heads will roll", no investigation was even attempted or discussed by the Administration. According to Knodell, nobody even mentioned to him the possibility of doing an investigation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-17 06:13Z

I've looked, and looked, and looked, and i can't find a single quote where bush states the white house would conduct an internal investigation on the issue. the article above cited by User:RyanFreisling [25] states that "Senior intelligence officials said yesterday that the CIA filed what they termed a "crime report" with the Justice Department in late July, shortly after syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, citing two unnamed administration sources, identified Wilson's wife by name." so the notion that for three months the white house did nothing even though they promised an investigation is absurd. the justice department had jurisdiction here, and launched a preliminary probe in September after receiving a crimes report in July. Why would the white house launch a separate investigation if the justice department was already looking into the matter? isn't a justice department investigation tantamount to an internal investigation anyway? am i missing something here? please clarify or find quotes where bush states an internal investigation would be conducted.Anthonymendoza 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the congressmen were misleading as well, since I can't find any such quotes either. However, I can't really find any quotes from Bush during that time period, except for him saying that anyone who is found to commit a crime will be fired (duh). Can you find some/all of Bush's quotes during the time period? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-18 16:48Z

Here's an excerpt of a number of the relevant comments from Bush and McClellan on the issue of the disclosure of Plame's identity to reporters. If it violates people's sensibilities to have this much excerpted, feel free to annihilate it and leave the link. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Source: Bush Aide Deflects Questions On Rove

Authors: Mike Allen and Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

"No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States," McClellan said, echoing his two-year-old position on the case. "And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation."

Asked about the matter on nine occasions over the years, Bush has said he welcomed the investigation, called the name disclosure "a very serious matter," and declared that the sooner investigators "find out the truth, the better, as far as I'm concerned."

"I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said that any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum."

At one point, McClellan vowed: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

McClellan demurred yesterday when asked several times whether Bush will stand by his pledge to fire anyone who leaked classified information. "This question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation," he said. "Our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium." [26]

exactly. this shows that the white house let the justice department take the lead in the matter. no where does it say the white house promised an internal investigation. Anthonymendoza 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's important to remember why this is important/controversial/encyclopedic. Regardless of the administration's public comments initially denying any involvement by Rove and others, and the professed desire of the President to 'get to the bottom' of this, and the fact that they did not literally 'promise an investigation' as anthony mentioned, the onus does not end with public 'professions'. The White House had a responsibility, under Executive Order 12958, to investigate the potential leak of classified information and did not do so.

REP. WAXMAN: And in {safeguarding classified information}, you have an executive order, 12958, that implements the regulations for protection of this information. I want to ask you about that and, of course, we're looking at it in the context of Mrs. Wilson's identity being disclosed. Federal regulations require that any person who has knowledge of the loss or compromise of classified information has an obligation to report to the White House security officer. I'm going to read from 5 CFR Section 1312.30, "Any White House employee who has knowledge of the loss or possible compromise of classified information should report the circumstances to the EOP security officer," end quote. Is that accurate, Mr. Knodell?

MR. KNODELL: Yes, it is.

REP. WAXMAN: And do White House officials who know about the disclosure of classified information have an obligation to report what they know to you?

MR. KNODELL: Yes, sir.

REP. CUMMINGS: Let me ask you a few questions, because you -- in answering some of the chairman's questions, you left me shocked. And I want to sure I heard you right. Are you saying, with regard to this case, that is, the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, there is no report?

MR. KNODELL: Not in my office. There is none.

REP. CUMMINGS: And, are you also saying that there was no investigation?

MR. KNODELL: Not by my office.

REP. CUMMINGS: Not by your office. And so you -- I could conclude then that there were no sanctions. Is that correct?

MR. KNODELL: There were --

REP. CUMMINGS: No sanctions within your office. I mean -- is it one of your jobs -- is part of your job to recommend sanctions where you find that there has been a breach?

MR. KNODELL: Correct. But there was already an outside investigation that was taking place, a criminal investigation.

REP. CUMMINGS: So you --

MR. KNODELL: So that's why we took no action.

REP. CUMMINGS: Reclaiming my time, if Mr. Rove, for example, the number one advisor to the president of the United States, received this information, or had anything to do with the disclosing of a covert agent's identity, and let's -- now we have a situation where it appears that the criminal trial is over, do -- would your agency have anything -- I mean, your office have anything to do now, or do you just close the books and say it's over?

MR. KNODELL: I've got no indication from the Department of Justice or any other agency --

REP. CUMMINGS: Would he -- would Mr. Rove have had a duty to report any kind of breach?

MR. KNODELL: Yes.

REP. CUMMINGS: Even today?

MR. KNODELL: At the time of the occurrence.

REP. CUMMINGS: I'm sorry?

MR. KNODELL: At the time of the occurrence, when the violation took place.

REP. CUMMINGS: All right. Thank you.

REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.

Before I recognize the next witness, I just want to clarify this point. The investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald didn't take place for months and months and months after it was well-known that there had been a leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent. Now, as I understand it, there's an obligation for the White House to conduct an immediate investigation to find out whether they needed to suspend security clearances of somebody who had leaked this information, to maybe take disciplinary action against an individual who might have been involved, and thirdly, to find out who divulged it.

And the White House had that obligation, because this was a matter of important, highest-order national security. Am I stating things correctly, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: Mr. Chairman, as you point out, whenever there is suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise, there is an affirmative responsibility to do an inquiry. At the very least to determine -- to implement corrective action. So that -- subsequent and additional and similar violations do not continue to occur, and also to be able to ensure that any potential damage to national security is assessed.

REP. WATSON: Okay. Has there been any investigation by your office into how Mr. Rove would have obtained the information? Apparently, your answer is no.

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

REP. WATSON: It seems to me that there is some dereliction of duty. If you are the Director, and you are to oversee the security from the White House, and you're telling me there was no investigation.

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: So an investigation should be done, right?

MR. KNODELL: Correct.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: But an investigation was not done.

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

This issue is important because the White House took no action - the fact that they did not necessarily promise their own investigation does not make this issue a 'non-issue'. Indeed, as Waxman described it, the White House's disregard of their responsibilities under the Order appears to be 'a breach within a breach'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I've linked to Executive Order 12958 in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-19 15:57Z

ok, i finally found something with regards to this issue. here is a segment of a CNN article dated september 29, 2003:

"The White House will cooperate with the Justice Department in its initial inquiry into who leaked the classified identity of a CIA operative, but will not launch an internal probe and will not ask for an independent investigation, a spokesman said Monday.

The CIA operative in question, Valerie Plame, is the wife of a former U.S. ambassador who had been critical of the Bush administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.

The president believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent by the appropriate agency and the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters.

He said the White House would cooperate with any probe, but said the Justice Department has not made any requests for information."[27]

so this issue was addressed. remember, Knodell didn't start his position until august 2004 and said he knew of the plame affair through press accounts only. if he had been on the job when the leak occurred, he would have been aware the white house decided early to let the justice department take the lead on the issue. i'm adding this cnn article, although i think the entire section on Knodell's testimony should be removed since it appears to be more democratic grandstanding than encyclopedic information.Anthonymendoza 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If Knodell only knew about the Plame affair through press accounts only, how is it that he could make a positive statement on why no internal investigation occurred? He said he had no knowledge of an internal investigation, but then also gave a reason why no investigation occurred, so he must have had knowledge that there was to be no internal investigation (in order to make an affirmative statement about why they didn't launch an internal investigation). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-19 20:00Z

he was asked why no internal investigation was conducted on his watch, and he responded by saying there was an ongoing criminal investigation when he took the post.Anthonymendoza 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say 'was addressed' does not remove any of the controversy, but the quote you posted is indeed helpful to indicate the White House viewpoint that it would not launch a probe - 3 months after the leak, at the outset of the DOJ investigation. As such, your quote corroborates the complaint Waxman and others have made about the lack of a White House investigation in the months directly following the leak. Last, as far as your 'democratic grandstanding' comment, needless to say I disagree. Relevant testimony is relevant testimony. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

but this wasn't a controversy until only a few days ago. do you remember any outrage in 2003 when the white house said no internal probe would be launched? and it's grandstanding because the democrats on the panel expressed there "shock" when Knodell said no internal probe was launched. that was announced, as it turns out, almost four years ago. why the shock? and waxman said at the hearing that he wished he had video of bush calling for a complete probe, but that probably the Daily Show would play it. if that's not grandstanding i don't know what is. since there was no "shock" in 2003 at the announcement of no internal probe, i find the "shock" of the democrats now to be insincere.Anthonymendoza 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there was definitely some grandstanding involved, but that section of the article is about the Congressional investigation, and Knodell's was one of the key testimonies. Whether or not people were shocked in 2003 shouldn't affect whether or not they should be now, since it's clear from the executive order that the White House should've done something, anything, but did nothing. Why? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-19 19:51Z

because they gave the justice department the lead in the matter, which is clearly articulated in the CNN article. the article is written in september, but it doesn't mean the white house decided against an internal probe in september. maybe they made the decision after the cia provided the justice department with a crimes report in july. the point is that the white house has addressed this, and the section should reflect that in a NPOV manner.Anthonymendoza 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the WH 'addresses' an issue is irrelevant - it would be POV to reduce the issue to what the White House says or does related to this issue. The NPOV issue is whether they complied with the requirement to investigate the leak. For example, the reason this is still a controversy is, in part, because we now know that senior WH officials did indeed disclose Plame's identity (despite the fact that the original White House 'address' on the issue of the Plame leak was that the idea of those WH officials being involved was 'ridiculous'). Clearly, a more objective standard than White House addresses applies And on this specific issue of the adequacy of the White House Security response, the transcript clearly states that the time frame is indeed relevant to the issue: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

REP. WAXMAN: And if there was an investigation, what were you referring to? Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation?

MR. KNODELL: Yes. The outside investigation.

REP. WAXMAN: Okay. That didn't take -- that didn't start until months and months later. And that had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated. But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn't there?

MR. KNODELL: If that was the case, yes.

but there was an investigation into "whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately", but it was led by the justice department. it's important to note once again that knodell started in august 2004 and had no knowledge of what occurred in his office or in the white house after the leak. but i'm happy with the current version.Anthonymendoza 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's make an agreement to stick to the facts. A political 'grandstanding' claim is obviously your own opinion, and so it's not really helpful to determining what's encyclopedic for WP. I would hope that whatever the source (Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc.) of information, we would consider the facts and respond clinically and dispassionately. We're not making political cases here against or for any particular party - we're collecting the relevant, notable issues of the controversy and attempting to educate without bias or intentional omission. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covert, again

Well, we've seen that even the sworn testimony of Valerie Plame and the claim of CIA director General Hayden will not convince those who think Victoria Toensing is a greater authority on CIA matters than the CIA, but the following videos are enlightening: this video of part of Plame's testimony focuses on Rep. Cummings' questions to Plame, which have been taken out of context by others. Here she clearly explains why she was "covert." And, for a smile I highly recomment Larry Johnson's appearance on Countdown. My favorite comment -- "It's time for some drug testing to see what kind of hallucinogens Victoria Toensing has been taking." csloat 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. As established by Hayden's comments into the record at the Waxman hearing, the term "covert" does indeed encompass whatever status Plame actually had when her named was 1st mentioned by Armitage, et al. However, let's not confuse that with the more narrow constructions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I listened to Victoria Toensing's testimony closely and I do not think that we ought to be posting mocking comments about her ("hallucinogens"). Personally, I think that Toensing made some very good points. One of them was her contention that the burden of "affirmative steps" to protect Plame's identity should have prudently included CIA telling White House - 'Whoa Nelly, back off, confidential status' when WH inquired. Certainly at the very least, a high clearance CIA staffer should have called a high clearance White House staffer and made it plain that mentioning Plame was off limits. That they didn't, speaks volumes. As I see it, Plame's cover in 2003 was very thin, virtually non-existant. She defiantely was not covered by IIPA at the point of name revelation. The point at hand is that we need to avoid taking sides and to do that, we need to parse the facts with precision. Plame was (slighty) covert. She was not covered by IIPA. I think this assessment is well borne out by the current public facts. Samdira 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Toensing's opinion is her own regarding what the CIA should have done, but it is notable that she is not someone with experience or expertise in the field of intelligence (other than as a lawyer). The CIA did take "affirmative steps" to protect Plame's identity including the establishment of a front company and identity which Plame used. Could the CIA have done more? Perhaps, but that really isn't what the statute is about (and Toensing should be aware of this). Did Grenier make a mistake when he told Libby about Plame (assuming that is what happened)? Probably (though he has stated that he assumed a high level Bush staffer like Libby would have clearance for classified info and would know better than to reveal it to reporters). Did the CIA tell Novak "whoa nelly back off" as you say? We know for a fact that they did. As you see it, Plame's cover was "thin," that is fine; what is your background in intelligence and covert action? It doesn't really matter what you or I think; what matters is that as far as the CIA was concerned, Plame was covert. Your claim that "she definitely was not covered by the IIPA" is an interesting opinion, but that's all it is. I would posit that all the facts seem to point in the other direction, but my opinion really isn't worth any more than yours, except to me. So if you really want to avoid taking sides and "parse the facts with precision," then you should be saying "Plame was covert. She may have been protected under the IIPA." "Slightly" covert is like " slightly pregnant," as far as the issues here are concerned. And until the IIPA is actually enforced in some official manner in the Plame affair, we have no way of determining for a "fact" whether Plame was covered or not. All we have is a lawyer's opinion -- a lawyer with a well known stake in the matter, at that. csloat 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

look, if all laws were interpreted the same way, we wouldn't have lawyers. Whether plame was covered under the IIPA just because the CIA and Plame herself say she was covert doesn't settle the issue by a long shot. both lawyers who testified before waxman's committee made that clear, so it's not just solely Toensing's opinion. (on a side note, i would also argue that Larry Johnson also has a "well known stake in the matter." let's not forget he lit up the blogosphere when he said his sources told him fitzgerald would indict 22 people[28]). but in the end, this case wasn't about the leak or the IIPA. let's not forget that libby was acquitted of his conversations with cooper and his conversations with miller weren't even part of the indictment. in the end, libby was convicted of lying about how he learned about plame, not who he leaked it too. and with fitzgerald not talking, everything else about this case will forever be left to interpretation. only one person has ever been charged under the IIPA, so the notion that the law has an "exacting" standard is valid, as are questions as to whether plame fit the IIPA definition.Anthonymendoza 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

also, the only successful prosecution under the IIPA involved agents stationed overseas.[29] there is no legal precedence to say that, because plame occasionally traveled overseas to monitor operations while she was stationed in DC, she thus fits the IIPA definition. it's actually quite the opposite. and if anyone had been prosecuted in this case under the IIPA, i'm sure Libby or Rove would have had no problem finding a lawyer who would have argued this point. to what avail, we'll never know. also, while it's true a judge interpreted fitzgerald's affadavit to mean that Plame was covert under the IIPA, it's important to note that fitzgerald was arguing that "[Judith Miller's] testimony is essential to determining whether Libby is guilty of crimes, including perjury, false statements, and the improper disclosure of national defense information." Fitzgerald won the argument, compelled Miller to testify, and still didn't charge anyone with a violation of the IIPA. which means that even if Fitzgerald believed Plame was covert under the IIPA, in the end that statute still didn't apply to this case. Fitzgerald's argument was ambiguous, though, as reflected in the judge's opinion when he stated "Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support."[30][31]Anthonymendoza 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) The quote on the Larry Johnson page you link to says "There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment," not that there will be 22 indictments. And Johnson's credibility really isn't the issue here. (2) The IIPA does not require that an agent be "stationed" overseas; it says only that the agent be "serving" outside the US or "has within the last five years served outside the United States," which we know for a fact Plame was. (3) You are right that the interpretation of the law is at issue here, and that without a conviction under it, we cannot say for certain either way, which is why I said the most correct statement was that she may have been protected by the IIPA. I specifically wrote, "And until the IIPA is actually enforced in some official manner in the Plame affair, we have no way of determining for a "fact" whether Plame was covered or not." My perception is that the evidence overwhelmingly leans in favor of her being covered, since there are simply no credible arguments being made by the other side (the "stationed" point being easily dispensed with), but I acknowledge that is my perception and that I won't be able to convince those who choose to believe otherwise. (4) Speculation about why Fitzgerald chose not to prosecute under IIPA is simply speculation. To say that it was because the IIPA was not violated is not credible; many laws are violated that are not prosecuted. One could easily argue that Fitzgerald didn't think he could get an IIPA conviction because of Libby's obstruction. (5) Speaking of Libby, you point out that he was not convicted of his conversation with Cooper, but fail to acknowledge that he was convicted of "knowingly and corruptly" trying to "influence, obstruct and impede" the administration of justice; or that he was also convicted for lying about his conversation with Tim Russert as well as his conversation with Mr. Cooper. The only charge he was acquitted of was of making false statements to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper; he was convicted of making false statements to the FBI about his conversation with Russert and of lying to the grand jury about both conversations. I'm not sure why you made that point - it doesn't seem to apply here - but as stated it seemed incorrect so I wanted to clarify that. csloat 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, but the question of what the legal definition of "serving" is would be the legal fight. and with only one IIPA conviction in the history of the statute, the current precedence is that the CIA operative has to be stationed overseas. but as usual, i think you and i are arguing the exact same point, and coming to the exact same conclusions, only articulating our arguments from our different points of view :) with regards to libby, the juror (Collins, i believe) who has been speaking to the press has said Russerts testimony is what convicted Libby. the Cooper conversation came down to a he said/he said, and thus provided reasonable doubt. it was also my impression that the conversation with Judith Miller was dropped from the charge[32].Anthonymendoza 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to kick a dead horse, but there is no precedent favoring a particular interpretation of the word "serving" under the IIPA. Just because the one person convicted was stationed there does not mean that the Court interpreted the word "serving" in any particular manner. csloat 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction needs updating

Rather than bicker about our various nuances & opinions, let's see if we can agree on some updates to the article. I think the introduction needs to be updated and clarified. Among other things, I think it should be more past tense as Fitzgerald's investigation is over, and he has stated that he does not expect more charges. Therefore, at this point, if there are any more "allegations", they are only going to be from the media or from various partisans pursuing an agenda. Feedback? Samdira 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

i've been editing this page for quite some time (longer than i'd like to admit), and i can tell you that the introduction has been the subject of many edit wars. reaching a consensus on the intro has been nonexistent. if you want to give it a try, go ahead, but expect your edits to be reverted or challenged.Anthonymendoza 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to re-write the opening paragraph along these lines:

The Plame affair is a political, legal and media controversy which arose as a result of Valerie Plame's CIA employment becoming publicly known. The controversies sprang from various allegations of wrongdoing. In particular, it was alleged that the White House revealed Plame's employment status in such a manner that rules against leaking classified information were transgressed. After a lengthy investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald and a trial, Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. At the conclusion of the Libby trial, Fitzpatrick stated that he did not expect any further prosecutions. It was during the Libby trial that it became clear that several parties had indeed discussed information relating to Plame's CIA employment. However, no charges were brought for the actual Plame employment disclosures themselves. The nature of the Plame/Libby investigation and the controversy surrounding this issue has been the subject of much media reporting and pundit speculation. As of March 16th, 2007, the most recent official process relating to the Plame affair, was a hearing conducted by Congressman Henry Waxman at which Plame herself (and others) we called to be questioned and give their views.

I feel that this re-write will help us start bringing this article into a more encyclopedic format and will help us segue into a more succinctly written article. I think this timeline can be used by us while we re-write, as a nice resource. I like the idea of a more succinct chronological article. And, though that example timeline is too sparsely written and overly parsed for my taste, I think we could benefit by using it as checksum tool to help us focus and tighten up our article.

Samdira 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks far too long to me for an intro paragraph. It's also a bit carelessly written (who is Fitzpatrick? -- not that that's an error others haven't made). The current intro is also far too long. Frankly, we need an intro of about 4-5 sentences, and we need to leave out a lot of the contentious stuff (e.g. Armitage's role, Fitzgerald's statements after the trial, comments about charges that weren't brought up, etc.) csloat 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am deferring any edits to the intro until I have some agreement here. Please post your suggested intro version here and let's see if we can agree on some text. As for my version, yes it needs copyediting, but I feel it's pretty good. I'll watch here for your suggested version. Please post ASAP. Samdira 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush... ASAP is relative on a wiki. Samdira, since you've taken a few comments of mine too personally I hope you will take this one dispassionately - I would describe the existing intro (while wordy) as significantly superior to the one you posted, on a number of grounds (accuracy, lack of grammatic focus, the use of 'weasel-words', general focus, etc.) and so I would generally oppose the introduction of much of what you wrote. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to future efforts! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with csloat, that the intro should be about 4-5 sentences with no mention of armitage, or quotes that appear later in the article. and i agree with Ryan that the current intro is wordy. we should start this debate with a simple debate as to what the plame affair is. i think the plame affair is the allegation that bush administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of a covert cia operative as retaliation against a war critic. is this an acceptable premise? Anthonymendoza 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my request for consensus, below. Samdira 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the comments, but the introduction still needed further updated, correction, and other re-writing, which I did. I tried to make it more formal language and also to avoid multiple uses of passive voices of verbs (which are weak). I tried to focus on the agents of actions. I thought the first sentence was especially vague and tried to make it more specific and significant. --NYScholar 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro sandbox

To showcase various ideas for changing the intro, let's try using a subpage:

• /intro

I used to do this sort of thing when I was an active mediator, and it's often a big help. Contributors aren't under so much pressure this way. --Uncle Ed 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'll support whatever approach a visible consensus strongly and dispassionately indicates, but I generally oppose branching like this. I think editing can occur productively on this article and the failings of the intro are not so egregious as to prevent constructive editing. I just want to go on the record in opposition to the proposal to branch. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan -- I think that's a good approach for sections that are the subject of current edit wars (e.g. the Juan Cole intro, where I took Ed up on his suggestion). I don't think we're at that point with this page. I support the current intro for now. csloat 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. The subpage idea is a safety valve, so that we can blow off steam. If the pressure is well below the safety limit, then the valve need not operate. I'll leave it just in case. --Uncle Ed 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for consensus

In the introduction, I would like to replace the words "indicating that she may have been" with "which impacted her status as" and I ask for group consent. Samdira 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like either one. csloat 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like either as well. --Tbeatty 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stunned to admit that I agree with both Tbeatty and Csloat over the very same issue. :) Cheers all! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After taking various talk page comments into account, I have edited the introduction. Regarding the introduction, I have done my best to respect the concerns voiced by others (above). Please review my changes and discuss as needed on this page. I am available to discuss so we can avoid reverts. Thank you. Samdira 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

the second paragraph of the intro reads like an intro for United States v. Libby. is it necessary here?Anthonymendoza 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about the 2nd para. Do you recommend we remove it? How about the 1st paragraph as it stands now - are you ok with the changes I made? Samdira 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated the introd.: see prev. section on its needing updating. It also needed some corr. of terms and links and other corrections of syntax. --NYScholar 05:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

NYS, upon initial review your updates look pretty good. Question for you: Why does your sig not have a wiki liink in it? Samdira 05:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Samdira. In reply to your question: In Wikipedia users select from various "preferences"; among the choices in "preferences" is how one wants one's signature to appear. I selected the option in Wikipedia "preferences" for not having a live link because it is what I prefer. I use the four tildes, and my signature appears in this manner. If one wants to see my talk page etc., it is accessible via the editing history links for contributors. --NYScholar 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed wikiproject

I created a proposal for a new wikiproject to deal with political scandals and controversies. The idea would be to try to get a group of people involved in making sure that current and past political scandals were accurately stated and sourced on wikipedia. Anybody that is interested can sign up at [33]. Remember 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased implications in introduction

Please see these edits [34], [35], [36] and [37]. Please pay particular attention to the edit sumaries. I am concerned the introduction is wrongly implying that the White House knew Plame was covert. This has not been establshed - not in the media, not in court and not here. There are plenty of CIA employees who are not covert. Also, I do not like the word "because" being used to explain the CIA referral. Don't tell me that "Tommy parked his car because...". The "because..." is opinion, not fact. Just tell me "Tommy parked his car." Don't tell me the CIA did something "because...". We have no public evidence that this was the sole reason CIA made the referral. These two problems aside, I think the intro is pretty good now. Samdira 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that she worked at the CIA was classified. For someone to find out she worked at the CIA means that either something was declassified (not the case), or classified information was leaked (appears to be the case). Thus, some law was broken. Notice how I haven't used the word "covert" at all. Saying that they didn't know she was covert, but then saying that they knew she worked at the CIA, is contradictory. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 17:21Z
• I see no such implication. The text reads 'alleged that members of the George W. Bush administration knowingly revealed his wife's covert identity'. It doesn't assert that they knew she was covert. While a reasonable person can see the obvious contradiction between 'Rove didn't know Plame was covert' and Rove's statement that 'Plame is fair game', the article intro plainly does not assert that. Accordngly, I don't see any validity to your objection. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian, your reasoning is sound, but you must support your conclusion with a citation or else you are committing a WP:OR violation. What you have zeroed in on is indeed the crux of this dispute. Those who rail against Cheney, etc. about Plame certainly are convinced that Cheney was from the beginning knowledgeable about Plame being covert. However, this has not been established as a fact. It is and will forever remain conjecture. And while this may be the reason that Libby was prosecuted (lied to shield Cheney) it's not relevant to our introduction. Our introduction must not take sides in a political dispute beyond the degree that the truth of the sides has been established by citable public facts. And the truth here is that it has not been established (only conjectured) that "something was declassified" or "classified information was leaked". Indeed, even Fitzpatrick did not establish that. Rather he contended it in various filings and alleged it in various arguments, but he did not establish it. Please understand that I am referring to proof of facts. There is no public proof of the alleged facts as you infer them to be. I assure you my research indicates that many, many people have come to the entirely reasonable conclusion that the White House did not know Plame was covert and hence, classified. Indeed at the Waxman hearings, even Plame herself stated that the WH should have "presumed" that her CIA status automatically meant covert/classified. Even so, such presumptions are not reasonable from our perspective. Why? Because at the same Waxman hearing, the point was raised that when the CIA was asked by WH about Plame, the CIA did not alert WH about Plame covert/classified status. So then, how is it that WH even found out that Plame had anything at all to do with CIA? In other words, how did WH even think or know to ask CIA about Plame? The implied answer to that is that WH already knew she was CIA as a consequence of using WH power to snoop, ergo WH must have known she was covert/classified. Ah, this all well and good, but we simply cannot argue facts which are not in evidence and there are no public facts before us regarding this point. Please consider what I am saying here. I am mightily concerned that we are committing a grievous WP:NPOV violation. I ask that you reconsider and restore my most recent edit. Samdira 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

the intro is better, but still wordy and still a bit too long. i disagree with the assertion that "For someone to find out she worked at the CIA means that either something was declassified (not the case), or classified information was leaked (appears to be the case)." Plame testified that she didn't know if white house officials knew she was covert, and also testified that some CIA operatives in her division were not classified. she basically stated that the officials who discussed her should have used precaution because she was a CIA employee who might be covert. but when asked if they knew she was covert, she stated that the prosecutor should answer that. also, Armitage, the first leaker, told the press that in his 30 some years in government, he'd never seen a covert cia operatives name in a state department memo, meaning he didn't know she was classified. so the above premise is not correct, but the allegation that officials knew she was covert and outed her intentionally is/was at the thrust of the controversy.Anthonymendoza 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article doesn't make a conclusion regarding what the WH knew, I don't see any reason to change the intro, which describes the allegations and the supporting facts in evidence. It's not a 'grievous violation' of policy, it's NPOV as it is. I oppose the restoration of your edit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert, please

i'm not sure what i did but could someone revert or tell me how to revert the article to this version[38]. i tried to make a simple edit and somehow screwed things up. thanks!Anthonymendoza 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, hope you gave the right diff though. Arkon 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, thanks!! i still can't figure out what i did :) Anthonymendoza 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testimony of other reporters

i removed this section:

Testimony of some reporters in trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby

Main article: United States v. Libby

The Associated Press's Michael J. Sniffen reports that on February 12, 2007,

“

Defense attorneys got Woodward, Novak, Pincus, New York Times reporter David Sanger, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas all to say they had talked to Libby about Wilson's allegations during the summer of 2003, but Libby had not disclosed Plame's identity or employment to them. But Sanger, Kessler and Thomas said they didn't ask Libby about Wilson's wife. Woodward and Novak testified they didn't recall asking about her but said Libby didn't talk about her if they did. Pincus said Libby said he didn't know how the trip was arranged but their conversation occurred before June 12, when Libby now recalls he first learned the information from Cheney.[3]

”

i think it's more appropriate for US v. Libby page, but i can't figure out where to put it there. any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Excuse me for raising a topic that I am sure has been raised before. Probably several times... But I am new to this article and I am baffled by the article title.

Plame Affair sounds like an episode of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.!!!

This was a major scandal of utmost gravity.

A) How was it determined that the article should be named in this way rather than some other way?
B) Why is the article after a person who was a victim in the matter rather than after the type of incident that it was?
C) Even if there was universal agreement that it should be named after her - why the ambiguous, comparatively benign word "affair" to describe a scandal that has resulted in 4 felony convictions and unchallenged testimony documenting White House actions that if not illegal - are certainly ethically questionable?

Articles describing major issues in Bill Clinton's administration have titles such as:

• [[Lewinsky scandal]]
• [[Whitewater (controversy)]]
• [[1996 United States campaign finance controversy]]
• [[Bill Clinton pardons controversy]]
• Travelgate goes to [[White House travel office controversy]]
• Filegate goes to [[White House personnel file controversy]]

Ronald Reagan's administration has:

• [[Iran-Contra Affair]]

George W. Bush's administration has:

• [[Plame Affair]]

This is patently wrong and reflects POV. To be consistent with other Wikipedia articles - this should be officially renamed CIA leak scandal (which currently redirects to Plame affair. A converse re-direct can easily be implemented - with Plame affair re-directing to CIA leak scandal

Comments? Davidpatrick 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Further research on Wikipedia indicates that the title as it was ("Plame Affair") was an aberrant title next to the titles of the articles for the vast majority of other political scandals in recent years. Article title has been changed to reflect that. Davidpatrick 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle that "CIA leak scandal" is a better, more descriptive, and more balanced title. On the other hand, the "Plame affair" seems to be a far more common title for it in many sources on both the left and right. Google hits for "Plame affair"=322,000; hits for "CIA leak scandal"=53,800. Also, the liberal encyclopedia dKosopedia titles their article "Plame affair". It doesn't take a right-wing conspiracy to understand why it was named that in the first place, since that's what the news frequently calls it, and there is at least a moderate argument for the former title being a better reflection of the neutral point of view.--ragesoss 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's always a balancing act between media catchphrases and popular shorthand for events on the one hand - and being encyclopedic and consistent within the portals of Wikipedia on the other hand. And the Google argument cuts both ways - as of course sometimes Google refects mirrored content. And we're trying to find a balance between encyclopedic and user-friendly. My gut instinct is that the initial tag of using her name "Plame" (rather than a description of what the scandal was actually about) was partly because she was an attractive woman - it humanized complex political intrigue and it made for a glamorous tabloid story! "Pretty blonde spy outed...!" So her name became a central part of the story. But suffixing her name with "Scandal" makes it seem like SHE did something wrong - which no one has implied. And "Affair" is a very bland word for something that has resuted in criminal convictions and gigantic political upheaval. But I did some more thinking - and some more work on this.

Here's what I think swings it for the new title. I did some more Googling - to get a more in-depth read.

"Plame affair" 322,000
"Plame scandal" 96,900
"CIA leak scandal" 54,100
"CIA leak" 1,030,000

So - while it is true that both "Plame affair" and "Plame scandal" get more Google hits than the full wording "CIA scandal leak" - there are an overwhelming number more hits for the words "CIA leak" - of which a large percentage can be safely assumed to be about this matter rather than any others.

In that sense - the words "CIA leak" are the equivalent of the word "Lewinsky" or "Iran-Contra". ie - it is the neutral, factual descriptive - to which the appropriate suffix then needs to be added. It's clearly a scandal. And that's where we are... Davidpatrick 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This name is incredibly imprecise. It's not like there has only been one leak about the CIA ever. The name should be something that actually identifies the subject, not something that might happen to describe it or possibly god knows what else. Derex 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be just "CIA leak scandal" (see above)

However - as a temp. change I have added "(2003)" to make it more precise.

But it is not necessary: see: CIA leak grand jury investigation

KEY POINTS:

This is a scandal not an affair. And "Plame scandal" is not right either - as the subject matter of the scandal was not the VICTIM - but the ACTION that CAUSED the scandal. I don't know what other CIA leaks led to a scandal. But if the argument is that there have been multiple "CIA leak scandals" - then the "2003" solves that. If not - then it should revert to just "CIA leak scandal"

For precedents on naming articles after the ACTION - and not using weasel words such as "affair" to describe major scandals and controversies - see also:

• Whitewater (controversy)
• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
• Bill Clinton pardons controversy
• White House travel office controversy
• White House personnel file controversy

Davidpatrick 14:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Huffington Post and the Plame Affair

we've had this debate before, as to what this article should be called. and each time the consensus has been plame affair. i was curious as to why it's now a topic of debate and found this on the huffington post [39]. Davidpatrick is using the huffington post's argument verbatim to justify the change of the title to this article. this is not the way to reach consensus, and just because the huffington post finds bias in the "plame affair" doesn't mean the title should be changed. rather than engaging in an edit war, we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus. Anthonymendoza 17:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly open to a debate. I have found the arguments for a change compelling. Let's see what others think. Please can people discuss the merits of the issue. Among the issues I think that are compelling to be addressed are these:

1) What are the titles of articles about other political controversies/scandals affecting controversial presidents such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?

2) Is there any inherent weasel aspect to referring to a matter in which a high-ranking government official is found guilty of 4 felonies as an "affair"

3) Are the titles of articles on Wikipedia about political scandals more commonly named after:

a) the activity that caused the scandal?
b) the name(s) of the protagonist(s)
c) the name(s) of the victim(s)

I think those answers and other thoughts about this would be very interesting to debate. And might help us reach an informed consensus. Davidpatrick 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i personally don't understand what is so "weasel" about the word affair. doesn't the word affair imply this was a controversy and a scandal? how does the word affair make this subject appear to be unimportant?Anthonymendoza 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A valid question. Here's the answer. From Wiktionary.

Noun affair (plural affairs)

1) That which is done or is to be done; matter; concern; business of any kind, commercial, professional, or public; — often in the plural. a difficult affair to manage

2) Any proceeding or action which it is wished to refer to or characterize vaguely. an affair of honor, i. e., a duel an affair of love, i. e., an intrigue.

3) (Military): An action or engagement not of sufficient magnitude to be called a battle.

4) A material object (vaguely designated). He used a hook-shaped affair with a long handle to unlock the car.

5) An adulterous relationship. (from affaire de coeur.)

Do you think any of those definitions accurately and full reflect the nature of the contents of the article? Davidpatrick 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

according to Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary, affair means matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal. and according to the American Heritage Dictionary, affair means a matter causing public scandal and controversy. to me, the word affair is appropriate here.Anthonymendoza 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate about article title

That is just two dictionaries. In addition to the Wiktionary definition - here are THREE MORE dictionary definitions that DON'T reflect that meaning.

(1) According to Collins Online Dictionary
affair
1 activity, business, circumstance, concern, episode, event, happening, incident, interest, matter, occurrence, proceeding, project, question, subject, transaction, undertaking
2 amour, intrigue, liaison, relationship, romance

(2) And according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
1) affair. something done or to be done; business.
2. affairs Transactions and other matters of professional or public business: affairs of state.
3a. An occurrence, event

(3) And according to the Oxford Dictionary

affair

noun
1 an event of a specified kind or that has previously been referred to.
2 a matter that is a particular person’s responsibility.
3 a love affair.
4 (affairs) matters of public interest and importance.

Even if you disagree with all of those respected FOUR dictionaries - and I really don't think this should be a battle of the dictionaries - at the very least I'm sure you will graciously concede that if there are FOUR respected dictionaries that DON'T give the "scandal" definition - then at the very least there is a lot of ambiguity about how people perceive that word.

And of course the word "affair" is just one of the three questions I raised as pertinent to this debate. Davidpatrick 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] data

Let's try to assemble some data.

• The New York Times returns 3 hits for "C.I.A. leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair", over 100 for "C.I.A. leak case" (which we have a separate, awkwardly-titled article for, CIA leak grand jury investigation), and over 200 for "C.I.A. leak".
• The Washington Post returns 3 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 9 hits for "Plame affair", and lots for "CIA leak", most of which are "CIA leak case" and "CIA leak investigation".
• The Washington Times has 6 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 13 hits for "Plame affair" (though most are from Op-Ed).
• Google News archive has 460 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 1690 for "Plame affair".
• BBC News returns 4 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair".

Presumably none of these results (unlike general Google hits) are shaped the fact that Wikipedia and her downstream re-users have been using the "Plame affair" title until recently. However, "CIA leak case" is ambiguous and could refer to either the investigation and legal goings on or the broader topic in general. It is often used in the latter sense, and I think it might be the best title for the article, despite the ambiguity.--ragesoss 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting data. Focusing a moment on Google News - we see the following:

Plame affair 154
Plame scandal 17
Plame case 102

CIA leak 3,838
CIA leak case 2,127

This indicates that at some basic level the "CIA leak" aspect has been deemed more newsworthy and less tabloid-y than the naming of this matter about the victim - however pretty, however blonde, however more gossipy, however "sexier" (in media terms) it is to make it be about the victim rather than about some abstract action.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is about the "CIA leak" So the question then is - what is the best suffix?

"Case" implies only the legal aspect
"Investigation" implies only the investigation aspect
So what other word accurately and fairly describes the ENTIRETY of this? Taking into account other articles on Wikipedia about similar events

Affair? (see above)
Imbroglio
scuffle
misunderstanding
storm-in-a-teacup
incident

or...

scandal...

Davidpatrick 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i will "graciously concede" that affair can in fact refer to a scandal, and that, according to the research above, this topic has been referred to as both the Plame Affair and Cia Leak in media outlets. therefore it is up to a consensus of editors as to what this topic should be titled. i will not revert your changes but reaching a consensus on wikipedia is essential to producing good quality articles and i am disappointed that you made the changes without discussion and that your edit is being called courageous on the Huffington Post. there was no conspiracy by right wingers when the name Plame Affair was chosen. it was agreed to by consensus. i personally think that the title Plame Affair is good, but if the consensus is now for CIA leak scandal, i will accept it. i'm not sure how to proceed, but i suggest a vote. Anthonymendoza 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have acknowledged that you found two respected dictionaries that DO present definitions of "affair" that have that meaning. You certainly don't have to reciprocate - but I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that there are four respected dictionaries have definitions of the word "affair" that exclude any reference to "public anxiety, controversy, or scandal" or any similar concept.

As stated above - I don't think it should come down to a battle of dictionaries - though it is a little bothering that there is that discrepancy.

I'm sorry that I proceeded without consensus. It was not my intention to create a fight. I absolutely agree that - to quote you - "we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus"

So before we put it to the vote - by which I will certainly abide - I do think we should debate the pros and cons in a civil fashion. So that we can vote after an informed considered debate. I am prepared to accept that there was no political motivation behind the original selection of the article title. However - I do believe that it was an unfortunate choice of title "Plame" that reflects a tabloid emphasis (female victim rather than egregious action) and "affair" that is ambiguous in meaning and/or was appropriate in the early stages before it elevated into a fully-fledged scandal.

I would point out that during the 1970s the "Watergate scandal" certainly started out being described as the "Watergate break-in". And perhaps at one point it became the "Watergate affair". But as more details emerged - it was invariably dubbed "Watergate scandal".

If there had been a Wikipedia then (!!!) - and the original article had been called "Watergate break-in" or "DNC break-in" - would we have then not at some point changed it to "Watergate scandal" as the extent of the perfidy became apparent?

By that standard - a title that was perhaps appropriate way back in July 2003 (before anyone really knew what this matter was about) - might perhaps be changed by April 2007 to reflect the undisputed increased gravity of the events it covers.

I respectfully suggest that that is one aspect we should definitely debate.

And I would also respectfully request that the other three issues I raised be debated. I don't think it will do us any harm. And it may help us reach some consensus.

A recap of those three questions = plus the new one:

1) What are the titles of articles about other political controversies/scandals affecting controversial presidents such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?

2) Is there any inherent weasel aspect to referring to a matter in which a high-ranking government official is found guilty of 4 felonies as an "affair"

3) Are the titles of articles on Wikipedia about political scandals more commonly named after:

a) the activity that caused the scandal?
b) the name(s) of the protagonist(s)
c) the name(s) of the victim(s)

4) When a public event changes in complexion and gravity over a period of four years from its first minor status into a full-blown scandal resulting in felony convictions of a senior White House official - is it appropriate to change the article title to reflect the change in emphasis and gravity of the story?

Davidpatrick 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

we have debated this before though, so i think the best course of action to get others involved is to start the vote now. editors can vote and leave there rationale, and at the end of a week or two, a clear consensus should emerge.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on article name

CIA leak scandal

support: I'm new to this article. However I have followed the topic intently for the past 3.5 years. It's not really about whether or not the old title was/is biased. It's about four simple things: A) Is the title consistent with the titles of Wiki articles about other political scandals? B) Is it better that the primary word of the title of a scandal be about the VICTIM - or should it be about the action that CAUSED the scandal? C) Does the suffix "Affair" (which 4 respected dictionaries do not define with any implication of scandal) sufficiently convey the gravity of a matter which led to the Vice President's assistant being convicted of 4 felonies? - or would the word "Scandal" convey that more effectively? D) Is it wrong for Wikipedia to change an article title that may have been appropriate when initially coined - to reflect the considerable change in gravity of the topic as it has unfolded? Just as the "DNC break-in" in 1972 subsequently became the "Watergate scandal" by 1973/4 (and ever after). I respectfully submit that the answers to those 4 questions lead us to confirming this change - with no ill-feeling to those who feel otherwise. Davidpatrick 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support subject to using "CIA Plame leak controversy (2003)" as a better option. Samdira 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair

support: i've edited this article for over a year and there has never been any real complaints about the title until the Huffington Post[40] made the claim that it was biased. the title Plame affair is concise, specific and recognizable. i find no POV in the wording.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support That Huffpost article is fascinating. I'm actually the one who produced 5 of 6 of the names she mentions, which had been quite POV before that and I took some heat for softening those. I think this name is fine, simple, and neutral. My problems with CIA leak scandal are multiple. First it is imprecise, even with the 2003 tagged on. Also, the scandal has persisted into 2007. Also, it sounds as if the CIA leaked something rather than someone leaking something about the CIA. Also "scandal" has in implication of wrong-doing, which is debated here — it was on that ground that I softened Whitewater to a controversy. So, while Plame Affair may not be optimal, it's certainly better than this. That the HuffPost thinks this is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy is quite laughable. Derex 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support It's simple and it works. CIA leak scandal is unacceptable because it wan't the CIA that did the leaking and there have been innumerabl leaks involving the CIA. If anything it should be White House outing of CIA agent Plame, but that seems too long.--agr 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support I started this article a long time ago and felt then, as I do now, that "Plame Affiar" is the most neutral and specific title. The program Frontline on PBS also adopted "Plame Affair" in an extensive report on the subject. In dicussing this very complex case Plame Affair provides a clear discriptor that seems in keeping with wikipedia article naming conventions. CIA Leak Contro... are longer and less descriptive. The Plame Affair is one piece of the larger issue of the Iraq War and Occupation, which itself contain many CIA related issues and leaks; so, again, Plame Affair best reflects the issues with this case. The outting of Plame and her front, Brewester-Jennings, exposed and compromised a long-term covert CIA operation of great value to the United States and as such, again, the inclusion of the name, Plame, provides clarity and neutrality. Calicocat 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support per the above/. Arkon 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA leak case

support. It's not optimal because it can suggest just the legal aspects, but on the other hand major news organizations (e.g., the CSM, NPR, USN&WR) have used it as a catch-all for the topic, in the Sherlock Holmes sense of "The Case of the CIA Leak". "CIA leak case" has been used consistently as something broader than just a name for US v. Libby, and is a far, far more common media term than "Plame affair" or "CIA leak scandal". This article is kind of sprawling and should probably be broken into separate articles on "Mission to Niger" (covering the story up to and including Novak's column), Journalists and the CIA leak case (for the "other journalists" material plus a brief summary of Novak's role), and more effective use of summary style for the existing sub-articles.--ragesoss 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That name is fine today, because there's only one leak in the news. What about two years from now, when there are no leaks in the news? The title needs some reference to Plame or perhaps to the nature of the leak, but I can't think of anything that is not completely stilted. I'm a little annoyed that we're having to spend time debating what was a perfectly reasonable title that stood uncontested for over a year simply because some blogger took offense. There are plenty of *actual* conspiracies by conservatives on Wikipedia that I could have pointed him to, but this ain't one. Derex 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you make some good points. I offer the following observations. First of all - I think we can agree that we should diffuse the political aspects of this and allegations of left/right bias - and address just a few practical issues. We in Wikipedia DO make changes to article titles from time to time - if it is thought that it conveys a fairer or more accurate impression. You yourself "softened Whitewater to a controversy" (presumably it had a different suffix at one time.) Was that change achieved with no debate at all? I don't resent the time spent debating - if it results in an improvement. Isn't that the nature of a wiki - and Wikipedia?

Anyway - the issues you mention HAVE arisen before. Look at these titles:

• White House personnel file controversy

If there is ever another WH personnel file controversy - presumably the article about the next one would get the year added.

• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Which was presumably the thinking with that article. A 5-word title - because it was deemed necessary.

Yes, I know. I named both of those as well. Used to be "Filegate" and "Chinagate" and "Whitewater scandal" and so on. The criteria for a good title are non-partisan, uniquely descriptive, and short as possible. There have undoubtedly been many leaks about and from the CIA over the years, which makes some unique tag important. The year is a poor tag in this case, because it lasted 4 years. No wrong-doing has been proven with regard to the leak itself, which may have been entirely legal (or may not). Derex

I respectfully repeat my request that people look at these questions I've raised - and offer their thoughts...

A) Is the title consistent with the titles of Wiki articles about other political scandals?

B) Is it better that the primary word of the title of a scandal be about the VICTIM - or should it be about the action that CAUSED the scandal?

C) Does the suffix "Affair" (which 4 respected dictionaries do not define with any implication of scandal) sufficiently convey the gravity of a matter which led to the Vice President's assistant being convicted of 4 felonies? - or would the word "Scandal" convey that more effectively?

D) Is it wrong for Wikipedia to change an article title that may have been appropriate when initially coined - to reflect the considerable change in gravity of the topic as it has unfolded? Just as the "DNC break-in" in 1972 subsequently became the "Watergate scandal" by 1973/4 (and ever after).

Davidpatrick 14:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Yes. The same guiding principles applied. In most of those cases (travel office), (personell files), (campaign finance) there was no good short neutral descriptor. In this case there is. B I don't find this a relevant consideration; naming it after the victim in no way implies she was at fault. C "Controversy" could replace "Affair". No wrong-doing with respect to the leak itself has been established, so "scandal" is inappropriate here. Libby was convicted of subsequent offences regarding the investigation. I'm not about to argue Whitewater down from scandal to controversy (as I did), and then promote this up to scandal. That's just not consistent. D Of course we can change names and do it all the time. But usually there is a good reason for it. I don't see one here. Derex

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all - thank you for taking the time to respond carefully to my questions. I appreciate that. You make some fair points but I do not agree with your conclusions.

Succinctly:

A The old title was succinct. But I think that - perhaps by the passage of time and developments - was no longer as effective or appropriate. Not conveying sufficient emphasis of the nature and gravity of the matter.

B I hear your point - but I think there is SOME negativity that accrues. The Lewinsky scandal for example. While she was not entirely blameless in the matter - Clinton acknowledged that (albeit belatedly) - the political scandal was about him not about her. But the matter being named after her victimized her more IMO.

C I disagree with you here. No LEGAL wrong-doing was established relating directly to the leak. Though POSSIBLY (we will probably never know) because as Fitgerald claimed "sand was thrown in the umpire's eyes. But there are other wrong-doings of course. Moral, ethical, etc etc. Bush himself (in 2003) famously declared that anyone responsible for leaking would no longer be in his administration. Not necessarily relating to the LAW. But because Bush made clear that he regarded leaking as WRONG. And not to be condoned. His father had opined (just 4 years earlier): "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999.

Bush Snr. was referring just to "sources" - not even to "covert agents". So leave out the LEGALITY of it. Whether or not it contravened a specific act. The current President Bush - and the former President Bush held that the ACTION of leaking (which there is unrefuted evidence occurred) is wrong-doing. So the word "scandal" is certainly appropriate. And more apt than the word "affair" - which is certainly considered more benign than "scandal".

D As you rightly say - we do change titles all the time. I still believe we need to here.

The benefits of having this debate are manifold. You and others are making some very valid points. I see why "CIA leak scandal" alone could be problematic. I agree that suffixing it with "(2003)" is a poor compromise - for the sound reasons you gave above.

So - in the spirit of compromise - how about the following:

"CIA Plame leak scandal"

It's still shorter than some other scandals/controversies. See these:

"White House personnel file controversy"
"1996 United States campaign finance controversy"

It's snappy. It qualifies WHICH CIA leak became a scandal. Far better than by naming a year. I don't think Valerie Plame is victimized by that choice in the same way as "Plame Affair" does -which MIGHT be taken by some (in the future) to think that she was the CAUSE of the affair rather than the victim or object.

So how would that be as a fair compromise? "CIA Plame leak scandal" Davidpatrick 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The biggest problem with the "scandal" title is that "CIA leak scandal" has very rarely been used in the media. "CIA leak case" has the downside of timeliness and apparent vagueness, but it seems like to me that it has a good chance of become a permanent term for it, the CIA Leak Case. After comparing how news organizations have treated it, I think "Plame affair" is a more appropriate title than "CIA leak scandal", if "CIA leak case" is too vague.--ragesoss 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"CIA Plame leak controversy" would be acceptable to me. I fought to remove "scandal" from Whitewater on the grounds that no wrong-doing was objectively established on the part of the principals. It is my personal opinion that wrong-doing occurred in this case, but I can see that other people might reasonably differ. Since the logic is the same as Whitewater, I'll not flip that position because of my personal opinions differ on this one. Derex 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all - I genuinely appreciate you making a compromise suggestion. We are getting much closer to an agreement. Speaking just for myself - I won't rule your suggestion out. And therefore I am going to think very carefully over the next 24 hours about it. I do think it is a big improvement over "Plame Affair". I am impressed with your reasoning about the Whitewater matter - and not wanting to have a double standard. I really do respect your position on that. Particularly as you personally think there has been wrong-doing on this matter. But you don't want to let your personal position influence you. That is decent and high-minded.

So let me ask you this question: In your mind - what would be the tipping point in this matter at which it would cross over from being a "controversy" to a "scandal"? Does the perception of wrong-doing have to be universal? If there is just one person still protesting that nothing wrong was done - does that mean it is still a controversy till there is no dissent? I'm not sure about the fulcrum here. eg with Watergate it was probably still considered a "controversy" till Nixon had to fire Haldeman and Ehrlichman - at which point it surely became a "scandal." With Lewinsky it was still a "controversy" until Clinton conceded that there HAD been "improper actions" by him - at which point even his defenders had to concede that it had become a "scandal"

Should this be just about our OWN perceptions? And our own noble desire to err on the side of caution as ballast against our personal beliefs? Is it possible that our caution and bending over backwards to be NPOV might lead us to actually be way behind the general zeitgeist? To what extent should external opinions impact that Wikipedia tipping point? What about the news media's perception? The public/media intersect (as gauged by the internet and blogosphere - which has both left and right wing factions)

I thought it would be helpful to follow the example of ragesoss and do some data research on this "controversy" versus "scandal" issue. To see what the media, blogosphere and web-users' perceptions are.

[edit] More data: "Scandal" vs "Controversy" vs ""Affair"

I put in the following 3 phrases/words - each in quote marks (as seen below) - To Google Web. To Google Blogs. To Google News.

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy"

"cia leak" "plame" "affair"

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal"

RESULTS

Google Web

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 147,000

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 166,000

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 276,000

Google Blogs

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 379

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 1,260

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 1,770

Google News

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 20

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 393

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 1,054

Would I be wrong in divining from that research that a large majority of the cyber-public, bloggers and news media do see this matter as having finally reached that tipping point where it went from "controversy" or "affair" to "scandal"?

(the above data research was updated on Monday April 2nd 2007 to add in the data about the word "Affair" to the existing research about the words "Controversy" and "Scandal") Davidpatrick 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Filegate, chinagate, travelgate were also the more commonly used names. Those strike me as partisan talking points, so popular use alone is not sufficient grounds for a name. I would feel comfortable labeling this with 'scandal' if there had been a determination by Fitzgerald that the revelation of Plame's name was illegal — even if he could not determine who revealed it. As I understand it, that is not the case. However, I could be mistaken as I have not followed the case that closely since the election. I do realize that Libby is a felon, but that was not due to the leak itself. Here's the rub: any hint of spin tends to undermine an article. The facts actually speak for themselves much louder if they're not amplified, because a scrupulously neutral presentation has the most credibility. Derex 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(other title suggestions)

CIA leak scandal (2003) (temporary title that was suggested as a compromise earlier today)

[edit] Consensus

the consensus of editors who have chosen to comment is that the name Plame affair is best suited for this article. i've restored it. if there is still a dispute over this, i suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead of an edit war.Anthonymendoza 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Might as well leave a note here as well. A copy/paste move is never an acceptable method in which to move a page from one article title to another so I've reverted the move for now. The reason for this is that one of the important things for wikipedia is the ability to track who made changes and when those changes were made. By copying and pasting a page from one title to another title that edit history is lost. Please see WP:MOVE for how to properly move an article. Thanks! --Bobblehead 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)