Talk:Plame affair/Archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
covert status settled
This pretty much settles the "covert" issue; it's clear now that Plame was working on intelligence issues as a covert agent with NOC status and that she had sensitive assignments overseas during the time period necessary to qualify for protection under the IIPA. I'm not saying the IIPA will actually be enforced, particularly with certain figures obstructing the investigation, but it's clear now both that Plame's status should have been protected under the law and that in outing her, Rove et al. not only destroyed her career but also greatly compromised national security by undermining an ongoing intelligence operation (as well as burned all her contacts and anyone else using the Brewster Jennings cover). The irony is that she was working on gathering intelligence to support Bush's case for war in Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the WaPo editors and others who have pounced on this forthcoming book as evidence that the "Plame affair" is over will have to say once the book actually comes out; based on what little has been published so far, it is clear that the authors have reached some very different conclusions.--csloat 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Umm no. It says her foreign assignment ended in 1997 (six years before the disclosure). Further, it says she was sent with government intellignece agents to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence which would imply that she did NOT enjoy NOC status while on this trip. Also, interestingly enough, it ties her to the Aluminum tubes. Since she was CIA, she was part of the report that said they WERE for nuclear centrifuges (the CIA claimed nuclear uses, Energy departement said possible rocket bodies). --Tbeatty 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm, yes? The IIPA doesn't require a "foreign assignment." It requires that the agent be sent abroad on intelligence work - which she was (dates are not clear but some time between 2001-3). There is nothing indicating she did not "enjoy" NOC status in Jordan. And it's not just Jordan; it says she "occasionally flew overseas" during this period to monitor operations. I agree about the tubes; it is ironic that the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent who was working to find evidence supporting his Iraq war case. I guess people will continue to read only what they want to read into articles like this no matter how much evidence comes out, but it will be interesting to see where the spin goes when this book is published.--csloat 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- The language says "served" overseas. Single trips outside the U.S. would not qualify jsut as it would not qualify as "served" in the military. Otherwise, GWB would be considered a combat veteran as he has toured Iraq as Commander in Chief. But my interpretation, as well as yours, is why it will not hold up to scrutiny since it is not clearly sourced. It should be left out unless/until a charge that uses the IPAA definition is brought. She should not be referred to as a "covert agent" after 1997 since the IIPA has a definition that is not consistent with her service (or at best ambiguous). As for the tubes, I was pointing out that she is one of the people who say the tubes are for a nuclear reactor. That was her report to Congress and she believed that Iraq was reconstituting in Nuclear weapons program. If Korn is correct and she was part of the team who evaluated the Aluminum tubes, it puts her at direct odds to her husband. I don't think the Bush administration burned her, I think it was Wilson they were after and this disclosure was inadvertant. --Tbeatty 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please cite your source for the bizarre definition of "served overseas" here; frankly, I think you're making it up. The Bush analogy is nonsensical; if Bush had been sent to Iraq on a mission for the US military as part of an ongoing appointment as a machine gunner or something, then, sure, we could say he "served," just like when Valerie Wilson went overseas as part of an ongoing appointment as a NOC dealing with WMD issues, she too was "serving." As for IIPA, I don't think charges will be brought under it, because we have some of the criminals involved disrupting the investigation -- hence the perjury and obstruction charges. That is independent of her status as a "covert" agent, which she clearly was in the general sense, and now the evidence points pretty clearly that she met even the more restricted definition of covert given in the IIPA. Whether or not charges are brought against anyone under IIPA does not change her status as covert. As for the tubes, I understand your point, and I agree that it is ironic that in their zeal to assault Wilson, members of the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent -- inadvertently or no -- who was basically working on their side.--csloat 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Criminals?" I don't know where you are from, but here in America, we have a concept called "innocent until proven guilty." I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with it - it would help in your editing Wikipedia. Valtam 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh please - high horse unnecessary; I did not and would not add that word to the article. I assumed it would be understood that I was expressing my opinion that the people who committed crimes here are "criminals," not a court's. I do support due process and criminal rights for Scooter Libby and anyone else charged with crimes in this situation. (However, I am extremely disturbed by the fact that certain people - specifically Mr. Rove - continue to enjoy security clearance. Revocation of such clearance does not need a court finding of guilt in this situation.)--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- maybe armitage "burned" her because she was working with the white house. the conspiracy theories can go on forever. corn's article basically confirms what was already known. she was an noc, but not a deep cover noc, since she served time at an embassy and, now we learn, worked with jordanian intelligence officials. so both sides of the covert debate can claim being correct. Anthonymendoza 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Armitage didn't burn her. Rove and Libby (and plausibly Cheney) did. Corn's article does confirm what is already known, I agree, but many people still seem to think that certain things were not known. There is no distinction made in that article (or anywhere else that I know of) between a NOC and a "deep cover NOC" -- I suggest that such distinction is based on guesswork by Wikipedia editors. I see no evidence that her work in Jordan compromized her NOC status, nor her cover as an embassy worker.--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- corn's article says this about NOC's: NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. but if plame met with jordanian intelligence officials, wouldn't she have been known to the jordanian government? and this is from a time magazine article from 2003: Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, [Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official] said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. and the chicago tribune stated that plame had diplomatic cover while serving at an embassy:A CIA veteran with 20 years of service was quoted in the Tribune article as saying "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period and that diplomatic cover would have meant she would have been known to "friendly and opposition intelligence services alike". so there is a distinction between an NOC and a deep cover NOC, and it's not my "guesswork". what i don't understand is why you are the only editor you doesn't see the significance of Armitage being the initial leaker. i know in the past you've commented on Rove being "frog marched" out of the white house, but he isn't going to be charged. and neither is cheney. and libby trial will have nothing to do with plame's outing. ask yourself this: if armitage hadn't of told novak about plame, would we have a plame affair? rove only confirmed what armitage already told novak, and all indications are that rove told cooper after he learned novak would be writing an article about it. libby told miller, but she didn't and never intended to write about it. nobody burned anybody or conspired against anyone. even the washington post and the new york times are distancing themselves from Joe Wilson. there was no conspiracy to out plame.Anthonymendoza 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- So was she a NOC or not? You seem to be claiming both things here. The "deep cover" argument by Rustmann is the first and only place I've seen that, and his credibility on this issue has been called into question by several other former CIA officers. The anonymous guy who says having a diplomatic job means that she wasn't a NOC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, at least, if other CIA officials are to be believed on this. I still don't see any evidence of a distinction in kinds of NOC; Rustmann's comment sounds like he is making the distinction on the fly. Of course, neither of us works at CIA, at least I know I don't, and I don't believe you have ever claimed to, so neither of us can say with certainty whether that is an official distinction. As for the Jordanians, I have no idea whether they knew she was a NOC, and the article does not appear to make a claim either way on that issue. But it's nice that you're so sure of it. As for Armitage, which is the big issue here, the Times and Post are just wrong this time around. The Armitage info is nothing new. The book which this info comes from is coming out in a couple days I think; you will see then (assuming you read it, or about it) that its authors clearly do not agree with the WaPo assessment of the Plame affair as a big waste of time. Armitage was clearly not the only person spreading this information about Plame to the Washington press corps. Fitzgerald - who knew about Armitage back in '03 - stated in court documents that "there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14." According to WaPo (10/12/03), "two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists." That article reports that an administration official told them the disclosure was "unsolicited" and that it was "part of their broader case against Wilson." Rove called Matthews and said that Plame was "fair game" in the attack on Wilson (Newsweek 7/11/05). Your claim that Rove told Novak about Plame after Armitage told him is immaterial -- Rove talked to Novak about Plame the same day Armitage talked to him, and his confirmation of this information was a separate crime. We also know for a fact that Rove talked to Cooper 3 days later, offering up the same information (and no, I don't see any indications that Rove knew Novak would be mentioning it, though that is immaterial to any of this as well). If Armitage shot his mouth off first, that hardly changes the nature of any of this. It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this, but is also irrelevant to the question of whether there was a "Plame affair" or of whether there was something immoral, criminal, and detrimental to national security that was done by people in the White House and VPs office who wanted to attack a former Ambassador for doing his job.--csloat 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- so know Rustmann is not credible. ok. but yes, i am claiming both. she was NOC, but not enough to fit under the IIPA definition, and no real harm came from her outing, as andrea mitchell, bob woodward, and dana priest have all reported. but i see where you are coming from now when you write "It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this". you are waiting for another shoe to drop. i don't believe there are any other indictments to come involving this case, but let's wait and see. as for the armitage info being known, yes, some theorized it was him, but now that we know for sure, it does change the entire aspect of this affair. you cite the post to prove a big conspiracy, yet say they are wrong when they begin to distance themselves from Wilson. and yes, fitzgerald has said there is ample evidence that white house officials discussed plame, but he doesn't suggest it's criminal, or even immoral; rather, if you read the entire document, he uses that info to rebute claims by libby that he had other things on his mind and thus forgot about discussing plame. fitzgerald is arguing that wilson's column was at the forefront of cheney's mind and thus makes it more plausible that libby perjured himself and obstructed justice. we'll see what happens at libby's trial, as he is innocent until proven guilty, and we can't base our judgment solely on the documents of a prosecutor. but regardless, i believe your grasping at straws but i commend you for sticking to your guns. but if in the end libby is the only person indicted, the plame affair will only be remembered as a big conspiracy theory that didn't materialize.Anthonymendoza 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say I thought another shoe might drop. As a patriot, I suppose I am hopeful that one does, but I am not making any predictions, given how weird this case has been. Your claim that no harm has come from her outing is ludicrous given what we now know about what she was doing; Mitchell, woodward, and priest are incorrect if they have reported that (former CIA officials Johnson, Marcinkowski, Grimaldi, and Cavan, as well as former DIA officer Lang, as well as several current CIA officials who remain anonymous, have all reported otherwise. I trust their word over the reports of two reporters (neither of whom is a huge hack - well, perhaps woodward - but you haven't indicated where their info came from) and certainly over the word of Andrea Mitchell, who has been shown to have deliberately distorted this on occasion, who has a clear investment in the case, and who has admitted having "misspoke" about this. As for Armitage, there is no evidence that it "changes the entire aspect" of this affair. The crucial issue is that the White House went after Wilson and in the process of doing so they (willfully or ignorantly) burned an important national security outlet. Whether anyone gets hung out to dry for that is not something I will predict, though, again, as a patriot, I do not hide the fact that I have my hopes. That Armitage is a blabbermouth is beside the point -- the whole reason he was looking at a document with this info about Plame in the first place is because people in the White House had started up a smear campaign. As for my citing the Post and saying they are wrong about something else - I cited a report and said they were wrong in an editorial. Look, the Post publishes a lot of different things and has many different writers. It is quite possible they get some things right and others wrong. Are you suggesting the report I cited - a basic statement of facts based on Fitzgerald's investigation - was a lie? Finally, I must again emphasize that whether anyone else gets indicted is a separate issue. My car was stolen. The thief was never brought to justice. I doubt you would claim that the latter fact proves that nothing illegal or immoral took place. Sometimes the evidence is not there to convict a criminal for wrongdoing (especially when there is obstruction of justice and perjury going on!) I can't see how anyone can claim that what took place was not immoral. National security was compromised by the exposure of an undercover CIA agent who was working on WMD issues, and it was done for a cheap political attack on someone else who was working for the Administration. (And this after the Admin even backed off the claim that Wilson was refuting!) If a Democratic administration had done anything like this, we'd have seen everyone involved tried for treason by now. I'm not saying that should happen here, but I am saying I find it very difficult to understand how you can claim these actions as morally defensible. Plead ignorance or stupidity if you want to defend the Admin on this but claiming it was morally justified seems absurd. And, by the way, I have one final point - it doesn't matter if you believe Plame was doing anything important with WMD issues. The outing of plame was also an outing of her cover company, which was a large CIA investment and may have exposed other agents and operations. Chances are the CIA had to call it quits on everything Valerie was involved in, and possibly lost relationships with other assets abroad. But even beyond that - and this is crucial - the question of the longer term effect on CIA covert operations needs to be stressed. Being an undercover agent of any kind is already dangerous - especially being a NOC. An agent knows that they could be killed or worse if their identity is exposed. It's bad enough that the "bad guys" might figure out their identity, but it is a lot worse if they cannot trust their own government to not blab their identity to reporters! We can only imagine the longer term effect of this action on recruiting and retention of covert agents who do this dangerous work. If I were a covert agent in 2003 when this happened I might be looking for early retirement options. This is, I think, one of the reasons the CIA took this so seriously when it happened, and it's a reason conservatives should be taking it seriously too. We can debate liberal vs. conservative ideas all day long, but at some point there are certain issues where American liberals and conservatives both should be responding as Americans first rather than as representatives of political parties.--csloat 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- the car analogy doesn't work here since the reason no one was brought to justice for stealing your car was because he/she wasn't caught. in this case, fitzgerald knows who all the players are, what they said, who they talked too, etc, and no one was charged with leaking classified info. and i'm not suggesting fitzgerald's report was a lie, just that your misreading it. fitzgerald was making an argument that libby couldn't have forgotten conversations about plame because she and wilson were discussed deeply in the vp's office. but he doesn't suggest the fact that she was discussed was criminal. as far as everything else, Armitage has now stated that in 40 years of government service, reading and dealing with memos and classified documents, he has never seen a covert agents name printed in a memo. that tells you how thinly veiled her cover was. or perhaps the state department needs to review the guidelines for writing classified memos. i just think this is all so overblown. there's no question plame's career was ruined, but the fault lies with armitage and the author of the state department memo, rather than rove, libby , bush, etc. there just simply was no conspiracy to out her.Anthonymendoza 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The car analogy works. The reason no one was brought to justice is that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for the theft. That does not mean the theft was not a crime. The reason Fitzgerald has not charged anyone but Libby appears to be the same - there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with leaking classified info. The fact that Fitzgerald has talked to everyone does not mean he is confident there is enough evidence to indict -- in fact, the obstruction of justice that occurred likely made it difficult to gather all the evidence necessary. What did I misread in Fitzgerald's report? Fitzgerald said Plame was undercover until her cover was blown by Novak. Fitzgerald doesn't need to address whether this was criminal - he would not be involved if no criminal activity were involved. As for whether Plame was thinly veiled -- who wrote the memo? Not the CIA, but State, and you may be right that they should review their procedures for writing memos. And, again, it doesn't matter how "thin" you think her cover was; the fact is, if the CIA says she is undercover, that is what she is. Complain to them about doing a poor job, but that does not excuse whoever exposed her. And it does not excuse Rove and Libby and whoever else for contacting 6 news outlets (at minimum) in order to attack Wilson through his wife. This may be "overblown" too - I'm not arguing that it's not - but I do think this is serious, possibly more serious than actions that have brought impeachment proceedings against previous presidents. If the VP's office knowingly compromised national security in order to smear someone for criticizing actions that are already on tenuous moral and legal grounds (i.e. intentionally manipulating the case for war by ignoring key evidence or distorting other evidence), that is quite serious. Debates about how deep her cover was or whether there were other people hurt by her outing are secondary; the primary issue (at least in my opinion - and I acknowledge that's all we're discussing at this point, and that the only reason I'm continuing this conversation is that, as TheronJ noted, "speculation is fun") is the abuse of power by the executive branch and the placing of petty political revenge over national security concerns.--csloat 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- i'm confused. was someone arrested for stealing the car and not charged, or was no one arrested because of lack of suspects? i admire your passion on this issue and i too was drawn to this story because of all the issues you raised. but i stopped taking it seriously when joe and valerie wilson posed for vanity fair. to me, the whole affair became a political stunt after that. and as details continue to emerge, i think this was all a waste of time. but i agree there were serious questions involved here and the investigation was warranted, just way overhyped. we'll see where the civil suit goes.Anthonymendoza 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody was arrested, but what is the difference? If someone was arrested and not charged would that make the analogy more useful for you? Didn't happen to me, but it has certainly happened, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree there was still a crime committed if a car was stolen. As for the rest of it, I think we're nearing some common ground. I agree with you that posing for Vanity Fair was a lame move on their part. Then again, if Vanity Fair asked me to pose for them, I'm sure I would do it, and think about the fallout later. Certainly they wanted to get the word out about the scandal, and here was an outlet willing to do that. I'm not sure whether the civil suit matters much; it's a vehicle to keep public attention focused on this, I suppose, but to me this issue is important whether or not Wilson is vindicated by some kind of legal settlement.--csloat 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- i'm confused. was someone arrested for stealing the car and not charged, or was no one arrested because of lack of suspects? i admire your passion on this issue and i too was drawn to this story because of all the issues you raised. but i stopped taking it seriously when joe and valerie wilson posed for vanity fair. to me, the whole affair became a political stunt after that. and as details continue to emerge, i think this was all a waste of time. but i agree there were serious questions involved here and the investigation was warranted, just way overhyped. we'll see where the civil suit goes.Anthonymendoza 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The car analogy works. The reason no one was brought to justice is that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for the theft. That does not mean the theft was not a crime. The reason Fitzgerald has not charged anyone but Libby appears to be the same - there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with leaking classified info. The fact that Fitzgerald has talked to everyone does not mean he is confident there is enough evidence to indict -- in fact, the obstruction of justice that occurred likely made it difficult to gather all the evidence necessary. What did I misread in Fitzgerald's report? Fitzgerald said Plame was undercover until her cover was blown by Novak. Fitzgerald doesn't need to address whether this was criminal - he would not be involved if no criminal activity were involved. As for whether Plame was thinly veiled -- who wrote the memo? Not the CIA, but State, and you may be right that they should review their procedures for writing memos. And, again, it doesn't matter how "thin" you think her cover was; the fact is, if the CIA says she is undercover, that is what she is. Complain to them about doing a poor job, but that does not excuse whoever exposed her. And it does not excuse Rove and Libby and whoever else for contacting 6 news outlets (at minimum) in order to attack Wilson through his wife. This may be "overblown" too - I'm not arguing that it's not - but I do think this is serious, possibly more serious than actions that have brought impeachment proceedings against previous presidents. If the VP's office knowingly compromised national security in order to smear someone for criticizing actions that are already on tenuous moral and legal grounds (i.e. intentionally manipulating the case for war by ignoring key evidence or distorting other evidence), that is quite serious. Debates about how deep her cover was or whether there were other people hurt by her outing are secondary; the primary issue (at least in my opinion - and I acknowledge that's all we're discussing at this point, and that the only reason I'm continuing this conversation is that, as TheronJ noted, "speculation is fun") is the abuse of power by the executive branch and the placing of petty political revenge over national security concerns.--csloat 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- the car analogy doesn't work here since the reason no one was brought to justice for stealing your car was because he/she wasn't caught. in this case, fitzgerald knows who all the players are, what they said, who they talked too, etc, and no one was charged with leaking classified info. and i'm not suggesting fitzgerald's report was a lie, just that your misreading it. fitzgerald was making an argument that libby couldn't have forgotten conversations about plame because she and wilson were discussed deeply in the vp's office. but he doesn't suggest the fact that she was discussed was criminal. as far as everything else, Armitage has now stated that in 40 years of government service, reading and dealing with memos and classified documents, he has never seen a covert agents name printed in a memo. that tells you how thinly veiled her cover was. or perhaps the state department needs to review the guidelines for writing classified memos. i just think this is all so overblown. there's no question plame's career was ruined, but the fault lies with armitage and the author of the state department memo, rather than rove, libby , bush, etc. there just simply was no conspiracy to out her.Anthonymendoza 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say I thought another shoe might drop. As a patriot, I suppose I am hopeful that one does, but I am not making any predictions, given how weird this case has been. Your claim that no harm has come from her outing is ludicrous given what we now know about what she was doing; Mitchell, woodward, and priest are incorrect if they have reported that (former CIA officials Johnson, Marcinkowski, Grimaldi, and Cavan, as well as former DIA officer Lang, as well as several current CIA officials who remain anonymous, have all reported otherwise. I trust their word over the reports of two reporters (neither of whom is a huge hack - well, perhaps woodward - but you haven't indicated where their info came from) and certainly over the word of Andrea Mitchell, who has been shown to have deliberately distorted this on occasion, who has a clear investment in the case, and who has admitted having "misspoke" about this. As for Armitage, there is no evidence that it "changes the entire aspect" of this affair. The crucial issue is that the White House went after Wilson and in the process of doing so they (willfully or ignorantly) burned an important national security outlet. Whether anyone gets hung out to dry for that is not something I will predict, though, again, as a patriot, I do not hide the fact that I have my hopes. That Armitage is a blabbermouth is beside the point -- the whole reason he was looking at a document with this info about Plame in the first place is because people in the White House had started up a smear campaign. As for my citing the Post and saying they are wrong about something else - I cited a report and said they were wrong in an editorial. Look, the Post publishes a lot of different things and has many different writers. It is quite possible they get some things right and others wrong. Are you suggesting the report I cited - a basic statement of facts based on Fitzgerald's investigation - was a lie? Finally, I must again emphasize that whether anyone else gets indicted is a separate issue. My car was stolen. The thief was never brought to justice. I doubt you would claim that the latter fact proves that nothing illegal or immoral took place. Sometimes the evidence is not there to convict a criminal for wrongdoing (especially when there is obstruction of justice and perjury going on!) I can't see how anyone can claim that what took place was not immoral. National security was compromised by the exposure of an undercover CIA agent who was working on WMD issues, and it was done for a cheap political attack on someone else who was working for the Administration. (And this after the Admin even backed off the claim that Wilson was refuting!) If a Democratic administration had done anything like this, we'd have seen everyone involved tried for treason by now. I'm not saying that should happen here, but I am saying I find it very difficult to understand how you can claim these actions as morally defensible. Plead ignorance or stupidity if you want to defend the Admin on this but claiming it was morally justified seems absurd. And, by the way, I have one final point - it doesn't matter if you believe Plame was doing anything important with WMD issues. The outing of plame was also an outing of her cover company, which was a large CIA investment and may have exposed other agents and operations. Chances are the CIA had to call it quits on everything Valerie was involved in, and possibly lost relationships with other assets abroad. But even beyond that - and this is crucial - the question of the longer term effect on CIA covert operations needs to be stressed. Being an undercover agent of any kind is already dangerous - especially being a NOC. An agent knows that they could be killed or worse if their identity is exposed. It's bad enough that the "bad guys" might figure out their identity, but it is a lot worse if they cannot trust their own government to not blab their identity to reporters! We can only imagine the longer term effect of this action on recruiting and retention of covert agents who do this dangerous work. If I were a covert agent in 2003 when this happened I might be looking for early retirement options. This is, I think, one of the reasons the CIA took this so seriously when it happened, and it's a reason conservatives should be taking it seriously too. We can debate liberal vs. conservative ideas all day long, but at some point there are certain issues where American liberals and conservatives both should be responding as Americans first rather than as representatives of political parties.--csloat 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- so know Rustmann is not credible. ok. but yes, i am claiming both. she was NOC, but not enough to fit under the IIPA definition, and no real harm came from her outing, as andrea mitchell, bob woodward, and dana priest have all reported. but i see where you are coming from now when you write "It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this". you are waiting for another shoe to drop. i don't believe there are any other indictments to come involving this case, but let's wait and see. as for the armitage info being known, yes, some theorized it was him, but now that we know for sure, it does change the entire aspect of this affair. you cite the post to prove a big conspiracy, yet say they are wrong when they begin to distance themselves from Wilson. and yes, fitzgerald has said there is ample evidence that white house officials discussed plame, but he doesn't suggest it's criminal, or even immoral; rather, if you read the entire document, he uses that info to rebute claims by libby that he had other things on his mind and thus forgot about discussing plame. fitzgerald is arguing that wilson's column was at the forefront of cheney's mind and thus makes it more plausible that libby perjured himself and obstructed justice. we'll see what happens at libby's trial, as he is innocent until proven guilty, and we can't base our judgment solely on the documents of a prosecutor. but regardless, i believe your grasping at straws but i commend you for sticking to your guns. but if in the end libby is the only person indicted, the plame affair will only be remembered as a big conspiracy theory that didn't materialize.Anthonymendoza 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- So was she a NOC or not? You seem to be claiming both things here. The "deep cover" argument by Rustmann is the first and only place I've seen that, and his credibility on this issue has been called into question by several other former CIA officers. The anonymous guy who says having a diplomatic job means that she wasn't a NOC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, at least, if other CIA officials are to be believed on this. I still don't see any evidence of a distinction in kinds of NOC; Rustmann's comment sounds like he is making the distinction on the fly. Of course, neither of us works at CIA, at least I know I don't, and I don't believe you have ever claimed to, so neither of us can say with certainty whether that is an official distinction. As for the Jordanians, I have no idea whether they knew she was a NOC, and the article does not appear to make a claim either way on that issue. But it's nice that you're so sure of it. As for Armitage, which is the big issue here, the Times and Post are just wrong this time around. The Armitage info is nothing new. The book which this info comes from is coming out in a couple days I think; you will see then (assuming you read it, or about it) that its authors clearly do not agree with the WaPo assessment of the Plame affair as a big waste of time. Armitage was clearly not the only person spreading this information about Plame to the Washington press corps. Fitzgerald - who knew about Armitage back in '03 - stated in court documents that "there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14." According to WaPo (10/12/03), "two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists." That article reports that an administration official told them the disclosure was "unsolicited" and that it was "part of their broader case against Wilson." Rove called Matthews and said that Plame was "fair game" in the attack on Wilson (Newsweek 7/11/05). Your claim that Rove told Novak about Plame after Armitage told him is immaterial -- Rove talked to Novak about Plame the same day Armitage talked to him, and his confirmation of this information was a separate crime. We also know for a fact that Rove talked to Cooper 3 days later, offering up the same information (and no, I don't see any indications that Rove knew Novak would be mentioning it, though that is immaterial to any of this as well). If Armitage shot his mouth off first, that hardly changes the nature of any of this. It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this, but is also irrelevant to the question of whether there was a "Plame affair" or of whether there was something immoral, criminal, and detrimental to national security that was done by people in the White House and VPs office who wanted to attack a former Ambassador for doing his job.--csloat 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- corn's article says this about NOC's: NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. but if plame met with jordanian intelligence officials, wouldn't she have been known to the jordanian government? and this is from a time magazine article from 2003: Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, [Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official] said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. and the chicago tribune stated that plame had diplomatic cover while serving at an embassy:A CIA veteran with 20 years of service was quoted in the Tribune article as saying "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period and that diplomatic cover would have meant she would have been known to "friendly and opposition intelligence services alike". so there is a distinction between an NOC and a deep cover NOC, and it's not my "guesswork". what i don't understand is why you are the only editor you doesn't see the significance of Armitage being the initial leaker. i know in the past you've commented on Rove being "frog marched" out of the white house, but he isn't going to be charged. and neither is cheney. and libby trial will have nothing to do with plame's outing. ask yourself this: if armitage hadn't of told novak about plame, would we have a plame affair? rove only confirmed what armitage already told novak, and all indications are that rove told cooper after he learned novak would be writing an article about it. libby told miller, but she didn't and never intended to write about it. nobody burned anybody or conspired against anyone. even the washington post and the new york times are distancing themselves from Joe Wilson. there was no conspiracy to out plame.Anthonymendoza 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Armitage didn't burn her. Rove and Libby (and plausibly Cheney) did. Corn's article does confirm what is already known, I agree, but many people still seem to think that certain things were not known. There is no distinction made in that article (or anywhere else that I know of) between a NOC and a "deep cover NOC" -- I suggest that such distinction is based on guesswork by Wikipedia editors. I see no evidence that her work in Jordan compromized her NOC status, nor her cover as an embassy worker.--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Criminals?" I don't know where you are from, but here in America, we have a concept called "innocent until proven guilty." I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with it - it would help in your editing Wikipedia. Valtam 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please cite your source for the bizarre definition of "served overseas" here; frankly, I think you're making it up. The Bush analogy is nonsensical; if Bush had been sent to Iraq on a mission for the US military as part of an ongoing appointment as a machine gunner or something, then, sure, we could say he "served," just like when Valerie Wilson went overseas as part of an ongoing appointment as a NOC dealing with WMD issues, she too was "serving." As for IIPA, I don't think charges will be brought under it, because we have some of the criminals involved disrupting the investigation -- hence the perjury and obstruction charges. That is independent of her status as a "covert" agent, which she clearly was in the general sense, and now the evidence points pretty clearly that she met even the more restricted definition of covert given in the IIPA. Whether or not charges are brought against anyone under IIPA does not change her status as covert. As for the tubes, I understand your point, and I agree that it is ironic that in their zeal to assault Wilson, members of the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent -- inadvertently or no -- who was basically working on their side.--csloat 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- The language says "served" overseas. Single trips outside the U.S. would not qualify jsut as it would not qualify as "served" in the military. Otherwise, GWB would be considered a combat veteran as he has toured Iraq as Commander in Chief. But my interpretation, as well as yours, is why it will not hold up to scrutiny since it is not clearly sourced. It should be left out unless/until a charge that uses the IPAA definition is brought. She should not be referred to as a "covert agent" after 1997 since the IIPA has a definition that is not consistent with her service (or at best ambiguous). As for the tubes, I was pointing out that she is one of the people who say the tubes are for a nuclear reactor. That was her report to Congress and she believed that Iraq was reconstituting in Nuclear weapons program. If Korn is correct and she was part of the team who evaluated the Aluminum tubes, it puts her at direct odds to her husband. I don't think the Bush administration burned her, I think it was Wilson they were after and this disclosure was inadvertant. --Tbeatty 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm, yes? The IIPA doesn't require a "foreign assignment." It requires that the agent be sent abroad on intelligence work - which she was (dates are not clear but some time between 2001-3). There is nothing indicating she did not "enjoy" NOC status in Jordan. And it's not just Jordan; it says she "occasionally flew overseas" during this period to monitor operations. I agree about the tubes; it is ironic that the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent who was working to find evidence supporting his Iraq war case. I guess people will continue to read only what they want to read into articles like this no matter how much evidence comes out, but it will be interesting to see where the spin goes when this book is published.--csloat 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article states that Plame worked out of CIA headquarters starting in 1997. Obviously, you can't be covert if you are walking in and out of CIA headquarters every working day... Valtam 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is false. It's a canard that has been thoroughly refuted long ago. You think undercover cops don't go to the police station?--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is where it says she must be posted overseas in the last five years. Going to Jordan on a "business trip" would not count. Especially since she was going with Jordanian intelligence. "Served outside the U.S." implies a duty station not at CIA headquarters. A weekend trip or even a couple weeks would not suffice. In any event her "covert status" on this trip is certainly questioned as she went with Jordanian intellignece officials who almost certainly knew she was with CIA. It is still not clear that she meets the definition of "covert agent" within the IIPA. Korn's article didn't add any new information other than to confirm that Valerie Plame believed that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. --Tbeatty 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything there that indicates the trip to Jordan or the other overseas trips she took "would not count," sorry. That seems to be your interpretation. Same with your claim that "served" implies a duty station not at CIA HQ (and I also don't see any place where you learned where she was stationed in Jordan or her other trips). Nor do I see anything about how many weeks you have to be somewhere for it to count. I also see nothing in the Corn article or anywhere else that indicates that Jordanian officials "almost certainly" knew anything. As for what Corn's article added that was new - it's strange, since you've mentioned a few of the things yourself, otherwise I would just reply that you obviously hadn't read it if you think that was all that was new there.--csloat 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Being in Jordan is not "serving" in Jordan. Look at military billets. That's the way it works. If you go to Canada for week on business you aren't considered to be working in Canada. You don't pay their income or labor taxes, etc, etc. Going to Jordan as part of her work at a Langely desk would not count as serving outside the United States. As for whether Jordan intelligence official knew her status as CIA employee seems pretty self-evident. Why else would they talk to her? Here is the interesting bit. By tying her to Aluminum Tubes, Corn makes it clear that the statement "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons" a year before the invasion and after her husband returned from Niger. If her husband didn't believe that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, he didn't convince his wife. --Tbeatty 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tbeatty, I'm not buying it. Where is the evidence that going to Jordan to do CIA business doesn't count in the IIPA? You are just asserting it, and it's not convincing. Where is your information about the other trips she took overseas? Where is your evidence that she didn't get paid, that this was "part of her work at a langley desk" (what a loaded pile, sorry) or that the Jordanians would not talk to her if she was undercover? You are just asserting things - I'm glad you're so sure of these things, but I'm sticking to what I actually see evidence for. Your link to the CIA 2002 document tells us nothing. I never disagreed that Plame likely thought Iraq was trying to acquire nukes. Frankly, I think Joe Wilson likely thought so too before he went to Niger and discovered otherwise. But that is neither here nor there - this information makes a Plame/Wilson conspiracy less likely, not more.--csloat 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The simplest thing is to wait for reliable sources to opine on the circumstances of Plames' trip and whether it renders her covert. However, since speculation is fun, let me say that: (1) I still think Fitzgerald's unusual effort to avoid saying she was covert suggests that he wasn't confident that she was; but (2) the trip is one more thing on the other side of the scale. (As to whether she was undercover on the trip, I would be very interested in seeing what the reliable sources have to say -- I can imagine that it would be hard for a Brewster Energy executive to get the Jordanians to talk about the specifications of aluminum tubes they sold to Iraq, but OTOH, there's a good chance that she at least traveled under her cover just to avoid being kidnapped. TheronJ 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think we already have Corn "opining" on the matter here. I believe the book comes out today; looking forward to further revelations. But I suspect instead of "reliable sources" you specifically mean Fitzgerald. I don't agree that he has gone through any unusual efforts to avoid saying she was covert - I think he has simply chosen his words very carefully in general, something he is well known for doing. He has said she was under cover, and a judge has said that he thinks Fitzgerald believes she was covert under the restrictive IIPA definition. We already know she was "covert" in the normal, non-restrictive sense. (The requirement for international travel is a legal fiction; it is not a part of the normal definition of covert in lay terms, as we have discussed in the past).--csloat 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The simplest thing is to wait for reliable sources to opine on the circumstances of Plames' trip and whether it renders her covert. However, since speculation is fun, let me say that: (1) I still think Fitzgerald's unusual effort to avoid saying she was covert suggests that he wasn't confident that she was; but (2) the trip is one more thing on the other side of the scale. (As to whether she was undercover on the trip, I would be very interested in seeing what the reliable sources have to say -- I can imagine that it would be hard for a Brewster Energy executive to get the Jordanians to talk about the specifications of aluminum tubes they sold to Iraq, but OTOH, there's a good chance that she at least traveled under her cover just to avoid being kidnapped. TheronJ 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tbeatty, I'm not buying it. Where is the evidence that going to Jordan to do CIA business doesn't count in the IIPA? You are just asserting it, and it's not convincing. Where is your information about the other trips she took overseas? Where is your evidence that she didn't get paid, that this was "part of her work at a langley desk" (what a loaded pile, sorry) or that the Jordanians would not talk to her if she was undercover? You are just asserting things - I'm glad you're so sure of these things, but I'm sticking to what I actually see evidence for. Your link to the CIA 2002 document tells us nothing. I never disagreed that Plame likely thought Iraq was trying to acquire nukes. Frankly, I think Joe Wilson likely thought so too before he went to Niger and discovered otherwise. But that is neither here nor there - this information makes a Plame/Wilson conspiracy less likely, not more.--csloat 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Being in Jordan is not "serving" in Jordan. Look at military billets. That's the way it works. If you go to Canada for week on business you aren't considered to be working in Canada. You don't pay their income or labor taxes, etc, etc. Going to Jordan as part of her work at a Langely desk would not count as serving outside the United States. As for whether Jordan intelligence official knew her status as CIA employee seems pretty self-evident. Why else would they talk to her? Here is the interesting bit. By tying her to Aluminum Tubes, Corn makes it clear that the statement "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons" a year before the invasion and after her husband returned from Niger. If her husband didn't believe that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, he didn't convince his wife. --Tbeatty 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Covert" vs. not "covert"
The confusion on this point stems from the fact that there are two aspects to Plame's confidential/discrete employment status. First of all, let's not dispute that as a CIA employee, it's fairly reasonable to accept that Plame was - at least to some degree - discrete about he employment actvities. However, let's not confuse the political aspect ie; Wilson, et al shouting "they outed Plame for revenge" with the legal, ie: Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with a making an illegal "leak". Based on the facts so far, it's pretty clear that Plame's employment privacy was not protected by law at the time it "leaked" out. However, as to whether or not she was keeping a low profile, hence working "covert", it seems that to some degree she was. At the same time, her status of "covert"/discrete or lack thereof, does not prove or disprove that there was a "leak" from the legal standpoint. If no applicable anti-"leak" was law broken (which, because Fitzgerald did not charge anyone, this seems likely), then it's important that we use care so as to not imply or suggest via the word "covert" that any legally sanctionable "leak" occured. To sum up, as I see it, legally there was no "leak"; pragmatically, Plame was previously working discretely, Wilson did make himself an adversary of White House via the Op-Ed, WH did seek to rebut and defuse him and it certainly looks smelly that Wilson/Plame as Democrat players, had their fingers in the get Bush pie on the "16 words" angle. Frankly, it seems to me that Wilson has only himself to blame for the exposure Plame got. Those two tossed the dice trying to stick it to Bush and it blew up in their faces. Why others here can't see this, puzzles me. I would say that up until the point where Wilson wrote that OpEd and invited scrutiny, a fair characterization of Plame's emplyment status would be "confidential". However, I feel that she willingly shirked that confidence when she got her blabber-mouth husband involved in his obviously agenda-driven trip and then failed to rope him in prior to his axe-griding OpEd. Wilson pissed in the punch bowl at the party and when he did that, it's quite reasonable to inquire as to how he got his entrance ticket. If Plame truly wanted to stay out of the spotlight, she would have kept a leash on Wilson. True under-cover agents do not allow their spouses to attract press and political attention to themselves.87.118.100.99 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not confuse a lack of charges with a lack of evidence of criminal activity. We know Plame was covert in the general sense; the CIA has acknowledged over and over now that she was working under cover, and Fitzgerald has said as much, as has a federal judge. In the specific sense of the IIPA there has been a debate, though the Corn article seems to settle that debate too, since the only question about her "covertness" per the IIPA was whether she travelled out of the country on business during that time, and it now appears that she did so several times. Your claim that there was no law broken because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with breaking a law is a ludicrous argument. My car was stolen a few years back. Nobody was charged with stealing it. Are you saying no law was broken? My car was found some 25 miles away stripped and on cinder blocks. I am fairly certain there are laws against stealing cars and stripping them for parts in my state. Your claim that Wilson is the one who outed Plame is even more ludicrous. It's just nonsense. Wilson was doing the job he was asked to do and he wrote his op ed not to grind an axe but to do his duty as an American citizen. He was asked to do a job and he did it, and the Admin didn't like the answers he learned, so they stonewalled him and lied about it. He knew the 16 words were false and shouldn't have been in the speech, how could he have kept quiet about it? The nonsense that Plame sent Wilson or collaborated with Wilson on some kind of agenda-driven trip is complete bullshit, as you should know. Newsday June 22 2003 - senior intel officer notes "[Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." SSCI report p 40 - Valerie Wilson was not even at the meeting where the question of Joe Wilson going to =niger was raised. Wilson was picked for the niger trip because he was uniquely qualified for it. And the David Corn article confirms that the SSCI claim that Valerie "offered up" Wilson's name was a misunderstanding of something in a Douglas Rohn memo. It also points out that she was on the Bush Admin side in the whole WMD thing, so it's hard to give claims of a Plame-Wilson conspiracy any credence at all. And your claim about what "true under cover agents" do or don't do seems entirely based on your experience as an undercover wikipedia editor editing with an anonymous IP rather than any knowledge of how the CIA works - or doesn't work - here in the US.--csloat 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commodore, you say: He knew the 16 words were false. Your statement is flat-out untrue - see the Butler Review, which says: [W]e conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded. The fact that you are either ignorant of the facts, or are willfully distorting them, casts any claims you make into a dubious light. Valtam 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to Tenet, the 16 words never should have been in the speech. The Butler review is just wrong on this count. They never established any evidence of the 16 words being true; my guess is this was a CYA on their part. But my guess doesn't matter - my point was that the US has backed off of that claim because we knew it to be unsupported, based in part on what Wilson found when he went to Niger (but also based on other sources of information). The key documents here turned out to be forgeries. There is no need for personal attacks here; please read WP:AGF before engaging me in any further discussion. Thanks.--csloat 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commodore, I am assuming good faith and I am not making a personal attack. You make a statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", which is demonstrably false. Why would you do such a thing? The only reasons I can think of is you are ignorant of the matter, or you are not, and are intentionally making a false statement. If there is another explanation, I'd love to hear it. How is your statement demonstrably false? The forged documents, which Wilson claimed to have seen, were not the only evidence supporting this claim. See the entry on the 16 words. It talks about Blair's testimony about separate sources for the claims, as well as Jack Straw's testimony that British intelligence supporting the claim had not been shared with the CIA, and was based on reliable intelligence. Your statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", is false. Valtam 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Claiming I am willfully distorting facts and that any claim I make is dubious is a strange way of assuming good faith. Claiming I am intentionally making false statements is simply not assuming good faith. Tenet admitted the 16 words were false; I misspoke if I attributed what the Bush Administration knew to what Bush the man knew. I don't know what Bush the individual knew; but I know what his Administration knew and what he should have known before addressing the nation. Sorry if my words confused you. What Blair and Jack Straw thought is not relevant here; what is relevant is what the Bush Admin thought, and that information should have been influenced by Wilson's report, among other information from IAEA and elsewhere, that suggested there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. And today we have the bipartisan SSCI's relatively authoritative conclusion on the matter - "Postwar findings tdo not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa.... claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious'.... The ISG found no evidence that indicated Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The ISG did recover evidence that Iraq explicitly turned down an offer to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo." With the release of this report I don't see how anyone can continue to defend the position that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.--csloat 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- SInce this is tied very closely to IIPA, I think we must use the more restrictive defintion. It is a disservice to use the same words with two different meanings and this is the heart of the matter. I think it is enough to say her employment status is classified. WE should also be the most conservative when we use the term in relation to the criminal provisions of IIPA. Saying she was a "covert agent" and then pointing out that revealing a "covert agent" is felony with regards to the IIPA, while at the same time, behind the scenes, trying to say "covert agent" means two different things is a poor argument. I think in the context of the Plame affair, where the violation of IIPA is a very real possibility but not yet reality, we must defer to the definition in the IIPA. That means until legal source says that IIPA was or wasn't violated, we should simply stay on the side with the most surety. Namely, don't say "covert agent", say her "employment was classified" or that she had "non-official cover". Both of those terms convey the facts without advancing the position that IIPA was violated. It is possible to use the dictionary to work your way from those terms to "covert agent" but in the end it comes down to IIPA and it will fail that test until charges are brought. --Tbeatty 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- At this point, is there still doubt that Plame was a NOC? Fitzgerald has already said that at the time of her outting her employment with the CIA was "classified" (see 1f of the indictment). 1d of the indictment also notes that the outing of individuals in Plame's situation would prevent their "future use in a covert capacity". However, that being said, Armitage outing her may not have been a violation of IIPA. In order to violate IIPA Armitage would have had to know that she was a NOC and he would have had to intentionally outed her. Granted I haven't read every single article on Armitage's outting, but all the news I've seen have said that he knew she worked for the CIA, but didn't know in what capacity she worked for the CIA, and that he released the information on accident. If that is true, then even though Plame was a NOC at the time of her outing, there is no violation of IIPA. It also appears that Fitzgerald has known about Armitage's outting since 2003. One would think that if Armitage did violate IIPA he would have been charged by now. All in all, the lack of any charges related to IIPA does not prove that Plame was not a "covert agent", it just indicates that no one that knew she was a NOC intentionally outed her. --Bobblehead 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or it means that not enough evidence has been found to prove what anyone knew when they outed her. Of course, you're right that there is no serious dispute about whether she was covert. As for Tbeatty's argument about the specific IIPA meaning of covert, the solution is not to just use the non-intuitive meaning in all cases; rather, the solution is to be clear when you are using the more restrictive term. I definitely agree we should not confuse the two meanings, but just using "covert" to mean "covert + working outside the country in the past 5 years" is a bit deceptive in this context.-csloat 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- the indictment of libby also says fitzgerald was investigating possible violations of the IIPA as well. the question has always been why wasn't anyone charged with this. it goes to the heart of the whole affair. she was classified and an NOC. but she either didn't fit the description under IIPA, fitzgerald couldn't prove she was intentionally outed, or he found she wasn't intentionally outed. i personally find it interesting that the CIA requested an investigation into the matter not for IIPA violations, but solely for leaking classified information. isikoff's piece states fitzgerald couldn't prove armitage knew she was covert. and jason leopold wrote a piece for raw story last year that states fitzgerald couldn't convince the grand jury she was covert (though i don't trust leopold's reporting anymore). [1][2]Anthonymendoza 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or it means that not enough evidence has been found to prove what anyone knew when they outed her. Of course, you're right that there is no serious dispute about whether she was covert. As for Tbeatty's argument about the specific IIPA meaning of covert, the solution is not to just use the non-intuitive meaning in all cases; rather, the solution is to be clear when you are using the more restrictive term. I definitely agree we should not confuse the two meanings, but just using "covert" to mean "covert + working outside the country in the past 5 years" is a bit deceptive in this context.-csloat 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- At this point, is there still doubt that Plame was a NOC? Fitzgerald has already said that at the time of her outting her employment with the CIA was "classified" (see 1f of the indictment). 1d of the indictment also notes that the outing of individuals in Plame's situation would prevent their "future use in a covert capacity". However, that being said, Armitage outing her may not have been a violation of IIPA. In order to violate IIPA Armitage would have had to know that she was a NOC and he would have had to intentionally outed her. Granted I haven't read every single article on Armitage's outting, but all the news I've seen have said that he knew she worked for the CIA, but didn't know in what capacity she worked for the CIA, and that he released the information on accident. If that is true, then even though Plame was a NOC at the time of her outing, there is no violation of IIPA. It also appears that Fitzgerald has known about Armitage's outting since 2003. One would think that if Armitage did violate IIPA he would have been charged by now. All in all, the lack of any charges related to IIPA does not prove that Plame was not a "covert agent", it just indicates that no one that knew she was a NOC intentionally outed her. --Bobblehead 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- SInce this is tied very closely to IIPA, I think we must use the more restrictive defintion. It is a disservice to use the same words with two different meanings and this is the heart of the matter. I think it is enough to say her employment status is classified. WE should also be the most conservative when we use the term in relation to the criminal provisions of IIPA. Saying she was a "covert agent" and then pointing out that revealing a "covert agent" is felony with regards to the IIPA, while at the same time, behind the scenes, trying to say "covert agent" means two different things is a poor argument. I think in the context of the Plame affair, where the violation of IIPA is a very real possibility but not yet reality, we must defer to the definition in the IIPA. That means until legal source says that IIPA was or wasn't violated, we should simply stay on the side with the most surety. Namely, don't say "covert agent", say her "employment was classified" or that she had "non-official cover". Both of those terms convey the facts without advancing the position that IIPA was violated. It is possible to use the dictionary to work your way from those terms to "covert agent" but in the end it comes down to IIPA and it will fail that test until charges are brought. --Tbeatty 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Claiming I am willfully distorting facts and that any claim I make is dubious is a strange way of assuming good faith. Claiming I am intentionally making false statements is simply not assuming good faith. Tenet admitted the 16 words were false; I misspoke if I attributed what the Bush Administration knew to what Bush the man knew. I don't know what Bush the individual knew; but I know what his Administration knew and what he should have known before addressing the nation. Sorry if my words confused you. What Blair and Jack Straw thought is not relevant here; what is relevant is what the Bush Admin thought, and that information should have been influenced by Wilson's report, among other information from IAEA and elsewhere, that suggested there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. And today we have the bipartisan SSCI's relatively authoritative conclusion on the matter - "Postwar findings tdo not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa.... claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious'.... The ISG found no evidence that indicated Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The ISG did recover evidence that Iraq explicitly turned down an offer to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo." With the release of this report I don't see how anyone can continue to defend the position that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.--csloat 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commodore, I am assuming good faith and I am not making a personal attack. You make a statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", which is demonstrably false. Why would you do such a thing? The only reasons I can think of is you are ignorant of the matter, or you are not, and are intentionally making a false statement. If there is another explanation, I'd love to hear it. How is your statement demonstrably false? The forged documents, which Wilson claimed to have seen, were not the only evidence supporting this claim. See the entry on the 16 words. It talks about Blair's testimony about separate sources for the claims, as well as Jack Straw's testimony that British intelligence supporting the claim had not been shared with the CIA, and was based on reliable intelligence. Your statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", is false. Valtam 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to Tenet, the 16 words never should have been in the speech. The Butler review is just wrong on this count. They never established any evidence of the 16 words being true; my guess is this was a CYA on their part. But my guess doesn't matter - my point was that the US has backed off of that claim because we knew it to be unsupported, based in part on what Wilson found when he went to Niger (but also based on other sources of information). The key documents here turned out to be forgeries. There is no need for personal attacks here; please read WP:AGF before engaging me in any further discussion. Thanks.--csloat 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commodore, you say: He knew the 16 words were false. Your statement is flat-out untrue - see the Butler Review, which says: [W]e conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded. The fact that you are either ignorant of the facts, or are willfully distorting them, casts any claims you make into a dubious light. Valtam 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Iraq or Iran?
(She also assisted operations involving Iran and WMDs.) this sentence is the only mention of Iran in Corn's article. this is from the raw story article: While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran. anonymous sources drive me crazy!Anthonymendoza 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Newly Released Senate Intel Info
Now that the Senate Intel Committee has released its report demonstrating that the Adminstration knew its pre-invasion intel did not support its claims, do we have a clearer picture on the Plame affair?
-
- i haven't read the whole report, but does it specifically mention wilson's claims? if it does, it should be included in the background; if it doesn't then all you are going to do is ignite an edit war about prewar intelligence here. this isn't the page for that. besides, the background section is now getting to be too long. can you clarify your inclusion of the report in the background? Anthonymendoza 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I would remove what is currently the 5th paragraph (starting "The Butler Report") from the summary/background:
- The section is too long
- The accuracy of Wilson's claims is not a major element of the Plame Affair. Indeed if Wilson were 100% INaccurate, the outing of Plame would be all the more ironic. At most, the summary or background might note there is a controversy about Wilson's report, and let the body of the article go into detail
- If we evaluate one report for relevance to Wilson's claims then we should evaluate all of them; and do so in reference to what Wilson's actual claims about his trip actually are, not what the reports and Wilson's critics say Wilson said. That would be tedious at best
- I would remove what is currently the 5th paragraph (starting "The Butler Report") from the summary/background:
-
rewinn 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- i completely agree with you on all your points. all of this belongs on a separate page, but not on this page.Anthonymendoza 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Balance
There are two main points of view about this "affair":
- That Valerie Plame's (classified) employment by the CIA was a fact which it would be a crime for a government offical to reveal; and that a White House offical revealed this fact (to hurt Plame and/or her husband Wilson)
- That Plame's CIA employment was classified, but that it would not be a crime to reveal; and that the fact was not revealed by a White House official
I'm not sure what proportion of people advocate these two POV's but they seem to correspond to Liberal (anti-Bush) and Conservative (pro-Bush) roughly.
I would like to see this article, as well as the Valerie Plame article itself, changed from a style which asserts POV #1 as "the truth" to a style which reports POV #1 as the point of view of whoever has been advocating it (like journalists at New York Times, politicians in the Democratic Party). --Uncle Ed 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Except neither option is true. ;) Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was classified and it is only illegal if the person outing her knowingly and intentionally leaked her employment status. As far as who advocates the POV that a crime may have been committed, should probably include the CIA and Fitzgerald in that list. Additionally, speculation as to who was the leaker should be at an end now that Armitage raised his hand. --Bobblehead 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, the controversy is not just over whether there was a crime committed under the IIPA. There is concern over ethical, political, and national security problems created not just by the leaker, but by the White House officials who used the outing of Plame as an opportunity to discredit a perceived political opponent.--csloat 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Commodore, this POV needs to be attributed to its advocate. Perhaps you can clarify WHO made the charge that somebody "outed" Plame; or the charge that White House officials "used the outing" to discredit someone? And WHO expressed concern that the "leak" caused problems? (What problems do they say were caused?) --Uncle Ed 13:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. The CIA made the charge that someone outed plame, as did the special counsel. The charge that officials used the outing to discredit wilson was made by the counsel as well as by numerous intelligence officials who spoke with reporters (mostly anonymous, though some named former intel officials). And problems caused by the leak have been documented by several reporters, most recently including Isikoff and Corn.--csloat 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commodore, this POV needs to be attributed to its advocate. Perhaps you can clarify WHO made the charge that somebody "outed" Plame; or the charge that White House officials "used the outing" to discredit someone? And WHO expressed concern that the "leak" caused problems? (What problems do they say were caused?) --Uncle Ed 13:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Uncle Ed --- what exact language do you find POV? This article has been extensively discussed with respect to POV and, at present, is about as neutral as possible. It appears from your comments that you are unhappy about the article but until you are specific, nothing can be accomplished. rewinn 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I haven't yet identified any specific "language", but the tenor of the article is the (now hidden) assumption that:
- Plame was an "undercover agent"
- Someone outed her "on purpose"
- Points #1 & #2 combined with the law against revealing a CIA agent's identity, amounts to law-breaking. (I agree with the validity of this argument, by the way. It's only the premises which are in dispute: liberals/Democrats say one thing, conservatives/Republicans say another.
- I have therefore re-inserted, in the introduction, a clarification that the POV of the accusers is that the law was broken. It will be even better if, early in the article, we identify the accusers and summarize their justifications.
- I haven't yet identified any specific "language", but the tenor of the article is the (now hidden) assumption that:
-
- What we need to avoid is an article which implies (without ever coming right and saying it) anything like "White House officials did wrong". Even if they did, it's not Wikipedia's place to lay that blame. Wikipedia should report that some NAMED SOURCE blamed the White House (or the State Department) or "the Bush Administration", etc. --Uncle Ed 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Number 1 above is accurate; we've been through this. There are debates about the meaning of particular words in the legal sense - e.g. "covert" - but the CIA is the only entity with authority to tell us whether or not she was undercover or "classified," and they have indicated that she was. Fitzgerald has as well. Number 2 is not "hidden" in the article last I checked -- in fact, Armitage's role is pretty clear in the article, and speculation about the "purpose" behind things seems clearly sourced to specific reporters and commentators, though if you have complaints about specific I'm sure we can look at those. The POV that the law was broken does not belong in the intro, since the "affair" is not just about whether the law was broken but also about whether harm was done. I am not sure where you are getting your claim that Wikipedia is laying blame without sources here; again, if you cannot be specific about this, there is not much that can be done.--csloat 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
I have reverted edits to the introduction that narrowed Plame Affair to Armitage and to illegal conduct. Those are very far from the only notable elements of the matter. rewinn 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Plame's status
Either Plame was:
- a known employee of the CIA (hardly anyone says this)
- an employee whose connection to the CIA was "classifed" (but was not "CIA agent" working undercover)
- a "CIA agent" working undercover
I hear there is a law which applies to the 3rd case. Like suppose your "cover story" is that you're a tourist or embassy clerk, but you are really a CIA spy in Russia. Somebody reveals your CIA connection, and you and/or your family are murdered.
But what about case #2 where you're not one of several hundred "secret agents" but just another analyst like tens of thousands of others? Does the same law apply? (And if so, who says so?) --Uncle Ed 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- The law you've heard about is the IIPA, and it has a specific definition of "covert," not "undercover." The latter term has been used by Fitzgerald and by the CIA, along with "classified." This is (or was) covered in the article, and there have been numerous discussions of it on the talk page; it might be helpful to look through the previous discussions on this topic on this page and in the archive (search through the pages for "covert"; that covers a lot but there has been a lot of discussion on these pages of that dispute). Plame was a NOC (non-official cover), which many consider the most dangerous kind of undercover agent, since you travel without diplomatic protection -- if you're busted in another country, the CIA essentially pretends they don't know who you are (I'm oversimplifying of course). Few dispute that fact. That still does not mean she was protected by the IIPA, which is still a matter of debate for some people (and of course nobody has been charged under that law). Hope this clears it up.--csloat 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- One minor clarification. Plame's status as a NOC is protected by IIPA, but only from people that knew she was a NOC. So the fact that she was outed and no charges have been filed to date should not be taken as an indication that she was not protected by IIPA. It's just that Armitage may not have violated IIPA when he outed her. --Bobblehead 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Does Introduction need reasons Wilson picked?
I suggest deleting the paragraph in the introduction that talks about why Wilson was picked for the trip to Niger. Introducing the controversy over that sub-topic distracts from the main flow of events leading to the outing. rewinn 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Except that it should be somewhere in the article, since it establishes conclusively that Wilson was picked for his expertise and experience, not because he was Valerie's husband.--csloat 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it should be somewhere. However Wilson's full qualifications seem to be so extensive that they were largely editted out of the introduction. I sympathize with the desire for conciseness up front, but Wilson was so massively qualified for the gig that his qualifications may merit their own small sub-section. rewinn 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- i removed it because Wilson's qualifications can be found on his wikipedia page, and the intro has a link to it. if a reader wants to learn about his qualifications, they should read his page. that was my reasoning.Anthonymendoza 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it should be somewhere. However Wilson's full qualifications seem to be so extensive that they were largely editted out of the introduction. I sympathize with the desire for conciseness up front, but Wilson was so massively qualified for the gig that his qualifications may merit their own small sub-section. rewinn 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Cmon, Wilson was picked because his wife pushed for him. He didn't have an real credentials for this and didn't do any real work while in Niger. However it doesn't belong in the intro sinec it is only a side part of the controversy, who leaked and why is the core. 131.107.0.75 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem, sorry, but that's BS. Wilson was the best possible candidate for the job -- he had experience in Africa, he had experience with Saddam, he had relationships with most of the people he needed to talk to. And, in fact, his wife didn't "push for him"! That is a myth that has been pretty well shattered by the Isikoff/Corn revelations (and, in fact, the evidence prior to that was pretty clear anyway -- you have some vague statements about her "offering his name up" that turned out to be a misinterpretation, and you have clear statements from the CIA that she wasn't even at the meeting where he was chosen for the job).--csloat 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly were Joe Wilson's qualifications? No intelligence gathering experience. No security agreement. He was the best possible for the job? A high profile former US official with no cover was the best we had for a discrete mission? Sip your own BS, Cslaot, but I am not buying it. A lot of the misinformation you complain about comes from you. Evensong 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this is what was removed from the article: "he is a former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital. He was also Director for African Affairs in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and had relevant experience as Acting Ambassador to Iraq during the First Gulf War under then-President George H W Bush" This was not a secret intelligence gathering mission. Wilson was sent to speak openly with the major figures who would have knowledge of such a transaction. Larry Johnson puts it this way: "Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets."[3] You may not like Johnson but his argument here is impeccable. And cut out the personal attacks Evensong, it looks desperate and feeble. You have turned out to be wrong on just about every issue (if not every single one) that we've discussed here.--csloat 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly were Joe Wilson's qualifications? No intelligence gathering experience. No security agreement. He was the best possible for the job? A high profile former US official with no cover was the best we had for a discrete mission? Sip your own BS, Cslaot, but I am not buying it. A lot of the misinformation you complain about comes from you. Evensong 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem, sorry, but that's BS. Wilson was the best possible candidate for the job -- he had experience in Africa, he had experience with Saddam, he had relationships with most of the people he needed to talk to. And, in fact, his wife didn't "push for him"! That is a myth that has been pretty well shattered by the Isikoff/Corn revelations (and, in fact, the evidence prior to that was pretty clear anyway -- you have some vague statements about her "offering his name up" that turned out to be a misinterpretation, and you have clear statements from the CIA that she wasn't even at the meeting where he was chosen for the job).--csloat 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Cmon, Wilson was picked because his wife pushed for him. He didn't have an real credentials for this and didn't do any real work while in Niger. However it doesn't belong in the intro sinec it is only a side part of the controversy, who leaked and why is the core. 131.107.0.75 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
External links
Since I got reverted for not properly explaining why I removed a majority of the EL. Here we go:
- I wasn't saying that only government sources are the only acceptable links to include in the section.
- What I was saying was that the external links section is not a dumping ground for links that editors feel should be included in the article, but don't want to take the time to put them in as an inline source. (see WP:EL#What should be linked to)
In my opinion, the only links in this section that didn't meet the dumping ground criteria were the State of the Union address and Fitzgerald's official website. The rest were a repeat of links that were already in the article and/or did not have any information in them that wasn't already in the article, so they don't meet the criteria listed in WP:EL. The external links section is not for linking to specific articles on the subject (unless it adds something substantive to the article in an NPOV manner, but can not be added to the article due to copyrights), it's for linking to entire sites dedicated to the article and unless the site is NPOV, they need to include a description of which POV they are pushing. As an example, a link to Think Progress's tag for the Plame affair with a description along the lines of "Plame affair articles on a liberal website critical of the George W. Bush administration" is acceptable, but links to specific articles on Think Progress is not acceptable as they should be in the article as references. --Bobblehead 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, the State of the Union is a repeat of inline ref #2. Constructive 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Let me suggest that you do a couple at a time, then let it sit for a day or three, explaining in talk as you go? It will take longer, but would raise fewer hackles. Probably educate the other editors (such as myself) as well. I didn't do the revert but I can imagine someone reacting strongly to a large edit, especially since this is a contentious article. rewinn 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser
According to Novak, the Armitage leak was not just idle gossip. And according to a conservative source who spoke with Robert Parry, Armitage and Rove have a lot closer relationship than it would appear. The source told Parry "Armitage isn’t a gossip, but he is a leaker. There’s a difference." Interesting. I don't know what all this means other than, it ain't over yet.--csloat 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- What isn't over yet. Neither Rove nor Armitage will be indicted. The article is based on "A well-placed conservative source," which is just laughable. Why would Armitage conspire to "out" Plame? and obviously Fitzgerald is aware of Novak's account. so why wasn't Armitage then indicted? I just don't understand the fuss over all of this anymore. Anthonymendoza 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the information we know about any of this comes from "well placed sources"; why is this one more laughable than any other? I'm not sure why you see indictment as the only thing that would make this worth fussing over. As I've said a few times now, that is one issue but hardly the only important thing going on here.--csloat 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I suspect Plame Affair the article ain't over yet. People are still editting Terri Schiavo and Flat Earth. Most substantively, Plame Affair will probably include information about the civil suits which ... I state without fear of contradiction ... will take years to resolve. rewinn 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
Nice whitewash of the Rove section
Wow, I'm amazed. Reading the Rove section, I'm left feeling he was convicted of some crime. You'd never know from this article that after a 3-year investigation (and dealing with non-stop attacks on his character -- even being accused of treason) he was found to do nothing wrong. It's even more amazing if you look at the history of this article. At one point in time this article was one of the largest at Wikipedia and almost 80% of it delt solely with Rove. Bravo, my friends! Bravo! Goebbles would be proud of your abilities to whitewash information. Sadly, Wikipedia's credibility is right in the toilet because of this. --152.163.100.139 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- What specific edits would you suggest?
- You seem to be praising the effort that has gone into editting this page down to a managable length. On behalf of those who did the work (my part was small) I thank you. rewinn 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think you misunderstood me. While the editting of the article is noteworthy, I find this entire article a sad joke. It's entire focus changes on a regular basis. Once upon a time it's main focus was on Karl Rove, now its Armitage, tomorrow... who knows? I think there should at least be SOME mention in the Rove section that the man was hounded for three years and was being accused of committing crimes (including treason) yet was eventually found to not have done anything illegal. As the section is now written, it appears he has been found guilty of something that he was never charged with. If someone would like to fix this feel free. I have no intention in getting involved in this article. It's clear it's contolled mostly by a pack of wolves from Daily Kos who continually alter it at the whim of the latest headline or editorial. Ciao! --205.188.116.139 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Wow... I hadn't been paying attention to the news for a couple days and look what happens. Rove went on trial for treason and was acquitted? When did that happen? Can't seem to find anything on google, but I'm not that good with it. Can you help me out with a link or an article citation? Thanks.--csloat 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hmmm. Interesting test. Do you have your acquittal for treason in your hand? maybe you could provide a google llink to your acquital? Maybe that's why proving guilt is the standard and not the other way around. --Tbeatty 06:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Wow, I really haven't been following the news if I didn't notice that I had been cleared of treason charges! In fact, I didn't even notice being accused of treason! Again, I'm not good with google; can you help me out with some links to the news articles about my role in the Plame affair? (Just to clarify, for the humor-impaired; I was responding to the claim that Rove "was eventually found to not have done anything illegal." We're not arguing presumption of innocence; we're arguing about whether or not Rove "was eventually found" to have or have not done anything.)--csloat 08:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, that didn't take long. Now someone has removed Armitage from the lead of the story claiming it's POV pushing! LOL! Their edit summary says it's undeniable that there were "previous suspects"! LOL! So let me get this straight: If someone is murdered and 5 people are suspected by police, but after 3 years' investigation it was determined one of the suspects is guilty and the others are not, then it's POV pushing to write an article with the guilty party in the lead! This article is hillarious!! LOL!! --205.188.116.139 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- To insist that Plame Affair be about only whether Armitage broke a law is indeed POV-pushing. There is much more to it. If you are sincere in trying to improve this article, get a logon. rewinn 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
the endless back and forth over the intro paragraph
perhaps we should start a debate here to settle the intro paragraph once and for all. the basic question is, What is the "Plame affair"? here's my opinion. the plame affair is the allegation that plame's name was leaked intentionally for political payback. the fact that armitage was novak's initial source, libby was indicted, rove was scrutinized but not indicted, and that no one was charged with leaking her name are all pieces of the story, but don't necessarily define what the plame affair is. the plame affair has always been about the allegations, not the criminal investigation. all the relevant facts of the case are for the body of the article and not the background. therefore i don't think it's necessary to include that fact that armitage was novaks source in the intro. a one sentence intro is fine stating that "the plame affair is the allegation that plame's name was leaked intentionally for political payback". Anthonymendoza 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "Plame Affair" has been used to refer to a political scandal that arose following various media reports and partisan accusations relating to the employment history of Valerie Plame and certain accusations made against the Bush White House by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. Properly speaking, the Plame Affair's inception could resonably be dated to July 14, 2003, though since that time, the focus and scope of this controversy has changed considerably.
- How's this for an intro? 149.9.0.56 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"partisan accusations" - pretty vague, and how do we know they're partisan? also "Properly speaking": how so? who says so? sounds to much like original research/opinion. Regarding Antho...'s suggestion: I think he defines the affair too narrowly. As regards what we know now in relation to the intro: I don't think the intro should really change over time; if it has any time-sensitive material in it, well then that doesn't belong in the intro as it's not properly "introductory". I believe the article should read sort of like a narrative - chronologically. That way, skew from reality - which happened chronologically - is minimized, and more information - chronology - is presented in a clear fashion. Kevin Baastalk 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Chronological sequence is probably the most npov possible.
- The introduction should not characterize Plame Affair as only a political matter; as previously discussed extensively there are many dimensions including security, criminal, civil/legal, and of course political. Any attempt to limit the scope of Plame Affair in the intro is pov.
- This is a current event of great sensitivity and frequent twists. Stability is probably difficult, but more to the point, it is unlikely anyone is going to look to wikipedia for a definitive statement. So it is hardly worth the effort to do pov-pushing in the introduction. rewinn 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The Plame Affair did begin as a political scandal, though it has grown beyond that over time. 216.32.81.2 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Wilson allegedly lied
- Joseph Wilson, whose wife was outed as a CIA operative, was found to have lied about Iraq being disinterested in Nigerian yellowcake. Why does the article not reflect this? There is a liberal bias that permeates... never mind. Just get this article in the proper shape. As referenced in my sig, there's already one unsolved mystery bungled by authoritarian hacks. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, you're wrong. Wilson was quite correct about that (and, in fact, he was only stating what the State Department's intelligence agency already knew).--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, Wilson was proven to be a liar in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, regarding the forged documents. See page 45 of the report[4]. Here's the relevant portion: The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article... which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. So Wilson is a known liar; whether he lied about the yellowcake, or merely misrepresented his own report, is not entirely clear. Valtam 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh please. He has long since acknowledged that he made an error with that comment - it was the State Dept intel who had come to the conclusion that the documents were forged. Calling him a liar on that point - which he has admitted he was wrong about - and then using that to say he was lying about his own report (which has been confirmed by every other investigation into the matter) is a bit hysterical, to say the least.--csloat 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, Wilson was proven to be a liar in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, regarding the forged documents. See page 45 of the report[4]. Here's the relevant portion: The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article... which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. So Wilson is a known liar; whether he lied about the yellowcake, or merely misrepresented his own report, is not entirely clear. Valtam 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ari Fleischer
as if this affair wasn't bizzare enough, now we learn fitzgerald granted immunity to ari fleischer in a very unconventional way. given what has been revealed so far, it's clear fitzgerald targeted the vice president's office in his investigation. while the press is abuzz over cheney's behind the scenes efforts, there are two interesting bits of info here. according to Cathie Martin, cheney had dictated eight "talking points" for his staffers regarding joe wilson and ordered Martin to "get all the facts out." yet none of the talking points mentioned valerie plame, and according to martin "It didn't seem appropriate or helpful for us to get that out...It gave me some explanation but we didn't need it as a talking point." so much for the conspiracy to out her. another point of interest is that fitzgerald has apparently sided with the senate intelligence committee and is trying to convince jurors plame played a part in planning joe wilson's trip. i can see why since that would bolster his case. one things for sure, libby has a damn good lawyer. he's been able to show the jury that each of fitzgerald's witnesses at one time or another had memory problems with regards to what they told who and when. and while everyone thinks it's a bombshell that rove may testify, he's being called by the defense and his testimony will actually back up libby's claim that he first learned of plame from russert, since rove will testify libby told him such. interesting stuff! [5] [6] Anthonymendoza 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- "so much for the conspiracy to out her" - sure, except perhaps the conspiracy wasn't to out her, but to get Joe Wilson. Outing her was then likely a means to an end (or, to be generous to the veep, a side effect of the conspiracy). csloat 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why it doesn't matter
The CIA's assessment that Iraq was conducting a nuclear program was based off of aluminum tube orders and magnet production, not uranium from Africa. Also, does anybody know (or care) that Iraq has natural uranium deposits and intelligence officials believed they could get the bomb within 5 years without any imported uranium? 65.185.190.240 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire case seems so contrived to me. This whole thing is about naming names. Who cares? No one died or was injured. Yes, Libby should be punished but no more than a slap on the wrist. I really don’t see what the big deal is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.200.103 (talk • contribs).
- It's certainly a big deal to anyone who works undercover or who considers working undercover doing something dangerous to protect the country; if they can't be sure their own government won't protect their identity, why would they agree to do such work? You may not care, but a lot of current and former intelligence officials certainly do. csloat 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Csloat that plame losing her classified cia status was no trivial matter. but now that a clearer picture is emerging, i don't think this scandal has lived up to any of the hype. and as the LA times put it, in the end it's the CIA who bears much of the responsibilty for plame losing her career.[7] fitzgerald is currently trying to establish a motive for libby lying, and it appears he's going to argue that once libby realized plame's status was classified, he backtracked and tried to cover up. this is all a far cry from the notion that the vice president's office or the white house deliberately outed her. joe wilson was running around telling anyone who would listen that he went to niger at the request of the vice president's office and that he single-handedly proved the white house manipulated the case for war. in the ensuing political battle that emerged, plame's name was tossed around (since, as prosecution witnesses have testified, she played a part in planning his trip) until her name and cia affiliation was published. in my personal opinion, wilson should have known that declaring war on the white house and writing op-eds would lead to press scrutiny, and that private aspects of his life were bound to come out into the open. it's the nature of politics and is an essential part of daily political life in DC. to say he outed her is wrong, put his actions did contribute, as did the actions of the CIA and the white house. i view plame's outing more as a political casualty than a conspiracy. Anthonymendoza 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's no question there was a conspiracy to bring Wilson down; you're right though that she was a political casualty of that. Again, the bottom line is that the CIA's going to have a much harder time recruiting new undercover agents when it is clear that their undercover identity can easily be compromised by members of the administration when politically expedient. Sure Wilson played a part in this -- he found information that led him to believe the administration was lying, and he made it a point to make that information public. This is the real story here, that the admin was probably lying (or at least incompetent) and when caught, rather than coming clean, they played politics and (intentionally or no) sacrificed real national security interests in order to score a political point against Wilson. Should Wilson not have done what he did? I suppose his wife would have stayed undercover if he had kept his mouth shut, but it seems to me we should encourage those who find evidence of Presidential misconduct to come out with it rather than to shut up about it. Imagine if someone in the Clinton administration had outed a CIA agent to get back at those who exposed the blue dress... csloat 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Csloat that plame losing her classified cia status was no trivial matter. but now that a clearer picture is emerging, i don't think this scandal has lived up to any of the hype. and as the LA times put it, in the end it's the CIA who bears much of the responsibilty for plame losing her career.[7] fitzgerald is currently trying to establish a motive for libby lying, and it appears he's going to argue that once libby realized plame's status was classified, he backtracked and tried to cover up. this is all a far cry from the notion that the vice president's office or the white house deliberately outed her. joe wilson was running around telling anyone who would listen that he went to niger at the request of the vice president's office and that he single-handedly proved the white house manipulated the case for war. in the ensuing political battle that emerged, plame's name was tossed around (since, as prosecution witnesses have testified, she played a part in planning his trip) until her name and cia affiliation was published. in my personal opinion, wilson should have known that declaring war on the white house and writing op-eds would lead to press scrutiny, and that private aspects of his life were bound to come out into the open. it's the nature of politics and is an essential part of daily political life in DC. to say he outed her is wrong, put his actions did contribute, as did the actions of the CIA and the white house. i view plame's outing more as a political casualty than a conspiracy. Anthonymendoza 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[moved from current talk page; see explanation. --NYScholar 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)]
