Template talk:Plamefull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Plame's NOC status

That Plame was a NOC has been confirmed. Both NYT and Time magazine reported on 10/5/03 that Plame was a NOC and this has never been disputed. The only people who claim she was not covert make silly claims, such as that she had a desk job at the CIA. It is true that when covert agents are not out doing covert things, they sometimes have paperwork to do. Such claims betray a complete ignorance of how the CIA works. She was identified as a NOC to the NYT by Kenneth M. Pollack, "a former agency officer who is now director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution." Larry Johnson, former agency officer, knew she was a NOC because they entered the program together in 1985. Time magazine pointed out "In Plame's case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative's real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an noc also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity." Of all the people that claim she was not covert, there is not a single one who disputes (or even seems to understand) her status as a NOC. How about we change this to "status under which Plame is said to have operated by every single source who addresses the issue directly"?

Of course, this is all part of Mr galt's little jihad against Valerie Wilson that he has spread over several pages, including Plame affair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Valerie Plame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and Larry C. Johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Please refer to the talk pages on those pages for further evidence that Mrs. Wilson was indeed both a NOC and "covert."--csloat 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Other articles concluding she was a NOC include the following:

• The Spy Next Door; Valerie Wilson, Ideal Mom, Was Also the Ideal Cover, The Washington Post, October 8, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1814 words, Richard Leiby and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers
• Secrets Of the Scandal , The New York Times, October 11, 2003 Saturday, Late Edition - Final , Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 15, 736 words, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF; E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com
• Many Names for a Scandal, The Washington Post, October 20, 2003 Monday, Final Edition, A Section; A21 , IN THE LOOP Al Kamen, 832 words, Al Kamen

The Kristof article is especially interesting for Mr galt to take a look at, since he berates the Democrats for blowing the scandal out of proportion, yet he still concludes she was a NOC (his theory is that she was moving away from NOC status by 2003, which may have been true, but he acknowledges that she was still a NOC and that she is known to have "lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots."--csloat 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed your 3 sources. None of them supports your position.

You wrote, "Other articles concluding she was a NOC include the following:"

• The Spy Next Door; Valerie Wilson, Ideal Mom, Was Also the Ideal Cover, The Washington Post, October 8, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1814 words, Richard Leiby and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers

WRONG. This article refutes claim that Plame was NOC when she was named by the Novak column in 2003: "For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst."[1]

Uh, wrong yourself. That sentence does not refute that she was a noc - that is not excluded by being an operations officer or a proliferation analyst. Here is the full context that you do not quote; it states quite clearly that she was a NOC:

Her activities during her years overseas remain classified, but she became the creme de la creme of spies: a "noc," an officer with "nonofficial cover." Nocs have cover jobs that have nothing to do with the U.S. government. They work in business, in social clubs, as scientists or secretaries (they are prohibited from posing as journalists), and if detected or arrested by a foreign government, they do not have diplomatic protection and rights. They are on their own. Even their fellow operatives don't know who they are, and only the strongest and smartest are picked for these assignments.... For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign. Administration officials confirmed that Brewster-Jennings was a front. The disclosure of its existence, which came about because it was listed in the FEC records, magnifies the potential damage related to the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity: It may give anyone who dealt with the firm clues to her CIA work. In addition, anyone who ever had contact with the company, and any foreign person who ever met with Valerie Plame, innocently or not, might now be suspected of working with the agency. Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.

So she was a NOC. And for the past several years she was an operations officer. These are not exclusive - NOC describes her cover status and operations officer describes what she is doing. The article goes on to show that she "lived behind a facade." She was an undercover officer, and she was a NOC -- nobody has disputed this.-csloat 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Secrets Of the Scandal , The New York Times, October 11, 2003 Saturday, Late Edition - Final , Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 15, 736 words, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF; E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

This is an opinion article. The only source listed is Jim Marcinkowski, who said I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her C.I.A. career...." The article notes, "she was already in transition away from undercover work to management," which is consistent with article 1.[2]

"In transition" means she was still undercover, which is consistent with all of the articles. It is Nicholas Kristof, not Jim Marcinkowski, who claims ignorance of her CIA career. That would be an odd thing for Marcinkowski to claim since he is also former CIA and he knew she "is a hell of a shot."-csloat 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Many Names for a Scandal, The Washington Post, October 20, 2003 Monday, Final Edition, A Section; A21 , IN THE LOOP Al Kamen, 832 words, Al Kamen

LOL! I cannot believe you list this as a source. This is a column that merely reports scandal name suggestions (from its readers!). A reader suggested the name NOC-out Punch and Kamen correctly noted that "The NOC designation refers to Plame's alleged status as a No Official Cover agent, meaning if she had been nabbed, she would have had no diplomatic protection." Kamen correctly notes that the NOC status has only been alleged, not proven.[3]

It need not be "proven" -- it has never been disputed!-csloat 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact is we do not know if Plame was an NOC and we cannot state so conclusively. By stating that nonofficial cover is the status under which Plame may have operated, we are being accurate and NPOV. If you would like me to provide quotes from journalists, commentators, and politicians saying Plame was NOT covert, please let me know (you have already seen them). A template like this is no place to push POV.--Mr j galt 11:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You have outright distorted these sources, using your usual trick -- pull a sentence out of context that seems to say one thing and then ignore everything else in the article that confirms your interpretation is incorrect. This looks like bad faith to me, I am sorry; I have been doing my best to assume good faith but it is impossible when you will lie and stretch the truth like this. And, of course, you nitpick these three sources that I added as backup -- you totally ignore the two main sources on this issue, NYT via Kevin Pollack and Time magazine. Typical.--csloat 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)