Talk:Valerie Plame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Valerie Plame article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
To-do list for Valerie Plame: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Maintain neutral point of view.
  • Document sources of statements and claims.
  • Make more concise without making misleading cuts of relevant material.
Priority 2

Contents

[edit] Treason?

can any person with legal expertise give an opinion, if people can get arrested for teason for this sort of thing?

[edit] Everyone knew she was out paragraph

I moved the following para from the article to here for discussion. --Zippy 04:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

65.122.109.178 contribs in this edit on 17:03, 19 October 2005 wrote:

It has also been widely rumored that Plame's loose relationship as an analyst/operative for the CIA was well known to many people in Washington , including journalists, long before she was "outed". The initial reports, by her husband and certain reporters, that somehow she was endangered by this "leak" seem now to be erroneous, as the nature of her work for the CIA has shown to not be such that she would be in any danger of retaliation from anyone that she had dealings with professionally.

This fails the NPOV test, in my book, or at the least needs sources attached to the claims. Can anyone provide these? --Zippy 04:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, the quoted passage missed the point that outing her put all her past contacts at risk. Everyone she knew, in her overseas posts, was now at risk. -- Geo Swan 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Not only that, but it is simply false as well. Investigations by the FBI and by journalists turned up none of her friends and neighbors who had any idea she was an operative. The only people claiming to have actually known about Plame Wilson beforehand are, frankly, well-known right-wing hacks who are pretty obvious about their agenda to discredit the Wilsons. In addition, it has been reported that Plame received death threats linked to al Qaeda as a result of the leak, and was told that she would not receive any special protection.
But an even bigger harm is not just the exposure of her contacts but the future of the Agency. Why would anyone want to become a NOC, knowing that their cover could be blown for cheap political gain? Why would anyone want to even join the Agency? If I were a NOC right now I would be looking for a way to retire quietly. I imagine quite a few of them are doing just that right now.--csloat 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the para doesn't meet the NPOV test. It clearly is down-playing the importance of the leak. It is possible that it was written immediately after the story broke when many media outlets were making such claims. Denis Diderot II 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone have a source for this?

"Officers at United States embassies often brag about the fact that staff members are CIA. Former CIA agents like to make mention that worked for the Agency in the past."

[edit] Suspect Timeline Entry

Lestatdelc 07:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)The following entry, aside from bad wiki mark-up, is erroneously in the 2002 timeframe, is un-sourced and is a generalized non-specifc claim on a specific date. Will gladly re-work this and put back in, if sourced and specified to a verifiable event and date:

July 11: pundits cast doubt on Wilson's claims of doubt. The discrepancy is between Wilson's reports to CIA/White House/British intelligence, and later editorial (and book) accounts that he was ignored.

[edit] Legal Issue

The assertion that revealing "open secrets" does not violate the law is incorrect. Properly classified information remains classified even after it has been improperly revealed, and publishing it remains subject to legal penalties.

Moreover, it is now clear that Plame was not merely undercover, but acting under "non-official cover," which is the most tightly held form of covert status.

Clear from what sources? References with dates, please. For some and perhaps all of the relevant time window, she was working out of the CIA's Langley headquarters as an analyst. As noted below, her covert work stopped some time earlier, for reasons that are apparently not publically documented but freely speculated upon. There are rumors -- probably undocumentable, like most private vocal conversations -- that both her husband's identity and her employer were common knowledge on the DC cocktail party circuit. Their marriage is public record and was publicized in her husband's bio. As cited in the article itself, the CIA confirmed her employment, which undermines the claim of non-official cover.
[1] is a statement from a former (Republican) CIA agent that asserts Plame was a NOC. --Vile Requiem 01:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the content in this section regarding whether various legal tests have been met is speculative at best and probably inappropriate. Perhaps the article would better serve the public interest and more closely conform to the spirit of Wiki if the discussion in this section were limited to an exposition of the law. Judgement regarding whether or not the law was broken and by whom should be left to the courts.


Plame has held a desk job at the CIA in Virginia since 1994. She is said to have been outed by Aldrich Ames and also by Joseph Wilson, when they were dating.

Got a cite for those last claims -- outed by Ames, outed by Wilson? The second is contradicted by the news reports of her neighbors and relatives having no clue about her CIA connection --Zippy 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Chronology

IMO, the reverse chronology is an unnatural and confusing mechanism justified only by readers being able to follow developments without moving away from the top of the chronology. That makes sense on news sites (of which there are plenty), but WP is not a news site: our articles are to be designed for coherancy, and forward chronology is part of that. In fact, i question whether such a detailed chronology should be part of this article: it is not necessary for thoro coverage; it probably could be a separate article, but its presence in the Valerie Plame article suggests to me that raw source material (which might belong on this talk page) is being dumped in the article instead of, and to the detriment of, trying to keep a well-crafted article up to date by, e.g., rewriting old stuff in the light of info that supercedes it.

Holding fire rather than massively editing, against the possibility of previous authors cleaning up their act, or at least responding, i am
--Jerzy(t) 22:15, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

I agree; the reverse chronology is difficult to read, and should be reordered into normal chronological order. --Arteitle 03:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent developments

The president's got a new personal attorney, Jim Sharp, possibly hired because the White House Council isn't bound by attorney-client privilege and must spill any beans they know about Federal crimes.

Jim Sharp is said to have defended Watergate co-conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder, Richard Secord during Iran-Contra and, more recently, Enron's Ken Lay.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040624_1071.html

"The president was interviewed for 70 minutes by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the head of the Justice Department investigation, and by members of his team. The only other person in the room was Jim Sharp, a private trial lawyer and former federal prosecutor hired by Bush, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan."

John Dean (of Watergate fame) says of Bush's hiring of Sharp, "This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

...and from the tinfoil-hat department: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html

[edit] Karl Rove?

"The probable source of the information given to Robert Novak and other conservative Republican columnists is Karl Rove."

This is based solely on Joseph Wilson's allegations and since he's a proven liar, is it fair to say that Karl Rove is "the probable source" of this leak?

Hold on: while it's fair to insist that Wilson be cited as the only person making these allegations, it's also fair to insist that you cite proof that Wilson is a liar (if you are going to make that assertion).
New Info: Joseph Wilson is no longer the only source of such allegations. On July 1, 2005, Lawrence O'Donnell, an MSNBC analyst, revealed on the Huffington Post blog that Karl Rove was indeed one source of the leak
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/its-rove_3556.html

Possibly even more telling: In early July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer (Robert Luskin) confirmed that his client had turned up as a source in Matthew Cooper's documents, which Time turned over to the special prosecutor ... although they do give Rove a possible "out" by saying "that did not mean that he was the key source in question". However, on July 4, 2005, "top White House adviser Karl Rove refused to answer questions about the development". http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000974740

And ... Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link, wrote on the Huffington Post blog (on July 4, 2005), that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000972931

The Washington Post has a comprehensive write-up of the situation as it stands on Friday, July 8th, 2005 at this URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702215.html


It should be noted that both reporters Novak and Cooper called Rove and brought up the Wilson issue. If the white house was out to attack Wilson, having Rove sitting around waiting for reporters to call him and then bring up the issue doesnt seem like the way to do it.

Actually this is a claim from Rove's lawyer. Cooper states that Rove raised the issue of Plame, not him. Novak's story has changed over time.

At this point Rove has admitted talking about Plame having previously made statements intended to give the impression that he didn't.

[edit] Scandal

The article currently says that this became a political scandal after Air Force One telephone records were subpoenaed, but the Valerie Plam disclosure was actually a scandal as early as September 2003, when news broke that the CIA had requested that the Justice Department conduct a criminal investigation. What's the reasoning for noting the Air Force One subpoena specifically resulting in a scandal? - Walkiped 23:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Odd that the only part of this page that doesn't have an edit button is the one that challenges someone to prove Wilson is a liar. So I'll have to put a bit of proof down here. Senate Intelligence Committee report: Documents indicate Wilson's name was put forward for trip to Niger by his wife, Valerie Plame. See link below. But there's loads more. Wilson said he saw an intel report 8 months before he saw it. Wilson has tried to pass himself off as not being movtivated by politics. Wilson was an advisor to the Kerry 2004 presidential campaign. Wilson in 2003 said he wanted to see "Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs wearing an orange jumpsuit", good old, non-partisan Joe.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

The CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames ratted Plame out to the Russians no later than 1994, along with a number of other covert spies. Indeed, the CIA pulled Plame from the field as a direct result of this.

In any event, she had not served overseas in a covert CIA role since then and thus no law was violated regardless, at least as far as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 goes.

But really, if any spy agency out there didn't already know who and what Plame was as a result of the 1994 affair, they almost certainly aren't seriously trying to spy against the USA and thus aren't a threat to the USA. This was not truly an "outing" in any meaningful sense of the word, since everybody who actually cared already knew a DECADE ago about Plame.

So really, what possible story is there to this today, except as a desparate plot to try and attack Bush?

So sad.

Well the CIA believed that a crime had been committed, which is why they requested that the Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation. The issue here is not so much Plame's outing as the violation of a federal statue. Even Bush has expressed interest in getting to the bottom of the case. Regardless, there's a story to be told, and wikipedia is attempting to tell it, in a neutral manner as possible. - Walkiped 00:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The first and main person to accuse the Bush administration of retribution for leaking the name is Plame's husband, Wilson. However, since you mention politics, it is quite apparent that this investigation is being held more for the perception that the Bush administration is concerned about security leaks (but from Novak's comments, it appears any leak was accidental and assumed of minor security risk). Remember, it is the Bush administration that is coordinating this investigation- not by critics. It is also interesting that as of today (July 6, 2005) the only people being prosecuted in this mess are Mark Cooper and Judith Miller who wrote about Novak's story/leak. Novak for all his trouble-making, not to mention the actual senior Bush officials that gave Novak this information, have been untouched. Novak's intention in even bringing up Plame's name as a CIA operative was an attack that the Bush administration was (in Novak's own words) "notoriously liberal laden". He even admits he was told by officials not to disclose the name, but did it anyways- [pardon my non-Wiki POV, but what a hypocritical pr!ck]. This guy doesn't have an ounce of ethics himself yet attacks others for not holding to it.--Acefox 6 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)


[edit] who authorized the trip?

Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was ... [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.) [2]

Wilson and Plame denied that Plame authorized the trip, which was ordered by her CIA superiors.[3] (or State Department? (Same difference?)

Valerie Plame wasn't in a position to make such an authorization, and it was higher authorities in the CIA that were looking for an envoy to make that snooping-around trip...[4]

Wilson, in his book "The Politics of Truth" P17, says that the trip was approved by Walter H. Kansteiner, III.

It seems to me the crucial issue here is not whether or not a crime was committed but what the intentions of Rove, Libby, Cheney, and possibly Bush were? To get one of their own operatives assassinated? What was their motivation in leaking the information? If it was to undermine the operations of their own government and possibly get this woman killed for her husband's willingness to disagree with them, then who cares if they broke the law. The act itself is so repugnant that it strains belief to think that it could have been committed by our own executive department.

[edit] Plame's employment status with CIA

If I'm not mistaken, Plame was an analyst (like the Jack Ryan character) and not an "operative". Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Plame was operating under "non-official cover" and the CIA was reportedly furious when she was outed. As others have pointed out, the special prosecutor would not have wasted a year and a half investigating this leak if her identity was not protected under the law in the first place. --agr 21:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The immediate above statement makes it appear that Plame was under "non-official cover" at the time of the outing. This very article states: "...indicated that she was at one time a NOC (nonofficial cover) covert operative." So Plame was AT ONE TIME covert. Furious or not the CIA cannot extend the reach of the statute. As for the efforts of a special prosecutor, isn't that what Democrats said of Kenneth Starr's efforts? This incident was referred to the Justice Department as part of a weekly referal of incidents that is routine. The CIA referred it, not because the CIA knew that a violation of law had occurred but because there was an incident. All such incidents are referred and it is up to the Justice Department to investigate to see if charges are warranted. When the Justice Department referred this to a special prosecutor this was not because there was certainty that a violation had occurred but because to investigate it would be a conflict of interest so a referal to a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor investigates and so far that is all that this special prosecutor has done. Until the special prosecutor files charges there has been no violation. Now in the course of the investigation if someone violates the law in some other way, for example, the media jailing, then that too occurs, but that does not mean that any violation of the law occurred. Martha did not violate the underlying law, she violated the law during the investigation of incident. So all we have here at present is an incident and it does not become a violation until a charge is filed and that still does not mean that anyone is guilty of anything unless convicted.

The CIA apparently thought Plame's identity was covered under the the law, otherwise there would have been no incident to report The special prosecuter has been investigating it for a year and a half. I think it is fair to presume that they both can read the act as well as we can and are fully informed as to Plame's work status. There is more to this story than illegality, however. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leak, not merely that he was the primary source. By his own admission Rove confirmed the story to Novak and spread it further to Cooper. So either Rove lied to the White House or the White House was not truthful when it reported his denials. And even in the latter case, Rove did nothing to correct the false denials for two years. --agr 18:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Sanford the First Amendment attorney who is the real author of the 1982 act which defines agents covered under the act appeared on FOX NEWS July 15, 2005 during a segment of Britt Hume's show with Jim Angle sitting in and Sanford stated that Plame is not covered by the 1982 act and he further stated that the act is being misapplied in this instance. Sanford stated that there are so many restrictions, on purpose, that there is no way this law can be applied to Karl Rove. Where there is no illegality, there is no story. You cannot assume illegality simply because an incident has been referred for investigation, and simply because there is an investigation does not mean there is any illegality, and even if charges are filed that does not mean that conviction is certain. As Dick Morris stated on FOX NEWS's, this is nothing more than politics by those who lost an election. Plame's former supervisor, Fred Rustmann, appeared on FOX NEWS July 15th on Hannity & Colmes and said that she was at CIA headquarters for several years prior to the outing and that she did not fall under the 1982 law. Further he stated that there were no negative consequences for the outing and that her work even when covert was not significant (and in fact this has been discussed elsewhere as a failure). Moreover he stated that many people knew who she was particularly since her marriage to a high profile diplomat. In fact even her neighbors knew who she was as she told them. Additionally The New York Times and The Washington Post reported today, July 15, 2005 that Karl Rove learned of Plame from journalists and all that he stated when told was to state that he had heard that too. This entire thing is beginning to appear to be a political hitpiece to embarrass the Bush Administration by sending Wilson a known Bush detractor to investigate a subject he was not qualified in the least to investigate. Fred Rustmann staed on FOX that sending Wilson was an absolute plunder and stupid--you don't send a diplomat known to everyone to investigate things that a covert agent should investigate. Wilson's attack on Bush confirms that and his continued attacks further proves it. Eleanor Cliff (hardly a Bush supporter) of Newsweek agreed on FOX that Rove is not the primary source for for Novak, which makes the allegations against Rove baseless.

What kind of cover is it when someone drives back and forth from their home to the CIA HQ every day?

Probably good enough to fool uranium merchants in Niger. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act only requires knowledge that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." It doesn't say the measures have to be effective. Note that Novak claims his source asked him not to publish her name. That person - we don't yet know who it is - apparently knew her identity was sensitive. Rove's lawyer is now saying Cooper "burned" Rove by disclosing Plame's name after Rove had told Cooper on "double super secret background" that Wilson's wife was CIA. If Rove thought Plame's identity was not sensitive, why the double super secrecy? Why not say publicly for attribution that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and got him the job? Why lie about having done it for two years? --agr 02:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a quote from an editorial column at the end of Plame's "Career" entry? this comes across as biased. Anthonymendoza 5:20 pm 28 February 2006 eastern standard time

It's only necessary to counter the impression you are trying to create with your edits regarding the possible outing of Plame by Ames a decade earlier. Whatever happened with Ames, the fact is that the CIA considered Plame covert, and that is all that matters here. You have been trying to create the same impression by including known disinformation -- the Wilson quote that was blatantly out of context, which I corrected. It's a little disingenuous for you to claim that the editorial creates possible bias when you have been inserting this material for blatant POV reasons. I had not known about the Ames material until reading your edits, and I think the reason it has not been a big issue in the media is exactly as explained in the editorial and the other article I researched and added to the page -- (1) Plame was still undercover, and (2) the damage done by Novak exposing her identity was not trivial, and went beyond the immediate issue of Plame. The bottom line is that covert CIA agents should not be compromised by other federal employees no matter what -- whether or not there is dispute about their "covert" status, whether or not they were under "deep" cover, whether or not their husbands are liars. I don't see why Wikipedia editors are under any obligation to act as unpaid members of Libby's legal defense team.
By the way, you can sign your edits using four tilde (~) characters in a row, rather than writing the time in yourself :)--csloat 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

i put in the "disinformation" i did hoping you would counter it, which you did. but i have not once put in an editorial, which there are MANY i could chose from. the wilson quote was similar to Andrea Mitchell's quote stating that reporters covering intelligence matters knew who plame was. like wilson, she says she was misquoted. to those of us who view wilson with very little credibility, this was and still is suspicious. but i'm glad you countered it. as for the Ames story, it WAS a big issue in the media. your counter even states she was recalled in 1997 for fear she was outed. that's six years before novak "outed" her thus making Novak's column not a criminal act, which it turned out not to be! how can you say it wasn't picked up by the main stream press?? for that reason it was a BIG story. but it all goes back to the main point you made above: if exposing her was "not trivial" WHY WASN'T ANYONE CHARGED WITH LEAKING HER NAME?? fitzgerald isn't even allowing libby to see CIA documents relating to her cover or to know of other "leakers" he verified. he's made it clear this case will not be about Plame's CIA status in any way. given all the accusations and conspiracy theories relating to this case, at the end of the day, a two year investigation yielded one individual being indicted for perjury and obstruction. that's the point i'm trying to get across in my edits. i hope you stay on my case, though. this is good debate!--User:Anthonymendoza 12.203.178.107 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things I want to add to Ryan's excellent (as usual) response to this ... (1) The Ames thing was not "a big issue in the media." I looked through Lexis/Nexis and found only eight sources with "Ames" and "Plame" both mentioned, only three of which addressed the possibility that Ames compromised her identity in the 1990s. There was certainly nothing about this in any newspaper prior to 2003. And, of course, Plame was still undercover according to the CIA, which is all that matters for our purposes here. Libby's legal staff may be interested in whether Plame was covert under the terms of the IIPA, but the fact is that she was considered covert by the CIA independently of that (a point we have been over and over again on this page for months). (2) Your question "why hasn't anyone been charged" is a red herring -- the real issue is whether the leak of Plame's identity was damaging, which it was. Fitzgerald has probably not charged anyone yet for the leak because (a) he is a careful prosecutor who wants an airtight case, and the perjury one is much more clear, and (b) he does not want to press charges that will require even more classified information to be leaked. Libby's defense strategy is one of graymail, trying to force the government to drop the case by insisting that classified information is essential to the defense. Fitzgerald's charges seem limited precisely in order to prevent this strategy from working. Now, what Novak did in publishing the information may or may not be illegal (he is not a public official and he is not the original leaker of the information), but there is little question that it was immoral and that it harmed U.S. national security.--csloat 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
the media used it in it's legal brief and i remember it being widely reported. i guess not in the print media, but i remember a debate on hardball and other cable news shows. and of course nothing was written about it prior to 2003. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but putting in information you know to be false, or incomplete, is hurting Wikipedia. Please try in the future to provide neutral, factual content and not rely on others to counter what is in essence your furthering of a blatant misinterpretation in the interests of misinforming the public. If you knew what you posted was incomplete (and therefore misinformative), it's not good debate - it's pretty poor editing, and disruptive of Wikipedia.
Second, your statement "she was recalled in 1997 for fear she was outed. that's six years before novak "outed" her thus making Novak's column not a criminal act, which it turned out not to be!" is completely erroneous. Plame was recalled by the CIA, not publically 'outed'. Novak's act of publicly naming Plame as a CIA operative in WMD was very likely a crime that created the entire leak investigation - and her recall at the time of the Ames incident is irrelevant to that fact - thus your comment is simply incorrect on its face. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

no. In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose a "covert agent." To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." Plame hadn't been posted overseas in the last five years when Novak wrote the column. the Ames incident is very relevant to this and is likely why no one was charged with violating this act. as for poor editing, there is a reason this page is tagged as being "disputed". from reading the talk page, i say it's because one side is being represented in its makeup. User:Anthonymendoza 12.203.178.107 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read this talk page and the Plame Affair talk page, you'll see your (second) erroneous comment is equally refuted. The case is not necessarily based on violations of IIPA. It is a crime to identify a CIA operative independently of the IIPA, when such information is 'classified'. In simple language, the definition of 'covert' under the IIPA is not required to be met for the leak to have been a crime. Your assertion "Plame hadn't been posted overseas in the last five years when Novak wrote the column." is not true (prove it). Your other comment, "the Ames incident is very relevant to this and is likely why no one was charged with violating this act." is purely speculation on your part. Speculation is not fact.
You've identified your bias (that you view wilson with very little credibility as you say above)... so good editing would mean checking that bias against fact. However, your continuing and blatant false assertions (at least three so far) seem to indicate you aren't interested in offsetting your bias with objective fact. Please spare Wikipedia article spaces your opinion (you're welcome to raise them here on Talk), and in the article space, please try to concentrate on fact. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

first off, the entire plame investigation is based on speculation. everything being reported in the press and on this site is speculation. second, the fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her status wasn't a crime, under IIPA guidelines or any other guidelines. third, as this is a current event topic and one already pinned as in dispute, various opinions and takes on the issue are important. i will use better judgement before i post, but the gerth story wasn't even on the site until i mentioned it, so i have done a service. fourth, if Plame had been outed by the CIA to the Cuban government, if makes perfect sense to speculate the CIA would no longer see fit to use her in covert operations as Cuba is no friend of the US government. fifth, i shouldn't be lectured about my bias as the Plame Affair site uses Raw Story as a source and quotes it as gospel, a web site with links devoted to anti-bush and anti-republican merchandise and blog pages. thanks for the advice, but i don't believe i've made "blatant false assertions". User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have made a false assertion. You just wrote: "the fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her status wasn't a crime." It proves nothing of the sort. Fitzgerald made it quite clear that whether a crime was committed was difficult to prove because some of the key witnesses purjured themselves. (And in any event, the investigation is still ongoing.) -- Sholom 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A lot of your post above is factually bereft. I've taken it apart to illustrate how. You are welcome to your opinion, though - and I do appreciate your willingness to 'use better judgment' as you say. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"the entire plame investigation is based on speculation."
Libby has been indicted.
"The fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her name wasn't a crime under {...} any other guidelines"
Completely logically fallacious. This comment is 100% in error.
"i shouldn't be lectured about my bias as the Plame Affair site uses Raw Story as a source and quotes it as gospel, a web site with links devoted to anti-bush and anti-republican merchandise and blog pages."
Not sure what one has to do with the other. Your bias is involved in your edits, Raw Story isn't.
"i don't believe i've made "blatant false assertions"
Q. E. D.
And as to the Ames incident, all I can say is Nicholas Kristof and Victoria Toensing's amica curae notwithstanding, there's scant proof she was outed to either Cuba or Russia. Can you provide some, so we can be sure you've done a service, as you claim? Thanks again! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What Plame's role in the CIA is subject to pure speculation. every article written about what she did in the CIA has come from anonymous sources and has never been confirmed. novak has stated repeatedly he can't wait until the investigation is over so he can set the record straight, as has Valerie Plame, from what i've read. her role in the CIA is subject to speculation and that's what i was referring to. you stated that "some of the key witnesses perjured themselves", yet only one person was charged and fitzgerald has said the bulk of the investigation is over. fitzgerald has made it clear the trial of libby will in no way be about Plame or her status. there's also scant proof Plame was working on Iran's nuclear weapons program and that intelligence was set back 10 years after novak's column, yet this story is posted. why is posting a story from national review online speculative but posting a story from Raw Story not speculative?User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. To wit: (a) I should have said that Fitzgerald said that "one key witness purjured himself"; (b) I agree that the claims by RawStory should not be included unless there is a more reputable corroborating citation. But I mostly disagree with much else you have written, particularly: "the fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her status wasn't a crime". This not only violates common sense, it violates the rules of logic. (I'll note that Al Capone was convicted (afaik) of only tax evasion -- does that "prove" he was not a gangster?) -- Sholom 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't agree with the analogy. being a gangster isn't a crime. gangster related activities are, and tax evasion is a gangster related activity. in this case, revealing a covert CIA operative or revealing classified information is a crime. libby wasn't charged with this. he's charged with perjury and obstruction, which are crimes within an investigation. Judith Miller told fitzgerald she got plame's info from libby, cooper testified he got it from rove. court documents suggest fitzgerald knows who told novak. in any case, where the information came from is no secret, so why wasn't anyone charged with leaking the information. libby's trial will be about which reporters he talked to and when, not whether what he told them was a criminal act. what is everyone waiting for, Cheney to be indicted and for impeachment charges? it was a two year thorough investigation that's pretty much over, unless new information comes to light. User:Anthonymendoza 12.203.178.107 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1- The fact that Plame's role was undercover is not "speculation." The CIA asked for an investigation. They would know whether or not she was covert and they have made it clear that she was. This is not about speculation. If the Justice Department was unsure of what her status was, they could pick up the phone and call the CIA. 2- The reason nobody was indicted for revealing classified information is what we can speculate on. There are a couple of possibilities far more likely than your assertion that no crime was committed. For example - a) Fitzgerald's investigation has been sabotaged by perjury of a key witness. We know this is likely since the witness was in fact charged for this. b) Fitzgerald does not want to do even more harm to national security than has already been done. Libby's graymail strategy indicates that if anyone actually was charged with violating the IIPA, there is no way the government would let the case proceed. 3- Both of these have been explained to you and you simply ignore these explanations. Your theory that there was no leak of classified information is ludicrous on its face, since the organization that employed Plame has indicated her classified status from the beginning of the investigation. 4- Nobody has adequately explained what is wrong with Raw Story. It has been properly cited so that anyone can visit the page and learn more about the source. Sources from right and left should not be held to different standards -- there are citations from the Weekly Standard, Cybercast News Service, and other right wing sources all over wikipedia and indeed in this article. The opinions of far less reputable sources are included here. I am a strong believer in the American theory of freedom of information, which holds that the remedy for false information is additional information rather than censorship. I also do not understand why the people whining about this source do not go to the page about The Raw Story and add your theories to that page. It makes these claims seem totally disingenuous -- why bring it up only on this page, when there are more relevant pages for your theories? And why bring it up without challenging the right-wing sources that are demonstrably less reputable?--csloat 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear the argument you're making, i just completely disagree. the indictment states that Libby CONFIRMED to cooper "without elaboration or qualification" that "wilson's wife" worked at the CIA, and that he told judith miller that "wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the cia", and that the topic wasn't discussed with tim russert. libby is charged with perjury and obstruction for apparently falsifying the entire russert conversation, and for telling investigators and the grand jury that he told cooper and miller other reporters had told him about "wilson's wife". that's the extent of the indictment. it looks bad for libby. his defense will have to be that he forgot the context of the conversations and will have to convince a jury he misspoke because he forgot. i don't see a graymail strategy here since Cooper didn't learn wilson's wife worked at the cia from libby, the issue wasn't discussed at all with russert, and he told miller that wilson's wife "might work at the cia". if libby is seeking classified information, it's to prove that he was busy with other matters and forgot the context of conversations he had with reporters. all of this appears to be a clear cut perjury and obstruction case, and that's it. i doesn't make sense to me that fitzgerald is using these charges because he doesn't want to further damage national security, or that libby sabatoged the investigation and prevented the truth of the matter to be discovered. libby wasn't novaks source or cooper's original source. and miller never published her article about plame. where am i wrong here? User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere. First, you've ignored #1 above - the fact is, the CIA asked for an investigation because a leak of classified information occurred. They have not rescinded that claim, and the various leaks they have made to the press about Plame's covert status confirms this. If the Justice Department had some confusion about this, they could have called the CIA for clarification. If the CIA saw that the Justice Department was incorrect, they could have called the Justice Department to clarify (and to avoid wasting taxpayer money and energy on an investigation based on a mistake!) Judge Tatel clearly states his opinion that Fitzgerald thought she was covert. Second, your assertion that you "don't see a graymail strategy" because of what Cooper told Miller simply ignores reality. The fact is Libby has requested tons of info including every PDB for a year - far beyond what anyone might consider necessary to prove the claim that he was busy. Surely his appointment book could prove that without exposing all this national security information. Moreover, Libby specifically hired an attorney known for his skills at graymail, and the first major step he takes is to request outrageous amounts of classified information. Finally, your assertion that there was no crime committed simply because there have yet been no indictments under IIPA is a logical fallacy. I shouldn't have to spell this out but I will -- not every crime is prosecuted.--csloat 23:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then we just see it two different ways and there's no point in debating it anymore. you haven't convinced me and i haven't convinced you. (one more point, just because an investigation is requested doesn't automatically mean a law was broken, and i believe you've misinterpreted Judge Tatel's opinion, and how else is Libby to defend himself, an appointment book is a laughable defense.) i added the raw story claim to the Legal Questions segment of the Plame Affair. i think this should be included since we've established Raw Story is a fine source for a current events piece. i won't care if you edit it but i can't see any justification for completely deleting it. when i added it the first time, it probably shouldn't have been put under Actual Damage and so i understand why it was deleted. but i think i corrected the problem. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First, do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. You keep inserting material from Raw Story that has nothing to do with the sections you are putting it in; you even state that it has a reputation for investigative reporting after you criticized the source. The implication you are trying to create with the quote is false -- nowhere does Raw Story say that the neighbors claimed that they knew of her CIA employment before, and in fact we know that the neighbors did not know based on interviews they gave to the Times and what they told the FBI. But you make it sound that way in the quote, tying it to the grand jury indictments. I will erase it here as I did on the other page. If you find a relevant section for that quote, fine, but don't use it to twist the truth. It is not clear that it has any other purpose. As for the rest of this argument, I don't expect to convince you, but if you are unable to think of reasonable answers to these arguments, you should not edit the page to say otherwise. As for Judge Tatel, your "belief" isn't enough; he spelled out his opinion on that matter quite clearly. And as for "how is Libby supposed to defend himself?" I don't know or care -- I'm not a member of his legal staff, and frankly I think he's guilty. But I can tell you that asking for lots of unrelated classified information (particularly an entire year's worth of PDBs) is a graymail strategy.--csloat 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute. here's the entire quote from raw story: "We reported that the Washington Post's Jim Vandehei told Hardball that law enforcement agents interviewed Valerie Plame's neighbors to see if they were aware of her CIA status. This was confirmed. We later reported they were interviewed in an attempt to convince a skeptical grand jury that White House officials may have violated a law criminalizing the outing of CIA agents, and that the jury was unlikely to accept such a charge. This was true; no charge was made in the indictment." i never implied plame's neighbors knew she was CIA. i thought i implied the opposite. as for stating raw story has a "reputation for investigative reporting", that comes directly from the wikipedia site for raw story. if the Iran story is going to be posted, this needs to be posted to, but the fact that you don't see "any purpose" in this article is telling. plus now you've revealed your bias when you say you think Libby is guilty. you keep saying fitzgerald didn't charge anyone with the leak itself in order to protect national security, yet this raw story article (a web page you've defended) says fitzgerald was trying to get an indictment on the leak itself. how is this story not relevant?! it needs to be posted, so since your opinion seems to reign supreme here, where should i post it? User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That borders on a personal attack, and I'd try to focus on the facts without attacking your fellow editors. Csloat's opinion is no more supreme than anyone else's (including yours)... it's just that his opinion is backed up with objective fact. If yours are, they are equally important to the article. Last - bias isn't something to be hidden as you may have subconsciously implied "now you've revealed your bias when you say you think Libby is guilty". It was no revelation, ony a statement. Any lack of willingness to own up to bias that I've seen in this conversation isn't coming from csloat. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

why is one raw story article more important than another raw story article?? can i get clarification on that from anyone. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Who says one is? I think this is a non-issue, because I see no one making such an assertion. Facts, please. Facts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

csloat saws the raw story article indicating fitzgerald sought indictments for the leak itself serves no purpose and it has been deleted. yet he posted a raw story article saying plame worked on Iran nuclear ambitions and intelligence was set back ten years. just tell me where to post the article on what indictments fitzgerald sought. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So let's cut out the part about the neighbors. I still don't understand the point you're trying to make with this quote but I don't object to it being put in, without this misleading part about interviewing the neighbors. (What is the point? That Libby was not indicted under the IIPA? Don't we already know this?) Perhaps I'm missing something in your explanation, but I see no reason to imply that the neighbors' interviews had something to do with Libby not getting indicted for the IIPA violation. As for bias, lol, did you just figure out that I had a point of view? I'm not sure what this has to do with the Iran issue, which is why I think you are making a WP:POINT with this inclusion. You seem to see this as a way of "balancing out" the evidence that Plame was working on Iran WMD - content-wise, however, one story has nothing to do with the other.--csloat 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

the point of the article is to show that indeed fitzgerald did try to indict for the leak itself. i don't know why you don't see this as relevant. i mention the iran story because if plame was that deep undercover, why was the grand jury skeptical any law were broken in her outing. as for the neighbors, i thought it important to include the entire raw story quote. look, there is speculation as to what charges fitzgerald actually sought and raw story stated he sought to indict over the leak itself but the grand jury was skeptical. that's all i want posted on this sight, and i see it as very relevant. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming way too many things. For one, the status of her cover is only one element of the potential crime. The other element is that Libby had to be aware of her status. So, it's perfectly possible that she was under deep cover, but that Libby didn't realize it. Or, even more simply, that they couldn't prove Libby's state of mind because he had perjured himself. To say "they tried to indict on the leak itself but the grand jury was skeptical" is too much of an assumption. One could just as easily write "they tried to indict on the leak itself, but there was enough perjury that the truth couldn't be fully determined." -- Sholom 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly right - Fitzgerald himself makes this point.--csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i merely sourced what Raw Story reported. if this site is going to source raw story, than all relevant material should be out there. people can read it and come to there own conclusions, as you and i have, but it should be made available nonetheless. this site either includes all reports by raw story or none. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And what you have not established in any way is the relevance of this piece of material. Stop making this about Raw Story -- again, your attempt to "balance" things by including irrelevant statements just because they are printed in a source that is used here is an example of WP:POINT.-csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the entire quote again: "We reported that the Washington Post's Jim Vandehei told Hardball that law enforcement agents interviewed Valerie Plame's neighbors to see if they were aware of her CIA status. This was confirmed. We later reported they were interviewed in an attempt to convince a skeptical grand jury that White House officials may have violated a law criminalizing the outing of CIA agents, and that the jury was unlikely to accept such a charge. This was true; no charge was made in the indictment [5] how should this be written and in what section should it appear? here's another potential link to this claim [6].here's a quote from that link: "The lawyers said Fitzgerald needed more evidence to convince the grand jury that Plame was in fact an undercover agent. On Monday, he sent FBI agents to her residential neighborhood to obtain testimony from neighbors that they were unaware of Plame’s employment prior to her outing.Evidence collected in these inquiries was aimed at convincing the jury that she was covert, the lawyers said. A Reuters story indicated that Plame’s neighbors were not aware that she was working at the agency." and another quote from the same article: "Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent."

please give me some guidance on this. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been trying to. The quotes you have above indicate nothing that isn't already in the article. We already know Fitz did not get an indictment under IIPA. We also know that the neighbors confirmed that they did not know about her CIA work, which supports the view that she was covert. We also know a number of other things support that view, including Judge Tatel, including the CIA's request to have the matter investigated, etc. This has been debated to death here already. I honestly don't see anything in the quotes above that adds new material to this debate.--csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

how about this:

The Raw Story, a progressive Internet news publication known primarily for its investigative reporting, reported on October 26, 2005 that "Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent." According to the report, "Fitzgerald needed more evidence to convince the grand jury that Plame was in fact an undercover agent. On Monday, he sent FBI agents to her residential neighborhood to obtain testimony from neighbors that they were unaware of Plame’s employment prior to her outing. Evidence collected in these inquiries was aimed at convincing the jury that she was covert, the lawyers said. A Reuters story indicated that Plame’s neighbors were not aware that she was working at the agency." In a December 15, 2005 summation of it's reporting on the entire Plame investigation, the Raw Story stood by this story, saying "We reported [that Plame's neighbors were] interviewed in an attempt to convince a skeptical grand jury that White House officials may have violated a law criminalizing the outing of CIA agents, and that the jury was unlikely to accept such a charge. This was true; no charge was made in the indictment."

this is a rough cut, please give me feedback User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what this adds to the discussion of Plame that is already on this page, and it still seems like an attempt at WP:POINT. What is with the obsession with the raw story?--csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
i don't see anywhere on this page where is states that fitzgerald actually sought an indictment under IIPA. it has been suggested in the talk pages that he didn't because he didn't want to further damage national security, or because he wasn't sure libby new she was covert. i don't have an obsession with raw story, it's just that raw story is the only outlet i have found that specifically reports fitzgerald tried to get an IIPA indictment but was denied by the grand jury. that's the only reason i want to put it in. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, how about i add this to the raw story page and create a heading called "Raw Story's Coverage of Plame Investigation". User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant there either, but at least it's more honest in that your concern seems to be about the Raw Story rather than about Valerie Plame.--csloat 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone ...

The article talks about her in past tense, while apparently she hasn't deceased after all. Rather than adding a sentence somewhere spelling even as much in clear words, I suggest a more proper approach of correcting the tense of the whole article.

[edit] What happened to her?

OK, this is a silly question, but I can't seem to find out what actually happened to her, rather than the chronology of publications that is the bulk of this article. Shouldn't this article be more about her, and not mostly a page of links to external articles? Heck, I thought that she was dead from the tone of other sources. --NightMonkey July 3, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

[edit] Twins' age

Does anyone know when the twins were born? They won't be 3 years old forever. Adking80 4 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)


According to Wilson's memoir The Politics of Truth (p. 277 in the paperback version), the twins were born in January 2000.

[edit] Image

AN image of Plame is available @ [7] [8] --DuKot 7 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Neither of those links work. -Fsotrain09 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Note that I just created a stub at Intelligence Identities Protection Act which needs expanding (although the actual text of the Act should be placed at Wikisource if it's not there already). - dcljr (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dishonest complaints about article

This article's coverage of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame scandel is entirely biased.

Matthew Cooper's notes indicate that Rove told him, off the record, that Wison was recommended for the Niger mission by his CIA wife, and not by the Vice President's office as Wilson had claimed. There is no indication that Rove outed Plame as an undercover agent or even knew that she was an undercover agent.

Rove broke no law; he only told the truth.

This article is heavy on irrelevant details and slippery about the central issue.

why don't the Bush-at-any-price people give their tags? Who, in the wiki-world, are you? Oldshonen
When the truth is classified and you are a government official with a Top Secret-SCI clearance, disclosing that truth can be a crime and a breach of the public trust. President Bush himself said "Leaks of classified information are bad things." The central issue is the credibility of the White House that insisted the any connection between Rove and the leaks was "ridiculous" and that any one who was involved with the leak would be fired. --agr 21:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
To anonomious poster (12.1.232.116) who claims this is a dishonest article, Wilson never made the claim that the Vice President's office either sent him, or recommended him to be sent to Niger. The CIA sent him to Niger to get mor einfomration so they could follow up on questions that the VP had to his CIA briefer about ongoing suspicions that Iraq had been trying to purchase uranium from Niger. Suspicions which later were proven to be unfounded. Stop vomiting GOP-Damage-Control-Spin and talking points that Wilson claimed he was recommend or sent by the VP's office directly. Lestatdelc 12:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is a well defined if still "in process" article. It's not dishonest by any stretch, and you might try getting her name right next time.

The claim that Rove broke no law is at best an opinion, one that the prosecutor does not appear to share, he has told Rove's lawyer that Rove is a subject of the investigation. Rove and his lawyer have both made statements that are at best intentionally misleading. Moreover Rove's lawyer has admitted accepting his fees from drug dealers he has represented in the form of gold bullion. If Rove was as honest as his GOP appologists make out one might think that he would be able to find a lawyer with a less sleasy reputation to represent hm.

[edit] Separate Article

The whole Plame affair needs to be a separate article that can be referenced from other articles, such as the Robert Novak Article and the Karl Rove article. Right now there are several version/timelines of this in these various articles and it needs to be consolidated into one NPOV article.--Gangster Octopus 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The Valerie Plame article might be the best starting point since she is notable only in connection with this incident. --agr 21:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this normal behaviour for bio articles? There is far more posted about the evidence and op-eds re: the trial than there is about the woman. Perhaps a clean sheet of paper linking to the scandal? quaddriver 152.216.7.5 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brewster Jennings

I read the following conversation on Slashdot. If true, it provides insight.

"Anything listing her job would have had her working at the CIA front, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Completely unrelated to the government. Which also means she was DISAVOWED if she got caught, not sent home with a stern note and public complaints like those with diplomatic immunity pretending to work for the state department. Many times spouses of NOCs don't even know who they really work for. Although presumably hers did, considering who he worked for. OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them." and
"Actually, that's the real problem with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries. Now it is useless as a front for US intelligence. What's the problem with this? Well, there's been a lot of talk of oil production having reached its peak and begun its decline. Financial Times recently reported that the Saudis had admitted that OPEC oil production won't be able to meet world demand within 20 years. I don't know whether petroleum production has yet reached its peak and started to decline, and I don't know when OPEC will not be able to meet world demand. Wouldn't it be nice if at this time of uncertainty, the USA had some kind of asset capable of investigating these things from up close? Too bad a political vendetta destroyed major intelligence assets that could have helped with just that." 4.250.168.141 01:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with the claim in the known background that "Later the CIA acknowledged that Brewster-Jennings & Assoc is a front company." I searched the CIA's website for press releases that would have included "Plame" "Wilson" "Brewster" "Jennings" ... I did find that Dun and Bradstreet had a listing for the company and that in 1999 that Valerie Wilson, CEO BJ&A gave $1000 to Al Gore's primary election campaign Kgrr 04:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt they issued a press release; in this context "acknowledged" probably means "nodded when a reporter asked if this was true." The Agency is not known for making a big deal out of its leaks or acknowledgments; it leaves that up to the media. A press release would be totally out of character. I also seriously doubt you saw anything that identified her as "CEO" of the front company. The Gore document I saw said "President" next to Al Gore, not her name. --csloat 21:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson Interview

We should not be removing the Wilson interview just because it doesn't fit in with the POV of certain authors. I'm more than willing - and, in fact, encourage - contrary opinions on the nature of it, but to deny its existence as well as outright claim that it's taken out of context is not right, fair, and runs a POV risk. --Badlydrawnjeff 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right... we should be removing it because it isn't true. In the interview Blitzer asked Wilson if his wife speaking to Vanity Fair didn't blow her cover. Wilson responded with the quoted bit about 'the day Novak identified her' and went on to explain that was the day she STOPPED being covert. The claim that he had indicated she wasn't covert BEFORE that is false - which is why it has been retracted... and thus there is no reason to include this passage at all. CBDunkerson 22:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I added the following paragraph:

The day following the CNN interview, Wilson clarified his statement, saying that what he had meant to say was, that, as a result of Novak's column, Plame was effectively no longer a clandestine officer. He stood by his assertion that it was Novak's disclosure which made her job thenceforth untenable. Although the Associated Press had initially reported the interpretation that Wilson was claiming that his wife was not an operative at the time of the Novak column, they eventually retracted that report.

Wilson has reworded his answer, and AP has retracted their intial report, which Matt Drudge apparently linked to. John Barleycorn 21:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. I will say, however, that the link goes straight to the transcript, not any AP source. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
To quote the transcript,

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared."

Note, Wilson's original remark says only "the day". Not BEFORE the day as has been claimed. Blitzer then specifically ASKS if she had stopped being cover t "before" that and Wilson says he can't talk about it except to say that the CIA felt she was... he then clarifies that he was saying Plame was not covert at the time of Blitzer's original question about whether a clandestine officer should have a photo shoot. In short... all Wilson was saying here is 'she was not clandestine after Novak'. CBDunkerson 22:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
As I said, I have no issue with the information being added. Right now, you've got a superflouos paragraph. If you want to add the link in the paragraph above it in the corresponding area, go ahead, but your most recent addition duplicates information. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Not me. And... whatever. I think this is a ridiculous claim, but whatever floats your boat. --CBD 22:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Another user deleted my paragraph about the AP retraction, apparently assuming I made it up. It would have been polite of him/her to ask prior to deleting it, but I have re-added it with a source -- http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003. My original information came from the radio news, but I was able to track down the information at the link above. Is it general Wikipedia policy to delete information before getting proof? I have only been here a brief time, but in cases where I questioned sources (I think two, now), I have waited for the original posters to respond before deleting their edits. This, to me, seems only polite. John Barleycorn 22:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think mediamatters is a legitimate source for citing a retraction. If the AP retracted the story, then there should be an AP article on the wires or somewhere else that documents the retraction. Can anyone point to an actual AP article? Cultofpj 01:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is a little crazy with the rapid fire changes right now. I >think< what happened was that the entire section got rewritten, including some information from your passage, and then you re-inserted your paragraph... which created the redundancy jeff accuses ME of above. You should work your paragraph / link into the other text. --CBD 22:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Cultofpj wrote in his/her edit summary, "(→Questions Concerning Allegations of Possible Illegality - RM - I can't find the AP retraction. If you can source it, let's include your original wording.)". I was surprised to see the paragraph missing, and that's what I found in the history. I apologize if somehow I caused duplicate information, I don't understand the workings of Wikipedia well enough yet to figure out how something like that might have happened. John Barleycorn 23:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed now that in the edit war surrounding the media matters stuff (and I'm still not a fan of media matters being used as a major source, but that's a different discussion), the actual transcript of the interview I linked to when originally discussing the Wilson interview has gone by the wayside, even after a discussion where I got the impression that it would stick around with the corresponding interpretations. I think the best way to deal with the words of Wilson is to quote him directly: Get the link from the nonpartisan transcript, get the nonpartisan news report where he corrects himself, and link those as opposed to the partisan Media Matters link. The little things will go a long way in fixing the POV issues of this article. Thoughts? --Badlydrawnjeff 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts? I think that anyone who can convince themselves that Joseph Wilson really meant to say the opposite of what he has been claiming for two years now isn't going to find NPOV any time soon. There are two possible interpretations of what he said. One of them makes sense in a historical context. One of them makes sense in the context of the conversation he was having. One of them matches his subsequent explanation of what he meant. The other interpretation does NOT. So why are we pretending he might have meant to say something which makes no sense? Just because an interpretation is THEORETICALLY possible based solely on the words used, that doesn't make it NPOV to suggest it was the intent when ALL available evidence argues otherwise. --CBD 11:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign Contributions

While I question the need to include Wilson's campaign contributions in the first place, they should at least be accurate. It is not possible for Wilson to have "donated over $2000 to John Kerry in 2003" because $2000 is the maximum individual donation. Your numbers are wrong. I also did an opensecrets search for the Gore contributions and got $1000... not the $3000 or $2000 you have put up. CBDunkerson 22:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Wilson did contribute more than the legal limit to the Kerry campaign, but they refunded the difference. John Barleycorn 22:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The $2000 for Kerry is correct, the list I linked to was compiled before the second $1000 payment had been tabulated, but the Gore donation was only $1000 as confirmed by opensecrets... there is a $2000 contribution listed TWICE there for the same date and then a -$1000. When you remove the duplicate it comes out to $1000 total. --CBD 22:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Gannon

What is the connection between the Plame/Wilson story and Jeff Gannon? Did he ask a question at a press conference which indicated he had some inside information? I read the information about it in the Jeff Gannon article, but it isn't very clear. John Barleycorn 22:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maiden or married name?

Most of the major news sources, including the NYTimes and the Washington Post, refer to her as Valerie Wilson. People only started calling her Valerie Plame because that's what Novak called her in his original article. Google searches for "Valerie Wilson" reveal nearly twice as many pages as for "Valerie Plame". Also note this Daily Kos story, which shows that Wilson is clearly and unambigiously the name she has gone by ever since marriage, and also implies that the insistance by some to call her by her maiden name, Plame, is to give us the impression that saying "Mr Wilson's wife" was not the same as giving her name.
Whatever the case about the last point, it seems certain that her legal name, the name she goes by, and the name used by most major media outlets these days is Valerie Wilson. I propose moving this article to Valerie Wilson (and keeping a redirect from here, of course). — Asbestos | Talk 09:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, most major news sources still use "Valerie Plame". And my Google searches (both web and news) indicate far more hits for "Valerie Plame" than "Valerie Wilson". The name "Valerie Plame" is common usage because it is the name used in the original Novak column that created the political controversy which is the primary subject of the article. It also has the practical advantage of clearly distinguishing references by last name to husband and wife. The article title itself doesn't really matter much, given appropriate redirects, but one suspects that the insistance to call her by her married name, Wilson, is to give the impression that saying "Mr Wilson's wife" is the same as giving her name. Anonip 15:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In a radio interview with Joeseph Wilson, he clearly states that she has used her married name both at work and in her personal life since their 1998 marriage. This is substantiated in many places such as this NY Times article [9] Kgrr 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Joe Wilson was a particpant in the EPIC Iraq Forum 2003 [10] and his bio says "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children." This forum took place on June 14, 2003. One month before the Novak article.

[edit] Accusations

Even though large news sources are reporting that Rove was the source of the leak, he is still innocent before found guilty by court. Please mark which organization marked Rove as the leak source, otherwise this article deserves a NPOV on many of its sections. --Mrmiscellanious 16:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rove's own lawyer has confirmed that he was a source. --CBD 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war?

At about 0400 on July 17, a series of edits were made by 149.142.112.3. The result of these edits was to remove a large amount of text from this article. The common thread to the removed text was that it did not support the theories of the case promoted by conservatives.

The history of some of the removed text is that statements with a strong conservative point of view were balanced by showing contrary evidence. Removing the discussion entirely leaves us open to have the same conservative point of view inserted again. We can prevent an edit war by keeping the links to that evidence.

For example, the article at one time claimed,

The media and many in the Democratic party often repeat the statement "The White House also said at that time it would fire anyone involved in leaking classified information". George Bush actually said "If anybody broke the law, they will be dealt with", which is quite a bit different.

The opinion that this quote is "quite a bit different" was balanced by providing quotes that showed the White House (both McClellan and Bush) repeatedly did indicate that such a person would be fired.

Similarly, conservatives have commonly tried to discredit Ambassador Wilson by noting that he supported Kerry and gave money to Democrats. That accusation in this article was properly balanced by later additions that noted that Wilson also contributed to GWB and Republican Ed Royce and was first appointed by GHWB. 149.142.112.3's comment on removing this section says this article is not supposed to be about Wilson, but there is not doubt that this whole affair was started by Novak writing about Wilson's motives. Wilson's motives cannot be separated from this article.

The previous comment above (with subject "Accusations") notes that it is important to say where the accusations against Rove originate. 149.142.112.3 made this worse by removing the extract of the Cooper e-mail that is the key piece of evidence.

I believe all of the removed text should be restored, but I won't continue an edit war by restoring it myself. I do agree that the text can be tightened up (e.g., directly using fewer quotes in the case cited above and using footnotes to link to all of the quotes), but we should start by restoring the evidence that has been lost from the article.

RichardMathews 09:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
BUSH: That's up to --
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

[11] .....

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q: At a minimum?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

[12] [13] --kizzle 18:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

In the first question, the reporter is referencing a previous pledge by Bush, and Bush was standing by that previous pledge. So why are we quoting the press playing "word games" with Bush, and not quoting what he first said?

From Sept 30, 2003

Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn’t a special counsel be better?
BUSH: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

[14]

He was asked if he stood by this specific pledge to fire anyone found to have violated the law.

[edit] Known Background

I know that a lot of edits have been made to this article lately, but could someone please take a look at the end of this section as it makes very little sense. Specifically the line:

In the context of a political fight between mostly Bush administration supporters, a number of claims about both Wilson and Plame have asserted either that Plame was not actually undercover.

I do not know anything about this case, it having been overlooked by the British press, but it seems something is missing from this sentence, or maybe it is just very poorly written, as it makes little sense. Enlightener 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amicus Brief and Prior Leaks

More information is coming out that should be reflected here, but I'm not sure how to place it given the major revamping this article has gone through. The National Review links to an amicus brief by the media organizations asserting that Plame's name was outed by the CIA twice before the Novak article. How do we add this information? --Badlydrawnjeff 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The amicus brief simply references the unsourced claims in the following Washington Times article. [15]. If you want to include that I'd go with the original. The 'anonymous sources' claimed a year ago that Plame's cover had already been blown before Novak, but there hasn't been anything else on it. Another anonymous source has claimed that Plame's identity was deliberately leaked "purely for revenge". Generally I'd prefer not to include these things which essentially amount to 'completely unsubstantiated rumors', but if you must I'd think they'd go in the 'reaction' section. --CBD 23:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and references are now done

Could I ask others to use {{ref}} and {{note}} from now on? I so wish we had a better way to footnote, but until then, this is the best method. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph has no references:

"It has also been widely rumored that Plame's loose relationship as an analyst/operative for the CIA was well known to many people in Washington , including journalists, long before she was "outed". The initial reports, by her husband and certain reporters, that somehow she was endangered by this "leak" seem now to be erroneous, as the nature of her work for the CIA has shown to not be such that she would be in any danger of retaliation from anyone that she had dealings with professionally."

If it is "widely rumored" it should be possible to find a published reference that describes the nature of these rumors.

In this paragraph (above), wikipedia is describing Plame's relationship with the CIA as a "loose relationship". This seems like the POV of those who have attempted to justify public disclosure of her identity as a CIA opperative. I doubt if anyone in the CIA would characterize a NOC operative's relationship with the CIA as "loose". Why should wikipedia?

The paragraph (above) refers to "initial reports" .... "that .... she was endangered", but provides no references. Please provide a reference for such "reports". What I have seen, is the statement that there may have been other people outside of the U.S. at the time of the leak of Plame's identity who could have been put at risk because they were known associates of Plame. --JWSchmidt 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:CIA leak scandal Vote for Deletion

There is a proposal to delete Category:CIA leak scandal, which lists several articles related to this evolving story. I think the category is helpful and deserves to be kept. People can express their opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 18,

[edit] Why is there an NPOV tag on this article?

Could the person who added it please note their specific objections so that we may sort out any issues? I will leave this for 24 hours, then remove the tag if nothing is said. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush's consistent stance

I can't find anyone but the more vocal partisans who seriously contend that there has been no change in the President's position -- with that in mind, I altered what an anon had written, but I think it's still a little vague. The statements (as accurately quoted -- the anon had exercised some creative summarizing) seem to me to be clearly distinct -- that is, Bush was very clear in his recent remarks about crime because he was aware that his earlier remarks were very broad. I didn't add Scott McClellan's remark on Sept. 29 at a press briefing that "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [16] Do you think it would be fair to add it, or would it seem too biased? I don't want to slant this. Also, can we get any kind of attribution, especially of people who claim that all of these remarks are consistent? It would comfort me...and somebody look over what I wrote to be sure I'm being fair. I'm doing my best. Jwrosenzweig 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh... oops. I'd just updated with various quotations before coming here. I think the only way to address this is to allow people to see exactly what was said and make their own decisions. I left in the 'some people believe' merry-go-round, though I don't think it particularly valid. All of the 'no change' arguments I have seen arrive at that conclusion by leaving out 75% of the quotes and 'paraphrasing' (aka 'falsifying') the rest. --CBD 11:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication of effort

NOTE: This article and Plame affair mostly DUPLICATE each other's efforts. 4.250.132.38 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely true... and there is alot of stuff in Karl Rove, Bob Novak, Joseph Wilson, et cetera which could really be centralized. However, what is needed is agreement that this has grown to the point that it should have its own page and leave 'Valerie Plame' just for background on the woman herself. Opinions? --CBD 13:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and that should happen in the other articles as well. I think we should merge all the good information into Plame affair. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks as if its happening, and theres still enough room for Plame affair article to grow, as its currently ("only") 48k. We have talk pages that go on for over 200k. -St|eve 05:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

Was she born on April 19, the IP address 67.67.89.25 has been vandalizing many pagess but a few are edits where it is indeterminant if they are vandalism or not. --ShaunMacPherson 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Talking Points

OK, Larry, we get it. Rove has not yet been charged with a crime. The problem is this claim is inserted both here and in the Plame Affair article as a means of dismissing everything else. Where is the information about the threat to national security raised by Rove's actions? Whether or not he technically broke the law, many say what Rove did was a huge blow to national security. Take a look at the [rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter072205_identity.rm Senate Hearing] on the issue and listen to former CIA officers testify to the Senate. This really is not a Democrat/Republican issue at all, and it is just the Bushies trying to cover Rove's ass who are making it one. Rove (and Libby) may not have been charged with crimes (yet), but there is no question that what they did undermined American national security and was absolutely unacceptable insofar as they did it out of some twisted sense of political vengeance. Dwelling on the technicalities of the actions -- e.g. Rove didn't mention Plame by name (as if "Joseph Wilson's wife" could have been somebody else) -- is an obvious diversion from the real issues at stake here. That may fly in the media but it shouldn't be the position of Wikipedia. --csloat 21:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political donations?

Why is this section relevant? I think it should be deleted or contextualized -- what does this information lend to the discussion that makes it encyclopedic? Should we include such information on all biographies? --csloat 22:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't you see? If Valerie Plame donated to Al Gore, it must mean that she's just a partisan operative who caused this whole Rovegate thing to happen! She probably leaked her own identity to Novak just to get Rove. Am I right, fellow conservatives? --kizzle 23:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Come on--this should be removed. $372?? Completely irrelevant. Tchoupitoulas 00:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Its not irrelevant, if it deals with the premise for outing her under the claim that she was politically motivated or opposed to the Bush admin--in addition to Wilson's public opposition. Sinreg St|eve 05:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
That's ludicrous. $1,372 in total donations is not notable in any way. This was not a move against her for supporting a democrat - certainly there were other Democrats in the CIA who didn't get attacked like this - but rather for being married to Joe Wilson, who had publicly called Bush out as a liar, essentially. I think this information being included here just [[Poisoning the well|poisons the well].--csloat 06:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Umm, politically motivated to do what, exactly? Leak her own identity? Make Karl Rove talk to Matt Cooper? --kizzle 06:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care one way or the other. I just moved the info here from the Joseph Wilson article as part of efforts to start untangling these pages. I suspect that it will reappear in one form or another. In recent days conservatives HAVE started going after Plame for her $372 donation to the 'anti-Bush hate group', America Coming Together. They 'reason' that this proves she just hates Bush and was out to get him all along... though the donation was made a year AFTER the Bush administration betrayed her. --CBDunkerson 11:16:41, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
The campaign against her is surreal. "anti-Bush hate group"??? She was out to get Bush all along? And how exactly was she going to do that? They "got" her, remember? *sigh*. --csloat 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Why not include it? Donations do indicate a particular leaning which goes directly to any motive. And donating to ACT is much different than donating to the DNC or a candidate. I think it belongs as part of the record.Cultofpj 12:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again, what exactly was she politically motivated to do? Lets say she was Al Gore and Kerry's campaign manager/speechwriter and had professed her undying hatred for the Bush Administration. Like I said, did she leak her own name? Did she make Karl Rove talk to Matt Cooper? Force Robert Novak to out herself? --kizzle 15:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I think. what the Bush and Rove apologists are trying to suggest is that it was, somehow, okay to "out" her, because she wasn't doing her duty as a loyal CIA officer. What I think they are trying to suggest is that her relatively small donations demonstrate that all her actions are motivated solely by political partisanship. Come on, have some sympathy for poor Karl! Since all of his actions are motivated solely by political partisanship, he can't understand civil servants who put loyalty to their nation above loyalty to their political boss. -- Geo Swan 15:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
"demonstrate that all her actions are motivated solely by political partisanship" -- what actions? I realize you don;'t actually agree with this position, but you're right it's in the Republican talking points and it is ludicrous. Rove is the one who acted against her.--csloat 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Political donations are irrelevant. I doubt I'd be allowed to list the soft-money that President Bush, or any politician, has recieved from corporations. "Political motivation," is an ad-hominem and it is not encyclopedic of us to list the political stance of famous people not involved with politics (being that this is not a strictly political encyclopedia). I'm sure we could track Wilson's, and the other individuals involved have had donations to political parties. But it's irrelevant. The majority, thus far, agree. The mention about donations to Gore were removed. 69.138.24.96 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think contributions to a given candidate from corporations is more relevant than this here. But even there I would just want to see overall percentages or figures (e.g. "70% of his campaign contributions came from oil companies") but not every $372.--csloat 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Desperate Housewife?

Does she have a George W. Bush nickname? A Desperate Housewife, I guess. -- Toytoy 02:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where is she now?!

I don't mean to sound ignorant (I'm Australian) but where is she now? And is she going to jail?--220.238.2.146 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

For what? She has not been accused of any crime.-csloat 09:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh, I did not realise that, I just assumed she has because of the term "Plame affair".--220.238.30.231 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Instead of making poorly grounded assumptions, consider reading the article. 68.6.40.203 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, she can't talk to the media because the CIA would have to clear it. The CIA has yet to start their own investigation of the fallout from the leak because they're waiting for Fitzgerald to get done. Effectively she is in limbo, so that's why you always see her husband talking on her behalf. --waffle iron 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I was just wondering why the rest of the world should even care?--220.238.2.146 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Different people have different things they care about, for different reasons. The scope of such interests is downright, uh, encyclopedic. 68.6.40.203 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but nobody in the southern hemisphere cares, or even the eastern hemisphere, when they do you should include it in the "in the news" section, but right now we do not.--220.238.2.146 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
(See American exceptionalism)--220.238.2.146 05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Fascinating. No one in the Southern or Eastern hemispheres cares about the Iraq war, the actions of the Bush administration, or American politics in general. Good to know... explains John Howard anyway. --CBDunkerson 08:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
John Howard!? It's funny because its true!--220.238.29.159 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an australian, but nearby... NZer. And likewise this entire mess is a little confusing and information overload. Even though I've been reading several related wikipedia pages on this affair, am at least starting to get a grasp on things. Still, can't help but wonder... if there is a short and simple summary of this somewhere? Mathmo Talk 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problems above the table of contents

"the October 2005 investigation" <-- this is meaningless

"Some predict" <-- speculations should not be in the introduction

"The Plame affair is connected mostly to a political war between the White House staff and leaders and a war critic, former ambassador Joe Wilson" <-- the "political war" can be described below the table of contents. The basic facts can be told in the introduction: The Plame affair is connected mostly to Joe Wilson's questioning of President 2003 Bush's State of the Union claim that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
--JWSchmidt 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous POV-pushing

This article has enough POV-problems; no need to add more. The characterization of the question to Fitz is accurate. There is no need to add that he "refused" to take a position on something; that is not what he said. There is also no need to put in irrelevant links to articles by Johnson just so you can implicitly discredit him. Please don't revert this stuff. Thanks. --csloat 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Anonymous IP editor -- cut it the hell out. If you think Fitz was asked something other than is represented here, read the damn article and see for yourself. Just because the accurate representation is inconvenient for your worldview does not mean you are justified in putting in an inaccurate version and calling the accurate one "POV-pushing". Fitz did not say he "refused" to take a position; what he said speaks for itself as is. You are trying to take his words out of context. I have left your edits to the Larry Johnson quote as reasonable but please do not revert the question to Fitz again without discussion (and kindly stop calling me names in your edit summaries).--csloat 19:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Commodore, you are the POV pusher, not me. You take the political position that Plame was a "covert agent" when even Fitzerald has not asserted that. Plame commuted each day to the Langley headquarters outside DC since the birth of her twins. How could someone be covert when they drive up the GW parkway to the CIA garage each day? When you write "Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly" you are implying that she was covert. (This is akin to asking someone, "When did you stop beating your wife.") There is NO evidence that she was covert, which explains why no one was charged with blowing the cover of a covert agent. Fitzgerald went out of his way to make clear that he does take the position that she is covert.--65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not a "political position" that Plame was covert, it's the claim of the CIA and the basis of the appointment of a special prosecutor in the first place. The notion that she was not covert is something pushed by the right wing for political purposes; it has no basis in fact. -- 68.6.40.203 10:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey covert person -- thank you for finally explaining your edits. That is why we have this section. You are clearly the one pushing POV by trying to hammer on right-wing talking points that are too silly for even the Whhite House to get behind. Fitzgerald said Plame's cover was blown, which is to say she had a cover. Your interpretation of Fitz's statement is unnecessary POV -- it speaks for itself, and he never says "I refuse" anything. He is avoiding (for now) the sticky question of whether VPW was "covert" in terms of a particular statute -- he is not claiming that she was not covert in the sense of being under a cover that had been exposed. My change here is to keep the entire quote from Fitz in but to step back from the POV (and misleading) assertion that Fitz "refused to take a position" on a question he was not even asked. If you want to put the word "covert" in quotation marks there to emphasize your (ludicrous) point that there is a slight possibility that her status was not "covert" under a particular statute it is fine but the rest of what you're doing there is POV mind-reading of the questioner. As for VPW going to work - as several former CIA officers and agents have pointed out, people who make this claim have no idea how the CIA operates. None of her friends and neighbors knew she was an agent and there are many non-agents with legitimate business in those buildings. Anyway if Fitz "went out of his way" to make something clear, then there is no need for your additional interpretation.--csloat 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The following section is made-up nonsense without any sources:
Subsequent information refines this, indicating that she was employed in the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations (DO/CPD) and had been a career clandestine intelligence officer in the DO for approximately twenty years. Some reports suggest that she was attached to the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control center (WINPAC). This appears to be incorrect, as WINPAC is an inter-agency organization administratively located in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence and most of its employees are not under permanent cover.
The whole section implies Plame was a covert agent, which has not been substantiated. I am deleting it. If you find a credible source, than reinsert the section and cite it.--65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't write that, though it is consistent with everything I've heard on this issue. I agree though such statements need to be sourced.--csloat 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Larry Johnson is not a credible source. He is a partisan kook who alleges "Bush lied" etc., etc. You want him potrayed as a neutral source when he is not. "Controversial" is a kind and euphemistic term for him. --65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I am "anonymous" because I am covert.--65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
One need not be neutral to be credible. And saying "Bush lied" doesn't make one a partisan -- that view is extremely kooky. Some people actually have the moral caliber to acknowledge that people of their own political party have lied.-- 68.6.40.203 10:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Larry Johnson voted for Bush so it's hard to see him as a "partisan kook." Talk about not having sources for claims - can you provide any evidence of Johnson's "kookiness", other than the fact that he is outspoken about what he believes? --csloat 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
My God! You entered the polling booth with Larry Johnson? How silly! How on earth would you know for whom Larry Johnson really voted? --65.87.105.2 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Cute, but irrelevant. What makes you think he lied about that?-csloat 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
He does not want to be categorically dismissed an anti-Bush partisan. It is an attempt to gain credibility. There is no evidence to suggest he actually supported or voted for Bush in the 2000 election other than own his words after-the-fact. His anti-Bush rhetoric is that of an extremist.--65.87.105.2 01:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The extremists are those who claim that anyone critical of Bush is an extremist. The way they claim it's extremist to accuse Tom DeLay of corruption. -- 68.6.40.203 10:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense intended, but that's moronic -- he thinks Bush is totally wrong yet he thinks it will benefit his credibility to say he voted for him? His own words have not been shown to be wrong; have you listened to the reasons he supported Bush? He is quite credible, but you can believe whatever you like. I don't care if you change your mind, but if you're going to call someone "controversial" in an encyclopedia, provide evidence for such a claim. Johnson isn't nearly as demonstrably "controversial" as, say, Novak, Rove, or Bush himself.--csloat 01:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Article

The title of this article should be Valerie Plame Wilson, and Valerie Plame should redirect here. Anyone object to such a change?--csloat 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding has been that she just uses 'Valerie Wilson' rather than having the 'Plame' in there at all. --CBDunkerson 21:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
True - either one is more accurate than "Valerie Plame," even though that is most common in the media. I think the Plame should stay just b/c that's what is most often used but the Wilson should be in too for accuracy.-csloat 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ye plot Thickens

Bob Woodward says he knows the identity of Robert Novak’s original source in the Valerie Plame case and the source was not a White House employee.http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/13453213.htm

[edit] RfC on this page and Plame Affair

I have started an RfC on this page and on Plame affair because the revert wars have not yet been resolved. I believe the main issues here have been addressed clearly on the Talk:Plame affair#csloat_recent_edits page and spelled out there. The stasis of this dispute lies in the question of whether Valerie Wilson was an undercover agent when she was outed (there are also some minor issues including spelling errors and such but this seems to be the main bone of contention). This issue is a non-issue: the CIA asked the Justice Dept for an investigation. The CIA is the only entity who can tell us whether or not she was covert -- it is their call. Newsday reported on July 22 2003 that at least two senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent. That is verifiable published evidence of this information. The fact is the Justice Dept is still investigating this - if she were not covert, there would be no investigation -- as I have pointed out over and over, all they have to do is call the CIA and ask. It is of course notable that there are some voices claiming otherwise, but the bottom line is it's the CIA's call whether or not she was covert. The other issues are explained on the talk page and even numbered for the convenience of those who would like to respond. Let us please settle these disputes in talk rather than through endless frustrating reverts.--csloat 08:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Mr j galt feels an edit war is more interesting than a discussion on what he wants to change. Clearly if common courtesy is impossible he is probably more willing to listen to an admin.--Nomen Nescio 22:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Nescio is ignoring the discussion on this page and my efforts to restore NPOV and eliminate the anti-Bush POV. But then again, a review of his recent edits at International Criminal Court, Extraordinary rendition, State of emergency, War on Terrorism, Unitary Executive theory, Criticisms of the War on Terrorism, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, etc. show that he is one of the leading anti-Bush POV pushers on wikipedia. Here is a recent comment of User:Nescio on the Police State talk page: Technically, when looking at actions taken by the current administration it comes close to the definition of a police state. Although I agree international organisations and politicians are unlikely to ever describe the US in this manner.[17] 'Nuff said. P.S. Thanks for welcoming a new user!--Mr j galt 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. But do explain how do you call the following policies: claiming the President can decide to interpret the law as he sees fit, wiretapping innocent US citizens, demanding surfing habits from search engines, denying habeas corpus, refuting the Geneva Conventions, torturing, invading a country on dubious and -at that time already suspected- incorrect presentation of intel, looking for loopholes regarding war crimes, rewriting of scientific articles, et cetera?

Second, you are not only discussing, you clearly feel the need to engage in an edit war too. If you could keep out the edit war it would be much more constructive.

Don't bother answering, anyone who has to make a point by ad hominem attacks is to busy with irrelevant issues to have the time for a discussion based upon logic and facts.--Nomen Nescio 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm asking everyone to stop the name calling and revert war and calm down. Can someone provide a short list of the specific issues that are under dispute here? --JWSchmidt 02:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes there is a short list of the main issues on the Talk:Plame affair page. As far as the specific edits, we have two versions -- galt and ungalt. The main diffs are:
The galt version would like to change "Max Boot argues..." to "many argue..." without evidence of others who argue thus
The evidence has been presented numerous times, but Csloat wants to isolate on the obscure Max Boot. Here are the statements of others and they all belong in the article:
"And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day." -Columnist Michael Medved on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005.
"And I must say from a common sense standpoint, driving back and forth to work to the CIA headquarters, I don't know if that really qualifies as being, you know, covert." -Sen. Pat Roberts on CNN Late Edition, July 24, 2005.
"Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them." -Victoria Toensing, Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Intelligence Committee, on a Fox News program with John Gibson, July 12, 2005.
"And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that." -Former White House official Ed Rogers on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on July 13, 2005.
"It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo) on Face the Nation on July 17, 2005.--Mr j galt 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking over the above, it would be reasonable to make the change to "Some argue" instead of "Max Boot argues". However, it is not legitimate to erase the response to this.--csloat 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The galt version would like to delete the response to Max Boot's column from Larry Johnson as well as deleting the link to the Newsday article that establishes that the CIA believed Plame to be covert.
Larry Johnson is not an authority on Plame's status. He has not worked at the CIA since 1989 and has no more credibility on this issue than any other private citizen (and probably a lot less given his outspoken opposition to Bush and the Iraq War). I have no problem including his response providing wiki readers know that he left the CIA in 1989.--Mr j galt 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As a former CIA officer Johnson is aware of the procedures of the CIA, and certainly can speak to whether someone can drive to CIA HQ and still be covert. The claim should not just be deleted; if you have evidence countering this point, please present it.csloat 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The galt version insists on the word "nonconventional" and ungalt version prefers the more common "non-conventional"
LOL! I could care less about this issue. Both are correct.--Mr j galt 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No; "nonconventional" is incorrect. Grammar and spelling are important in an encyclopedia. If you could care less about this change, why do you insist on it? This is the problem with your revert war. Let's make changes one at a time and discuss each one.--csloat 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The galt version includes the original research speculation that a reporter's words have not been backed up (in fact, he deletes the backup for this, whcih is the Newsday article mentioned above.)
There is no original research here. Csloat wants the reader to accept Elisabeth Bumiller's report without mentioning that she lists no source. Assuming she isn't just fabricating things like other NYT writers (see Jayson Blair), the reader should know that no source is listed. That she lists no source is not speculation. The article itself sufficiently supports that statement. --Mr j galt 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can't find a source making the claim then it is original research. Generic slams against the NYT are not persuasive -- Jayson Blair aside, the paper is still far more credible than the speculation of a wikipedia editor.--csloat 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that covers it. Thanks!--csloat 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


If others agree to do the same, I will not revert again. Let's talk these things out.--Mr j galt 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, leave it as it is now!--Nomen Nescio 02:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess a truce here lasts for one minute. I agreed to not revert, but I knew others (such as Nomen Nescio) wouldn't comply. I won't break the 3RR rule, but I will definitely revert this current POV version by Nomen Nescio. --Mr j galt 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you are only interested in bullying others so you get your way. You want the edits, so you have to explain! Leave it as it was before I made the comment here. I'll revert should you break your promise to stop the edit war, and warn you about the 3RR, which you are aware you are breaking. Once more, you disagree, so your version has to wait untill a compromise has been reached. Otherwise I will ask for protection by an admin!

Do not revert again!--Nomen Nescio 03:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As we are cooling down Mr j galt maybe you could summarise your position, so we can continue discussing your problems with the article.--Nomen Nescio 03:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt it will change your mind, but I will state the issue for others. A major point of controversy is whether Plame was covert. Numerous officials and commentators, including Sen. Pat Roberts and Victoria Toensing, Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Intelligence Committee, have stated that it is very unlikely that a CIA employee commuting to the headquarters building each day would be a covert agent. The 3 POV pushers here keep attributing the comments to an obscure conservative columnist named Max Boot to diminish the credibility of the argument. They also attempt to refute that with a statement by publicity chaser/anti-Iraq war activist Larry C. Johnson, who claims that Plame "traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby." The POV pushers here refuse to note that Johnson left the CIA in 1989 so he would have no way of knowing if Plame was undercover and what she would be doing if she was. Every story that says Plame was covert either quotes Johnson (named or unnamed) or includes no source.--Mr j galt 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That of course is false and by now you should know it. The Newsday story quotes two current intelligence officials. The document that you cite directly from the CIA also includes this information, though you like to nitpick about the word "classified." This debate is being held over at Talk:Plame affair so you can see more of the responses to this nonsense over there. As for Plame's travels, you have not explained why you want to censor that information. Your name calling of Johnson is totally irrelevant here -- he has not been indicted seriously by anyone in any published source, and there has been no information suggesting he made any of this up. And, in fact, nobody has even made the suggestion that he might make this up except for you! If you have information suggesting otherwise, present it, but do not delete legitimate information. I tried to add a quote that further established that Plame driving to the office does not make her any less covert. You deleted it without substantive comment, insincerely attributing your reversion to the RfC process, even though that quote is not part of this discussion (until now).-csloat 02:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No official source has ever said Plame was a covert agent when she was named by Robert Novack. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald at his press conference on the Libby indictment addressed the issue as follows:
QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?
FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. --Mr j galt 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You can keep repeating this quote but that doesn't change what it says. The questioner does not ask whether she was covert or whether Fitzgerald thinks she was covert; it's clear the questioner believes she was (and I have said this over and over, and you have ignored this point over and over). Fitzgerald is not speaking to whether she was covert; he is speaking to whether Libby outed her knowingly, intentionally. He says at the very beginning of this press conference that she was outed and that her "cover was blown." That, umm, suggests that she had a cover, don't you think? And again this is all irrelevant since her status is established by the fact the CIA asked for the investigation and confirmed by two independent current intelligence officials who spoke with Newsday.--csloat 02:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Fitzgerald makes himself very clear: "anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003." He is telling people not to misunderstand or mistate his remarks (as you are trying to do here). You are again confusing the term "classified" with "covert." Revealing classified information without authorization can result in an official reprimand. Revealing the identity of covert agent would likely mean prison time. I know you so want Plame to be covert, but all signs suggest that she was not. No official source has said she was covert and no one has been charged with the crime of revealing the identity of a covert agent. Sorry for the letdown. --Mr j galt 03:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Blatantly, factually untrue. There is a strong reason to believe that Plame's status with the CIA was covert when Novak named her as a CIA agent working on WMD. Just as an example, in a letter to the GAO dated January 26, 2004, the following 'officials' described Plame's status as 'covert' 5 times. Assertions that 'all signs suggest that she was not' are unfounded.
We are writing to request that the General Accounting Office investigate whether the White House complied with important administrative requirements to safeguard classified information in the matter of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Specifically, we request that GAO determine whether (1) in the period before Ms. Plame's identity was leaked to the media, the White House followed the applicable administrative procedures for protecting information about Ms. Plame's covert identity and (2) in the period after Ms. Plame's identity was leaked to the media, the White House complied with administrative requirements to ensure that this security breach was investigated and remedial action taken.
Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
Tom Daschle Democratic Leader U.S. Senate
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives
Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Minority Member Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate
John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives
John D. Rockefeller, IV Ranking Minority Member, Select Committee on Intelligence
The claim Plame was not covert is a familiar, but utterly unsubstantiated GOP talking point.
As Fitzgerald put it:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
And for IIPA to apply, the individual must be a 'covert agent':
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States
And, as reported in MSNBC, she travelled overseas periodically:
Married to Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame was working at agency headquarters in Langley, Va., in 2003 when her CIA status was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak....
Plame had served for many years at overseas postings for the CIA, and her employment remained classified when she took a headquarters desk job, traveling overseas periodically. [18]
But Fitzgerald was clear when he said he was not saying Plame met the standard of being covert:
"Let me say two things {...} I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."
I'd say the issue is far from black-and-white, but on the face of the evidence it certainly appears Plame was someone whose identity the CIA sought to conceal, and who traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years.
One more: Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President in September 2003, described Plame's status as 'undercover':
PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office
We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. [19]
So it appears the White House seemed to believe the object of the investigation was a covert agent. --User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ryan is of course correct in bringing this letter up. Of course, Mr galt has never substantiated his theory about the difference between covert and undercover or between covert and classified. As I said, information is classified; people are not. Even Fitzgerald said plain as day that her "cover was blown" -- galt's selective quoting of Fitzgerald is a blatant attempt to mislead. And of course we have senior intelligence agents telling Newsday that she was undercover, a fact he has yet to respond to, even though that argument was made at the very beginning of this revert war a week or two ago.--csloat 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The so-called Newsday "senior intelligence source" is no doubt publicity hound Larry Johnson who claims to know Plame's 2003 status even though he left the agency in 1989. I have no problem adding the Newsday source providing it is stated that the source is unnamed. Every article that says Plame was covert either quotes Larry Johnson, named or unnamed, or no source at all. I have no idea where Ryan Freisling has found evidence that says Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years." Plame's husband did not mention the travel in his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir. If it were true, it would be a major omission that would otherwise have a serious impact on the case. I will remind Mr. Freisling of the wikipedia policy against original research.--Mr j galt 04:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It's Ms. Freisling, and the passage is cited. Here's another independent cite:
The spy allegedly outed by a White House leaker is an attractive blond with Bond-girl looks who ran overseas operations and recruited agents for the CIA, sources told the Daily News yesterday.
Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service.
Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief. [20]
No original research here - just fact. No supposition, just fact. This is what we know was reported, and we need to exercise good judgment to write an article that relies only on fact. Details of a covert assignment are unlikely to be readily available, but your blanket dismissals fly in the face of the preponderance of evidence. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
But you said Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years." The NY Daily News article only cites Vincent Cannistraro who left the agency in 1991 and, like Larry Johnson who left in 1989, he would have no knowledge of Plame's status from 1998 to 2003. Nothing in the NY Daily News article supports your claim that Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years." I will remind you again of the wikipedia policy against original research. P.S. It's now apparent to me that the attempt to paint Plame as "covert" is just another Democratic Party talking point. --Mr j galt 05:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Will you give it up already? You are wrong. You have been proven wrong again and again. Do you have any citation from anyone impugning Cannistraro's or Johnson's knowledge of Plame? Did you just choose to ignore the MSNBC article that also made this point, like you keep selectively ignoring the Newsday article that clearly identified her as covert? Also, this is a new argument -- before you were saying she was not undercover at all; now you seem to admit she was undercover and you're only claiming she does not meet the travel requirement of the IIPA. Yet you do not deny that there is confirmation from several sources on her travel or her undercover status -- you just impugn Johnson and now Cannistraro as liars without any evidence whatsoever (and then you have the gall to remind Ryan about WP:NOR!!). Let me explain something: (1) if Plame did not travel this means she may not have been protected by the IIPA -- it does not mean that it might not have been a crime to blow her cover nor does it mean she was not under cover or covert. It just means she is not covert as per the statute, which is a different issue. (2) if Cannistraro and Johnson have been lying about this stuff, that's a pretty serious charge. You really need to establish motive here beyond "anti-Bush" or "anti-war". And since this is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill, you will need to establish motive based on published confirmed knowledge, not bizarre innuendo.--csloat 05:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
One more point, that is affirmed by Ryan citing the Gonzales memo -- even the white house is not making the absurd claim that Plame was not under cover! Scooter Libby is not making it; Dick Cheney is not making it; Bush is not making it; the only people making it are known hacks!
By the way, I know you don't like Larry Johnson, mr. galt, but you should listen to this interview with warren olney about this from 7/14/05. You may change your mind about him being a liar if you actually listen to him speak. In particular, he makes clear why he would know about plame even though he left the CIA: "she went undercover the very day that we walked into the CIA together back in September of 1985." He makes several points very clearly and credibly; if this guy was lying about this stuff, someone credible would call him on it, and to date, nobody has. Whining that he wrote an article in 2001 that turned out to be wrong is not evidence that he is telling bold face lies about information that he sounds extremely credible and knowledgeable about. You keep blowing off him and now Cannistraro (and we should add Goodman, since he has also backed up a lot of these claims, as has Pat Lang and Jim Marcinkowski, all former intelligence officers) by implying that they are complete liars. You never establish a reason for any of them to lie. Wikipedia is not here for original research into whether credible, respected former intelligence employees are liars. If you don't have published sources backing up your innuendo please leave it out of the pages.-csloat 06:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You might want to read the transcript of the Senate/House hearing - it includes statements like the following (from Marcinkowski) - "So we're left with one fundamental truth: The U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative." Almost everyone at the hearing says something similar. Are they all liars?--csloat 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do, this is Through the Looking-Glass country, where up is down, white is black, fact is fiction, spin is truth, et cetera.--Nomen Nescio 06:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Explain Why

Nomen Nescio and csloat repeatedly edit the article while insisting that I refrain from editing. Now that doesn't seem fair. Is this the wiki way or just another example of bullying?--Mr j galt 03:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You are well aware that is incorrect, I ask all editors to refrain from making MAJOR changes, so when that happens I revert. You have not seen any new edits on my part. As for bullying, you clearly feel the need to continue your ad hominem attacks. It is getting tedious, irritating and I am about to call it quits. One more personal attack and I will ask JWSchmidt and Jacoplane to intervene once more.--Nomen Nescio 06:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You reverted this article 4 times in two days. One shouldn't try to set rules for others that one doesn't keep himself. The issue is moot now that the page is protected.--Mr j galt 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Libby knew CIA spy by name before it was published

Interesting:

Handwritten notes taken by the CIA show Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide knew the name of CIA spy Valerie Plame Wilson a month before her cover was blown.[21]Holland Nomen Nescio 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon user edit war

We've got a new edit war started by 68.39.117.39 (talk • contribs), also using the ip 12.150.11.25 (talk • contribs). This user refuses to explain anything in talk or in the edit summaries but simply makes the changes without discussion. I have already reverted him but he keeps coming back. He is editing like this on several pages -- Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson, and Valerie Plame. I've asked him to stop on the 68.39.117.39 user talk page.--csloat 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Apologies for previous bad behavior, I have now read the rules. csloat continues to avoid NPOV and put biased POV comments and articles on the above 4 pages. Even his comments in Plame affair talk shows his lack of neutrality on this issue, 'Cheney to Fitzgerald: "Want to go quail hunting this weekend?"-csloat 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) '

I attempted to remove the biased POV editorial by the Boston Globe, which is all opinion and no fact. I'm not sure why the belongs on these pages and not the news articles and gov't reports I posted, including but not limited to: The Duelfer Report, The Butler Report, The WaPo, The WaTimes, PBS' 'Capitol Report' show, Senate Intel Committee Reports, The Financial Times, among others.

In addition, all *factual* articles and newslinks I posted, with citation, that show where Joseph Wilson lied, backtracked, retracted earlier comments, or 'mis-spoke,' were deleted. I attempted to add/edit the above sources into the relevant sections of the above 4 pages, but csloat wilfully deleted my changes each time. It is against wiki policy and spirit to remove posts which add factual discussion to the topic at hand and are properly cited. I apologize again, for not knowing the 3RR rule.

I am happy to repost commentary tomorrow on those pages, without other edits, and leaving the blatant editorializing of the Boston Globe editorial [funny how that works] be for now. That, at a minimum, does not belong and it is a disgrace to remove quotes from the above news sources and leave that be.

csloat---back to you. Oh, by the way, there are no personal attacks on you at all in what I wrote - there are comments on your actions and words, I have not resorted to name-calling or anything of the sort. Best.

Please stop repeating yourself. My jokes about Cheney were not entered into articles as you are well aware. Do not simply delete editorials because they are editorials. As long as they clearly are indicated as such, this is not a POV issue. Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV for details. Thanks.--csloat 23:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of Boston Globe Editorial

The Boston Globe also editorialized: ".... Such betrayals might have been expected in the Cold War. They should not occur because political operatives in the White House want to tarnish the reputation of a critic or settle scores with a CIA they may regard as too reluctant to tailor its analyses to the talking points of a vice president or a president."[22]

This is all unverifiable opinion, as such it does not belong on the main page. There is no proof that anyone in the WH wanted to 'settle scores' with the CIA, much less the PotUS or VP. When there is proof or testimony to such, put those facts in not this overly biased and pusillanimous jumble.

If we can all put editorials from any newspaper we want, Wiki will become useless. I am happy to put the above to dispute resolution if there is a disagreement, but it does not belong on the main page.

We already can put whatever editorials in that we want and Wikipedia is not useless. Please stop deleting sourced material just because it represents an opinion. If you have counter-opnions to add from recognized sources feel free but do not just delete stuff you don't like. I notice you only delete opinions and editorials that you disagree with. Please stop this nonsense.--csloat 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Kasparoff/Geomason - again, I must ask you to please stop the nonsense. Thanks.--csloat 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Label

why is this label on this article? there haven't been many significant edits lately, so we should work on how to better this article now so the label can be removed. any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

it should be removed and only be used when someone has a specific NPOV problem. Preferably it should only be used for sections that can be improved for NPOV.--csloat 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
unless someone has a specific complaint, i vote to remove the label. i think this article is neutral. Anthonymendoza 13:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novak's article

From Novak's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Ouch! Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove. Novak's article Scribner 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a logical conclusion; the Who's Who in America entry does not mention anything about his wife's employer or employment. "Valerie Plame" is the maiden name of Wilson's wife, who has used the name "Valerie E. Wilson" since their 1998 marriage. The entry gives her maiden name, as is customary: "[So-and-so] married the [former] [So-and-so]." See the revised note in the first paragraph of the article. (For other W users, I corrected the misspelling of "Novak" in the above comment, and added the Wikified link to his name; the primary source for his article is given in the notes and references.) --NYScholar 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Ref

I am chan[g]ing the html links to refs. Still working on one more section. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive cleanup in progress

Over the past several days, I've done extensive further cleaning up of this article (It really needed to have a cleanup tag on it, given all that had to be fixed). The notes section still needs some further cleaning up, missing source citations are still needed in some places. If considering adding any controversial material, please post it on the talk page first for discussion, and please do not use numbered external links instead of full citations. Checking and verifying sources are essential according to WP:BLP prior to putting material in such articles. (See the tag at the top of this page for links to related policies; esp. see WP:Cite, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability, as well as the others provided. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure everyone who has contributed to this page is grateful you've taken on the task of cleaning it up. thanks! however, i feel you've added alot of editorializing. for example, the following paragraph appears to be your own analysis:
That explanation clarifies the central issue: the central issue is not merely whether or not Mrs. Wilson was a NOC at the time that her employment with the CIA was revealed publicly; the issue is, more importantly, how the revelation of someone who at any time was a NOC and might again be a NOC or any kind of covert agent affects that intelligence agency employee's ability to protect herself and her sources and to be active in such a position at any time again in the future; protecting such a CIA employee's past, present, and/or future "cover" is thus not only a matter of her own personal security, but it is a matter of ongoing national security.
an anonymous editor removed it. i hope you don't plan on reverting. i only mean this as constructive criticism and hope you don't take offense to it. Anthonymendoza 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the appreciative comment. For your further information: I didn't regard what I wrote as my "POV." It was a logical deductive summary of material already cited and documented in the references in notes and quotations in the text. Please re-read the deleted passage in the context of the sources as quoted in the text and in the notes. The deletion of the passage does not damage the article, but, for the record, I still think that the passage helped to clarify the issues debated by the sources cited and quoted in a summary manner. Personally, I have no particular POV on this subject. As a Wikipedia editor, I simply was and am trying to maintain adherence to WP:NPOV throughout this article. Its earlier lack of neutrality of point of view is questioned in my comments in various places throughout the editing (cf. the article on Joseph C. Wilson, where similar problems occurred/occur at times particularly when anonymous editors throw in material without reading the whole article or the talk page or despite reading them). --NYScholar 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning of special prosecutor

Cut from article:

  • Clearly, Fitzgerald would not have permitted Armitage to identify himself publicly unless he was certain that doing so would not compromise the federal investigation or Libby's future trial in any way, as these matters involving Mrs. Wilson proceed through the courts.

This makes sense to me, but I don't think it is "encylopedic". Especially on such a controversial subject.

We should attribute this conclusion to a verifiable source. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The "conclusion" is simply a summary statement deduced from quotations and references already cited in the text and notes. I suggest that you read the material as cited more thoroughly so that you can follow the logic of the sentence. It was merely a deduction from earlier material in the text, not a "POV." The article was "rife with POV statements" (not like the one I contributed as a summary) which have been corrected over many hours of editing. See my subsequent comment below as well and this full talk page, espec. the preceding section.--NYScholar 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

doesn't make sense to me, but this article is now rife with POV statements like the one you cut. so much so that the POV tag may be in order. I would hope someone with a fair minded view on the topic would go over the edits made by nyscholar. i don't have the time anymore to edit extensively on wikipedia, and frankly, i really am tired of debating valerie plame. anyone care to tackle this page?Anthonymendoza 19:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
See previous section; as a fair-minded person, with no particular POV on this subject, I spent a great deal of time and trouble deleting highly-biased and unsupported statements and unreliable sources from earlier versions of this article; I supplied citations, quotations, and references to reliable sources (WP:Reliable Sources) throughout. If you "don't have the time anymore to edit extensively on wikipedia," I suggest that you refrain from taking the time to disparage the contributions of others without any evidence to support your disparaging remarks. --NYScholar 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
since her role was classified, there still is alot we don't know. it's best to just lay out the facts and not come to any deductions. Anthonymendoza 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The "deduction" is not about her; it is a summary statement about the prosecutor's willingness to state what he does or does not state. That is based on "the facts" of prosecutorial discretion; it has nothing to do with facts about Plame's specific status at all. You need to re-read the paragraphs relating to the statement before commenting further. I don't think that you understand what the deleted sentence was originally referring to. It's been quoted out of context in this section of this talk page. Return to the history and examine the original context (including notes).--NYScholar 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
“ Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. ”
See here. Thanks, TheronJ 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure the deduction is germane to the article -- Fitzgerald has an ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to Libby regardless of whether he permitted Armitage to go public, so I'm not sure what his consent to the public disclosure has to do with the Libby trial. TheronJ 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really suggest that people read the sources already cited in full. I don't know what "his consent to the public" means in the above comment by TheronJ. That comment makes no sense to me at all. Most sensible people know that prosecutors do not disclose information in public that will harm ongoing investigations and upcoming trials. That is simply common sense, not "original research." I have not, however, restored the deleted sentence. Anyone with any sense can understand the point I made originally. I no longer need to make it in the article. It's already clearly made by Fitzgerald himself in the quotations from his press conference that I've added instead. --NYScholar 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valerie Plame

I know this has nothing to do with her CIA career or the scandal involving her cover being blown but she is one hot momma! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

I second that! That Joe Wilson is one lucky bastard! --Fshafique 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information from the article

To other editors: Please stop removing sourced information from this article. I have restored the information removed. If one does not understand the distinctions between "diplomatic cover" and "NOC" (Non-official cover) status, one has not read the material already cited in various notes and references given throughout the article. Johnson makes very clear the distinctions between these types of cover: "diplomatic cover" is a kind of "official cover"; "NOC" is the opposite: "non-official cover." He and others explain the dangers to NOCs that are not applicable to those with diplomatic cover. Later in the section on "Career," sources cited say that Valerie Plame's NOC status began in the "early 90s"; the embassy address cited by Crewdson is also given vaguely as "early 90s"; clearly, it is possible that Valerie Plame could have used the embassy address ("official" or "diplomatic cover") still in the early 90s but prior to becoming a NOC. The exact dates are not known to the public. Her prior CIA status is still classified. Until it is declassified (possibly after Libby's trial concludes, if ever), or detailed chronologically in her own autobiography, the precise dates are still unknown and, therefore, all those unidentified anonymous former CIA agents who speculate that she could not have been a NOC while identified w/ an Embassy address are doing just that: speculating. They are not taking into account that she could have possibly not been a NOC at the time of the address and have become a NOC after using it (Crewdson himself states as much--see bolded sentence quoted below). Early 90s can be any date between 1990 and 1995. She could have used the address in 1990-1991, e.g., become a NOC in 1991, 1992, 1993, or 1994, and the address could still have been on record but not used by her at some point between 1993 and 1994 (e.g.). Crewdson does not specify dates in the "early 90s"; there is a five-year period during which Valerie Plame's cover status could have been re-defined. He does state, moreover: "After Plame left her diplomatic post and joined Brewster-Jennings, she became what is known in CIA parlance as an [sic] 'NOC,' shorthand for an intelligence officer working under 'non-official cover.'" (bold print added for emphasis)

The article also cites her husband Joe Wilson as saying that she had already worked for the CIA in her (then current classified) undercover status for "close to twenty years" when she was "outed" by Novak in 2003 ("the job she's been doing for close to 20 years"--part of reply to Wolf Blitzer, as cited in article); possibly from around 1984 to 2003. (Another key point--pertinent to the Wilsons' legal actions--is that, from her perspective already cited, she intended to return from administrative work for the CIA to that undercover agent status in the future and the outing prevented her from reassuming that clandestine aspect of her career at a later time. Also, if "most people" would have "assumed" that she worked "overtly" for the CIA [as one of the sources cited by Crewdson says], then, from another perspective, her cover was working; she had them "fooled." [I.e., she was "hiding in plain sight.")

It is possible, therefore, that her NOC status may have begun in 1994 (e.g.); the energy firm that became part of her "cover" (as a NOC)--Brewster-Jennings--is said to have been established in 1994 (Crewdson, et al.).

Understanding the logic of the sentence that I have restored depends on one's understanding these crucial differences between kinds of "cover" ("official" and "non-official"; "diplomatic" and "NOC"). One must read all of the material cited in order to follow these distinctions. The material cited is in the notes and references.

All of the material is sourced. If the article is going to cite anonymous sources (cited by Crewdson) who question whether Plame's NOC status was "genuine" or authentic, then WP:NPOV requires presenting reliable sources (not anonymous ones) who affirm her NOC status as genuine and authentic. Suppressing this information by deleting it is violating Wikipedia policy re: NPOV. --NYScholar 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

the sentence i deleted makes no sense and still doesn't since whether or not she was a NOC is not the question. if she had an embassy background, the likelyhood of her being deep cover and conducting espionage activities is called into question. why does it matter what larry johnson thinks? the operative who supervised her, who was an NOC for 24 years himself, would have more knowledge about this question. and he has stated over and over again that she didn't have deep cover, did her NOC duties in a "nice european city" and worked out of CIA headquarters since 1997. i find you edits really confusing.Anthonymendoza 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Anthonymendoza: You still seem very confused to me, but I do not think that my sentence is the cause of your confusion. I don't think that you have read carefully the quotations from the unnamed anonymous sources in Crewdson's account. Some of those quotations do specifically call into question (doubt and cast various kinds of aspersions on) Plame's NOC status (whose dates are still unclear and open to interpretation). It is therefore not true that "whether or not she was a NOC is not the question." That is precisely the question that is raised in the quotations cited by Crewdson.
Your clause "if she had an embassy background, the likelyhood [sic] of her being deep cover and conducting espionage activities is called into question." is confused (it seems to me): all Crewdson establishes is that she used an embassy address (not precisely what its use means; e.g., "that she had an 'embassy background'" is not clearly established either. The dispute in Crewdson's account concerns precisely whether or not Plame was a "genuine NOC." The qualifications ("genuine" used by Crewdson; and "true blue" used by one of those unnamed anonymous CIA sources cited by Crewdson) are very peculiar (it seems to me): either a CIA operative was a NOC or was not a NOC; "genuine" implies degrees that really make no sense. (The use of the word "genuine" seems an attempt to call into question Plame's NOC status in a somewhat back-handed way.) What seems truly at issue (controversial) is not "whether or not" she was a NOC (which is otherwise established by named sources like Johnson, et al.) but more pertinently when she started to be a NOC. Crewdson's account (and its citations from the anonymous sources) really does not disprove that she was a NOC. It reveals that his sources do not think that she was a NOC when she was using the embassy address (if that information is reliable, which is not clearly established either). But their assumptions do not rule out the likelihood that she became a NOC after that time in the early 90s when that embassy address was "listed"; also, it is possible that the embassy address was part of her "cover" ruse: that is another interpretation of what one of the unnamed CIA sources is quoted as saying. It could have been part of her cover if her cover was a "diplomatic cover" prior to her having NOC status. That is my understanding of the possibilities brought out in Crewdson's account.--NYScholar 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The article already establishes that her status as a NOC is precisely what is in dispute/"controversial": Anthonymendoza deleted the word "controversy" earlier, however, and then substituted other language that makes the controversial issue less clear. Omitting the word "controversy" may harm the general reader's perceptions of what is at issue as well. These issues are precisely "controversial." Deleting the word and additional information pertinent to the "controversy" may unintentionally mislead W readers.
Whereas Anthonymendoza seems convinced by what are basically unsourced quotations (anonymous sources) cited by Crewdson--people who refused to go on record with their doubts about her NOC status--I am not convinced by them. I am sorry that he finds "[my] edits" to be "really confusing." It seems to me, however, that he still does not understand the crux of the controversy about Plame's NOC status (how "covert" her "cover" may have been and when it may have been thus). (His deleting the word "controversial" or "controversy" from the earlier version shows that.)
It is clearly possible (as more than one cited named source establishes) that Plame was a NOC beginning at some point in the 1990s (at least). The reason why there was an embassy address listed for her is simply unknown. All that Crewdson establishes is that he found an embassy address listed in doing database search of her name. What it means is not clear and all the speculation by the unnamed CIA sources that he cites does not make the meaning of that address any clearer. It is all still in the realm of speculation and it cannot be given any more credence (belief) than other speculative interpretations presented by the named sources. In deleting information that counters it, Anthonymendoza is skewing the presentation in favor of POVs expressed by the unamed anonymous and therefore unreliable sources who cannot be checked.
Re: the named CIA supervisor (we have no reliable source to verify his claims, by the way): his cited statements still do not make clear precisely when (what date--year) Plame's NOC status began or may have begun. His particular statements are missing important details needed for compiling a full chronology of her career--a career which, still being classified, is thus still not convincingly established. His statements are, therefore, also partial (not complete) accounts of her career history. The gaps are conspicuous. His assertions are not understandable without knowing the full context of her career (dates of beginning NOC status), which we do not definitely have. All there is, really, is the possibility of Joe Wilson's "close to 20 years" suggesting that Plame began as a covert CIA agent (with cover--either official--e.g., embassy etc.--or non-official cover--NOC status) for "close to 20 years" prior to 2003; that is, possibly from about 1984 until 2003, with the Brewster-Jennings cover beginning after the firm's founding in 1994 (if Crewdson, et al. are correct about that date), that is, after the use of the embassy address in the "early 90s."
The questioning of her NOC status in Crewdson's account due to the citing of the embassy address of the "early 90s" does not contradict the possibility of her having NOC status after that point. The Wikipedia reader (general reader, not CIA agent) does not know how to interpret some of these points about what it may or may not signify (mean).
Hanging one's understanding of Plame's career on unreliable (unnamed anonymous) sources (such as those cited by Crewdson) or on sources with large gaps of precise dates for their claims (such as the CIA supervisor named) is risky; it does not conform with Wikipedia:Reliable sources or WP:Cite. One is required to cite conflicting points of view in order to present NPOV. Omitting the named reliable and verifiable sources of information in favor of unnamed anonymous sources is not conforming to those W policies. --NYScholar 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
it is not unknown why she had an embassy address. people who remembered her have said she was "posing as a junior consular officer." it's also important to note that Michael Isikoff has reported that when the CIA requested the investigation, possible violations of the IIPA were not in the request.[23] also, according to stanley moskowitz, the investigation request had to do with "possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."[24] i'm not confused about anything. i've edited the Plame affair page extensively and debated the topic to death. read the ramifications section. there was no serious damage that resulted from this "leak". another problem with the Valerie Wilson page is that it is now too long.Anthonymendoza 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"there was no serious damage that resulted from this "leak"." That's quite false. An ongoing intelligence operation investigating WMDs was destroyed. The specifics are classified - that does not mean there was "no serious damage" and it does not mean it was not a "leak." csloat 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
One has to cite "verifiable sources" according to WP:Reliable Sources. In terms of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury investigation, Fitzgerald himself is a "reliable source." The "anonymous" sources cited by Isikoff in his speculative reports written prior to the news conference (linked by you above) contain information that is neither "verifiable" nor "reliable" for Wikipedia article purposes. It is Ikikoff's speculation:

recent attention on a classified State Department memo that had key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material. The memo was taken by Secretary of State Colin Powell aboard Air Force One during a trip to Africa in July 2003, and Fitzgerald has questioned White House aides about who saw it. Fitzgerald has been said to be investigating whether any aides violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act—which makes it a felony to disclose the identity of a covert CIA employee: it requires showing the violator knew the agent's undercover status. (The State memo makes no reference to that.) But the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice. (Italics added.)

According to Fitzgerald's own press conference remarks, wherein he makes clear precisely what he is investigating, the crimes for which Libby was indicted and will be tried have to do with lying, perjury, misleading investigations, etc. I think that if one reads Fitzgerald's comments, one can understand precisely what he was and is investigating. (The investigation is ongoing, apparently.)
I've added the date etc. to an earlier source by Isikoff and a source you cite above to "References" in the article.
I provided Fitzgerald's press conference comments earlier so that one can see what they are. It is possible to summarize them perhaps (so the article is not as long), but his own words do clarify precisely what his investigation deals with. Prior to that reporters like Isikoff relied on "anonymous" sources to help them to understand what its focuses might ("may") be. The issues as to whether or not there was "serious damage that resulted from this 'leak' [note your own "scare quotes", which clearly imply a POV]" is still the matter of a civil law suit (Plame/Wilson's) and in the courts, as is the upcoming Libby trial. Your conclusion that "no serious damage . . . resulted" is not a fact; it is your opinion, and thus your POV. The article needs to follow Wikipedia's own policies for maintaining WP:NPOV. Fitzgerald's Grand Jury investigation does not question that there was indeed a "leak"; perhaps you need to re-read his comments to see that. The use of scare quotes around "leak" is not appropriate. It is a quotation from Fitzgerald, and he does not question whether or not there was a leak (calling it that), but rather says that he was/is investigating the circumstances of the leak. By now, no one is doubting that a leak did occur. Many facts relating to that leak (of Plame's identity as a CIA agent) are, however, still being investigated and they will again be raised as issues in the pending court cases, it seems; among those issues (for the civil case) is what damage was indeed done to Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph Wilson (both personally and professionally) as a result of the leaked information provided to Novak for his Aug. 2003 column, and so on. Some of those facts are not yet established by verifiable and reliable sources primarily because these cases have not yet gone through the justice system.
Information that Anthony M cites from "anonymous sources" is not "known" information; these are not facts; they are allegations, beliefs, conjectures, comments, etc. by people whose names are not known and the information is not verifiable or verified by multiple named sources. Those are therefore not facts of the kind that Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain. Especially if the articles are about living persons: see top of this page. See my earlier comments about how deleting contrary information from reliable sources skews the article. Nothing in Anthony M's reply convinces me otherwise. He clearly writes from his own POV, based on earlier speculations of journalists which has been updated by reliable sources, including some of the same journalists (e.g., Isikoff and Corn). --NYScholar 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is a passage already quoted in the article. It is in part Fitzgerald's reply to a reporter's questions about the "leaking" of information about Valerie Wilson: [I've provided this in the original format below, in a more recent comment, so I'm removing it here for space reasons. (NYS)]. --NYScholar 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, however, I will refer people back to my earlier [and later] comments, in which I respond to AM's taking out sourced information earlier (which I restored later); the information countered the aspersions cast on Valerie Plame (Wilson) by anonymous sources that he had left in, skewing the article toward their and his own POVs. I won't repeat the argument; it's already given in my earlier commments. What he responded with does not address what I was saying, but goes to other matters that are, nevertheless, already established clearly in the article. At this state of public knowledge, no one disputes what the indictment charges/alleges about Libby. At this state of public knowledge, no what disputes what the civil suit against Libby et al. alleges. But the outcomes of both Libby's trial and the Wilsons' suit are still unknown. AM writes as if they are known. They are not. --NYScholar 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it's not my POV. bob woodward, andrea mitchell, and dana priest, all who have intelligence sources, have all said there was no damage done. libby's trial will not be about plame in any way; fitzgerald has made that clear. libby is the one trying to enter into evidence the true nature of plame's work. why would he do this if she was a deep cover NOC conducting espionage? according to corn, plame worked on the Joint Task Force on Iraq, and after the war "Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management." so no ongoing intelligence operation was disclosed and she was moving on in a new direction. i have seen nothing to suggest the Joint Task Force on Iraq continued after the war and that this program was rendered useless after her exposure. i also don't follow your logic when you say fitzgerald was never investigating the leak, only the circumstances surrounding the leak. it appears to me that fitzgerald turned his attention to circumstances surrounding the investigation, which is quite different. it's also important to note that the disclosure that woodward learned of plame's identity from armitage came after fitzgerald's news conference, thus making some of his assertions false. and i disagree that fitzgerald's comments at the press conference can't be summarized. this article is now very difficult to read. at least attempt to condense it. look, i agree there is alot we don't know, and we possibly will learn some startling revelations during the trial, but for the most part i agree with the new york times and washington post. this all ended up being much ado about nothing. Anthonymendoza 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, Anthonymendoza, is not appropriately about your opinion--whether or not and what you "for the most part . . . agree with"; and not about my opinion--we are just writers ("editors") of the article, and we are simply supposed to be defining, documenting, and citing the statements made by authoritative reliable sources (not anonymous sources) about what is factually relevant about the subject. The article is supposed to be about the facts pertaining to the biography of the subject, "Valerie Plame" (Valerie E. Wilson).
Conveniently, you ignore the other case (most germane to this article on Valerie Plame or Valerie E. Wilson), and that is her and her husband's civil case, in which several outstanding claims of damage to them still stand undecided.
I do not say what you say I "say" above--that "fitzgerald [sic] was never investigating the leak, only the circumstances surrounding the leak"; please do not restate what I say in your own words and skew it to say something different from what I do state.
You recklessly and misleadingly quote a sentence (e.g., the one about her being "in the process of changing her status") leaving out other information already quoted about her future possible intention to go back into "clandestine" work for the CIA and intending to reserve option to do that. In part the civil suit deals with damage done to her career and her and the Wilson family's personal life by the revelation of information that was not public knowledge and not intended to be public knowledge; information that was at the time "classified" to protect her and other CIA personnel and those working with them (throughout the world). (Read the testimony of the former CIA agents to the Senate investigation again; apparently, you missed a number of their explanations.) As far as Fitzgerald's investigation; it isn't/wasn't only dealing with Libby. His discovery of Libby's alleged lies and perjury led to the 5-count indictment against Libby; the investigation per se is ongoing. Libby's trial is only one trial that has emerged as a result of it. Fitzgerald's comments quoted in full make it clear that in investigating the circumstances of the leak of "Valerie Plame's" (Valerie E. Wilson's) CIA identity, he would be investigating any possible crime committed by anyone in the course of his doing that investigation (wherever it would lead--as he explains). His explanation is in his own words, not mine: that's why I quoted them in full in the article and did not paraphrase them.
So, once again (quoted directly from the full passage that is in the article), here is the statement that Anthonymendoza misleadingly ellides in his use of it in his reply above:

When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator — to rise up a notch or two — and then return to secret operations. (Italics added.)[(note in text) 30]

Anthonymendoza conveniently leaves out: "Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator - to rise up a notch or two - and then return to secret operations." (Italics added.) The civil suit in part relates to potential (including future) "damage" done to her ability to "return to secret operations" by the leak of her CIA identity (whether "clandestine" at the time or not). But the civil suit deals with more too, and one needs to read the sources cited about what it charges; those are in the notes cited in the text of this article (and other articles relating to her).
The Libby trial is only part of the picture, because the civil suit involves not just Libby, but also Rove, Cheney, and Armitage (as of September 2006). Since Anthonymendoza has already made up his mind (without any of the facts that would come out either in the Libby criminal trial or the Wilsons' civil suit or any future trials and suits), he seems unable to understand the as-yet undetermined nature of some of the issues pertaining to the biography (life) of "Valerie Plame" (Valerie E. Wilson).
I suggest that Anthonymendoza's own preconceptions about this matter are skewing which information he allows to stay in articles relating to Valerie E. Wilson (Valerie Plame) and the "Plame affair"; what he agrees with and disagrees with is not germane to these Encyclopedia articles as they are not supposed to be about his opinions (or my opinions) but rather the facts of the subject: controversies and speculations that exist about it (according to reliable published sources, and information provided by authorities (the Special Counsel, e.g.) and others involved in these matters and reporting on them in published accounts in "reliable sources" (not you and not me, e.g.--WP:NOR; WP:Reliable sources; WP:Cite) are germane. Our opinions and our conclusions about the evidence are not germane. This is an encyclopedia article, not "original research" arguing a thesis. It is not our own "research paper" where we have to present a convincing argument to support an original "point of view" on the subject. It is supposed to be a biography of facts about and relating to the subject's life. This particular subject is embroiled in a political controversy. The facts relating to the political controversy are germane. But Wikipedia editors' "opinions" about the controversy are not.
Readers of this article (and other W articles relating to "Valerie Plame") do need to understand that so-called "Valerie Plame" actually no longer exists; everyone now knows that "Valerie Plame" was the CIA identity of Valerie E. Wilson (a real person, not a "cover"). That real person (the real-life wife of Joseph C. Wilson) is actually the subject of this biography and the one who is a party in the (real life) civil suit. "Valerie Plame" (in part the maiden name of Valerie E. Wilson--Valerie Elise Plame) is an ongoing name continually used in press accounts etc. Like everyone else, however, the press has only partial information about the history of this real person's life, since much of it is still not public knowledge. Until she writes her autobiography and until that autobiography is published, there remains much that the public (including the press) does not know, and even after it is published, the public will have only (then) her point of view on the events of her own life. Due to her having been an undercover CIA agent for much of her professional life, the public may never know the actual facts of what she did during it.
I do not know anything about "Valerie Plame" and Valerie E. Wilson other than what is public knowledge; as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot cite anything other than authoritative material in what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" (including--given exceptions in WP:Reliable sources--of some self-published sources, if those sources are deemed "reliable" sources of what they are stating). As an editor, I've done what I have been able to do with the material available in the public record. I have spent a lot of time checking the sources cited by previous editors in this article and providing the actual bibliographical details of the sources so that other editors and readers of Wikipedia can verify the statements in it: that those statements come from the sources cited and documented.--NYScholar 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

would you please stop your lecturing. i didn't "conveniently ignore" or "recklessly and misleadingly quote a sentence." i have never claimed Plame wasn't an NOC. how deep her cover was is the issue as it may relate to why no one was charged with IIPA violations. the corn article states she "supervised" JTFI officers. and these officers traveled to western embassies to debrief potential leads. she also met with jordanian intelligence officials. and the fact that she was wanting to "rise up a notch or two — and then return to secret operations" shows she wasn't that deep in cover. plus, everything the CIA does is secret, so what exactly she had planned is unknown. and while she "occasionally" travelled overseas, she mainly stayed at CIA headquarters. but the issue is why you are using a quote from larry johnson to try and debunk the tribune article? we know she was a NOC; that isn't the issue. and i'm not ignoring the civil suit. that suit is potentially years away if it goes to court. and every legal analysis i've read gives the case little chance of going forward. rather than spending so much effort trying to make me look like a horrible editor, why don't you focus your energy on shortening this article? Anthonymendoza 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fitzgerald investigation: press conference passages

In an attempt to shorten this article (at least temporarily while doing that), I'm moving passages from this section to this talk page; I've added a link to Wikiquotes with some of the sentences in it already, and I added some material to that Wikiquotes page on Patrick Fitzgerald. [I also updated this article w/ some new sourced information.] --NYScholar 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode [the leader of the team of investigators and prosecutors] doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public.

And as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't.

FITZGERALD: And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date.

But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.

It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.

FITZGERALD: Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. . ..[1]

In the October 28, 2005 press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald continued:

And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

FITZGERALD: The focus of the interview was what it [was] that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.

What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?"

And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.

FITZGERALD: And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

FITZGERALD: When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

FITZGERALD: Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

FITZGERALD: It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

FITZGERALD: So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

FITZGERALD: The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

[That is the basis of the five indictments of Libby. (NYS)] Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

FITZGERALD: We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system. . . . (Italics added)

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the investigation and what, as its lead prosecutor, he could and could not reveal legally at the time:

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have evidence that the vice president of the United States, one of Mr. Libby's original sources for this information, encouraged him to leak it or encouraged him to lie about leaking?

FITZGERALD: I'm not making allegations about anyone not charged in the indictment.

Now, let me back up, because I know what that sounds like to people if they're sitting at home.

We don't talk about people that are not charged with a crime in the indictment.

FITZGERALD: I would say that about anyone in this room who has nothing to do with the offenses.

We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act. We make no allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act.

But as to any person you asked me a question about other than Mr. Libby, I'm not going to comment on anything.

Please don't take that as any indication that someone has done something wrong. That's a standard practice. If you followed me in Chicago, I say that a thousand times a year. And we just don't comment on people because we could start telling, "Well, this person did nothing wrong, this person did nothing wrong," and then if we stop commenting, then you'll start jumping to conclusions. So please take no more.

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A, who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged?

FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "[I want] to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."

We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.

And one of the things we do with a grand jury is we gather information. And the explicit requirement is if we're not going to charge someone with a crime; if we decide that a person did not commit a crime, we cannot prove a crime, doesn't merit prosecution, we do not stand up and say, "We gathered all this information on the commitment that we're going to follow the rules of grand jury secrecy, which say we don't talk about people not charged with a crime, and then at the end say, well, it's a little inconvenient not to give answers out, so I'll give it out anyway."

FITZGERALD: I can't give you answers on what we know and don't know, other than what's charged in the indictment.

It's not because I enjoy being in that position. It's because the law is that way. I actually think the law should be that way.

We can't talk about information not contained in the four corners of the indictment. (Italics and bold print added)[1]

[I've put it in small print to take up less room; see the note with full transcript; bold is there but doesn't show up as well in small print. Text is here in case the transcript disappears from online sites.]

--NYScholar 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for ongoing vigilance in editing BLP (biographies of living persons)

Earlier versions of this article (and others relating to "Valerie Plame" and "Plamegate" [the "Plame affair"]) did not (and some still do not have) adequately-checked and authenticated reliable sources of information. These articles still need vigilant work (in my view). (See top tags relating to WP:BLP). Given that Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia editors cannot put rumors and innuendoes and unsubstantiated "theories" in this article about a living person. (Note: The "neutrality" of some articles relating to this one is "disputed" and subject to ongoing review by administrators.) [I re-organized some secs of my replies above.]--NYScholar 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who was official 'A'?

i thought Rove was official 'A'? is it now believed that Armitage was official 'A'? Anthonymendoza 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Please see the current version of the article:Valerie Plame#Public_disclosure_of_ Novak's_"primary source"_of_"the_leak"_as_Richard_Armitage. The article by Lewis cited in the note in para. one of that section is an archived article from The New York Times and accessible to TimesSelect subscribers. The phrase "the original leaker" comes from that article. Since quotations from Fitzgerald's press conference reference(s) to "official 'A'" are not currently in the body or notes of this article (quotations extensively edited earlier; see talk above), I deleted the reference to "official 'A'" in the section heading and replaced the reference to "official 'A'" in the text of that section with the phrase "the original leaker" quoted from Lewis' article cited; "primary source" and "first source" are also phrases used in the press reports about the late August/September/October 2006 news revelations re: Armitage. See the sources cited in the notes throughout.
See also: Plame affair --NYScholar 19:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The passage in Fitzgerald's news conference (scroll up) is:

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged?
FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "[I want] to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."

The "senior official . . . who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife" apparently "first" turned out not to be "a senior official at the White House" but a (soon-to-be former) official at the State Department (Armitage); he was the one who, according to later revelations, first "had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife."
There are some assumptions in the reporter's question about "Official A", but Fitzgerald did not and would not confirm or deny his assumptions about anyone in his reply to that question (that is, he didn't "bite" the "bait"). He did not identify either Rove or Armitage publicly by name in that October 28, 2005 press conference (about the indictment of Libby), and he goes on to explain clearly why he would not discuss hypothetical matters concerning other people who are not the subject of and not named in the indictment. He was willing only to discuss Libby, the subject of the indictment and of the press conference about it. (I've also deleted the erroneous editorial interpolation in the quotation above in talk too: it read "[later (in Sept. 2006) revealed publicly as Richard Armitage, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State]".)
In the press conference passages quoted above (in this talk page), Fitzgerald refers to Libby as "the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter" --not Robert Novak; see Plame affair#Other_subpoenaed_journalists_informed_that_Valerie_ Plame_was_a_CIA_operative_prior_to_July_14,_2003--adding "And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly" (italics added). Fitzgerald does not discuss other matters not relating directly to the indictment; the indictment is based on Libby's perjury and lies in the course of the investigation that, Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury allege, impeded the investigation; not on the leak itself. Being "first" etc. is not the basis of the indictment; the basis of the indictment is Libby's alleged lying to Justice Dept. investigators and to the Grand Jury about what they later came to regard as facts. In that press conference Fitzgerald would not and did not discuss the so-called "Official A" because the person that the indictment and the reporter deem "Official A" and being "at the White House" (or a "White House official") is not Libby, and Libby was the subject of the press conference. For discussion and hypelinked sources linking "Official 'A'" and Karl Rove, see, as examples, the following thread at TalkLeft "'Official A' is Karl Rove" (10/28/2005) and the following article from The Washington Post: "Democrats Demand Rove's Firing", by Dana Milbank and Carol D. Leonnig (10/31/2005); or Google "official A Karl Rove." From Milbank and Leonnig:

Another warning sign for Rove was in the phrasing of Friday's indictment of Libby. Fitzgerald referred to Rove in those charging papers as a senior White House official and dubbed him "Official A." In prosecutorial parlance, this kind of awkward pseudonym is often used for individuals who have not been indicted in a case but still face a significant chance of being charged. No other official in the investigation carries such an identifier.

See also: Plame Affair#Karl_Rove

On July 11, 2006, Robert Novak confirmed that Rove was his second source for his article that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, the source who confirmed what Armitage had told him [Novak].[(See note) 42]
Rove has not been indicted as a result of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury Investigation.[(See note) 43]

For discussion of related issues, see also "Sources: State Department Official Source of Plame Leak," CNN August 30, 2006. --NYScholar 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted unsigned inappropriate comment

See Talkheader: <<This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Valerie Plame article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.>> <<Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes....>> --NYScholar 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--I didn't have time to look over the whole article, but I deleted some of the graffiti at the top of the article. (there may be more buried inside.) Geoffrey.landis 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b "Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference," Washington Post, October 28, 2005, accessed July 15, 2006.

[edit] career section

Could that section be split into smaller ones--it's hard to edit now, and a lot to read. It also seems to me that the newer material in it makes some of the older stuff irrelevant, as more has become known. However, some of the stuff that's wrong may still be relevant as documentation of errors that were made before the most recent disclosures. 64.160.39.153 08:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This article follows a mostly-chronological organization; the material is relevant to the controversy: see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:POV as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I consolidated the material about the hearing and put it in its own section in chronological order of article, adding a cross-ref. under heading "Career" in the article. It is possible to find the updated information that way; that the details of her career are the topic of considerable controversy and disputes in the press coverage of her relation to the Plame affair is very important and, in my view, not to be deleted or omitted otherwise. --NYScholar 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that a considerable amount of the article text is devoted to presenting arguments for and against V. Wilson's reported status as a formerly covert CIA agent. This issue was very much in question and couldn't be answered definitively, so the article instead gave the best available sourced information on both sides. However, stuff that came out in the recent Waxman hearings (and to some extent in the Libby trial) obsoletes some of the prior uncertain stuff. So I think streamlining is possible. For example, unless someone credible is contesting it, I think General Hayden answered the covertness question once and for all, in the statement he cleared for the Waxman hearing. 64.160.39.153 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Identification

There seems to be some on this page that thinks being a Democrat (or Republican for that matter) is relevant to the story. I don't think you label her as a Democrat above everything else. It's not as if she has ran for office as a Democrat or anything, she has given to a few candidates and identified herself as a Democrat. This, however, does not belong at the top of the article. A new section should be created dealing with her political loyalties. Agreed?

What is the relevance of her being a Democrat? Do we tag every American bio on Wikipedia with their political affiliation if we can verify it?--agr 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is of some relevance to the article topic. See Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, LA Times Jul 18, 2005. pg. A.1: The Nation; Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson; Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting CIA agent's husband, prosecutors have been told:

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

64.160.39.153 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The information was revealed in a high profile forum (public Congressional hearings) attended by the international press. (In fact there was so much coverage that the BBC noted " Representative Lynn Westmoreland...began by saying even the baseball stars who testified about steroid use in the sport had not drawn such a big crowd. [25])
If the information was entirely irrelevant, Valerie Wilson could have refused to answer the question.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, which has no partisan leanings on either side of this case, thought it was relevant to include this information in their overview coverage of the Congressional hearings. Notice that the BBC article did not cover EVERYTHING in the hearings; likewise, the editors of the BBC could have excised that information.
Finally, it should be noted that people who have deleted this information from the article have either provided no reason, or have provided false reasons (eg falsely claiming that this information was never said, or that this information was inadequately sourced). Those edits are considered vandalism, and future deletions of this information will also be considered as such.
TickleMeBilbo 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see much reason to leave that stuff in the lead paragraph of the article, and there certainly was no vandalism involved in removing it when there was no clear reason to have it. WP:AGF. 64.160.39.153 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of the entry (along with its included citation) using the claim that it is unsourced or that it didn't happen invalidates an assumption of a good faith edit. In addition, the citation from the BBC article was removed again by Wrdmegle, without justification of any kind.
TickleMeBilbo 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it is incorrect. The placement of political identification of someone who isn't an officeholder should not be at the top of their resume. I am arguing that it should be at the bottom, which is where I put it when I created a new subtopic, complete with a reference to the TRANSCIPT of the hearing instead of a BBC article. Examples of political figures who do not have their party identification at the top of their wiki are Al Franken, Ann Coulter, Rob Reiner, Gary Bauer, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, and Karl Rove. Now, if none of those people have their political affiliation listed at the top of their wiki, why do you insist on putting it on Valerie Plame's? Wrdmegle 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrdmegle, the fact that the Wikipedia entries on Franken, Coulter, Reiner, etc are incomplete is no justification that this article should be incomplete as well. If you have sourced information from reliable sources that explicitly identifies their party affilitation, you should add it to those articles. (One should not assume that married couples share the same political party; James Carville, a former political strategist for the Democratic Party, was married to Mary Matalin, a well known Republican, when both were active campaigners for their respective parties.)Wikipedia:Proseline also is a good source to read in general about adding current events info, and needs to be applied to this article (as well as others).
TickleMeBilbo 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Tickle, it's obvious that you find it to be relevant to the article for whatever reason, but you are definitely in the minority here. However, after looking at your other editing, and the fact that you only edit on the Valerie Plame article causes me to question your motives. I cannot even believe you are suggesting that Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan may not be Republicans because of James Carville and his spouse. The main point of my editorial question is the placement of party affiliation. Why do you insist on putting it at the top in the FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE OR UNDER THE PHOTO?
75.137.240.236 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's reasonable to put this info somewhere in the article, however, describing the identification as an admission under pressure is original research so I removed that. Really the reason it's an issue is because of insinuations of partisan motivations on either the Wilsons' part or on Rove's, so the Rove quote above should also appear in that section. 64.160.39.153 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but in that quote, Rove was discussing Joseph Wilson and not Valerie Plame. 75.137.240.236 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thesis behind one side of the uproar was that Valerie was outed because Rove wanted to retaliate against Joseph. Per the LA Times article, Joseph's party affiliation was (at least part of) Rove's motivation for wanting to retaliate. So Joseph's affiliation is part of the outing story, and that story is a big portion of the article. The article desperately needs a big cleanup though, and maybe most of this stuff should be moved to the Plame affair article if it's not already there. 64.160.39.153 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The political contributions by the Wilsons are already in the public record and mentioned in other articles re: Plame affair and Joseph C. Wilson; her party affiliation is not germane at all to her own unintended role in the leak of her CIA covert identity in the press. (She did not make the leak happen; others did. She is the victim of the leak. Who or what she votes for is a red herring. Such factors are not relevant to the encyclopedia article per se; except perhaps to mention that they have been discussed by others. The lone fact of whether or not she is a Democrat would need to be related to a neutral discussion of the contexts for why it is part of the controversy; otherwise, it should not be included.) See the section on the hearing, which covers more relevant aspects of it and gives plenty of citations and the Oversight Committee website as a source, where one can watch the official video of her testimony if one wants to do "original research" on one's own. "Original research" and the points of view and opinions of editors in Wikipedia are not permitted: WP:NOR. --NYScholar 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current party affiliations of a CIA agent

The fact of her expressing a current affiliation to the democratic party could of course be included. (its not somehow unique of course, after all that has gone on many now express affiliation with the democratic party, and the demons in fact "thumped" the reepers in the last election after all, and many people now support them). Of course one needs some context when expressing her current affiliations, such as "In a congressional hearing Mrs. Plame expressed her current identification with the Democratic party. This is not somehow unusual for a CIA agent to be affiliated with one party or other at some time or another, as the CIA is in fact a team of several thousands of republican leaning and several thousands of democratic leaning professionals, in addition to those who might be affiliated with some other party or that are rather centrist". It is not especially noteworthy, as most CIA people would either have answered that question as being a republican or a democrat, if she had stated some other party besides these two it would be more interesting and noteworthy and unusual or unique, but of course if an editor wishes to include it I dont see why not, and it should likely go in the section about the hearing that she presently identifies herself as a democrat. In fact we have little information from her answer to that question except her current identification, we actually have more info about her husbands political identification and background (upbringing in a republican family etc.), and the question was clearly an attempt to discredit her by suggesting she is somehow compromised by an affiliation to one party or the other, and it wasnt on the list submitted to her either and was somewhat of a low blow it sounds like, her hesitation is of course interesting, but more so for foreign intelligence people I suppose than for wikipedia, to see how a trained CIA reacts to an unexpected low blow hostile (action), of course taken into context with the several other hostile questions from those on the right displeased with this whole situation/incident of the Plame affair and the scandal over the leak of exposing a covert CIA, (and one's own specialized secret team member), for (what turned out to be temporary) political gain and public favor. There indeed was hesitation on this question, on many others she answered or deflected quite smoothly and instantaneously. One gets the sense of an american CIA that is smooth and savvy, generally competent, yet not perfect all the time and that could be momentarily thrown by a novel/unexpected occurence/situation, and that perhaps has its own worst enemies coming from its own country's politicians, with the biggest true threat or hampering to "american intelligence" likely stemming from George Bush and the current executive administration-CrystalizedAngels 10:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible spelling error for web site

THe article makes note of a site "TMPCAFE.COM" as a source for Larry Johnson's article - I suspect this is supposed to be TPMCAFE.COM, an offshoot of TalkingPointsMemo.com. I can't prove that TMPCAFE.COM was not a valid site at the time of the article so I don't want to edit the main page (if it is in fact editable.) 2liberal 10:55 MST 3/23/2007

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/l/Talk%7EValerie_Plame_b38c.html"