Talk:Plame affair/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Plame affair (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 8 >>

Contents

Plame affair

  • Started article with a cut in of material from Karl Rove article (to be further edited), but seemed like a good starting point. Calicocat 17:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Plame affair time line

full article at Plame scandal timeline

Events, but dates needed.

  • Valerie Plame joins CIA
  • Plame and Wilson marry - year?
  • Wilson dispatched to Niger
  • Bush State of the Union address
  • Wilson Op Ed in New York Times
  • Novak article exposes name
  • Special prosecutor appointed
  • Grand Jury

Redundant?

Sorry, if I'm stating (or missing) the obvious, but isn't this artilce redundant with Valerie Plame. I actually agree with the idea of having a "Plame affair" article, but I think the matter of where stuff goes should be resolved before lots of time is invested. It seems weird that this article is mentioned on Karl Rove, but not on Valerie Plame. --rob 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It might be, I have to take a closer look there. Some editors working on Karl Rove had mentioned that there was too much on Plame affair in the Rove article and, in addition, others have mentioned there's too much Plame affair material in the Novak article and so on. Therefore, I think an article specifically about this might best serve the Wikipedia project. Watergate needs its own article apart from Richard Nixon and Iran-Contra affair needs its own and so on. I started this just today to be specifically about what I think is best called, the Plame affair. Calicocat 02:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You've convinced me. --rob 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Consolidation organization

Articles related to the
Plame affair CIA leak scandal
People

Valerie Plame,
Joseph C. Wilson,
Karl Rove,
Lewis Libby,

Robert Novak,
David Corn,
Matthew Cooper,
Judith Miller, etc.

Plame affair timeline


<>

-SV|t 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice start, I'd suggest we use "Plame affair" however rather than CIA leak scandal. You do nice templates, Steve. Calicocat 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - it could go either way -- "CIA leak" seems to be growing in media use, because its not so much about Plame as it is about the leak -- likewise "affair," has connotations of Lewinsky rather than Watergate, which can be somewhat misleading given the known facts. I'd like to see the template -more developed though, as some people are voicing concern over the redundancy between this and VP. Sinreg- SV|t 16:23, 22 July

2005 (UTC)

I had a similar conversation over "CIA leak" vs "Plame affair" at the "time line" article. Rather than recopy that to here, you might take a look at there. To my way of thinking "CIA leak" is too generic, whereas "Plame affair" puts it in context and is better than yet another "gate" tile like the POV "Rovegate." Anyway, lets see how it develops. The reason for this article is that it's not about a single person, per se, the Plame affair involves many individuals and issues, like Iran-Contra affair. Calicocat 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Coverage of 'Air Force One Memo'

Check here for a story with many new aspects to this affair. I don't have the time to adjust the article, but I thought I would at least bring it your attention. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

This absolutely needs to be included, I'll get to it. Gzuckier 16:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Former CIA agents critical of Bush

AP, Fri Jul 22, 2005 "WASHINGTON - Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security." [1] Reference posted by Calicocat to aid further expansion of article.

Photos and illustrations

I think this entry deserves a few pics -- perhaps the image of yellowcake, and a few of the main characters who have testified. Any other suggestions? 68.1.168.96 00:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but perhaps it's a bit early for it. However, if we were to have images, they would have to include -- Rove, Libby, Novak, Fitzgerlad, Wilson, Plame and maybe yellowcake. I remember some articles in newspapers about the Iran-Contra affair that had pictures with a caption about each person's role in the story. Maybe we can collect them in a section on the talk page and then place them into the article in some fashion. Calicocat 04:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Started creating list here Calicocat 06:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Images located --

Images needed --

Uh...I found one, it is- I think- in the public domain (there are no copyright markings anywhere on it.) It's at his CNN bio page. <http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/novak.robert.jpg> but I don't know how to a) verify it's in the public domain b) get the file on a local wiki area. I'm new here so.....yeah, link to the photo, do whatever, I'll be quiet now.

Bush/Cheney not under oath?

Article says, "Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, although not under oath. I think this is being confused with the Bush/Cheney "interviews" with the 9/11 commission? Can anyone provide background on this? I'm checking up on it as well Calicocat 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading that Cheney and Bush were questioned (early on) by Fitzgerald in the White House, not in front of the grand jury. I believe the "not under oath" factoid appeared again in the latest issue of Time. That's a good issue, by the way — there's more detail about the actual damage done by the leak, which should be included here. 68.1.168.96 13:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unless an actual source can be provided, the line should be removed. If we later can find a sold reference to this, it can always be added back. Agreed? Calicocat 17:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Exposure and not "outing"

This is to request that we use the word, "exposure" or similar rather than the slang term "outing." If there's quote where the word "outing" is used, obviously that would have to stand, but in other contexts I suggest we keep to standard English. Calicocat 06:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Motive, means, opportunity

It seems that the issues of motive, means and opportunity should be addressed somehow herein. I'll have to get back to this, but any thoughts about this would be welcome. Questions of means and opportunity are becoming clear, but I think more information about motive should be included. Calicocat 19:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Server technical issues noted

Server issues are causing one save to look like many, very odd. Noted for reference. Time is 2:14 AM EDT Calicocat 06:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The lead and User:Larryfooter's POV push

It is inappropriate for Karl Rove to appear in the lead of this article. There's an entire section within the article that deals with Rove's role in the Plame affair. Also, the information in these paragraphs seems to be a rather blatant POV push that selectively quotes from sources referenced whilst ignoring other information in the same references that does not support apparent damage control efforts as regards Rove. For example, take this line from the paragraphs in question --

In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." (see: Intelligence Identities Protection Act) 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." § 426(4)(a)(ii) (again, see: Intelligence Identities Protection Act); yet it has been widely reported that Valerie Plame did not travel outside the US over the past 5 years

It is not "widely reported" that Plame did not travel outside the US, there is only speculation about that, that kind of phrase is a Weasel word. Yet to "substantiate" the dubious claim, User:Larryfooter cites a single reference from USA today, however, he selective omits details contained in the very same article which do not support his apparent desire to exonerate Rove. Later, in the same USA Today article there appears this, and I quote,

Joseph Wilson would not say whether his wife was stationed overseas again after 1997, and he said she would not speak to a reporter. But, he said, "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.
Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.

The fact is no one can authoritatively say she was in the U.S. or not at this juncture and those who might know, will not say.

These paragraphs on Rove appeared inappropriately in the lead out of nowhere, without discussion and first without any references at all. I twice deleted them, only to be find them restored with this final comment in the edit history. "User:Larryfooter (Talk) (emphasis added) (reinsered FACTS in the lead stating that Rove has not yet been charged with a crime and that plame was not a covert agent - with sources this time - please dont remove it again)" Firstly, of course Rove has not been charged with a crime, no indictments have been handed down as yet, only time will tell if any are forthcoming. Secondly and more troubling to me is that I find this to an example of bad faith editing which does not seek to build consensus and stand on factual accuracy, but rather seems more about GOP based talking points and spin.

The Plame affair is likely to grow much more complex as time goes on. I would remind user:Larryfooter, who I think is a relatively new Wikipedian, that Wikipedia is not a place for political debate, or propaganda. If he (or any editor) wishes to engage in such, please take it to blogs or other more appropriate web sites.

In addition within this article and others related to it, I have also observed similar editing. For example, at Joseph C. Wilson there's language about "discrediting Wilson" from User:Larryfooter with dubious and incomplete references to a senate report.

I've again removed these paragraphs from the lead and would suggest that User:Larryfooter review Wikipedia policy on neutrality, factual sourcing and read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and review the style manual on writing the Lead section for articles. Calicocat 05:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the lead, changing "The complete contradiction of fact in the president's speech caused Ambassador Wilson much consternation and consequently he wrote an Op-ed in the New York Times challenging the veracity of the president's statement." to " Ambassador Wilson responded with an Op-ed in the New York Times challenging the veracity of the president's statement." I believe this moves the article toward the NPOV; compare "Sensing an opportunity to smear the Bush administration, Ambassador Wilson authored an Op-ed in the New York Times challenging the veracity of the president's statement."

In general, we should avoid ascribing motives to people in our articles.

I also removed the first (but not subsequent) references to "leak" in the article, so that it first appears as part of Ambassador Wilson's contention. Characterizing the information as a leak seems to imply that Rove was lying when he contended that he was simply passing on information from another reporter.

mjscud 00:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alberto Gonzales Notification

I just updated the page with information from the Washington Post story regarding the AG being informed of the Justice Department investigation in September of 2003, how he called the White House Chief of Staff immediately, and how he waited 12 hours before he notified the general staff. There is an implication in the article that the 12 hour gap in somehow untoward, but no proof is raised that anything actually illegal occurred. I think as the week goes on, and more information comes out, Gonzales role and the time-table of notifications and testimonies of senior White House Staff might need its own section.--Jodyw1 07:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Jody

I'm thinking along the same lines. My hope is that Gonzales' role will become clear as the case moves forward. As far as Gonzales is concerned, I think it best not to engage in speculation about illegality but rather to state clearly and factually what his actions have been, and what statments of his are on the record. There are valid question to be asked -- Why did he wait 12 hours? What took place during that time? Who, if anyone, benefited from the delay? What was his motivation in delaying giving notification? Maybe it was untoward, maybe not. Some of his own statements on this are contradictory. He was counsel to the president and now is AG, so we might see him recuse himself from the case. We just don't know right now. More generally, I think each of the major players and key events should have seperate subsections. In time, a graphic or graphics showing links and flows of events might be useful. This is a most complex case. I find it simpler and more NPOV to parse things out now and to keep known fact seperate from spin, damage control and speculation. In the interst of neutrality and factual accuracy, I'm being very carefull about drawing permature conclusions about any of the central figures or key elements of the case. Calicocat 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

We are we spending so much space on Radical POV's?

I just looked over this and i thought I knew a lot about the Plame affair, but I certainly didn't know about some of these begging-the-question-like-your-life-depended on it POV's and the like. It looks like either some people have been doing some heavy data-mining or are all too sold on some obscure radical political publications, and they are trying to push the fringe counter-narratives from those sources into this article. In any case, i think we should look over the WP:NPOV policy with regard to fringe POV's and proportional representation, and try to make this article a little more mainstream. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples of "obscure radical political publications" herein? Calicocat 02:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know of any, and i didn't mean to imply that any were cited. I'm just saying i don't know where else some people could have gotten some of the ideas that are in this article. -and by NPOV policy fringe pov's don't belong, at least not in this kind of proportion. Kevin Baastalk: new 12:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Offhand I can't see anything that I haven't been reading about in one press source or another. Examples man. WHAT don't you know the source of? If something seems that 'far out' to those who aren't following this closely it ought to be sourced... but just looking at it I can't pick out anything I haven't been reading in the papers. --CBDunkerson 18:38:47, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
I'm still confused as well by what's meant by "fring pov's." The article contains a lot of references to major media sources and known facts of the case. I've had one issue with an editor selectively omitting facts that did not comport with his apparent POV, but other than that, most of the editors making contributions have been observant of the NPOV policy and other aspects of good collaborative, consensus based editing. Calicocat 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Calicocat. I believe the article is well-documented, and is balanced in those places where no hard facts can exist due to the nature of the case. I would like to see some specific examples of places where you believe "fringe POV" exists, so that we can correct them. Because of the sharp rhetoric and wild speculation surrounding this topic in the media (from both sides!), we must necessarily address both extremes in the article. But I hope that we have done a good job of addressing all arguments in a neutral way, with actual documented facts (something rarely seen in the media these days) whenever possible. Aerion//talk 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Well I don't have a lot of time, so just ignore me until i look over more thoroughly and find specifics. I think I recall things like "maybe plame wasn't really a covert agent?" well if plame wasn't a covert agent, i think someone should tell that to mr. fitzgerald and the jury, because that means this investigation is completely absurd! things like that, that are just outright ridiculous, i recall seeing. and although that isn't really "fringe" because it's one of the talking points of the administration's rove-defense misinformation campaign, and it seems like this gets through a non-negligible number of ppl's common sense filters - this is along the lines of what i'm talking about - there are some things that i haven't seen in news papers and i find even more ridiculous than that - and i've read a lot of newspapers articles on this.
anycase, if ppl are going to put begging-the-question in here, as it sometimes constitutes republicans "pov", although it isn't technically a "view", then it should be countered not by acknoledging a question that is begged - that is just reinforcing the beggging, not a counter-weight - it should be countered by facts - "offering the answer". Kevin Baastalk: new 01:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
And this article is great! I'm impressed - I wish I had the time to take some credit for it. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for checking in. I re-read your first comment here three times and I think I see what you were getting at, seeing this now, I get it. We can always use more good editors. The "begging the question" good advice there. Cheers, Calicocat 15:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Randel Source

The claim that Randel exposed Lord Ashcroft as a DEA agent is sourceless. I'd hate to delete it, but unless somebody can find a source it should be removed. The page on Lord Ashcroft suggests that he was in fact mentioned as a name of somebody being investigated by the DEA, not an agent of the DEA. This is important since it makes the legal case significantly different from the Plame affair. Revealing a person under a secret investigation is not the same as being an secret agent.7/25/2005

  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.202.86 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please before taking the time to type this much, and threaten a delete, it's solid. Typing the Surname into Google turns up CNN and Findlaw with Articles. Further, legally it matters only in which sections of title 18 are violated. Unauthorized disclosure of any classified is a crime. Nothing to parse there. Motive isn't a requirement at all in many instances. A military base telephone book is a restricted item on many installations.
The Randel entry is good you can google it to a John Dean article in Findlaw and another on CNN. Delete huh? Not a decent choice. Try a google. (Non-registered user who digs the Wiki) (Move this as ya see fit!)
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.18.135 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
In the Randel instance, he used classified information for his own purposes. Instead of a trial and 500 years he plead out. 1 year in and 3 with a bracelet. Edit me away, I am done ;)
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.18.135 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Whatever the case, the point is valid. It needs to be sourced. I'll do it if I can find an appropriate source. Aerion//talk 23:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If I had actually looked at the article first, I could have told you that the source for the claim immediately precedes it in the text. I've moved the FindLaw citation after the paragraph in question so it's more clear where the information comes from. Aerion//talk 23:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
As the person who inserted the initial references to Randel here, I believe the story here evolved to have many errors. In particular, the cited source (and no other source I have ever seen) does not suggest that Ashcroft was an agent. Randel claimed he was a suspect. I have cleaned up this section.
--RichardMathews 09:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Name Lists

What do people think of combining the 'Central Figures' list and 'Known Witnesses' list? Just specify which are known to have testified in the combined list. That way we could list Novak and include both that he published the initial leak and that many analysts suspect he spoke to the grand jury. Also we wouldn't have different descriptions of Karl Rove's job in each list and other similar duplication. --CBDunkerson 18:34:06, 2005-07-26 (UTC)

I started the list of those known to have testified at the grand jury just to help parse out this most complex situation. As it stands, all those who are central figures may not be amonst those who are known to have given testimony before the grand jury, hence the two seperate lists. Perhaps as the case moves forward the two lists will be combined into some third format that includes information about each person. My thinking is that each of the major players should eventually have a subsection. Perhaps at some point there will be need for a graphic or graphics showing lines of connection or some sort of visual device to aid understanding. Calicocat 21:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The decision whether to give Undersecretary John H. Bolton a place on that list could be contentious, as sources differ on the veracity of the claim that he testified... :) -- RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What did the president know?

An article in the Washington Post gives summary of where things are in Plame affair. Several points herein should be useful to Plame scandal timeline and Plame affair article development. What Did the President Know? Washington Post, Mon. 23 July 2005 Calicocat 00:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

New Walter Pincus article

(also posted at 'Karl Rove', but it belongs wherever this evolving scandal winds up.)

In this article in the Washington Post, former CIA spokesman (who testified before the grand jury) confirms Plame was undercover operative, and Pincus describes a very unusual person who gave testimony to the grand jury - a friend of Wilson who approached Novak on the street six days prior to his now-infamous column and to whom Novak, not aware of the man's friendship with Wilson, apparently leaked Plame's identity. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

{Bill} Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.
In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."
Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.

Bolton interviewed, did not testify

Big controversy whether Bolton did or did not testify before the grand jury in the Plame affair. MSNBC's July 21 'Hardball' says yes:

According to lawyers, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and undersecretaries, including John Bolton, gave testimony about this memo. And a lawyer for one State Department official says his client testified that, as President Bush was flying to Africa on Air Force One two years ago, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer could be seen reading the document on board.
The timing is significant, because the president's trip on July 7 was one day after Ambassador Joe Wilson's column was published criticizing the administration. In other words, on July 6, Wilson's column comes out. On July 7, the State Department memo about Wilson's wife is seen on Air Force One. And, on July 8, Karl Rove had a conversation with columnist Robert Novak, but says it was Novak who told him about Valerie Plame, not the other way around.
Rove also says he never saw the State Department memo until prosecutors showed it to him. Six days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak published the now infamous column that publicly identified Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a CIA operative.
Grand jury witnesses say a call record kept by Ari Fleischer shows Novak placed a call to him during this period. And lawyers for several witnesses say their clients were questioned by investigators about Fleischer's conversations. Fleischer, however, did not have the power to be a decision-maker in the administration. And White House observers point out, he wouldn't have likely taken it upon himself to disseminate the State Department memo. In any case, Fleischer and his lawyer have declined to comment.

and apparently stands by the story, and Reuters says it didn't happen:

Some critics have also seized on reports he may have been involved in leaking the identity of aCIA operative, Valerie Plame, but a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolton had neither testified nor been asked to do so before the grand jury investigating the leak. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. He did. State Dept confirmed it today.

State Dept. Now Says Bolton Interviewed
WASHINGTON - John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday. Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 -- RyanFreisling @ 02:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, sorry about pulling this out of the grand jury witnesses list. I think it is very important news, he still lied to the Senate, but from what we know so far there is no proof he testified to the grand jury in addition to the State IG. Have you heard anything about whether MSNBC is sticking by their original report or did they just have the story slightly confused? --CBDunkerson 10:55:44, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
This is a strange one. MSNBC hasn't updated the story, afaik - but I've got my feelers out. Looks like he didn't, and they'll retract, on the face of it. If I hear anything back, I'll point to it. And no problem at all - thanks for making the correction! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Operation: Blame Plame begins

Report: Plame Gave Money to Anti-Bush Group
WASHINGTON — Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen, it was revealed Tuesday night.
It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.
The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together (search), first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets. The Federal Election Commission (search) record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."
A special prosecutor is probing whether Plame's CIA identity was leaked to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson (search), for attacking President Bush's Iraq policy after he went on an Iraq-linked CIA mission arranged by his wife.
Wilson {... said ...} that his wife "doesn't recall listing herself as retired."
CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows. Federal rules require a political-action committee to ask all donors to list their employers.
"You don't have to provide it, but if you do, you shouldn't provide false information on those forms — like saying you're retired if you're not," said Larry Noble of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics [2]

-- RyanFreisling @ 14:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's so much worse than releasing an undercover agent's name to get back and her husband for being honest to the best of his ability. Hearing that, is it long before Fitgerald pack's up and goes home? That totally trumps anything that I've heard about this case so far. (joke). Calicocat 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Operation: Slime Fitzgerald on the way

From the NY Observer.

Circled in a bristling perimeter around the White House, the friends and allies of Mr. Rove can soon be expected to fire their rhetorical mortars at Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the White House exposure of C.I.A. operative Valerie Wilson. Indeed, the preparations for that assault began months ago in the editorial columns of The Wall Street Journal, which has tarred Mr. Fitzgerald as a “loose cannon” and an “unguided missile.”
Evidently Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, will lead the next foray against the special prosecutor. This week the Senator’s press office announced his plan to hold hearings on the Fitzgerald probe. That means interfering with an “ongoing investigation,” as the White House press secretary might say, but such considerations won’t deter the highly partisan Kansan.

Plame affiar visual index

  • Plame affair visual index
  • Add new images here, discuss in some other section. Someone suggested getting images together, I thought it was good idea. Calicocat 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
Stephen Hadley
Stephen Hadley
Karl Rove
Karl Rove
Image:Matthew Cooper.jpg
Matthew Cooper


Image:George Tenet.gif
George Tenet
Image:Plame and Wilson.JPG
Joseph C. Wilson and Valerie Plame.
The mushroom cloud, spoken of frequently by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and senior whitehouse staff prior to the confrontation with Iraq. Photo info here
The mushroom cloud, spoken of frequently by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and senior whitehouse staff prior to the confrontation with Iraq. Photo info here
 Image:Yellowcake.jpg
oh, the 'mushroom cloud' picture should definitely go in the article. in this context it is hilarious! (tho not funny in its original context of course) -- 71.198.189.142 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

I would like show my appreciation to Calicocat, aerion and others for creating and working on this page and trying as best as possible to keep NPOV. Now if we could just make this the one stop shop for information on this, instead of folks trying to recreate the whole thing in umpteen other places.--Gangster Octopus 23:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow,thank you so much. A lot of credit has to go to those working on Karl Rove as well. Calicocat 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I second the kudos for Calicocat, as well as the others who've worked on this. I've added the Wilsons' photo to this article. Thanks for digging those up, Calicocat. I'll do more with the others as time permits. (Late for bed now... :( ) -asx- 05:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I also second the idea that we should encourage movement of the details of this scandal away from the other pages to this one. With the exception someone noted the other day that, for example, the Rove page would expand on Rove's role in the scandal -- without rehashing the whole story. -asx- 05:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thirded. The boxes are nice too. :) -St|eve 05:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Table formatting

I moved the 3 lists into floating tables, for a couple of reasons:

  1. Multi-column layouts tend to be more appealing and give the browsing reader more options and encourages scrolling so they see more of the article.
  2. It has the effect of shortening the actual prose portion of the article. People don't usually read lists (in their entirity, like prose), so when they appear inside the flow of the article, they have the effect of breaking up the narrative.

I know these kinds of massive formatting changes can be controversial. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. -asx- 05:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I like what you are going for, but I think it would be best if the list stayed within one section somehow. I find it makes the page load more slowyly and the text column is too narrow for comfortable reading. I find it distracting. Someone is also developing a template with a kind of similar similar function. The lists are just a basic, baseline reference and can just sit there for when they might be needed. If you need a name one, you can go and get it. I appreciate the effort and it has a kind of cool look, but I'm minded to restore it to a plain list for now. The help files say it's better to stick with just lists. The article needs much more work in terms of sections and subsections. Calicocat 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
On my excessively wide resolution, the list of people overlaps the TOC, and so gets pushed to the left. That's mildly irritating. Disregarding that, I like the idea of getting the lists out of the way. But I'm not entirely convinced that the lists actually need to be present at all. The list of central figures may just need to be a "see also" section at the end of the article. Aerion//talk 13:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Both good points, especially the latter about wide resolution. That's the problem with fluid layouts. Feel free to revert. I don't think the lists add much; they aren't bad (IMO) if they are relegated to 2ndary position in the sidebar, but right smack dab in the middle of the article, I think they are a distraction. Maybe it would be better to spin off a sub-article like the Plame affair timeline. But, whatever you guys decide to do is OK with me. (I can undo it if you want to do that, but I have to get to work now so it won't be for several hours that I'm able to do that...) -asx- 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, CBDunkerson moved them down. Thanks, that's much better. Good idea, asx! Aerion//talk 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

merging from Valerie Plame

There is a note on the Plame page that some of this stuff should be merged. I think the stuff there dealing with legality and national security certainly is relevant here, as well as the various reactions from the Admin, from former CIA, etc.--csloat 07:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we should open a subsection on Valerie Plame (and other key figures) I hope we can expand the article that way. This article is still too Rove oriented (from whence it came), so we need to now begin the expansion of subsections. Certainly an Article named Plame affair should have a subsection on her. Lets see where it goes. I short section that brings out key points, maybe just a bulleted list to start something like that. Calicocat 08:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
On the subsections, I agree but think we should limit it to their involvement in the leak and investigation rather than background on the individuals. I have started moving pieces of the various articles to pages that seem more appropriate... trying to cut the merging task down to a managable size. What do people think about taking the Joseph Wilson specific stuff OFF of this page. Alot of it is duplicated from the Wilson page. To my mind there are two separate, but related obviously, issues here... the 'Plame affair' encompassing everything from the reasons and sources of the leak through the reactions and investifation of it AND a separate controversy over whether Joseph Wilson told the truth about various things. This latter is comparatively minor (as for instance... no grand jury looking into it) and I think can be contained entirely on the Joseph Wilson page with just mention of the dispute and cross-linking here. Likewise with the now starting assaults on Valerie Wilson and Patrick Fitzgerald... these can each be contained on the individual pages rather than duplicating each of them here. Opinions? --CBDunkerson 11:43:31, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
I like your edits, --CBDunkerson and good edit comment and think your organizational ideas are strong and sound. There needs to be balance between the individual articles of the central figures and the key events of the Plame affair itself, yes. This article was started since too much Plame affair was creaping into individual articles creating POV disputs and the like. However, now we have this article and have to watch about bringing too information about individuals here. Calicocat 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the merging considered complete now? There seems to be plenty of redundancy, which I would figure can best be solved by trimming the Valerie Plame article. I notice no merge notice there, but one here. Gzuckier 16:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Plame affair template

Someone started an organizational template it's a good suggestion but should not be rushed or placed into articls until it's had some time to develop and expand. It was posted into one of the talk page sections. Calicocat 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Lists and footnotes and source, oh my!

Lists of names, footnotes, references, key events and the like can be moved to subpages and eventually sorted and formatted as may be necessary for reinclusion in articles to which they might be useful. Calicocat 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sections and subsections

What kind of sections do we need? I think the article needs to have some cuts in places and expansion in others. Here are some suggestions for sections we can work on. We'll need structural and functional sections. What do you think?

Some subsections or other headings...I'd like to hear more about organizing the articles progress.

  • Background section -- Needs attention.

(other sections I think we need)

  • President Bush - public positions and quotes
  • Dick Cheney -
  • Fleischer/McClellan
  • Republicans
  • Democreats
  • Vallerie Plame -- needed
  • Wilson -- needed, includes his essay, book and public campaign
  • Rove -- developed, needs to be reviewed, updated
  • Libby -- needed
  • FBI investigation
  • Gonzalas -- Notifications, statments on the record.
  • Investigations, Ashcoft, FBI, Fitzgerald, then grand gury, others that may develop, such as congressional.
  • The Leak -- when the name is revealed
  • A trip to Niger --
  • Media coverage --
  • Legal

There's still some old information and innocuous statements that Rove has not been charged with a crime and things of that nature. Calicocat

What I think we should do is create a high-level list of the topics covered at all Plame affair-related articles, and decide which article should cover which topics. Most of the stuff should go here, but some people have suggested that information specific to a single person, such as speculation about Karl Rove or questions about Joe Wilson's credibility, should go at that person's article. That way, we can more easily identify what information exists somewhere on Wikipedia, as well as what information needs to be merged, and what information we would like to add or expand on.
While the sections you mention do need coverage, it is an extraordinarily large amount of material to cover. I think that adding all of it to this article may make the article far longer than desired. Excessive length discourages readers and hinders proper maintainance. Is there a more appropriate place for some of this? Could we simply have one section for "Administration reaction" that would cover statements by Bush, Cheney, and McClellan?
Splitting up these tasks may be advisable to avoid burning out any single editor. Aerion//talk 13:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your statement, "Excessive length discourages readers and hinders proper maintainance." This can't be emphasized enough. In my short time hanging around here, I've heard it said that spinning off sub-articles is not to be done; everything must be packed into a single, gigantic article. I think this information would reach many more people, and as you say, be easier to maintain, if we had sub-articles. Two examples could be "Wilson's Niger Trip," and "Plame's Covert Status," each examing those topics in depth. -asx- 02:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Question Can we create a template, something like {{PlameAffair}}, that could be dropped into every page with information on this topic? That way the formatting and text would be consistent across all pages, and if we needed to reword it later, we'd only have to do it once, not 98 times. If you Search the site for "Plame," you get four pages of results. Just looking at the 3 lists in the article, it's clear that there are a LOT of pages that contain information on this topic. By placing the template on the relevent pages, I think we could encourage editors of those articles to assist with the effort. Just some thoughts. -asx- 03:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Big news in the Plame affair

News of a third contact between the Bush administration and the media (Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus) regarding Plame's identity has come to light. NYTimes

Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
WASHINGTON, July 26 - In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.
The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.
In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, "an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention" to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV "because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Pincus did not write about the exchange with the administration official until October 2003, and The Washington Post itself has since reported little about it. The newspaper's most recent story was a 737-word account last Sept. 16, in which the newspaper reported that Mr. Pincus had testified the previous day about the matter, but only after his confidential source had first "revealed his or her identity" to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel conducting the C.I.A. leak inquiry.
Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.
Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.
Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters.

The news here is not that Pincus was contacted - he let that be known in Oct 2003 I believe - but that there was a third Admin official (as yet unnamed) who was a source of the information. So we have Rove, Libby, and a third person to try for treason. --csloat 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct. But also relevant and underemphasized - Pincus asserts that the admin official, who identified him/herself to Fitzgerald and the grand jury (who was neither Rove nor Novak) was the source of the info, and not vice-versa as in the case of Rove/Novak. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed "current" template

Removal of the "current" tag.

  1. I don't think the tag fits here, we're not dealing with a sitaution of immediate breaking news, like the Madrid bombings. This article might even at lag a bit behind the news cycle, it probablly should. There's no harm there, in fact, in the long run, it will make for a stronger article. It won't be as much subject to the various ups and downs we might see as this case develops. Wikipedia is not a news media outlet or a news index.
  2. I think the inclusion of the "current" template tends to setup bad conditions for conflicts as conflicting reports come in. In time some of the questions will be answered, however, there maybe end up being some long term unanswered questions as well, matters of debate for historians. A list of press accounts related to the plame affair is useful as is the scandel time line article and those should continue.
  3. The template "current" was vandalized and may be again. I think using it unless it's really required should be avioded to help server loading issues as well as it just being nasty. Calicocat 03:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. We are in a 'lull' right now. I think it may get crazy again if/when Fitzgerald makes a move, but until then it isn't 'current' in the sense of rapidly changing and confused information. --CBDunkerson 10:50:11, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
I think I (respectfully) disagree. Perhaps the 'speed' is on a weeks-n-months timeframe, but the situation is definitely characterized by confused and rapidly changing information, as the tight-lipped investigation details emerge and the administration/GOP 'no comment/talking point' responses follow. I'd consider this 'current'. Just my perspective, I'm not at all 'up in arms' about the tag. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It is worth noting that this is listed under the Current Events link on the left there as an ongoing event (I changed the link to this from Valerie Plame), so a case could be made for consistency to include it. But it isn't a big deal, etiher way.--Gangster Octopus 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
In order for one to be protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it must be proven that the U.S. government "is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." If Plame worked at CIA's headquarters it may show that the CIA was not taking "affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States," however, her exact assignments and location are not known as of August 1, 2005.

I am not comfortable with this claim. The fact that US taxpayers were spending money on an entire front company that protected Plame's identity pretty well seals the question of whether the US was taking "affirmative measures" in this case. It's pointed out elsewhere on this page I think -- though it may have been on the Valerie Plame page -- but this statement gives credibility to a claim that seems to be based on total ignorance of US intelligence operations, or at least that's what former CIA operatives like Larry Johnson and Pat Lang claim. --csloat 03:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Time line review

I'd like to include an abbreviated time line in the article and started this draft. I'd like to flesh it out but keep it short. When it's in good shape it can be included in the "time line" section of the article and those wishing more detail can check the full time line article. To develop this, my suggestion is that we add details to the draft below but keep comments above or below the (sparingly used) horizontal lines.

The idea as I see it is not to include every detail of the vicissitudes of press reports and such, but rather to include the most significant events -- things which have material bearing on the situation, for example, indictments, convictions, dismissals, etc. Again, I used horizontal lines (sparingly) to mark off the proposed draft time line apart from any comments editors might have regarding it. Calicocat 05:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


(developing short version of time line, here)
Abbreviated time line, key events

  • U.S and U.K. agree on pretext to war -- Downing Street memo, Yellowcake forgery
    • Reasons for military action in Iraq cited by Bush administration prior to initiation of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Operation Iraqi Freedom
      1. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
      2. need for "regime change"
  • Ambassador Wilson travels to Niger at behest of CIA to investigate evidence of sales of yellowcake uranium ore to Iraq (dates needed)
    1. Wilson reports to Washington that no such activity has taken place (dates)
  • President Bush delivers 2003 State of the Union address (the 16 words)
  • Wilson responds with Op-ed in New York Times (link needed)
  • Senior White House officials (per Novak) leak Plame identity to Novak and other reporters
  • Novack discloses identity of Plame in his column (link, date, needed)
  • Bush calls for internal investigation conducted by Attorney General John Ashcroft (dates needed)
  • FBI conducts investigation (dates, details needed)
  • CIA calls upon Justice Department to investigate (date needed)
  • John Ashcroft recuses himself from the case, appoints Deputy AG to be "acting AG" for the case (date needed)
    1. Deputy AG appoints Patrick Fitzgerald
  • Fitzgerald begins investigation (key filings?)
  • Grand jury impaneled (expires in October, 2005, unless extended)

-End- (as of Aug. 1, 2005)

Yes, please. The separate timeline article has mushroomed to the point where it's not a timeline any more. Gzuckier 16:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo Suggestion

On http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html there's a picture of Rove together with Novak. Rove has a button attached to his suit that says "I am a source, not a target!". Not a photoshopped image! link to picture 80.217.225.208 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can get permission from the photo copyright holder to grant a usage license as needed, the photo might be included, otherwise, it would be a copyright issue. Calicocat 02:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Air Force One Memo

I replaced this paragraph:

The keen interest in the memo stems from it being the only known source even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger, aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which wasnot written until 2004. This is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications, and therefore implicates the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame, via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved.[3], [4]

with the following:

The keen interest in the memo stems from speculation that it was the source of the leaked information concerning Plame, via someone who was on the flight of Air Force One, and would indicate that the information was known to be secret.

The mention of the Senate report is quite unecessary here, and appears to be included only to justify the claim that the memo reviewed on Air force One was "the only known source even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger." Given the limited publicly available information concerning the matter, the "only known" qualifier has no significance. And in fact, the earlier June 10 State Department memo, the notes of the CIA meeting by the unnamed senior State Department analyst, the analyst and other attendees at that meeting, and the persons at CIA involved with arranging Wilson's Niger trip, are all possible sources of the "precise information" that Plame suggested Wilson. The assertion that the memo circulated on Air Force One was involved in the leak is purely speculative at this point. The claims that the memo has been implicated as the source of the leak, that it confirms the information was known to be secret, and that Novak's statement is "unlikely given the time frames involved" are unjustified. 216.160.109.205 16:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The latest attempt to give prominence to this left-wing blogger speculation is hardly an improvement:

Those who believe that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible for the leak note that, to date, it is the only known document even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger (aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which was not written until 2004). This is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications, which the administration's critics point out is consistent with the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved. The memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie plame" is also consistent with Rove's statement that he did not use Plame's name, or even know what it was.[5], [6]

As noted above, the memo circulated on Air force One is not the only known document linking Plame to Wilson's trip. While the speculation that the Air force One memo was the source of the leak may be consistent with known facts, so are other possibilities. This speculation does not confirm that the information was known to be secret or make Novak's statement unlikely. And why isn't the memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie Plame" cited as consistent with the belief that the memo was NOT the source of the leak to Novak, since Novak called her Plame? 216.160.109.205 18:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

because he looked it up in "Who's Who in America"?Gzuckier 00:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't raising the name difference as a serious issue. Note that I didn't say that the memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie Plame" proved that the memo was not the source of the leak to Novak. I said it was "consistent with" the memo not being the source. My point was precisely that this proves nothing, any more than does saying that the memo mentioning that Plame suggested Wilson for the Niger trip is "consistent with" the memo being the source. That statement is obvious, and meaningless. Your successive revisons have only added verbosity and convolution without addressing the issue of inaccuracy and irrelevance. My point is that it is unnecessary and inappropriate for Wikipedia to include obviously false claims and inane reasoning by anonymous partisan bloggers. 216.160.109.205 04:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

not too partisan there on your part, hmm? I would say, the claims and reasoning of salon.com and daily kos are probably more notable, properly attributed, than your point of view. anyhoo, i am interested in npoving it, so I've chopped out a couple of the lesser points in deference to your remarks; i figure "the blogs say this; supporters say that" format should be a fairly npov description of what goes onGzuckier 05:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am opposed to including obviously false claims and inane reasoning by anonymous partisan bloggers on either side. 216.160.109.205 06:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC).

Hi, I just have a question about one sentence: "confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved." Is there any source that confirms that Novak has stated that a journalist was his initial source? I couldn't find any on a cursory search on Google. Marie26 21:59, 2 October 2005

21 people possibly connected

The cast of administration characters with known connections to the outing of an undercover CIA agent:

  1. Karl Rove
  2. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
  3. Condoleezza Rice
  4. Stephen Hadley
  5. Andrew Card
  6. Alberto Gonzales
  7. Mary Matalin
  8. Ari Fleischer
  9. Susan Ralston
  10. Israel Hernandez
  11. John Hannah
  12. Scott McClellan
  13. Dan Bartlett
  14. Claire Buchan
  15. Catherine Martin
  16. Colin Powell
  17. Karen Hughes
  18. Adam Levine
  19. Bob Joseph
  20. Vice President Dick Cheney
  21. President George W. Bush

http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal

Kevin Baastalk: new 01:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

You left off Jeff Gannon. Zoe 05:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

My latest reversion

Someone asked on my talk page to explain my latest rv on this page. I thought the reason was obvious -- an anonymous editor had made massively POV changes without any explanation. It is obviously a POV characterization to move from "those who believe that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible" to "anti-Bush bloggers who claim that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible" for example. Again, I assumed this was obvious; sorry if I created confusion.==csloat 01:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The people being referred to as "those who believe" are actually Kos and Grieve, who are in fact anti-Bush bloggers. This is not a POV characterization. Rather, it informs the reader as to the nature of the source. The last part of this section is nothing more than a specious argument derived from the partisan rant of these anti-Bush bloggers. It adds nothing to the factual or analytical content of the article. See the discussion above. My preference is to simply remove it (although I retained a brief summary of the legitimate issue), but another editor insists on reinserting it. If it's going to stay in, the source needs to be accurately characterized. Anonip 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
If those are the only two people who believe this then say "Kos and Grieve, two anti-Bush bloggers" or something of the sort. I am not trying to get in an edit war but seeing those changes by an anon source (you?) with no explanation, it was a red flag.--csloat 02:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Mr. Nooniemouse believes that adding the words "falsely" and "partisan" and changing "believe" to "claim" is a step towards NPOV speaks volumes in itself. I deleted all the ancillary and corollary claims listed to try and reach some sort of compromise for NPOV and make him happy, but noooooo.Gzuckier 04:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not that kos and grieve are the only two people with the same idea, they're just the two who best spell it out.
Bloomberg.com: USSpecial Prosecutor's Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls ... has subpoenaed telephone and fax records from Air Force One and the White House. ...www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103& sid=awksAN7mYRZY&refer=us - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Bloomberg.com: USThe memo, prepared by the State Department on July 7, 2003, informed top ... subpoenaed telephone and fax records from Air Force One and the White House. ...www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103& sid=aagJweX0XNCQ&refer=us - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Plame's Identity Marked As SecretMemo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst ... 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html - Similar pages
Memo Is a Focus of CIA Leak Probe... interest in the State Department memo, which circulated on Air Force One ... believe that a printout of memo was in the front of Air Force One during a ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071600087.html - Similar pages
TalkLeft: Who Was On Air Force One?A week ago, I tried to connect some dots about who was on Air Force One from ... Now the same memo was leaked again to NYT then to WAPO, WSJ, Bloomberg, ...talkleft.com/new_archives/011612.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
TalkLeft: Classified Memo Naming Wilson's Wife Was on Air Force OneClassified Memo Naming Wilson's Wife Was on Air Force One. Leaks from Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation are coming faster and faster. ...talkleft.com/new_archives/011507.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
The Illustrated Daily ScribbleFrom Saturday's NewYorkTimes.com on the State Department memo Colin Powell had on the July 7, 2003, Air Force One flight to Africa with George W. Bush and ...www.theillustrateddailyscribble.com/ daily.scribble.pages.05/i07.18.05.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Eastern US Weather Forums > Looks like Air Force ONE had memoFull Version: Looks like Air Force ONE had memo · Eastern US Weather Forums > Off Topic > Randy's 'Hood > All Politics. zwyts. Jul 18 2005, 04:00 PM ...www.easternuswx.com/bb/ lofiversion/index.php/t41595.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
Eastern US Weather Forums -> Looks like Air Force ONE had memoOutline · [ Standard ] · Linear+. > Looks like Air Force ONE had memo. Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic ...www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=41595 - 113k - Cached - Similar pages
The leakers of Air Force One, and the passenger who heard them ...One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One. ...www.needlenose.com/node/view/1659 - 66k - Cached - Similar pages
Refusing to lie in State | NeedlenoseAs such, stating that Powell was seen with the memo aboard Air Force One (which may have been where the ... •Talking Points Memo •Taxpayers for Common Sense ...www.needlenose.com/node/view/1656 - 49k - Cached - Similar pages
Did You Get the Memo? Dean Calls for Disclosure of Top Secret Memo ...That memo found its way onto Air Force One in July of 2003 on a transatlantic flight to Africa, and was seen in the hands of at least two members of the ...www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/07/ale05099.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Barbara's Daily Buzz July 22, 2005On the tube I heard someone say "Rove never saw the memo, so he didn’t see the "S" stamped on the Air Force One Memo"---To say Karl Rove didn’t see the "S" ...www.buzzflash.com/dailybuzz/05/07/bdb05122.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: February 29, 2004 ...QUESTION: Can you also confirm that Air Force One documents -- been handed over to a federal grand jury? McClellan: Well, I would just say that we are, ...www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_29.php - 101k - Aug 14, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
CNN.com - Memo with Plame's name marked secret - Jul 21, 2005Memo with Plame's name marked secret. Administration officials questioned about State Dept. ... Investigators subpoenaed records from Air Force One. ...www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/cia.leak/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Plame's Identity Clearly Marked as Secret in Memo; White House ...... as Secret in Memo; White House Pulls Transcript; Air Force One Conspiracy? ... If the memo referred to her as Valerie Wilson, why did Novak identify her ...mathewgross.com/community/node/189 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
archives | Mathew GrossMemo Made it Clear that Plame's Name Shouldn't Be Shared ... Clearly Marked as Secret in Memo; White House Pulls Transcript; Air Force One Conspiracy? ...mathewgross.com/community/archive/2005/7/20 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
On Lisa Rein's Radar: Air Force One Phone Records Subpoenaed ...26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the ... It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 ...www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002085.php - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
Air Force Enter Topic Your Name (optional) Your URL (optional ...... on a memo that Colin Powell reportedly carried aboard Air Force One on a trip ... Think Progress reports that on Air Force One today, no one asked Scott ...www.truthlaidbear.com/customtopic. php?topic_string=Air%20Force - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
Plamegate: Air Force One Phone Records SubpoenaedAir Force One phone records are being subpoenaed as a grand jury probes the ... 26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the ...www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-02.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Eight Days in July... literally the loftiest reaches of the Bush administration - on Air Force One. The memo, The Post reported, marked the paragraph containing information ...www.commondreams.org/views05/0724-20.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Memo Becomes Focus in CIA Leak ProbeThe classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his assertions that the Bush administration ...gnn.tv/headlines/3869/Memo_ Becomes_Focus_in_CIA_Leak_Probe - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
Plaming Turd Blossom, What's It All About?... saw Ari Fleischer reading the classified June 10 memo that day on Air Force One. Link. Karl Rove apparently was not on Air Force One that day; however, ...www.jjraymond.com/political/2005/plame072005.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
Wilson talks off record about Niger, Plame identity leaked ...But because Powell was traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One, the memo is ... at some point during the flight sees the INR memo aboard Air Force One. ...www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Wilson_ talks_off_record_about_Niger,_Plame_identity_leaked - 41k - Aug 14, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
Plame Leak timeline - dKosopediaThe State Department's June 10 INR memo is located and copied. ... with Bush aboard Air Force One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_One), the memo is ...www.dkosopedia.com/index.php?title=Plame_ Leak_timeline&printable=yes - 57k - Cached - Similar pages
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others ...... "A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified ... was apparently first delivered to Air Force One when George W. Bush and ...www.topplebush.com/oped2074.shtml - 34k - Cached - Similar pages
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others ...Only after that did investigators hustle to seek Air Force One phone logs and ... was seen on Air Force One brandishing the classified State Department memo ...www.topplebush.com/oped2065.shtml - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
Memo May Hold Key to CIA Leak - Los Angeles TimesPowell had the memo with him on Air Force One when President Bush traveled to Africa on July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's piece was published, ...www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/ la-na-memo17jul17,1,5664005.story?coll=la-news-a_section - Similar pages
Rove and Plame: The dog, unwagged George W. Bush's decision to ...The memo was reworked a bit and faxed to Powell on Air Force One on July 7, 2003. The AP, relying on the account of the retired official, said that the memo ...archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/07/20/plame/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
The Raw Story | White House press secretary pummeled again on Air ...Aboard Air Force One / En Route Indianapolis, Indiana / 11:55 AM EDT / Press Gaggle ... They put out another memo today, with a top-10 Joseph Wilson lies. ...rawstory.com/news/2005/White_House_ press_secretary_pummeled_again_on_Air_Forc_0714.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Stygius: Bolton and the State memo... jury on the State INR memo that circulated oh so widely on Air Force One. ... the State Department memo about Wilson's wife is seen on Air Force One. ...stygius.typepad.com/stygius/ 2005/07/bolton_and_the_.html - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
Focus on State MemoGrossman sent the memo to Powell on Air Force One, including a "summary prepared by an analyst who was at a 2002 CIA meeting where Wilson's trip was ...uspolitics.about.com/b/a/187422.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
July 27, 2005 Headlines | Plame investigators follow the memoHe told prosecutors that he never saw a classified State Department memo that ... State Department official reportedly saw him perusing it on Air Force One. ...www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0727.shtml - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
WSJ.com - Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity... cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One. The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's ...online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112170178721288385-uh1ILw_ RG4bAJGgqjdsNHxrYSNE_20050818,00.html?mod=blogs - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
TreasonGate: What Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It?... "A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified ... document was apparently first delivered to Air Force One when George W. ...www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/ TreasonGateWhatDidBushKnow.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
The ForumThe President himself might have read the memo and called the two aides. ... The only official on board Air Force One with the knowledge and ...www.markfiore.com/forum/comments.php?sid=3608& tid=42749&mode=flat&order=0&thold=-1 - 24k - Aug 13, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret on State Dept Memo | Air America ...A memo circulating on Air Force One the week before Novak outed CIA analyst Valerie Wilson clearly marked her name as secret. The memo is the suspected ...www.airamericaradio.com/node/425 - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
FOXNews.com - Politics - State Dept. Memo Outlines Wilson Niger TripThe classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search) went public with his assertions that the Bush ...www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163000,00.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Lemonblog: Leaning Away From Rove; Toward Fleicher?So, who saw the memo on Air Force One besides Colin Powell? Remember Karl Rove's statement to investigators that he first learned Valerie Plame Wilson's ...www.38ludlow.com/lemonblog/archives/000290.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
It's not just the Downing Street memoes [Archive] - OSNN ForumThe classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former US Ambassador ... Powell had the memo with him on Air Force One when President Bush traveled ...forum.osnn.net/archive/index.php/t-78842.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
DCCC: Timeline of the LeakBecause Powell was traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One, the memo is ... Card was aboard Air Force One when the State Department memo identifying Plame ...www.democraticaction.org/firerove/timeline.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
The Agonist | thoughtful, global, timelyLAT - Prosecutors are asking whether anyone on Air Force One learned ... Memo May Hold Key to CIA Leak | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden) ...www.agonist.org/story/2005/7/17/234816/127 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Prosecutors zero in on memo for clues in CIA agent leak / They ...Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memo in hand, ... The prosecutors have shown the memo to witnesses at the grand jury ...www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ c/a/2005/07/16/MNGJ8DOUOU1.DTL&type=printable - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
Plame’s identity marked as secret - washingtonpost.com Highlights ...Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status ... 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. ...www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/ - 56k - Cached - Similar pages
and many more. Gzuckier 05:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier, I'm not objecting to the entire section. Obviously the INR memo is an important topic. What I'm objecting to is the last paragraph which presents the specious argument that the memo circulated on Air Force One had to be the source of the leak because it was one of only two documentrs that mentioned Plame suggesting Wilson for the trip and the other (the Senate committee report) couldn't be the source because it was written after the leak. In fact, the original INR memo from which the memo circulated on Air Force One was derived also mentioned Plame suggesting Wilson for the trip, as did the original meeting notes on which the INR memo was based. So the assertion that the Air Force One memo and the Senate committee report are the only documents that could possibly be the source of the leak is demonstrably false. Your original statement that this (non-) fact implicates the Air Force One memo as the source of the leak and confirms that that the leaked information was known to be secret is thus clearly nonsense. Your subsequent weaseling of the wording simply rendered the argument incoherent, without correcting the inaccuracy or inanity. The "consistent with" wording merely indicates that the memo circulated on Air Force One could have been the source of the leak, which no one disputes. It doesn't prove that it was the source. And the fact that numerous anti-Bush partisans will choose to believe the worst about the administration is hardly noteworthy in itself. The last paragraph adds nothing to the factual or analytical content of the article, and should be removed. Anonip 07:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It just seems to me that your points are more valid as replies to the body of "speculation" let's call it, than as reasons to delete the fact of the existence of such speculation. Would you support removing any reference to Bush's stated reasons for toppling Saddam if reasonable objections to them could be found? Or would you support the objections as addenda to the fact that Bush said ...? Gzuckier 17:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Separate section on Wilson's two missions

Am I the only one who feels the Background section of the article is top-heavy with needless debate and detail about Joseph Wilson and his two missions to Niger in 1999 and 2002? The text is needlessly confusing, and the narrative flow is broken by the flash-forward, flash-backward effect.

The basic confusion here -- which obviously needs to be noted somewhere -- is that there were two Niger missions by Wilson, which were related to each other. Mrs. Wilson did recommend her husband for the first mission. She was part of the team putting the investigation together, and she mentioned back in 1999 to her CIA supervisors that her husband had old contacts with officials in Niamey, and that he was going to Niger anyway. This first trip, which Wilson completed to the CIA's satisfaction, was an investigation of what an Iraqi government official may have said to a Nigerien official about possible business contracts, which the Nigerien official interpreted as uranium purchase contracts.

Because Wilson and his work was already familiar to the CIA from the 1999 mission, his name was at the ready when the 2002 mission was requested. Because the mission was prompted by developments coming from the White House, it was instigated by CIA higher-ups. Mrs. Wilson's role in her husband's second mission was to introduce him at a meeting to those CIA higher-ups before the mission began. Her presence at that meeting was noted by someone at a de-briefing session, after Wilson returned.

All of this squares with what Wilson has said all along, and with a reading of the Congressional report. It seemed to me early on that a kind of fog machine effect was going on, involving a deliberate confusion between Wilson's 1999 and the 2002 missions, and that fog machine was already turned on with Ari Fleischer's press comments on July 12, 2003. We don't need any fog in this Wikipedia entry.

I will revise and simplify accordingly. In the end, I think a discussion of Wilson's two missions should be moved to a separate section further down in the article. Shariputra 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving it off this page entirely. At this point, there is more stuff about Wilson here than on his own page. We could put Wilson and the whole controversy about Niger in his article and/or the Yellowcake Forgery article and just general background and links here... leaving this page to concentrate on the leaks and aftermath. --CBDunkerson 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to say that Plame's only role in her husband's second mission was merely to "introduce him" to the CIA higher-ups. According to a link Washington Post article which refers to the July 2004 Senate intelligence committee report:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Despite Wilson's claims that this is not a reccomendation, how can it be anything but? When I tell my boss I know someone who would be good for a specific job, that is a recommendation. This is EXACTLY what Plame did.

And the comments referring to a "fog machine" are obviously the type of partisan commentary that needs to be removed from a POV neutral discussion on the topic. --Goosedoggy 20:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging not valid

The person, Valerie Plame, and the scandal are distinct enough to merit keeping them separate, even if the former should be cut down to include only biographical information. -St|eve 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Judy Miller's book deal

Someone had a sentence about this and someone else asked that it be sourced and erased the sentence -- here is one source for the claim; should it be put back in?-csloat 08:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved Rove stuff in

There was a ton of Plame Affair stuff on the Karl Rove page. More than 80% of it was identical to the text here. I removed it all from that page and merged in the few differences here. The one section I didn't fully rework is 'Legal Opinions'. This seesm redundant with some of the existing text here, but not largely identical like most passages. I encourage others to merge the 'legal' sections or I will do so myself later. Thanks. --CBDunkerson 01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Though this may be painful, I think this needs to be brought up again in the Rove article. I haven't bothered to return there as the partisan fighters all seem to be still smarting, but perhaps a braver soul could again try to remove the redundant material there? --NightMonkey 07:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the editors over there aren't particularly interested in 'encyclopedic'... they want "one stop shopping" from a Google search on 'Rove' directly to all the info on the Plame Affair. Still, I have managed to whittle it down by chopping out all of the stuff not related to Rove (about half of it) and am planning to replace the long section of legal speculations with a brief summary of any actual legal repercussions for Rove once the indictments come down. That'll just leave the massively bloated 'denials and revelation of involvement' section to be trimmed to a summary once that kind of minutiae is no longer the subject of so much partisan zeal. --CBDunkerson 10:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Novak quote

I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one...During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.

I appreciate that the above is quote but I think we need to find some way to clarify that Wilson I assume had not yet contributed to John Kerry's election campaign during the time of the leak Nil Einne 10:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Also I've just came across an old article suggesting Wilson in fact contributed to the 2000 Bush campaign as well. Can anyone confirm this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3 Nil Einne 10:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Political contributions are public data, and several sites such as FECinfo provide this data in a searchable form, so we should be able to verify this. Oh, what the heck, I'll look. Here's what I found:
1) In the 2000 election cycle, Joseph C Wilson IV, of Charlestown Terrace, Washington DC, gave $1000 to the Bush for President campaign on 5-30-1999
2) In the 2002 election cycle, the same person gave $1000 to the John Kerry for President campaign on 9-4-2003
3) In the 2004 election cycle, the same person gave $1000 to the John Kerry for President campaign on 5-23-2003
I only found contributions for Bush and then Kerry. I didn't see any contributions to the Gore campaign. It's possible that I missed it though.
I don't know if this is the same Joseph Wilson as Plame's husband, but this should be easy to check. --Zippy 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Forgive me if this question is improperly placed. I have never edited in Wikipedia before and don't know where else to put it.

I am a little confused about the identification of Karl Rove as Novak's source under the "Novak Defends Himself" heading when contrasted with the "Novak's Sources" heading. The first section adds a comment to Novak’s “The CIA Leak” quote by putting forth the following about Novak’s first source:

“Fitzgerald's later report indicates that this official — "Operative A" — "helping" Novak was Karl Rove.”

I have been unable to find documentation of this assertion, but have, admittedly, not tried that hard. However, under the “Novak’s Sources” heading, the author states Novak’s second source is Karl Rove and that the first source (the one whom Novak claims is not a partisian gunslinger) is unknown. Also, the citations listed merely refer to the same Wikipedia article.

I understand this article is in a state of flux, but which source is Karl Rove – the first or second? Additionally, it would be quite helpful if a relevant citation was made and not just a reference back to the same article. - Chris B. 68.35.97.76 10:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a cite - I am going off of what I heard on NPR and am too tired to look it up - but my understanding is Rove is considered to be the first of Novak's sources, the one who is not a "partisan gunslinger". I guess as Bill Clinton would have said, it depends on what the definition of "gunslinger" is. Rove was identified as Operative A all over the news the day Libby was indicted, as I recall. Of course, we'll know lots more about this if Fitzgerald brings on more indictments. The smart money for Republicans, of course, is on Libby taking the fall, but experts (including John Dean) are predicting that Rove and possibly even Cheney will be up on the chopping block soon. Things could get very interesting very quickly. --csloat 11:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Csloat,
After having researched a bit, I would suggest you remove the “Operative A” entry within the Novak quote under the “Novak Defends Himself” heading. The comment is inaccurate and misleading. While “Operative A” does, indeed, appear to identify Karl Rove, it comes from Fitzgerald’s indictment of Lewis Libby (P.8, point 21 of the PDF (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf)) and is unrelated to Novak’s “[non]partisan gunslinger” assertion. As JWSchmidt has noted, Novak’s second source appears to be Karl Rove; the first source is still unknown and is almost certainly not Rove.
At this point, the information under the “Novak’s Sources” heading seems correct. - Chris B. 68.35.97.76 12:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


The wikipedia Plame scandal timeline cites a 15 July 2005 New York Times aticle called "Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer" by David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson. The Johnston and Stevenson article says that the second source was Rove. --JWSchmidt 14:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

rm: Tim Russert

Removed reference to Tim Russert to make it more clear that "Judith Miller of The New York Times," was the only person "who spent 85 days in jail for failing to divulge the identity of her confidential administration source to a grand jury."--FloNight 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Known grand jury witnesses

I added Judith Miller to Known grand jury witnesses List. Will spend a few minutes this morning checking sources to update the list. Will find sources for everyone on the list.--FloNight 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Added images to article

Just added Yellowcake, Scooter Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove and Matthew Cooper to the article. Also added George Tenet, and moved plamefull down to next sub-section to accomodate. --NightMonkey 02:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent sentences

Wilson described the situation so, that one source told him, he avoided any talk about subjects, when he once met with an Iraqi official. And never understood what kind of commercial contact the official wanted.

This wants rephrasing to be coherent and grammatical, but I don't know the source material well enough to rewrite it myself. "avoided any talk about subjects" - what subjects? --Jim Henry | Talk 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Crazy news

It is becoming more widely reported that Vice President Dick Cheney may be directly implicated in this investigation. This would, upon reading this article, appear to require a major revamp of the core ideas represented here.

Boomberg, LA Times, Washington Post, The Independent (UK)

This would seem to indicate a need for less focus on Rove, and more focus on Libby/Cheney. --NightMonkey 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And so... Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report, New York Times, October 25, 2005. I added Cheney to the list of those implicated, and added a reference link to this article. But, this article needs to be combed through to remove old recenetism from it, I believe. --NightMonkey 07:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Novak as a "pundit"

The word pundit is connected, I believe, with negative connotations. I wanted to point it out though, rather than just change it.

Wilson's Disinformation

They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's disinformation. Why is it disinformation? Daemon8666 18:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. It is proof of, at best, flawed information being used by the Bush admistration. Since apparantly (see Downing Street memo) Bush and co had already decided to invade, it is clear any information discrediting their stance was NOT welcome. Hence Wilsons story had to be defused. This is done by 1 implying nepotism (his wife) and 2 saying his story is disinformation. --Nomen Nescio 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Goethean for editing it Daemon8666 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

NY Times Article

"Aide to Cheney Appears Likely to Be Indicted in C.I.A. Leak Case "

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5094&en=f4b9e5edc0a35fdf&hp=&ex=1130472000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Is this enough to justify adding new content to the article?

Yeah, why don't Bush and Cheney resign from their respective positions within the U.S. government. All their ideas to get the U.S. back on track seem to revolve aroun imaginary chicken viruses that have only killed 60 people that may or may not have died of a chicken virus anyway. And now, this thing about f'cking a CIA agent, that's pretty bad, yeah, even worse than Clinton getting BJ's in the oval office. A BJ doesn't put an intelligence agent's life and job in danger.66.201.171.15
Really, this is just inflamatory and not helpful here. Can we remove this comment, please? --NightMonkey 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

18 USC 793 Violation?

In his press conference, Fitzgerald seemed to indicate that the thrust of his investigation was to determine if "section 793" was violated. § 793(f) states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

It seems to me that if the leaker committed any crime, it would be this one. Of course, no one was charged with it. Still, many laws are mentioned, and this one isn't. Descendall 16:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The indictment does not say he violated it; it says he failed to follow it. That is an important distiction because the Espionage Act has a relatively high scienter requirement. Thus, one can fail to follow it, but still not violate it, if there is not the requisite intent.
Also, some provision in the artcile should mention the fact that in a leak case, both the leaker and the leakee could be prosecuted, and the chilling effect that would have on the press. Evensong 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Plame was not covert.

A CIA leak implies there is something that is a secret. Plame was not covert at the time. So any mention of her would have not been illegal. The indictments at hand are for lying etc. before a grand jury, which was completely co-operated with by Libby. The question remains, if he was inconsistent in his testimony, okay, however if he was questioned with no crime being commited--then, is this nothing more than punishing someone for speaking inconsistently with the notes he (Libby) had turned in as requested? Point being....he has been charged with no crime based on his testimony for which he was originally called into question. He is being criminalized for what he did in committing no crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.81.182 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 29 October 2005

Welcome to Washington, DC, where the coverup is always worse than the crime. Also, See my above comment on 18 USC 793 Descendall 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So you concede that at some point she was covert. By revealing her status, which was top secret, it endangered the lives of everyone who she dealt with and most likely blew the covers of numerous other NOCs. Try not to spout administration talking points when you're not logged in/registered and this is your only edit. --waffle iron 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There is some debate over whether Plame had worked overseas recently enough to still be "covert" as defined by the IIPA. However, there is no question whatsoever that her employment by the CIA was still "classified". Leaking classified information is a different crime than leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, but still a crime. Libby has been found to have made such a leak... the only thing preventing him from being indicted on that charge is the need for proof that he knew it was classified information when he leaked it. There is sufficient evidence of this (his comments about the leak being likely to cause problems with the CIA and his inability to discuss it over an open line) that I expect Libby WILL eventually be indicted on that crime as well. However, as Fitzgerald explained, two years of lying and obstruction delayed the gathering of evidence and preparation for a case on that crime... hence the new grand jury. --CBDunkerson 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

operative/agent

I am trying to write about this affair for the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I have a little linguistic problem: While in most of the text of this article Palmer is referred to as a "CIA agent" (a term which has a direct and common translation), Novak, in his original column, is referring to her as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction", a term that I am not sure how to translate.

So is there a difference between "agent" and "operator" in this context? If so, what is it? Thanks, eman 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The CIA generally uses the term 'operative' to describe someone who goes out into the field to investigate things and 'analyst' for those who review and compile intelligence information. Both can be 'covert' in that their employment by the CIA might not be public knowledge, but this is far more likely to be the case for an 'operative'. As for, 'agent'... the term simply means 'someone working on behalf of' and could thus be applied to either group, but is probably more often used in describing 'operatives'. --CBDunkerson 14:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarifications requested

"Many critics of the United States' invasion of Iraq say that the series of sanctions and diplomatic maneuvers were not made in good faith; that the Bush administration had evidently decided to invade Iraq shortly after the September 11 attacks, and that the WMD "evidence" was only found (or produced) in order to provide a pretext for an invasion that was already a certainty. (It should be noted that there was evidence, in some cases, of large-scale moves at some facilities that were scheduled for inspections.)"

I realise that many critics have said this, but do we have an article that goes into this in more depth? If not, could we source the main critics? As it currently stands it appears to be opinion leaking into the article.
Also, phrases like "it should be noted" are very much frowned upon as peacock terms. Could we rephrase this? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also:

"Defenders of White House officials believe that Wilson, in a partisan way, initiated a smear campaign against the Bush administration. They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's "disinformation." Opponents counter this argument by asserting that such officials would still have a duty to diligently avoid exposing undercover officers or other confidential information"

Blame where blame is due... who says this on both sides? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

central issue??

The article states "The central issue of the whole Plame affair is whether the officials who disclosed this information about Wilson's wife a) even mentioned her name and b) knew about her "covert" status before doing so."

(a) seems absurd -- "Ambassador Wilson's wife" pretty much identifies Valerie Wilson; it's not as if Wilson is married to several women. I realize some right wing talk show hosts have made this point, and it may even appear in republican talking points, but it's just ridiculous to cal it "the central issue". (b) is also not "the central issue"; certainly not now that we know Libby was running around inquiring specifically about her status. Can we just erase this misleading summary?-csloat 03:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing a). However, regarding b), while the scope has widend with Libby's indictment, knowledge of her covert status is still in play, I believe. I think if Fitzgerald actually finds enough evidence in the course of his ongoing investigations to support actually indicting under the outing statute, he will do so. So, perhaps b) should be ammmended to reflect this. --NightMonkey 04:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

covert status

Someone just edited out some things based on the argument that VPW's covert status is "a matter of opinion." While I agree with some of the edits (see above), someone's covert status is a matter of definition, not of opinion, and it is quite clear that by definition, VPW was "covert." There may be a question about whether she qualified for protection under the particular law (which may require overseas travel - an issue independent of covert status). Nobody seriously questions whether or not she was actually covert except right-wing talk show hosts. It's generally agreed she had non-official cover status, which is "covert."--csloat 07:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is a matter of definition, legal definition; However, a definition outside of the IIPA appears elusive. As a leagal matter, if th eEspionage Act is prosecuted, then her classified status at the CIA becomes the important fact, not her cover. Evensong 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a definitional dispute. In common (and CIA) parlance VPW was "covert" because her employment was a secret. However, for the purposes of the IIPA the term "covert" is defined to include the 'undercover overseas assignment within previous five years' condition... which may or may not have been the case for VPW. In any case, her employment was "classified" and knowingly leaking classified info is ALSO a crime. I'd suggest we avoid the term 'covert' where 'classified' would serve as well, and explain the meaning of 'covert' being used when that term is required. --CBDunkerson 12:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
"Covert" is the appropriate term for an agent with NOC status; the IIPA definition is not accurate. It is meant to limit the application of that specific law, not to actually define the term. I suggest we use "covert" but add the necessary caveat only when directly discussing the IIPA. That is how the mainstream newspapers talk about the issue, for example. --csloat 16:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo caption

Since Plame is married to Williams, shouldn't her name be hyphenated as "Valarie Plame-Williams" or something like that? Pacific Coast Highway 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Transcript

Russ071404, do you really think that this transcript is such a vital and central aspect of the Plame affair that it must be included in the lead? Also, given that you are making assumptions about what Fitzgerald meant, doesn't it make more sense to briefly state the suspected meaning than to quote a large block of text? Finally, isn't it usual practice to put a comment on the talk page when reverting to explain the reasons and discuss possible compromise? --CBDunkerson 10:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I make no assumptions in the article. Rather, I merely quote the very relevant single Q&A about investigation status. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
What would be more apprpriate for the lead section would be something along the lines of the summary now in the "Indictments" section. The full transcript quotation, if used at all, should be in the body of the article. JamesMLane 10:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. By placing it up front we enable the readers to quickly get Fitzegerald's answer to a question regarding the likelyhood of any more indictments. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You assume. The assumption I referred to before is that this IS relevant. I don't think the passage quoted implies that future indictments are unlikely. Indeed, from what I've seen I think it likely that more indictments will be filed. However, since that IS an assumption I don't think it belongs in the article at all at this point. Ditto this bit, but if it were properly placed and/or explained it wouldn't be much of an issue and could be replaced with the actuality when it eventually comes to pass.
I think guesswork should be kept to a minimum in articles... certainly not given several paragraphs in the lead. --CBDunkerson 10:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. By placing it up front we enable the readers to quickly get Fitzegerald's answer to a question regarding the likelyhood of any more indictments. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, there's an echo in here. Of course... you haven't really supplied his answer. You've supplied a small portion of his answer. Which you apparently take to mean there won't be more indictments or that they are unlikely... despite the fact that he said he couldn't comment on that one way or another. --CBDunkerson 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop using the "-Gate" suffix.

Aside from acknowledging it as an alternate name for the scandal, there really is no need to use such a loaded and idiotic term. It's the same kind of bias that follows FOX News labelling suicide bombers as "homicide" bombers.

The only institution with a penchant for it is network news, which habitually label every scandal with a -gate suffix for reasons that strike me solely as a lack of creativity.... and really, we're a lot more objective than those sensationalistic idiots aren't we? Kade 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • YES, YES, YES! I don't think it needs to be included at all. Not in the opening, and not in the "notes" section, which can be deleted since it only repeats the opening, but with the additions of "CIAgate, Rovegate, Treasongate, Traitorgate, and Plamegate". The article would do better without this mumbo jumbo. --Sigorni 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't go here, that's for sure, but people who really can't stop thinking about it that way may want to make sure it's in the list of scandals with "-gate" suffix. That would be the proper way to vent your obsession over the terms. Jacqui ★ 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the Notes section, there's a duplicate mention of the term Plamegate -- is this intentional/useful? Also, I recently noted a use of the term Plameout in a newspaper -- although the term Plameout seems unique, should it be added to the Notes section? AnonUser 16:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No one uses "plame affair" - plamegate is more common. Removing it is POV. Stirling Newberry 17:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

The introduction to the article is confusing (the first paragraph is a single convoluted sentence!), and doesn't make sense to somebody who isn't already familiar with the subject. I know everything is probably explained in the remainder of the article, but the introduction is supposed to give a basic overview.

I'm pointing this out because I haven't been following current events for a while, and I'm totally in the dark on this topic... like future readers and the target audience for this article.  :) --Foofy 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

verified the intelligence from multiple sources

1. "Later investigations (the Butler Report in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 7, 2004) verified the intelligence from multiple sources that indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase the material."

If this is true, then wikipedia should list the dates of these "attempts". Is there any evidence that the "multiple sources" were based on anything other than the the false claims about an Iraq/Niger uranium connection? --JWSchmidt 14:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's really misleading - it is likely that Iraq asked to buy uranium and that Niger responded 'no.' The way it os written it looks like there is confirmation of furthur discussions between the two parties, which is bogus.--csloat 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
What I have read is that there was one or more visits by people from Iraq to Niger in 1999. Apparently, once the cherry picking was done, this turned into "intelligence from multiple sources" indicating that, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." I think that the words "verified the" in sentence #1 (above) should be changed to, "repeated the unverified claim that there was" --JWSchmidt 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Zel's Conspiracy theory

The conspiracy theory of Zel Miller is already discussed under "Reactions of Congress" - we don't need additional links to it, nor for it to be represented as a more widespread belief among others.--csloat 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The theory does not belong to Miller alone. Victoria Toensing is writing about it as well as people at LA Times. A short synopsis of the criticism of Plame belongs in the Intro. RonCram 04:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not seen this conspiracy theory associated with her; I have only seen her claiming that the law she helped write does not apply to VPW. Can you provide other sources? I also agree with the stuff below; Wikipedia really isn't a place for this kind of speculation, but I will refrain from deleting it since I know if I remove it the vigilant defenders of Libby/Rove/etc. will jump up and down screaming POV about it. But in any case there is no reason to put it in the intro - this is hardly a theory accepted by anyone credible that I am aware of.--csloat 06:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilson telling the truth

Some seem to feel the need to claim that Wilson distorted information. This is really POV unless you can provide evidence of that statement. So, explain what it is Wilson said and how that is incorrect, or else leave the statement out as it is not true! This means no reference to an op-ed but actual statements made by Wilson in regard to the Niger documents and the facts as we know them today!

Secondly, refrain from inserting conspiracy theories. They are entertaining but not meant to be used on Wikipedia. If you do feel the need for speculating, please use your blog!--Nomen Nescio 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

How can there be a rule against discussing conspiracy theories? The "Plame affair" arises from two great mysteries: how the WMD capacity of Iraq was systematically misrepresented for a decade and why members of the Bush administration have tried to prevent people like Joe Wilson from asking questions about how that systematic misrepresentation led to the invasion of Iraq. The obvious "conspiracy" is that many governments feared Saddam and secretly worked to topple his government after the Gulf War while pretending to play out the UN disarmament game. Ths led to systematic biases in intelligence handling and misrepresentations of Saddam's WMD programs. There is also the "reverse conspiracy" theory that Wilson was part of an effort to falsely claim that members of the Bush Administration had consciously manipulated intelligence so as to gain support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. These two conspiracy theories are part of the current political dialog and wikipedia must include them. --JWSchmidt 05:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps they should be addressed - certainly the first one is an object of much discussion on all sides of the political fence and deserves discussion. The claim that Wilson and his wife are trying to singlehandedly destroy an entire Administration is sheer fantasy, but the fact that a Senator articulated it should be included - though not prominently, and it should not be given the veneer of credibility that it is given in this article. I hesitate to get involved in any edit wars about it since this is an ongoing controversy - I have a strong feeling that after the investigation is concluded we will know a lot more about it and these silly conspiracy theories will be laid to rest -- possibly much earlier since the Senate will be reevaluating some of its conclusions about Wilson (many of which have already been decisively refuted by many sources; see for example Larry Johnson's comments). But in any case I'm not going to go in and balance every bogus edit people like RonCram have been adding to this since we will have plenty more information about it all quite soon. Of course, the Roveistas will no doubt have their own spin on things at that time, especially if new indictments are handed down, but there will be far less need to pretend to take them seriously when the dust around this has settled.--csloat 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
There are many questions surrounding the Niger documents. These result in people trying to make sense of it all. That is not my problem. But a theory must be presented as speculation and NOT fact, and it should at least contain factual references which are correct. Any theory should explain what is happening today to be possible.
As to both theories: 1 Bush & co covering up for "lying" about Iraq, there is ample evidence the Bush administration at least made statements contrary to the truth at a time they were well aware they were wrong.[7] (i.e. Fitzgerald clearly finds Cheney discussed Wilson with Libby before Cheney said he never heard of Wilson in an interview, the allegation about SH working with OBL was already proven wrong yet kept being used, many Governments did not share the believes of the Bush administration -although this argument is still being advanced- hence Bush withdrew the motion for an explicit UN reolution for invading Iraq: think of France-Germany-resignation of members of the Blair Government, this is proof that "the world" did not altogether share the narrow vision of the Bush team, et cetera) Furthermore, this view would explain the reluctance of Congress to investigate the handling of intelligence by the US government, not allowing the UN inspectors to do their work, the obsession with legalities (new definition of torture, resisting "the Hague") by the Bush administration. 2 Regarding Wilson being a part of the CIA trying to insert the previous theory. Strangely enough several statements are used which are clearly false. Think of Wilson misrepresenting the truth. What part of his statements is not true, where did he ly and could you supply us with proof of that?
What I am saying is that although many theories are possible, Wikipedia is no soapbox. If one has to mention a theory it must be clear it is a theory. Second, not every possible theory should be mentioned, but only those based on what is known, the presented theory must be credible. So, any theory contradicting fact or leaving out any fact should not be mentioned. Those speculations are clearly POV and not part of Wikipedia.--Nomen Nescio 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"any theory contradicting fact or leaving out any fact should not be mentioned" <-- It is not clear that we have the facts in hand. It is clear that not everyone agrees what is a fact and what is a fabrication. The people who have access to the raw Niger-related intelligence have had the luxury of selectively leaking the information that they wish to portray as facts. The government officials who have access to the records of how intelligence was handled during construction of the Bush administration's case for war have not been open about how decisions were made about what intelligence to reveal to the public. It is inevitable that people will speculate and that speculation is part of the story that wikipedia must tell. --JWSchmidt 21:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, we are not privy to all the details. However, speculation needs to be credible. Otherwise I will insert my personal believe that space aliens are behind it. Meaning that any theory must be based upon facts that are known. If one says Bush lied, at least one has to show some misrepresentation of the facts, or inconsistencies. If there is to be a CIA plot, please show where Wilson lied. At least use some solid foundation for your claims. You don't have to prove your theory, but it cannot be a total fabrication.--Nomen Nescio 04:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

csloat's unnecessary reverts

First, when I leave a reference, it is not Original Research. Second, by changing the section title, we can include criticism by committees and not just pundits. Please have a good reason before you make changes to my edits. RonCram 06:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are already sections for the reactions of the Senate and of other people; the reactions of pundits seem to belong there. The Committee should be a separate section as it is not reaction to the plame affair per se. It trivializes the senate committee conclusions to include them in the same section as the reactions of various pundits. The "original research" I was referring to was the claim that Vallely's memory is poor, which may be true but appears to me to be your own speculation rather than something backed up by evidence. I'm also not sure why any of this is necessary.--csloat 07:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Senate conclusions

I have a question about the following, added by RonCram:

In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries. The Senate Select Committee criticized Wilson for saying his trip to Niger had proved the documents to be fake. Actually, Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S. (Pages 44-45)

Perhaps this is my own confusion, but I was under the impression that Wilson's article claimed that his trip to Niger did not confirm that Saddam purchased yellowcake, not that he was the one who found the documents to be forged. Can someone other than Ron enlighten me here? (of course Ron should feel free to add his comments too but I would like to hear from someone less one-dimensionally partisan who has been following this... not to question Ron's good faith, despite his belief in "MindWar"; I just think his ideology often seems to cloud his interp of facts). Thanks.--csloat 07:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

csloat, I gave the page numbers for the Senate Report where the criticism is found. All you have to do is read it yourself. BTW, I believe it was in Wilson's testimony before the committee when he claimed to have disproved the documents and not in the op-ed. I could be wrong. Memories are fallible but at least you have the citations so you can look it up yourself. As always, I am committed to truth. RonCram 14:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This is inconsistent with everything I've read about it being recently reported, and I just listened to a piece on NPR yesterday or the day before where this claim was specifically responded to. I realize that is what the Senate report says but it seems to be incorrect. On the NPR show they had Wilson specifically agreeing that he did not have the documents prior to going to Niger. They had some other people on saying that the Senate report mischaracterized Wilson's earlier claims. In the editorial that started it all clearly admits that he didn't see the documents but heard on the news that they were forged -- the substance of the editorial is not about the documents being forged but about the fact that Wilson spoke to everybody who would have had knowledge of such a transaction and concluded that there was no evidence for it. The news was already reporting them as forgeries according to that editorial of July 6 2003. It seems to me to be a complete red herring to focus on proving that Wilson was not the one who figured out the docs were forgeries when he never seems to have claimed that. I'm open to being convinced that Wilson distorted this, but I don't see the evidence for it here. As for your final sentence -- I believe you, even more now that I better understand your notion of "truth".--csloat 21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S." <-- This statement is not even a correct sentence, it is illogical and it is contradicted by Wilson's own account of what he was told by the CIA. Wilson claimed in his original trip to Niger article that the CIA told him about "a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake....by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's". It is not logical to assume that Wilson was not told about the documents before they were in the hands of US intelligence. According to Tenet, the CIA had been getting intelligence reports about these documents since 2001. --JWSchmidt 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilson's distortion of the facts

Earlier someone edited my comments about Wilson's distortion of the facts and requested proof. Of course, if they had only read the links I had provided, they would have had the proof. Because it was requested, I have expanded the description of Wilson's distortion and misreporting. I do hope people read the links before deleting the information this time. See also the section "Criticism of Plame/Wilson." RonCram 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A series of unusual events (including reports Wilson openly talked of his wife's job at the CIA) have led critics of Plame/Wilson to view the Plamegate affair as a covert CIA operation by a rogue agent (or perhaps Agency) designed to pull down a sitting president. [8] Plame's husband is thought to have played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger. Wilson learned the former prime minister of Niger had been approached by an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding commercial relationships" which the PM interpreted as seeking uranium. Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium. [9] In addition, if any CIA employee had published information on a classified trip, it would have been illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from circumventing the law through their spouses. [10]
What part of this clarifies the misrepresentation? No example is shown. Second, references are meant to verify what is being said, not to explain. Strangely enough your version of the references is a narrow interpretation. As I read it the CIA might also be incompetent, this is left out in your story. By selectively quoting you are at risk of misrepresenting the original article. Furthermore, what has any legal challenge of Wilson to do with his story being true or not? Such an argument is ad hominem and must be removed. To me, this entire statement is POV, no facts are introduced, merely opinion.
To prevent an edit war please correct your contribition, so that it contains not merely a statement but an explanation of what you mean by it. Should no explanation of this "misrepresentation" be advanced I will remove this clearly POV contribution.--Nomen Nescio 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I would add to this that if this information is included, the people making the various claims -- Miller, Boot, and Toensig -- be named rather than ascribing these (3 very different) views to "critics". At the very least, identify them as openly partisan ideologues who have been accused of distortion on this issue.--csloat 21:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved this piece to a separate section on conspiracy theories at the end of the article. Neither the White House, not the Special Counsel have made any such allegation. It is also worth noting that Wilson's original report was made through official channels and was clearly intended to warn the government that the Niger story was suspect. Had the administration heeded the warning, it would have been spared significant embarrassment, so it strains credulity to portray that report as a hostile act. How were Wilson and Plame supposed to know that the President would ignore their report and cite African yellowcake in his State of the Union address? Also the Special Counsel specifically stated in the indictment that Plame's CIA status was not common knowledge at the time of the leak, contradicting the reports cited. --agr 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea; thanks!--csloat 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying Wilson's Distortions

Nomen, I clearly stated the information on Wilson's distortions was now located in the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section. Since you were not able to find it, I have reproduced it for you here.

Wilson was criticized by the Senate Select Committee on PreWar Intelligence because he claimed his trip to Niger proved that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger. Actually, the former Prime Minister of Niger told Wilson that a delegation from Iraq did meet with him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations," which the prime minister took to mean a desire to purchase yellowcake uranium. The prime minister let the matter drop due to UN sanctions against Iraq. (Pages 39-44)
In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries. The Senate Select Committee criticized Wilson for saying his trip to Niger had proved the documents to be fake. Actually, Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S. (Pages 44-45)

I hope this helps. RonCram 22:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron please read the comments above about these passages. I am sure Nomen is well aware of them too. This is a red herring. It's obvious you have not yourself even read the Wilson editorial you are so mad about. He never claimed to have proven the documents fake. What he did was talk to everyone in Niger that would have known about such a transaction in order to investigate whether it existed. The news was already reporting that those documents were forged. Perhaps you did read the editorial but you are ignoring the facts that are inconvenient for your worldview, to continue your practice of "MindWar." It's quite telling that you prefer innuendo from a discredited source (general vallely's smear of fitzgerald, which you just added -- should we add every crank who says something silly about this case?) to facts such as these.--csloat 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Plame/Wilson in Intro

The following passage belongs in the Intro:

A series of unusual events (including reports Wilson openly talked of his wife's job at the CIA) have led critics of Plame/Wilson to view the Plamegate affair as a covert CIA operation by a rogue agent (or perhaps Agency) designed to pull down a sitting president. [11] Plame's husband is thought to have played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger. Wilson learned the former prime minister of Niger had been approached by an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding commercial relationships" which the PM interpreted as seeking uranium. Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium. [12] In addition, if any CIA employee had published information on a classified trip, it would have been illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from circumventing the law through their spouses. [13]

This is not redundant but provides an introduction to the fuller accounts in the appropriate sections. More of the information in this section is not repeated in any form in the article. Readers of Wikipedia articles should not be forced to read the article before learning of criticism of the main players. Please do not delete this passage again. RonCram 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see above Ron, this stuff belongs in the conspiracy theory section only, not the intro. It is crap spewed by a few right wing loons; it is not supported at all by the Prosecutor or even the White House. There is no reason to duplicate silly and obviously false conspiracy theories all over this article. The intro should only provide info that is accurate and confirmed and clearly summarizes the info below; your changes make this fringe material seem as if it were actually credible.--csloat 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but a section with the denigrating title "Conspiracy Theories" is not NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The page is not supposed to be a shrine to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. As for this being fringe material, I cited the Wall Street Journal, LA Times and an article by former Senator Zell Miller. These are mainstream publications and a well respected Democrat, a former governor and Senator. This belongs in the Intro and you know it. RonCram 22:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It definitely does not belong in the intro. It's 'fringe' (not based on mainstream reports), based on opinion pieces only, and is unsubstantiated. Let's keep on point here - Wikipedia is not a talking points platform, nor a means of character assassination. Corroborate it with independent fact (the pieces/sources you provide are opinions - not fact). -- RyanFreisling @ 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, here are the facts. Wilson and Plame are controversial figures. They have been criticized in mainstream publications across the country. Opinion pieces are quoted in articles throughout Wikipedia. When people or events are controversial, an introduction to the issue is found in the Intro. There is nothing fringe about LA Times, Wall Street Journal or Zell Miller. If you want to prevent readers from learning this information, you are going to have to come up with better reasons that you have given so far. RonCram 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Ron please read what vandalism is before throwing around accusations. The criticisms you wish to hilight are already mentioned in the article and do not belong there twice. They are from fringe sources -- the LATimes and WSJ do not endorse these opinions; that is why they are op-eds. And quit whining about censorship; the info is already in the article and nobody is preventing readers from learning anything. --csloat 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was suggest factual information being used. In stead of mere speculation, that is shaky at best. Clearly RonCram cites all kind of articles but fails to provide information of how Wilson's statement that SH did not seek uranium is false. Since that is the central theme of this article I would think that, as has been mentioned, all RonCram is doing is muddy the waters. Of course, we could discuss Wilson's cheating in high school (joke, I don't know if he did) but that still would not disprove his report that the uranium claim was invalid. Again he might want to read something about logical fallacies.

As to the current version, it seems to reflect a more unbiassed view. Facts and speculations are presented, so everybody should be able to live with it.--Nomen Nescio 01:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

csloat, deleting interesting and informative information for reasons of censorship is the moral equivalent of vandalism, regardless of whether the vandal bothers to leave a vacuous entry on the Talk page or not. You well know there is nothing "fringe" about LA Times, Wall Street Journal or Zell Miller. Op-eds are used in Wikipedia all the time. Your attempt to change the standards when you want to censor the information is patently bogus. Your claim the entry is redundant is similarly bogus. My entry was general in nature as befits an Introduction. If you applied the same standard to the rest of the Intro, it would be blank. I suggest you show some good faith and stop deleting this entry. Wikipedia readers have a right to this information. RonCram 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Ron: Please read the WP entry on vandalism, especially the section entitled What vandalism is not. Zel Miller is definitely fringe, as are Boot and Toensig -- you are just trying to mask that by using the names of the papers they wrote their editorials in. And for the last time, I have not deleted this information; I have just put it where it belongs on this page. There is no need to put every fringe theory in the intro; we should stick to stuff that is actually part of the mainstream discourse on this topic -- if even the White House has not suggested this bizarre theory in its defense, it does not belong in the intro. I realize it makes you feel morally superior to accuse me of "censorship", but that claim is simply at odds with my actions.--csloat 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
csloat, okay, I reread it. What I took as "page blanking" vandalism is really an "NPOV Violation." I understand this is a lesser offense. Zell Miller has been elected as both governor and senator. He has spoken to both the Democratic and Republican conventions. He is the most middle of the road politician I can think of. He is definitely NOT fringe. He is fiery maybe... but not fringe. I know less about Boot and Toensing except Toensing helped to write the law protecting covert agents. The main point is that op-eds are subject to editorial review. Op-eds based on known lies do not often get published. The facts underlying the op-eds I cited are not in dispute. If the facts were in dispute, you would have disputed them by now. Instead of taking the honorable road of disputing the facts, you call the writers "fringe" and banish the Introduction to a section labeled with the derogatory term "conspiracy theories." This is one of your favorite tactics which does you no honor. If you want to debate the facts, fine. Start debating. Otherwise, stop your silliness and allow the passage into the Intro where it belongs. BTW, does you above comment mean you will stop censoring valid entries? RonCram 14:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Ron I have never censored valid entries. Please stop you phony posturing about my "honor." I have been debating the facts, and I have censored nothing -- I simply moved this fringe material out of the intro, because it doesn't belong there. If you think Miller is "middle of the road" that just shows how far to the right you are. You probably think Lloyd Bentsen is a leftist? Op-ed pieces are not fact-checked as reporting because they are not reporting -- the pieces in question are sheer speculation on the part of individuals with an axe to grind. And they are properly referred to as "conspiracy theories" -- loony ones, in fact, since they are beyond unlikely. Why do you wish to censor their authors' names? Perhaps in order to blame them on the newspapers that published them?--csloat 23:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Nomen, I am not sure what to say to you except please read the entries below from the Senate Report. I think you will find them both interesting. RonCram 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying the Senate's Criticisms of Wilson's Distortions

Please note that Wilson is criticized by the Senate Committee specifically for what he told the Committee staff, not what he wrote in his op-ed piece. That does not mean the op-ed piece is not worthy of criticism but only that the op-ed was not in the purview of the Senate Committee. After reading the way editors have mangled the text I originally wrote, I think it is helpful to reproduce here the appropriate passage from the Senate Report. Evidently, other editors were not able to find it on pages 44 and 45.

When the former ambassador (Wilson) spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rouge states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the (redacted) intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of (Page 45) the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC (intelligence community) at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from (redacted) intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report (redacted).

Now several points are clear from this passage:

  • The Senate Committee was highly critical of Wilson's distortions
  • The CIA could not explain the source of some of Wilson's comments
  • Wilson described his trip "as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium." The claim does directly against his actual report of a 1999 conversation between the former Prime Minister of Niger and an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding trade" with Niger - a meeting the PM understood as seeking uranium.
  • Wilson told Senate staffers that he told the CIA what names and signatures should be on any purchase agreement for uranium and yet the DO report does not contain that information.
  • Wilson claimed his CIA contacts told him about "Yellowcake documents" and told him the source of the documents was a third country's intelligence service. The DO reports officer denied given that information to Wilson because that would have required sharing classified information and there were no "documents" circulating in the intelligence community at that time.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about why the Senate Committee was so critical of Wilson. RonCram 22:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron the documents are mentioned in Wilson's editorial because they were already in the news at the time. It is nonsensical for the Senate to refute him as the source of discovery of the forgeries when that information was already known and when he did not claim to discover the forgeries -- I see nothing above contradicting that. I am not opposed to putting what the Senate said in here, but it should be put in context, especially when the way you put it makes no sense in context of what is actually known. Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to erase mention of this report.--csloat 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
csloat, you don't get it. And I have to admit, the Senate Report is difficult reading and I get confused too at times. (I am going to correct my comments above so they are more accurate and clear). The Senate did not criticize Wilson for his op-ed piece. Please reread the passage above and see that I am right on that. Wilson reported one thing to the CIA (which was the basis of the DO report) and then when the Senate investigated, Wilson exaggerated his report. A wikipedia editor loused up the article to make it look like the Senate was criticizing Wilson for his op-ed piece and even wrote that the Senate was wrong to criticize Wilson. That is factually inaccurate. Wilson did not discuss with the CIA what names and signatures should be on any purchase documents and he was wrong to exaggerate to Committee staffers to say he did. Wilson should not have known what country's intelligence service was associated with the documents. The CIA denied telling him and we still do not know how Wilson came into possession of that knowledge.
The Senate Report does not criticize Wilson's op-ed piece per se but it does point out that the then current ambassador to Niger would not let Wilson talk to any current Niger officials because the current ambassador had already had those discussions. So Wilson really learned nothing about more "recent" events. The Nigerian officials would be expected to deny it anyway, even if they were involved. Anyone who reads Wilson's op-ed piece will see that Wilson claimed to have spoken to current Niger officials. That appears to be contradicted by the Senate Report and common sense. RonCram 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying the CIA's Grade of 'Good' for Wilson's Report on Niger

If the Senate Committee was critical of Wilson, why did the CIA give his report a grade of "good?" What does "good" mean? Does that mean many senior political people read his report? I have selected a few passages from the Senate Report to answer these questions.

Page 46

The CIA's DO (Directorate of Operations) gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue... The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective... The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

Also-

DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerian denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerian Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.
Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.

I hope that clears up some common questions. It cleared up several for me. However, I am still not certain why the CIA did not brief the Vice President when he was interested in the issue and the report clearly confirms that an Iraqi delegation was seeking uranium in 1999. I believe the CIA made a poor choice there. RonCram 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bush administration cherry picked intelligence, the Senate report cherry picked its findings and you are cherry picking the Senate report. Who was in the "Iraqi delegation" that traveled to Niger? List the names. On what dates were they in Niger? List the dates. Who did they talk to and what did they talk about while in Niger?
What we know is that a political leader in a uranium-producing country once reminisced about Iraqis and his assumption that they would be interested in uranium. Obviously (to cherry pickers) this means that, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
"they did not believe that it supplied much new information" - so what? We know that the US ambassador to Niger had already reported the same conclusion that Wilson came to. Wilson's report confirmed the idea that there was no reason to think that Iraq could get uranium from Niger. Wilson's report confirmed that no evidence could be found in Niger to support the idea that Iraq had tried to get uranium.
What happened was that the Vice President repeatedly demanded evidence from the intelligence community to support the conclusion that Iraq has WMD, he made clear that the only accepted answer was "yes, Saddam has WMD". Is it any surprise that some analysts ignored all the evidence that said Iraq could not have gotten uranium from Niger? The only surprise is that the Senate report ignored how political interference in the intelligence analysis process distorted perceptions about Iraq and led to a Congressional authorization of the invasion of Iraq. For RonCram to say that Wilson's "report clearly confirms that an Iraqi delegation was seeking uranium in 1999" indicates that he has little objectivity on this issue and is pushing an absurd point of view that is only supported by the partisan wish that it could be shown that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. --JWSchmidt 13:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
JW, Wilson's trip to Africa was criticized by some in the CIA before he went. They did not see the purpose of his trip because we already have an ambassador in country and any Niger officials involved in a sale to a sanctioned country would be expected to lie about it anyway. Despite that, the CIA sent him. When Wilson arrived, the ambassador told Wilson he could not talk to any current Nigerian officials, but he was allowed to talk to former officials. The only bit of news in Wilson's entire report was that an Iraqi delegation had come to Niger in 1999. Uranium is Niger's only export and the Iraqis were not there to sell anything. The Prime Minister took it to mean the Iraqis wanted uranium and no one disagrees with his assessment. Why else would they want expanded trade?
By the way, President Bush's 2003 speech did not claim the Iraqis bought uranium in Africa, only that they sought it recently. While Wilson's trip did not speak specifically to "recent" events, it does show that Iraq had been wanted uranium in 1999. That was (rightly in my opinion) seen as evidence that tended to confirm the report that Iraq had recently sought uranium in Africa. The Butler Report makes clear that Iraq was still seeking uranium in 2002 (at about the time Wilson was in Africa) from both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I invite you to read the conclusions of the Butler Review.[14]RonCram 14:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have two things to say to RonCram. 1 READ logical fallacy, and more specifically ad hominem. 2 As to the Butler report, we had a discussion about that, and for some reason you forgot to respond to my question reqarding your position. Which again you repeat without addressing the obvious inconsistencies in your reasoning. Feel free to clarify the issue on that by answering my questions there.--Nomen Nescio 16:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nomen, I am well trained in logic and logical fallacies. I did not make a personal attack against you. Regarding your previous questions, I occasionally get blocks of time where I can spend a few hours editing Wikipedia. Sometimes those blocks are separated by a week or more. When I come back to Wikipedia, I may not remember to look for a previous conversation. You should not expect my lack of response to be either my bowing to your superior logic or state of embarassment on my part that prevents me from responding. Regarding the Butler Report, the classified information available to the people responsible for the Butler Review is far greater than you may imagine. They are not required to declassify information to satisfy your or my curiosity about how the conclusions were reached. It is possible that declassifying that information would expose credible informants who are still in place. People are jumping to politically motivated conclusions when the facts run exactly counter to those conclusions. Wilson went to Niger and learned the Iraqi delegation was seeking expanded trade, which can only mean uranium. In spite of that finding, Wilson wrote an op-ed piece that said Saddam was not seeking uranium in Africa. The Butler Report finds that Saddam was seeking uranium as late as 2002. I do not understand why these facts are hard to understand. RonCram 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you did not attack me. What I meant is that you keep addressing things that are not relevant, which constitutes a logical fallacy. Wilson claimed SH did not seek uranium, that is the only statement you should comment on. Is he sent by his wife, does the entire world know she works for the CIA, is he a liberal, et cetera? These are interesting suggestions, but in no way contradict the statement: SH did not seek uranium. Hence all these arguments constitute a logical fallacy.
Your conclusion which can only mean uranium, is speculation, not fact. Making a case based upon such assumptions is yet another logical fallacy. Having a theory is one thing, but please remember not many would repeat that claim. To my knowledge the most recent meeting would be in 1999, which hardly constitutes an "imminent" threat in 2003.
As to the Butler report, you are right, there is the risk for these "sources." However, it is also possible these "sources" do not exist. There is no way of knowing! History (Falluja only this week remember) has shown both the British and US have been wrong in their presentation of certain "facts." Be it an honest mistake or a flat out lie, it warrants a more critical approach. So, show me the evidence for every statement. Furthermore, you also fail to explain why the Butler report is more reliable than the IAEA, CIA or even the US administration which have discredited the uranium claim as incorrect. This selective use of references is once again a logical fallacy. Or more to the point, did SH seek uranium? If you keep saying SH sought uranium you must provide evidence, and a singular statement (Butler report) which cannot be verified is no evidence in my opinion. For this I refer to the scientific method. --Nomen Nescio 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Nomen, everything I have stated is relevant. The only bit of information the CIA found useful from Wilson's trip to Niger was that Iraq sought uranium in 1999. Yet Wilson failed to mention that when he wrote his op-ed. Iraq had not had any weapons inspectors since 1998, so by 2002-2003 it was impossible to know how far along Iraq had progressed in their effort for nuclear weapons. The CIA, which vetted the comments of Colin Powell before the UN, thought Iraq's nuclear ambitions a real problem. However, the CIA was skeptical of the yellowcake story based on discussions the US ambassador had with Niger officials. You seem to confuse these two facts. Just because the CIA was skeptical of the Niger story does not mean they did not consider Iraq a possibly imminent nuclear threat. The IAEA was able to falsify the Yellowcake documents. However, the Butler Report did not depend on the Yellowcake documents. The Butler Report clearly has its own intelligence sources that show Iraq sought uranium both in Niger and Democratic Republic of Congo. You continue to confuse the British intelligence that was confirmed by the Butler Review with the forged Yellowcake documents. I fully understand your desire to know the source of the British intelligence. However, answers to all of our epistemological questions are simply not possible when dealing with classified information. RonCram 16:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
How is the role his wife might have played, and other ad hominem attacks, relevant to the statement SH did not seek uranium?
Iraq had not had any weapons inspectors since 1998, so by 2002-2003 it was impossible to know how far along Iraq had progressed in their effort for nuclear weapons. Does this not constitute an admission that no recent information was available? And ipso facto, "imminent" could not be concluded?
The CIA, which had vetted the comments of Colin Powell before the UN, thought the danger in Iraq was imminent. As I remember it, the CIA repeatedly removed the uranium claim out of speeches because they were not convinced of its veracity. However, you are correct they failed to do so in the State of the Union. How that happened is open for debate. Tenet fell in his sword, yet since he was the one removing the same claim previously and repeatedly, it does not convince me. As you know, only recently has the investigation into the use of intelligence by the Bush administration been forced by Democrats to be concluded within an acceptable timelimit.
You clearly seem to miss the point regarding the Butler report. How do we know the Brits are telling the truth? For some strange reason you accept their statement as fact.Whatever the reason for not advancing their sources, you are trusting people on good faith, although it has been proven that many other statements (by the US and UK) were not correct. This is why I insist upon PROOF, not conjecture. Evidence is exactly what your point of view is missing. So, I am not stating the Niger documents are the source, but merely observing that there is NO verifiable evidence to the contrary. Which leaves both your suggestion and mine open as possibility. I stress possibility, since that is not the same as fact.
Furthermore, if the Butler report is correct and SH did seek uranium, why is everybody else convinced SH did not? Again, if SH did seek uranium, why did the US retract that statement?
Maybe it would help my understanding if you answered these questions directly, and not try to explain your POV. --Nomen Nescio 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if one accepts the Butler report at face value, it doesn't help the White House with the central question in this matter: why was Mrs. Wilson's CIA affiliation leaked and why did the White House lie about the leak? If, as the Butler report claims, there was classified intelligence supporting the president's African uranium statement, the WH could have simply answered Ambassador Wilson's criticisms by saying that while he didn't find anything to support Sadam's interest in African yellowcake, British sources did. Instead, the WH retracted the African yellowcake claims and started its leak campaign against Wilson. And Karl Rove is still a key member of the WH staff, despite keeping silent while the WH ridiculed any possibility of his and Libby's involvement in the leak. --agr 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again RonCram forgot to answer my questions. Therefore I will answer them for him, because there are not many possibilities.
Wilson could not find evidence of SH seeking uranium in Niger. How does the role his wife played alter that statement? How does any CIA plot alter that statement? How does Plamegate alter that statement? It does not. Because all these allegations are a form of "shooting the messenger." By discrediting Wilson, one tries to discredit his report. However, since his person is not relevant to the information he provided, such distractions are called a logical fallacy.
As to the question did SH seek uranium? He can answer: 1 yes he did, because the Butler report says so. However, this has to mean the Bush administration was in error when it retracted that claim. Better yet, it would mean the IAEA, UN, CIA and many other intelligence agencies around the world are wrong. Odd to say the least. 2 The other answer could only be: the Bush administration, the IAEA, UN, CIA and many other intelligence agencies around the world are right. But then, the Butler report would have to be flawed. Either way, RonCram has to explain this contradiction. Which of course he would rather not. So, he plays it save and refrains from answereing at all.
Is there any solid evidence for the uranium claim by the British? No, there is not. This could be because they do not want to reveal their "sources." But nobody can guarantee they exist at all. They are impossible to verify. As recent history has shown, there has been such an abundance of "flawed" statements, it would be irresponsible to take this claim at face value.
Was the State of the Union based upon the Niger documents? No, because it was based upon British information. Why did the Bush administration retract that clearly correct statement? Here the previous contradiction is evident. Either the claim was incorrectly removed, therefore Bush made a mistake in dismissing its veracity. Or, it was correctly removed, which can only mean that the Butler report is wrong.--Nomen Nescio 02:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bob Woodward

Looks like Bob was leaked Plame's identity a month before it was public (June 2003).CNN.com has an article on it. --waffle iron 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is huge. What Woodward's deposition says, in summary, is:
1. Woodward knew of Plame one month before Novak did.
2. Libby was *not* his source, but he refuses to reveal who it actually was.
This puts "high crimes and misdemeanors" back in play. Who was the person who put Plame's name into discussion? I wonder if Woodward will go to jail for refusing to divulge his source? --NightMonkey 07:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
And now, from the New York Times: New Disclosure Could Prolong Inquiry on Leak, and Woodward's statement on the Washington Post's site. --NightMonkey 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"distortions"

it is some weeks since i have looked over this section. (I was, of course, prompted by the recent Woodward remarks). It was a shock to see how much it has been moved toward a bushists talking points piece. Sad really. For at certain stages it was a really useful document. Are there simply more running dogs of the current regime out there, or are careful historians just thin on the ground. I would point, for example, to the use of the word "distortions" in the piece, which now, as far as i can see, almost exclusively refer to statements of fact that contradict the Libby/Rove line. sad indeed.86.42.132.16 22:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted campaign by pro-Rove wikipedians to riddle the VPW-related articles with Bush talking points. I have tried to address these but they just keep at it. I wonder what they will be saying when Fitz comes down with the next series of indictments in his investigation. It is tragic to see the Rovistas going out of their way to smear Valerie Plame Wilson, whose only crime was trying to do her job defending this country. And they do all this just to defend a lame duck president. They are playing politics with national security, exactly what they accuse democrats of doing. Bizarre.--csloat 20:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal Questions

At the end of the first section in [15]Legal Questions

This may be seen by Bush's political opponents as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641.

It would appear to me that it is more important that Fitzgerald might see it as legal precendent.

In fact it probably is seen by Bush's political opponents as such.

Also while Rove would most certainly face consequences (at least until pardoned ..) if indicted under that statute, he would only face greater consequences than Randell if convicted, not just indicted for such a violation.

Anyway just something that stuck out to me.

Is it okay if I say well done to those who have managed to compile a very balanced dry account of what we know so far in this affair despite the ghost of ronnie trying to scupper the NPOV -- theaulddubliner 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

FOX more authoritative than crooksandliars.com

Twice I have corrected the erroneous claim Vallely and Wilson were not in the Green Room together and twice my edit has been reverted quickly. FOX News has put this false claim to rest after reviewing their own records. There is no reason to quote a website when it is wrong. I have retained the URL as a reference for interested researchers but the quote does not belong. Wikipedia is not a source for every false report that shows up on the internet. RonCram 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

FOX is not unbiassed in this matter. Therefore I don't see why their statement necesseraly must be true, or "authoritative." On top of that, having both explanations is more informative, meaning less one-sided. Since there is debate as to what version is correct I think it would be only fair and balanced to let either side have their say.--Nomen Nescio 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Based on the title of this section I assume that the posting is meant to be satire. Correct? Guettarda 20:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Having read RonCram's contributions, and his reluctance to take a definite stance on my questions earlier, I fear the title is in earnest as is his believe, contrary to what even the Bush administration says, SH did seek uranium.--Nomen Nescio 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Nomen, the other side did get their say. Their error was duly noted and the reference to the article was retained. There is no reasonable question as to who is more authoritative on the question of who appeared on FOX News than FOX. It is ridiculous for you to argue otherwise. I am certain that even liarsandcrooks.com is willing to admit that FOX is more authoritative. FOX would not have made the statement if it was not demonstrable. WIkipedia is not bound to quote in full every error a website makes. No doubt the person at liarsandcrooks.com thought he or she was being thorough, but either did not have access to all the relevant facts or quite a few appearances. Wilson himself has not said he was not with Vallely. The Bush Administration has not said that Saddam did not seek uranium. The Intelligence Community firmly believes SH sought it in 1999. In addition, they privately have confidence in the findings of British Intelligence but the British do not share those sources and so the US has not been able to confirm the British Intelligence. For that reason, they stopped making the claim prior to the war. RonCram 02:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone else has decided to revert my edit. In doing so, they not only have reinstated an obvious error, but have removed the statement by FOX that proves it is an error. When people do this, it proves they are NPOV. This is a simple violation of Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not bound to quote every website, especially when it is in error. If the error had become historically significant, then it should be quoted. This error is not. And the proof of the error should not be removed under any circumstances. RonCram 03:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that FOX has better knowledge as to who was on their shows. However, that is not the issue. I meet hundreds of people, in the train, at work, supermarket, et cetera. You can easily prove I have met so and so. To state I have talked to them is an entirely different matter. In stead of ascertaining who met who, the real question is (and once again you avoid it through your use of logic) has Wilson discussed his wife with these people? That can not be established by FOX's records. To explain whether such an exchange of information is credible both versions are essential. So they NEED to be mentioned to elaborate why it is or is not possible/credible for Wilson to have shared the information about his wife. Contrary to your POV it has not been proven Wilson talked about his wife! Since you insist on an evidently POV version of history I can't help correcting your misrepresentation of the facts and speculations. If you continue to insert biassed contributions without discussing it first, I must conclude you are unwilling to present an equally balanced case. Or in other words, refuse to remain NPOV.
SH did seek uranium in 1999. This is not our discussion. Your point and that of the Bush administration, based on the Butler report(?), is that he did so in 2002! If you now accept this date is not correct, and in stead the real date was 1999, this surely means the "imminent threat" sounds rather strange as it was based upon FOUR YEAR old information. Heck, you might even insert the statement he "recently" used chemical weapons upon his people. This too is correct, if you - as with the uranium claim- fail to mention it is not based upon recent revelations. The Bush administration repeatedly claimed SH was actively seeking uranium in 2002, and mushroom clouds were about to appear in the US. Since the relevant information was at least four years old one has to conclude these allegations could not be supported with recent evidence. This is exactly what Wilson said.
You either fail to use your ratio on account of gullability or you are absolutely stubborn. Why should we believe the Butler report!!!!???! Please, remember statement after statement after statement being factually incorrect. On what grounds do you know the Butler report is correct? --Nomen Nescio 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nomen, you are changing the subject. The liarsandcrooks.com entry says it was not possible for Vallely and Wilson to meet. I proved it was possible with the FOX story. Yet you deleted my entry and replaced it with something you KNEW was an error. Now you are admitting FOX is more authoritative than liarsandcrooks.com but that FOX could not know what Vallely and Wilson discussed. That is not the point. That was never the point. There are many people that claim Wilson has discussed his wife with them. Evidently, Wilson was a very open person who talked about himself and his wife quite a lot. By the way, I emailed liarsandcrooks.com to let them know that FOX had corrected their error. Perhaps now we will see if they are willing to correct it themselves.

I am glad to see you have finally come to the realization that SH sought uranium in 1999. Most people who realize that see it as support for the view SH sought uranium in 2002 as well. The report by the former Niger PM coupled with the classified information discussed in the Butler Report is enough for me. You ask why we should believe the Butler Report, it is because we know SH sought uranium in 1999. You do not want to believe it, so no amount of credible evidence will convince you. For me, it is far better to err on the side of national security than to have another intelligence failure like 9/11. As Condi Rice said "We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." RonCram 14:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

LOLOLOL at your quotation of Condi's stupid incendiary quotation, that even she is embarrassed about. As for the FOX vs. crooksandliars.com, the fact is they do not disagree over the details -- both agree there were a number of times that the two were there on the same day -- the difference is crooksandliars actually looked at the times they were on the show and concluded that there was only one time they were on the show close enough to each other to actually have talked (and even then was 15 minutes apart). As I recall there was also information there about how small the green room is at fox and how it would have been unlikely to do more than exchange pleasantries; certainly not enough time to get into their wives' secret job. It's all so stupid anyway; if Wilson was bragging like this guy says he was, why did none of their friends, neighbors, and relatives have a clue what she did? People who presumably got a chance to talk to both Wilson and his wife for much more extended time than a few minutes in the green room.--csloat 21:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

csloat, not true. FOX and crooksandliars.com disagree over the details. FOX says they were on within 15 minutes of each other on TWO occasions and that they could have met in the Green Room on NINE occasions. I do not know how many occasions they actually met but the point is that Wilson has NEVER disputed they fact they met in the Green Room or that they had discussions of a personal nature. The former CIA agent, Jack what-his-names, also says he was in the Green Room with Vallely and they had plenty of time to talk. They never talked about wives of personal matters because Wilson is the one who brings those subjects up. This is a ridiculous point since Wilson does not dispute the conversations happened. RonCram 07:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

FOX has in no way advanced any evidence of the claim Wilson discussed his wife. Even IF the meeting took place, this still does NOT prove the allegation he outed his wife. The crooksandliars piece shows that even if a meeting took place it would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, Wilson had such a conversation. This needs to be mentioned to balance your POV contribution.
You keep missing the point. Did SH massacre his people? Did he use chemical weapons? Was he working on a nuclear plant? Was he ignoring UN resolutions? Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! There you have it. I admit you are completely correct in stating these things. Now lets look at my statements. 1 The Bush administration claimed he was working with Osama Bin Laden and he had Weapons of Mass Destruction, most notably he was about to make an atomic bomb: the infamous cloud. All this in 2002! 2 Wilson said there was no evidence to support the Niger claims. To be absolutely clear: SH has done horrible things, and I do not dispute that. Yet what is in dispute is that SH was seeking uranium in 2002! This he clearly did not! You have a different view of this for which you unfortunately still fail to provide solid evidence.
You evidently have flawed logic. The fact SH sought uranium in 1999 in no way proves he did so in 2002. Example, a suspected burglar is standing in front of a judge, today 2005. He is found guilty because in 1999 he was convicted for the same thing. The judge explains: "No we have no solid evidence you did it today, but we can prove you did it in 1999 therefore you are guilty." I hope you see the inconsistency in this. So, no it has not been established SH sought uranium in 2002, contrary to you POV.
As to me not wanting to believe. You are correct. Having seen the disaster of Iraq based upon "incorrect information," I think it is wrong to believe more allegations. Today I demand evidence, so I don't have to believe but know what is being said is true. --Nomen Nescio 04:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Nomen, you have a penchant for finding flawed logic where none exists. In a court of law, previous convictions are admissible evidence because they point to a pattern of conduct or modus operandi. In similar fashion, it is common for the court of public opinion to look at previous actions when judging certain situations. I am NOT saying the fact SH sought uranium in 1999 proves he did so in 2002. I AM saying that the fact SH sought uranium in 1999 would be evidence that would tend to confirm other evidence (like the Butler Report) that says he sought it in 2002. My problem with Joe Wilson is that he KNEW that SH sought uranium in 1999 and yet he wrote an op-ed piece claiming he had disproved the story that SH wanted uranium in 2002. Wilson did not disprove anything. The one fact he learned tended to confirm that SH was looking for uranium. Do you see the point now? RonCram 08:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ron please review this article and indicate where Wilson claims to have "disproved" anything. Thanks. --csloat 09:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron, for some reason you still fail to address the obvious. How does modus operandi prove anything if it is all you've got? Contrary to your assertion there is no verifiable evidence SH sought uranium after 1999. You keep referring to the Butler report, yet fail to explain why you find it impossible to even contemplate the suggestion that the Butler report might be wrong. Mistakes are made (and we know many were made regarding Iraq) but for some inexplicable reason you refuse to even accept that that could be happening here. To me it sounds dogmatic. --Nomen Nescio 15:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New article by La Repubblica

A large section of material was added to "CIA Conspiracy" that seems completely irrelevant to the CIA. The article used as a source is written in Italian, a language I cannot read to verify its contents. Secondly, without access to the article, there is no way to check the logic used. Can we just wait until some English language paper picks up the story to see if it really fits here? If it is a big story, someone will pick it up. RonCram 14:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron we discussed this on another page and you slinked away in embarrassment. I'm sorry you cannot read Italian, but that alone is not a good reason to impugn the translation of another editor. There is certainly a way to check the logic and translation -- learn Italian, or find someone who knows it, if this is so important to you. I am not speaking to the details here, just to your bogus logic that because you don't know another language that anything translated from that language is automatically suspect. What I think should be done is the original passage in Italian be included alongside the translation; but it is bogus for you to demand that it be removed until an English source picks it up (or, presumably, until you take Italian lessons).--csloat 21:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
If La Repubblica is correct this shows the CIA has not been involved in setting up the Bush administration. To me this is relevant to the allegation. Since you are anxious about using this info I have inserted more references. Among which a translation of the articles. Hope this sufficiently explains why this is warranted.--Nomen Nescio 04:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
csloat, I did not slink away in embarrassment. I've never done anything to be embarrassed about. As you know, I sometimes do not make it back to earlier conversations. Whenever possible you try to score points on this fact, but my life simply does not allow me to revisit every discussion on a Talk page. As I said before, if this article was important and valid, it would be picked up by a major English news source. Citing a source in a foreign language is a process that is more complicated (by necessity of a translation), making the interpretation more difficult and is subject to mischief by the translator/interpreter. The translator may or may not be exercising NPOV. The translator may not be competent to translate/interpret. And there are no checks and balances on the process. I fear that Wikipedia will become a laughingstock for publishing articles based on poor translations. csloat, you have complained previously when a conservative writer from a US publication wrote something damaging to your POV and you demanded that the story be picked up by a major news outlet before it appear in Wikipedia. I thought your position was bogus then. But this story is is far more obscure and unconfirmed that the US story. And the relevance is not at all established. I am trying to be kind to everyone involved. Please do not make me become anymore blunt. RonCram 07:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not making you do anything Ron. Don't criticize me for the content at issue here -- I said clearly both here and on the Joe Wilson page where you made this demand last time that I am not commenting on the content (I have not even looked closely at it). My comment was on your flawed logic that claims that translated entries should be deleted as suspect. If you have reason to suspect the translation, let's hear it, or get an Italian speaker to check the translation; you don't just delete it for that reason. Perhaps the person who translated it to begin with can help you with it. This has nothing to do with the notability of the article, which I have not commented on; you're the one trying to "score points" here by pointing to a phony contradiction. And I was not trying to score points when I said you slinked away embarrassed -- I thought that's what you did because I thought that was what was warranted by the situation. It's what I would have done had I gone to a page and demanded that something be changed because I was too ignorant to understand it -- imagine if I (a nonscientist) were to go to, say, this page and demand that the equations be removed because I did not have the mathematical training to check if they were correct!--csloat 09:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

csloat, when you say I "slinked away embarrassed," it is offensive in the extreme and requires you to make a judgment that you are not capable of making. Don't do it again. Your comparison of the Italian article to mathematical equations does not obtain. I must continue with my complaint that a citation of an Italian article in an English language encyclopedia makes little sense. RonCram 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron I apologize for any offense. If you did not slink away in embarrassment, I guess what I was saying is that you should have. That you continue to insist that your ignorance of other languages is a realistic justification for excluding information that has been helpfully translated into your own language is even more embarrassing. But I am not trying to insult you; I am just saying that if it were me making such ludicrous arguments, I would certainly be embarrassed. In terms of the substantive issue at stake here all you have to say is that my analogy "does not obtain." I'm not sure what that means but I think the comparison was pretty clear. In any case, I urge you to look up wikipedia's policies concerning material translated from other languages yourself. I don't speak Italian either, but I am not going to use my ignorance of that language as an excuse for trying to censor quotes that I don't like, especially when they appear in English.--csloat 19:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
csloat, I am amazed at you. You apologize for one offense and then go out of your way to commit a greater offense. For one who has complained that I did not practice Wikiquette, your behavior does not measure up. I did not complain that my ignorance is justification for excluding information. I stated that I did not and do not think an Italian source should be cited in an English-language encyclopedia. If Wikipedia's target audience was international scholars, then I would see no problem with it. In addition, I do not trust the translation or the interpretation assigned to this article by the editor who posted it. I am not here accusing him of bad faith, although the process of allowing people to use foreign language sources could quickly get out of hand and be open to mischief. How would you like it if I began to link to Arab newspapers and provided my own translation? RonCram 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
don't be so sensitive, Ron; I'm not trying to offend you but I do find the argument laughable. I must be honest about that fact, but my feelings are directed at the argument, not you. Do you read Arabic, Ron? You do have a point -- I have seen you misread articles in plain English often enough that I would not trust your translation of anything political. If you have specific reason not to trust the contributor's translation, that would be an analogous situation, but you haven't articulated one. But I still would not demand that the translation be removed because I did not understand Arabic. It would be my burden in such a situation to demonstrate that your translation was faulty, preferably by finding an Arabic-speaker to check it. Demanding that it be removed is just childish, and that is why I thought you should have been embarrassed. Again, no offense intended here, really. And as far as the process getting out of hand, that is not the case. Flag suspicious translations in talk or dig up an Italian speaker on the Italian version of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does have a policy on this and it allows such translations provided that they are accompanied by original source language material so anyone can verify the translation. One more thing on the point about linking to Arabic newspapers; that is already happening when you link to memri (I am not accusing you of excessive links to memri, just making the point) -- those articles are translated by someone with a particular agenda and viewpoint, and they are often translated in a particularly one-sided manner (and of course the selection of articles alone is one-sided). This is well known by Arabic speakers who read memri, and it is not a controversial point. Nonetheless, I have no problem with links to memri because as distorted as their worldview might be, the translations attempt to be accurate, and they are not pulling things out of thin air. A translation from RonCram (assuming you read Arabic) would be no different from this -- while I do not trust the way your ideology shapes your perceptions and your ability to read something, I don't think you would just make crap up. Anyway I'm going on too long about this; sorry to have offended you, but I do think the argument is ultimately just silly. If you suspect a translation is bad then do the research to critique it rather than demanding that it be removed.--csloat 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Ron disagrees with the interpretation and translation, maybe he can give his view of how to read this and this.

As to his suggestion that the MSM are more reliable and we should wait for them to report I have two considerations: 1 Why should Fox News be more reliable than The Guardian or American Prospect Online? 2 Recent history (past 5 years!) has shown the MSM are not overly zealous in covering stories that are potentially detrimental to the Bush administration. So, to wait for them might result in unnecessary delay.--Nomen Nescio 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding additional facts and making POV neutral

I don't know if I am doing this right but here goes. View my differences with the current version.

Line 5 -- summary? Edit 1: Clarified that it is federal government employees who cannot divulge the identity of NOC agents. This is why neither Novak nor any of the other journalists are in legal jeopardy.

Line 20 -- discussion Edit 2: Unilaterally is not necessary and is inflammatory (non-neutral POV). Removed the term and it conveys the same information.

Edit 3. U.S. government officials have been presenting evidence that Iraq has been reconstituting his WMD program for years, not months. This is substantiated by public reports presented to Congress as well as numerous testimony to the U.N.

The U.S. presented "evidence" not a "theory". The term "theory" is non-neutral. A theory was postulated from the evidence.

The "theory" that was presented was that Iraq had reconstituted it's WMD programs, not necessarily that they had stock piles of weapons. THis is the wording in all of the CIA reports to Congress. The POV in the current article is not neutral.

The term "found (or produced)" is clearly inflammatory and non-neutral. Quoting the term "evidence" is clearly inflammatory and non-neutral. I re-wrote and provided source material.

Changed "Many" to "Some" for more neutral POV. There are many critics of the Iraq invasion. Only some of them believe that the evidence was manufactured. It is non-neutral to present the conspiracy theorists as the majority of the critics.

Edit 4. Changed "The original intelligence" to "Some of the original intelligence". The forged documents are not the only evidence as is shown by the British goevernments reliance on obviously still classified material. The evidence that was made public has been refuted. The neutral POV (facts only) is that the theory was that Iraq was trying to obtain Uranium "yellowcake" from Africa. There was a specific questions of whether there was evidence he actually made purchases of yellowcake from a specific country in Africa (Niger). That one specific piece of evidence of a Niger purchase has been refuted but the original theory that he was trying to obtain Uranium from Africa is still supported by other evidence.

Edit 5. Changed "Signs" to evidence.

Edit 6. Added the actual mission of the arms inspectors. The UNMOVIC was charged with verifying Iraq's disarmament. To say they found no evidence of a programme hides the real mission which was to verify that the programmes had been destroyed. The inspectors El Baradei and Blix were very careful to say they found no evidence of either the programme's or the destruction of the programme's. The were very clear that they did not beleive that Iraq was complying with the resolution. The POV in the current article only highlights one aspect of what the inspectors said.

LIne 37 -- Edit 7. Added the contrarian point that Wilson's wife recommended him for his trip the Niger. THis was for balance and neutral POV.

Edit 8. Added the british government position. It should also be edited to say "Africa" instead of "Niger" as that is what the State of the Union speech says. It is presumptuos to say that all Iraq's attempts to acquire Uranium from Africa was confined to Niger or that the British Government was confining itself to Niger when it says Africa.

Line 52 --

Edit 9. The townhall document used for the quote is no longer there. Replaced it with the Washington Post article.

Edit 10. Added the information that Tenet's widely circulated report on Niger did not reach Congress or the Administration. Added the Tenet press release reference that says this.

LIne 65 -- Edit 11. Added the CIA view of Wilson's report and added the Washington Post story for the cite.

Edit 12. For balance, added the actual mission of the arms inspectors to ensure that Iraq offer evidence that it destroyed it's WMD programs.

Added the distinction of Africa from Niger and also clarified what the concern about Iraq re-constituting it's nuclear program.

Edit 13: Added that the conclusion of Wilson's report is also disputed, not just the role of his wife.

Edit 14: Added the clarification that the final decision to send wilson did not rest with Plame.

Line 81: Edit 15 Clarified the position of the administration in that mentioning Wilson's wife was to dispute Wilson's claim that the VPs office had sent him. More neutral POV and accurate than the one currently presented.


Thanks for the clarification. Please sign your additions to the talk page using four tildes. I have problems with some of your edits, so please respond below if you can --
1) do you have a source for the claim that only federal employees are not allowed to expose NOCs? The law was written specifically because a journalist had exposed CIA agents (not NOCs) so it seems odd that it would be written to exclude journalists from being able to violate it (and in fact the damage to national security is just as bad no matter who actually exposes the agent's identity).

It looks like it was updated correctly since I posted. The actual language isn't federal employee, rather it is someone authorized to know it, discloses it (i.e. has a secret clearance). It is not necessarily a federal employee but it does exclude journalist who don't have or want security clearances. Tbeatty 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty


2) I don't thimk it's acciurate to say that anyone was presenting "evidence" of Iraqi WMD (for years or months) when in fact no such evidence has ever materialized. This should be changed to speculation or something on that order.

It is accurate to describe what was presentat as evidence. What is mistaken is the conclusions that were drawn from the evidence. For example, some of the phone converstations that were intercepted is evidence. The aluminum tubes were evidence. But concluding that the WMD programs were reconstituted was mistaken. Even if the Niger documents were authentic, it would only be evidence, not conclusive proof. But there is a ton of evidence. Enough evidence that not a single CIA analyst concluded that IRaq had not reconstituted it's WMD program. But there were dissenters about specific dual use items. For example, the aluminum tubes oculd be used for rocket bodies as well as the nuclear use. Some CIA analyst did not think they were for Nuclear programs but they still believed Iraq had reconstituted its WMD program. Read the reports to congress and you will see statments like "all" analysts, "some" analysts and "most" analysts. INterestingly enough, it seems that Plame was very high in the CIA list for WMD analysts and she is most likely one of the "all" analysts who believed that Iraq had reconstituted its WMD program. Tbeatty 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty


3) "Many" is more appropriate than "some" when talking about the people who believe that the Bush Administration lied -- a majority of Americans now believe the "evidence" was manufactured, according to polls. You're editing from a pre-2004 mindset ;)

I still think "some" is more appropriate. If you imagine all the Democrats being critical of the war, I don't think "many" of them think the evidence was manufactured. In fact, I don't know of any that have publicly claimed this as fact although they want to investigate it. Even the polls don't show that people believe the evidence was manufactured. THis is different than believing they were mislead. Tbeatty 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

4) Can you tell us what other evidence besides the forged Niger documents shows that Saddam was purchasing uranium from Africa? That has already been discussed here and nobody was able to come up with a reasonable answer. What other countries do you think Saddam sought uranium from, and what evidence exists of such attempted purchases?

The claim from Britain was that it was "Africa". Only the Niger documents have been made public and have been show to be forgeries. Yet Britain still maintains the "Africa" connection. And they are very careful to say 'Africa' where the press seems to want to interchange Africa and Niger. I can only conclude there is other evidence that points to another African country or that there are more Niger documents that remain classified that the British still maintain. Suspect countries could be Namibia or South Africa. Britain would have a reason to keep evidence about both those countries classified because a British company is the main mining company in Namibia and political ties to South Africa. South Africa illicitly sold Uranium to Iraq in 1988 through Uday Hussein. It seems that if Uday contacted South Africa to reopen that connection, it would fit the definition of what Britain is claiming. Tbeatty 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

5) It is not "neutral" to report things that are well known to be false, such as that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger. We know it is BS, the CIA has said it is BS, the State Department has said it is BS, the Bush Admin no longer makes that claim; the only people still making that claim, to my knowledge, are right-wing hacks. It is reasonable to say that a few right wing hacks are spreading such disinformation but we don't need the disinformation repeated 4 times in the article. It was already there before your edits.

I don't think I claimed that his wife sent him. Rather, I stated that his wife recommended sending him. Most likely she was senior enough to be asked who should be sent to investigate the claim. She recommended her husband. The decision to send him, obviously, rested with the directorate of operations. Wilson is qulaified. The only reason why it is relevant is because Joe Wilson stated that he was sent by the Vice Presidents office, when in fact, the VP's office had no idea Joe Wilson was sent. Nor were they briefed on Joe Wilson's report (see Tenet's press release). So you can imagine the VPs office surprise when the claim is made that a) they sent Wilson to Niger b) that he refuted the Niger claim and c) they had seen his report and hid it's content from the American people. When the VPs office tried to find out the facts, the heard from the CIA that his wife recommended him and that his report was regarded as reinforcing the African uranium connection. That is the message the VPs office was trying to convey.

6) You cannot erase other views and replace them with the Bush Admin talking points and call it "more neutral." It is widely suspected -- and there is evidence, including Rove's and Cheney's own statements to journalists to support this view -- that the outing of Wilson was an act of revenge against her husband. You can include the Admin cover story too, but it is inappropriate to replace the (probably more accurate) rationale with the cover story.

I did not replace that view. There were two paragraphs, one that said that Wilson's view was that it was retaliation. The second paragraph was the administrations point of view. It was completely unbalanced to state that it was retaliation in both sentences. One paragraph devoted to Wilson's view and one paragraph devoted to the adminstrations view seemed balanced.

Please respond to the above concerns. For now I am only going to revert some of your changes to give you a chance to respond to the above. --csloat 20:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read the previous discussions. You'll notice much has already been debated as csloat says.--Nomen Nescio 03:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbeatty I think most of your comments above are reasonable. Some questions remain however: (2) The "evidence" thing. You can not use the word evidence when it refers to evidence of something else. The aluminum tubes, for example, were not evidence of WMD but rather evidence of something other than WMD -- the dimensions of the tubes were consistent with another program and experts agreed that they could not be easily used for WMD. The Niger documents were evidence of the fact that there was a forger attempting to manipulate US intelligence assessments -- again, not evidence of WMD. To say something constitutes "evidence" of WMD suggests that it actually supports the WMD claim -- it suggests a certain interpretation of the facts. Otherwise they are just facts, no more relevant to the case than data about the price of tea. (3) you're nitpicking -- the majority of Americans feel we were misled into the war; perhaps "manufacture" is too extreme, but they obviously think we were misled by something. It's a minor point, but "many" seems far more accurate than "some." (4) Your speculation about South Africa etc. is sheer speculation. You say you can only assume the British govt shared your speculations -- however that is not true. You can also assume the British government is once again lying to cover their ass rather than being further embarrassed by this mess. Using Occam's razor yields the latter conclusion far more readily than the former.--csloat 08:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your conclusion about the aluminum tubes is incorrect. There are disputed uses for the aluminum tubes. This was mentioned in the CIA report to congress before the vote on whether to authorize the war. Some analysts believed the tubes were acceptable for a nuclear program, others thought it was for a rocket program (most likely a banned one). But evidence is what is used to support a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is Sadaam had a WMD program, having some analysts believe that the tubes could be used for a nuclear WMD program is evidence that supports the hypothesis. Even if they were wrong, however, it didn't refute the nuclear WMD program. As the congressional report said "some" analysts thought the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear WMD program but "all" analysts thought his nuclear WMD program was reconstituted.

As for the Niger documents, they again don't dispute the hypothesis even if they are forgeries. But there was plenty of other evidence including classified evidence. Some of that evidence was presented to the U.N. Even the CIA analysts that are skeptical of the same items you are, still believed Iraq had reconstituted it's WMD program.

It is only natural to feel misled since the conlusions supported by the evidence appears to be wrong. The questions is what or who misled? Was it Sadaam? Was it the CIA's interpretation? Was it the administration? The Democrats for obvious reasons want the public to believe it was Bush, but I'm not sure that conclusion has been reached. BAck to back intelligence failures seems to be the more likely cause of the misleading and relying in the interpretation of evidence by the CIA has fallen under very serious scrutiny.

My conclusion about other african countries being potential sources is simply to show that it would not be prudent to imply the statement made by britain should be interpreted to mean anything more than what they said. It is feasible that Namibia or South Africa supplied Uranium to Iraq. It is even still feasible that Niger attempted to supply Iraq with Uranium, and pulled back when the U.S. started poking it's nose around. Either way, we don't know whether Britains statement is true or not. I prefer to presume they are telling the truth since they are a democracy and more often than not, democracies tend to tell the truth and expose lies.

And I don't see how Occam's razor concludes that Britain is lying. I have seen no evidence of lying (except by Sadaam Hussein). If anything, Occam's razor would not have any assumptions including lying. Without any contrarian evidence, Occam would take Britain at it's word. If Iraq had no WMD program, its seems logical that Iraq would comply with UN resolutions. It seems logical that he would cooperate with the inspectors, etc, etc. Tbeatty 05:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

This is garbage - nobody in their right mind still thinks the aluminum tubes had to do with WMD. It's as silly to call them "evidence" for a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong as it would be to call Saddam's consumption of American whiskey as evidence that he was an American stooge. If there was "plenty of other evidence" besides the forged documents, what do you have against indicating what specifically that evidence actually is? People feel misled because they were misled. I am not disputing that plenty of reasonable people thought Saddam was working on WMD -- let's face it, Saddam was always a murderous thug, and there are compelling prestige reasons for any national leader (especially in the Arab world) to seek WMD. We know he tried to get WMD in the past and we know he is a manipulative liar. That is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether certain things were actually "evidence" of WMD and whether certain leaders besides Saddam (including the Brits) also demonstrated a propensity to manipulate intelligence. The fact is most people do now understand that the intel was manipulated. Some documents were forged -- that speaks to conscious lying with foreknowledge. Your comments about Namibia etc are pure speculation -- they are not relevant here as they would constitute original research. I am unaware of any mainstream journalist (or for that matter, conservative politician) who engages in this speculation so it certainly shouldn't be assumed as fact on wikipedia. Occam would more likely go with the idea that a govt known to lie to protect itself from embarrassment would lie to protect itself from embarrassment rather than sheer conjecture that isn't even backed up by the mainstream media. As for Saddam cooperating, anyone who knows anything about Saddam knows that it seems far more logical that Saddam would obfuscate things every chance he got since that is what he does. The thing is, even the weapons inspectors were saying that war was not the way to deal with the situation. Hans Blix said Saddam did not need to be cooperative for them to be able to have successful inspections.--csloat 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Motive for outing

I have a problem with Joe Wilson's statements that the outing of his wife was intended as retaliation against him, as revenge. csloat repeated that in the comments just above.

For myself, I think it's more likely that the primary motivation for the Bush people was the discrediting of Wilson and the blunting of his criticisms of Bush's dishonesty in pushing the Saddam-uranium story. That is, they wanted to push a storyline in the media that Wilson wasn't credible, because he'd only been sent on the trip to Africa as some kind of boondoggle arranged by his wife. This spin helped the Administration in two ways: it lessened the impact of Wilson's criticisms by painting him as not really qualified to perform the investigation on his own merits, and provided a semi-plausible explanation of why Cheney (and by extension Bush) might not have been aware of Wilson's findings: because his trip was just some obscure junket whipped up by his wife, not an actual investigation instigated by Cheney's office. And as Sen. Pat Roberts made sure to emphasize in the Senate intelligence committee's report, Cheney's office apparently didn't request Wilson's mission directly. It was, rather, something the CIA did on its own volition.

It's kind of a side issue in the larger scheme of things. But when I see someone repeating Wilson's assertion that the motivation of the administration was "revenge," it raises a red flag in my mind that the person isn't evaluating the situation very objectively. As far as I can see, the Administration, for all that it's demonstrably vindictive and not above hurting its enemies (and even the general public interest, and US security) as part of advancing its political agenda, probably didn't out Valerie Wilson just to punish her husband. They were not primarily motivated by vindictiveness, or by a desire to deter others. They had a more immediate, and more powerful, motive in terms of their need to respond to his charges in the media, and to try to get a pro-Administration spin to win out over the anti-Administration spin represented by Wilson's public statements.

I think the article as currently written does a decent job of addressing the Administration's motives. But seeing csloat's comment asserting that there is evidence that the outing was "an act of revenge" raised the issue in my mind. Yeah, the Administration fights dirty in situations like this, and the people on the receiving end of that might well view their actions as being based on revenge, pure and simple. But I think a more reasonable interpretation is that the Bush people did this in pursuit of their own political self-interest, and any revenge associated with it was secondary to that. John Callender 06:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

John, I think you are on the right track. However, when you consider that Wilson was known for introducing his wife as a CIA employee and the number of people who knew she worked there prior to Novak's article, I think it is clear no "outing" was intended at all. She was considered an analyst and analysts are not covert. In my opinion, the WH intended to use Plame as another example in a list of CIA analysts downplaying evidence in order to reach a conclusion that differed from the policy leanings of the WH. The WH and CIA were in a struggle for who would frame foreign policy. The CIA was constantly "dismissing" and "downplaying" evidence of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda. An analyst for the DIA said so, as you well know. In the case of Wilson, he returned from Niger after learning that the Iraqis had sought uranium in 1999 and claimed there was no truth in the story that Saddam wanted uranium. He was doing the bidding of his CIA analyst wife. The best view is to see the WH motives as a political response to expose the effort by some inside the CIA to stack the intelligence towards a certain point of view. RonCram 07:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
John - I agree that my claim that it was an "act of revenge" is an oversimplification. You're right, such an act was carried out in part to get something out of it, in this case discrediting Joe Wilson (though the claim reported early after the leak by someone unknown in the admin -- probably Libby or Rove -- that Wilson's wife was not "off limits" does speak to a certain vindictiveness in the motive). Of course, Ron is completely out to lunch in claiming that no outing was intended at all. His claim that J Wilson was doing his wife's bidding is of course demonstrably false. But in any case I think we can all agree that all such speculation about why the criminals who outed Wilson did what they did is simply speculation,and where it appears in wikipedia it should be identified as such (and the source of the speculation ought to be identified).--csloat 09:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
csloat, please demonstrate how the claim Wilson was doing his wife's bidding was false. It is clear his wife recommended Wilson for the job. It is also clear that she had an axe to grind. In spite of concerns expressed by other CIA officials that nothing new could be learned from the trip, Wilson was sent anyway. Surprisingly, Wilson learned that SH did seek uranium in 1999. In spite of that, Wilson wrote an op-ed claiming he disproved the claim SH sought uranium. I would love to see you demonstrate that Wilson was not doing his wife's bidding. RonCram 15:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ron, please demonstrate that she had an "axe to grind" -- there is no evidence whatsoever for that. I don't need to respond to this - the information you seek is in the article, and it is all over mainstream news, if you'll pull your nose out of the Weekly Standard long enough to read it. I gave you a link to Wilson's article; there was no evidence there of him claiming to have found evidence that Saddam sought anything in 1999 or of him claiming to "disprove" anything.--csloat 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
csloat, if you would read the sources I would not have to do this. The fact Plame had an axe to grind can be seen in her recommending her husband (a person who would be loyal to her) to do a job some at the CIA thought was a waste of time. Wilson showed his loyalty by writing an op-ed piece that clearly neglected to report the only important finding of his trip, i.e. Saddam sent a delegation to Niger for uranium in 1999. This information is in the Senate Report, not the Weekly Standard. Wilson's op-ed piece was called "What I Didn't Find in Africa." In the piece he concludes "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." That is clearly the opposite of what he learned in Africa. Wilson was willing to ruin his own credibility in an effort to back up his wife's POV. csloat, thank you for proving that you really cannot back up your boast. I invite you to read this interview with Bill Tierney. [16] RonCram 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought the notion that he was sent by his wife was debunked months if not years ago. I'm a bit confused. --waffle iron 15:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"sent by his wife" is what was essentially leaked. It is inaccurate. What has been concluded is that Plame was either asked who to send or offered Wilson as a candidate to send on this particular mission. There is no questions that Wilson was qualified. However, the claim that Plame had nothing to do with Wilson's trip to Niger is as equally inaccurate. The Director of Operations made the ultimate call to send Wilson. The decision was solely his and he took input from Plame. What is also inaccurat is that Wilson was sent by the Vice Presidents office. The Vice President office had no input on who to send nor were they briefed on the content of Wilson's report but they were responsible for asking the CIA about the "Niger reports" that were bubbling in press and other intelligence. So "sent by his wife" was used by the administration to counter "sent by the VPs office" used by Joe Wilson. Both are inaccurate.

Tbeatty 05:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

Tbeatty that is correct -- however, I could be wrong about this, but it is my understanding that Wilson was quoted out of context on the VPs office thing -- can anyone cite the actual context of Wilson's statement to that effect? It appears as though this claim is a major republican talking point on the issue, but I'm really not sure I understand it. --csloat 09:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Tbeatty, you are close to the truth. However, it appears the whole idea for the trip to Niger came from Wilson's wife and she sold her boss on the idea. Also, the concept of Wilson being "qualified" for the trip seems incongruous. Some of the CIA people thought the trip a waste of time. The Niger officials had already denied it and they could not be expected to admit it if it did happen. When Wilson arrived in Niger, the U.S. ambassador to Niger told Wilson that he (or she) had already spoken to all current Niger officials about Iraq and uranium. The ambassador refused to allow Wilson to meet with any current officials. Wilson was allowed to meet with former officials. There is every reason to think the ambassador to Niger would have been more "qualified" than Wilson to handle those conversations as well. You can see why some CIA officials saw no reason to send Wilson on the trip. RonCram 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The Senate Report makes clear that Plame recommended Wilson for the job and walked him to the interview room where it was a fait accompli. The CIA officials who were against the idea were overruled. RonCram 16:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You are correct waffle iron, it was debunked; the confusion lies in RonCram's ideology, not in the facts. He is desperate to pin adverse motives on a woman whose only crime was doing her job to her country. He thinks the fact that she mentioned her husband -- not "sent" him -- is proof of some kind of "axe to grind."--csloat 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
waffle iron, csloat makes a habit out of making claims that facts have been refuted without ever providing the refutation. He then claims he has already refuted it and refuses to cite his refutation. The Senate Report clearly deals with the issue of the Niger trip on pages 36-73. [17] On page 39, the report reads: "The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The report goes on to say "The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq." This comment shows that she had already decided the conclusion Wilson was required to confirm. RonCram 20:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, nice one Ron. Unfortunately you've provided no evidence of an "axe to grind" just like you provided no evidence that JWilson claimed to "disprove" anything in his editorial. It's great that you can cite chapter and verse of the SSCI report, but you seem incapable of acknowledging that some things were not addressed in that report, and there are some things that report got (gasp!) wrong. (Meanwhile, you are all too willing to see flaws in the report when its conclusions are inconsistent with your own; cf your own comments on the page for the report). The myth that Valerie "sent" Joseph has been thoroughly debunked since the report came out, as has the myth that Joseph distorted the evidence about Niger. The report only claims that Plame "suggested" his name, not that she had any authority to send him anywhere, as you imply in some sort of matrimonial conspiracy theory. As early as July 2003 this was correctly sniffed out in the media as a Rovian strategy to discredit Plame, and the LA Times around the time of the Senate report was quoting a CIA official who said that she did not initiate the discussion of her husband going anyway. Your beloved senate report did not reach a conclusion about Plame's relationship to Wilson's trip -- in fact, it specifically avoided such a conclusion, as can easily be seen if you read the addendum, which indicated the Democrats on the committee had specifically opposed language that reached such a conclusion on this issue. Your pal Bob Novak summed things up nicely: "They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary."

Of course, this is all a silly distraction, since her "suggesting" her husband speaks to nothing nefarious, certainly not "axe-grinding" (which you believe yourself to substantiate substantiate by showing that she called a crazy report crazy -- a report which in fact turned out to be crazy!). Her superiors were well aware whom she was married to, so it's just ludicrous to act like her simply bringing up his name is some kind of scandalous left-wing coup.

As for Niger, the senate report itself admits "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Of course, the Senate concluded (as George Tenet had) that the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa should not have been included in the state of the union, and that it was not supportable to claim that the british government thought he was. This stuff is pretty clear in the report, and you are just obfuscating things in order to discredit the Wilsons.--csloat 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice smokescreen, csloat. True, the Senate Report did not agree on a "Conclusion" but it is a political body and it is difficult for political bodies to reach a conclusion on polticians. However, it is not difficult to read the Senate Report itself and to quote from the memo Plame wrote: "my husband has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
BTW, the report was not "crazy" since Wilson confirmed Saddam was seeking uranium in 1999. Wilson deceived the public when he wrote his op-ed piece saying his Niger trip indicated Saddam was not seeking uranium. Proof of Plame/Wilson's "axe to grind" is the fact he would stoop to such an action in spite of the facts.
Wilson's view that the French would never agree to sell to Saddam is also not credible. The French were big supporters of Saddam and they cared more about their trading profits with Saddam than they did about the lives Saddam was destroying every year. Yes, Wilson reached the same conclusions the Embassy reached regarding the liklihood of a sale. The only problem is that Wilson had more evidence for the sale than the Embassy had.
As to the Senate's conclusion regarding whether Bush should have said the 16 words in his State of the Union speech, the Butler Report came out on July 14, 2004 - and the Senate Report came out July 7, 2004. There was no way for the Senate to know the British Intelligence had survived the Butler Review. Now that the Butler Report is out, we know that Bush's 16 words were well justified.
The Butler Report states: "In preparing the dossier, the UK consulted the US. The CIA advised caution about any suggestion that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring uranium from Africa, but agreed that there was evidence that it had been sought." (page 123)
The Butler Report also reads: "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'
was well-founded." (Page 123)
Plame had an "axe to grind" and she got Wilson to grind it, even if it did damage his credibility. RonCram 16:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Ron I don't want to indulge in your fantasies any longer. There is no evidence she had an axe to grind. The Senate was right about the 16 words based on the information they had at the time, and the Butler report has offered no evidence whatsoever to change that view -- as I said earlier it is most likely a case of CYA, like much of the Senate report. The fact is that the senate took no position on Plame "sending" her husband and as I said it's all a bit silly anyway -- everyone knew who her husband was, there was no way she was going to pull the wool over their eyes with this memo. The 1999 stuff is irrelevant; what seems to have happened is that Saddam tried to ask for uranium and Niger said "no." That such a conversation may have taken place 3 years prior to Wilson's trip is irrelevant. He found no evidence that was relevant of Saddam seeking (and certainly none of Niger providing) uranium. There is nothing deceptive in his op-ed that I am aware of, and I see no evidence that you even read it, frankly. This is getting tedious.--csloat 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The Butler Report deals with classified information. We will not know what that information is until it is declassified. But if the Senate had the Butler Report prior to publishing their own, their conclusion would have been different. BTW, no one has suggested Plame pulled the wool over her boss's eyes. She put forward Wilson's name and her boss signed off on it prior to meeting Wilson. Perhaps her boss had the same axe to grind that Plame had. But the fact remains the CIA would not have chosen Wilson for this trip if not for Plame. Saddam seeking uranium in 1999 is not irrelevant. Even the CIA admits that it tends to confirm more recent reporting. It shows modus operandi and intent. Wilson could not have found any evidence of Iraq seeking uranium in 2002 since he was not allowed to talk to current Niger officials. Wilson's op-ed was deceptive or he would have written that he was not allowed to interview current officials and that former officials said Saddam sought uranium in 1999. But those facts did not fit with the preconceived conclusion his wife (and possibly the CIA) wanted. RonCram 01:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
RonCram, much of what you are saying appears to be based on conjecture, either on your part, or on the part of your sources. Your statements such as, "Perhaps her boss had the same axe to grind that Plame had," and "The French were big supporters of Saddam and they cared more about their trading profits with Saddam than they did about the lives Saddam was destroying every year," are currently conjecture and opinion, not facts, especially, with regards to your latter statement, in the context of the U.S.'s own previous sales of arms and weapons to Iraq. While one is, of course, free to come to any conclusion for oneself on what happend, for Wikipedia's purposes we can only rely on relevant noteable and verifiable sources. So far, there appears to be no set of reliable sources that meets that criteria as yet. It may come to pass that what you are saying is corroberated by better sources, but until that time, we can't accept this for inclusion here at the present time. Relevant noteable and verifiable sources are the lifeblood of good Wikipedia articles. Cheers! --NightMonkey 03:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NightMonkey, a careful reading will show that my conjecture appears only on the Talk page, where it is accepted practice to explain why a particular entry is relevant for inclusion. The only speculation on the part of my sources is by Victoria Toensing who is calling for a Congressional investigation into the behavior of the CIA. Why did the CIA not require Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement, as is standard practice? Questions such as these are important. I stand by the edits I have made as well sourced and relevant to the article. If you wish to learn more about why I hold particular views or believe certain speculations to be valid, please ask. If I can find time, I will be happy to answer. RonCram 16:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Since modus operandi is all you have, I fail to see how that proves SH sought uranium in 2002. Any other evidence (evidence is something other than believing people because they are trustworthy) of SH seeking uranium does not exist.
You are repeatedly advancing the Butler report as evidence. Please explain why it is impossible (contrary to any other human being on this planet) for the investigators to make a mistake. Mind you, I'm not even suggesting deliberate misrepresentation. No, why can't there be an honest mistake?
Furthermore, why do you find their word sufficient when the mess we call Iraq is a direct result of taking other person's words as evidence? We now know their words were wrong. No WMD or any link with OBL! By excluding this possibility without advancing verifiable evidence for your interpretation you clearly take a dogmatic stance. Oddly enough, regarding the La Repubblica article you are miraculously incapable of the same trust you have in the Butler Report. --Nomen Nescio 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Nomen, I respect the fact you want to use your mind to the fullest. That is a wonderful trait. I hope you wont be offended if I ask: is English your first language? I ask because understanding the definition of words is very important in logic. "Evidence" is a word that can be used in different contexts and have different technical meanings depending on the context. In the definition that follows, definition #1a refers to outside the courtroom and definition #1b refers to inside the courtroom:
Evidence - 1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter - 2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
It is important to note that evidence includes eyewitness testimony. Evidence can also be of a physical nature: documents, photographs, DNA, etc. In order for these items to be admissible in court, they have to be authenticated by an expert witness. This expert must have information not available to the court and he must make a studied assessment before testifying.
You make the statement "Since Modus Operandi is all you have..." and then you go on to talk about my reliance on the Butler Report. Do you see the problem? The evidence I have put forward is Saddam's modus operandi confirmed by the expert testimony of Butler Report. The Butler Report confirms an intelligence assessment involving several pieces of evidence. We know this because it says Saddam sought uranium in both Niger and Democratic Republic of Congo.
Now let's talk about standards of evidence. In a criminal courtroom, the standard of proof required to convict someone is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a very high standard because as a society we do not want to imprison innocent people. In a civil trial the standard required to win your case is "preponderance of evidence." This means you need more evidence on your side than on the other side. This explains why OJ Simpson and Robert Blakely can be found "not guilty" in criminal court but they lose in a civil trial. When it comes to determining the standard of "actionable intelligence" or "actionable evidence," where would you set the standard? If you think about the fact that thousands of people died in terrorist attacks on 9/11 and you know both Saddam and Osama seek WMD, how much evidence do you need before you act? Do you want to err on the side of protecting national security? Or would you rather err on the side of giving Saddam and Osama the benefit of the doubt? Would you demand that we can prove Saddam had acquired uranium beyond a reasonable doubt prior to invading? Intelligence services never provide that level of evidence. It simply is not possible in the real world, until after a disaster. Condi Rice said "We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Do you see the issue?
I have put forward the evidence that convinces me Saddam sought uranium in Africa in 2002. What evidence do you have that it did not happen? You have Saddam's denial but it is common for a criminal to say he is innocent. You have the word of the Niger officials but you would not expect co-conspirators to admit to it either. So what evidence do you have that it did not happen? Which side has more evidence?
BTW, you are misinformed when you say there is no link between Saddam and OBL. The Senate Report clearly states that Saddam offered al-Qaeda safehaven and provided training in terrorist operations. The Clinton Administration bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory because both Saddam and Osama were involved in chemical weapons development there. See Operation Infinite Reach for more information.
All of this is really mute anyway. We are fighting a War on Terror. The fact is that Iraq is the focal point of the War on Terror. The presence of our forces there have made it possible for us to inflict incredible damage on the world of terrorism. Soon, the Iraqi government will be able to take over the fight against the terrorists. RonCram 19:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
All hail dear leader! — goethean ॐ 19:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
1. That's 'moot', not 'mute'.
2. The vast preponderance of what you assert above is simply factually incorrect. Saddam did not provide safe haven for terrorists, nor aid nor collaborate with them. Your assertions are not borne out by corroborated fact, just by doctored and selective, unvetted, raw intelligence. But we've had this discussion for months, and you seem keen on jingo.
3. The rationale you provide above for the U.S. actions could be equally valid as a rationale for, say, Japan to avenge our atomic bomb attack in kind. Nations cannot act precipitously, as the U.S. has done, without proof.
4. I honestly wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, you are correct on the spelling. Darn those homonyms!. That is what happens when I type to fast. My mental spellchecker can't keep up. RonCram 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but it fails to address my concerns. I agree that the meaning of the word evidence is not absolute and subject to context. Nevertheless, you fail to accept there is no reason to believe SH sought uranium in 2002 except for the Butler report. No photographs, letters, witnesses or anything resembling physical proof is advanced to support the claim presented in the Butler report. You expect me to trust your "experts" on their word when it has been shown "misrepresentation" of the facts happened before. Modus operandi in it self is never sufficient to warrant a conviction. The US has used an atom bomb twice, so modus operandi suggests it is about to use it again (your logic). History has also shown the US lied about their reasons for war in the past, so that proves (your logic again) it lied this time. Or better yet, if SH has reasons to lie, does a government that misrepresented their casus belli, and could face charges for war crimes, not have ample reason to lie too? Why do you not explain on what grounds you dismiss the possibility the Butler report is wrong? Everybody makes mistakes, even your experts.
You still fail to explain why the Bush administration (mistakenly!?) retracted the uranium claim when it so clearly is the truth (says your Holy Butler report).
Although the US was victim of a horrible crime, this still does not warrant attacking just anybody we do not like. There was ample reason to doubt every single argument for invading Iraq. And history has shown these arguments were incorrect. Not to mention letting OBL, the real brains behind 9-11, escape merely to attack SH. Why? Also, history has shown, those who said invading Iraq would be a huge mistake were right. They feared the outcome could be civil war and result in an increase in terrorism. Reading the newspaper today one can only conclude they were spot on! As a result of the illegal invasion Iraq has become the centre of international terrorism. Job well done Mr Bush! It only proves revenge never results in wise decisions. Besides, it is well known the Bush administration was looking at Iraq well in advance of 9-11. This seems odd to me.--Nomen Nescio 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Good Article"?

I do think there are some good things about this article, but it is also battered by edit wars and full of political bias. I have attempted to correct some things on one small section of the page, but I have no doubt that I will have to fight tooth and nail to keep such corrections in, and I'm not sure I have the time. Hot political topics in general are bad ideas for featured articles - things change too fast, and the articles are often the targets of people interested in spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories. All the plame-related articles give far too much credence to the ridiculous conspiracy theory spread by Limbaugh, et al, that Plame and Wilson are some kind of traitors trying to bring down the bush presidency. Of course such theories should be mentioned here, but they do not need this much attention. Anyway, my point is I think a NPOV tag here would be more accurate than a "good article" tag at this point.--csloat 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I spend much more of my Wikipedia time on non-political articles for just such reasons as you state. I really only watch for outright vandalism or extreme POV on the political and contreversial subject articles nowadays. What is especially worrying to me, especially in light of recent Wikipedia events, is that I believe that this situation can help to create more poorly monitored "holes" in Wikipedia where poorly crafted and poorly sourced articles can survive much longer than they should, since many quality Wikipedia editors run as fast as they can from articles where there are attracted large groups of single-issue-centered editors. --NightMonkey 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Good article? That's a joke, right? 71.212.7.68

Now I understand why they're calling it "Wackypedia".71.212.7.68

Novak: Bush knows who leaked

The Washington Post is reporting that Novak Says Bush Knows Who Leaked Name (subscribers only, at the moment), as is the AP: [18] [19] [20]. And from Newsday in New York: [21]. Very big news. It is also being reported that this development has negative legal consequences for Karl Rove, and brings several more journalists into the glare of the legal investigation. --NightMonkey 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible delisting from Good Article?

I looked through the history of this article, and it clearly shows that their have been some edit wars going on, a lot of reversions and removals and more reversions. Since one of the requirements of GAs are to be stable, I'm wondering whether or not this article should continue to remain under GA status.

Also, the lead is too long and quite unwieldy. It's readibility is hampered by the constant external links, which should be changed to inline citations. Also after a brief overview of the article it seems to be NPOV, but it seems according to the history that a lot of POV is seeping into the article.

Finally, at 144 kb, the article fails (by far) to remain at appropriate length. It should be summarized and divided into subarticles. AndyZ 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is definitely not a good article and deserves a rework. RonCram 17:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, certain editors insist upon inserting opinion in stead of presenting facts. This might be a good opportunity to revive the use of referenced facts and ask these editors from refraining pushing political views.--Nomen Nescio 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

wilson "debunking" claims

I went and read each of the four articles listed as sources for the claim that Wilson originally claimed to have debunked the documents. The claim is only actually made in the one article for which Wilson did not provide source material. The documents were known to be forgeries by the IAEA by the time Wilson wrote his editorial (the debunking was made public March of 2003). He did say that the names and dates were wrong in one of the articles, and later told SSCI that he misspoke and had not actually seen the documents (at least that is what the Wapo article seemed to support -- an article published in June of 03) -- if you want to put this sort of trivia in the article that's fine but it should be accurate -- nowhere does that appear to show Wilson debunking the documents himself or Wilson claiming to be the debunker.--csloat 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a talk paragraph, Commodore. I'm not sure how to get enough detail into the article without making it overlong -- let me spell out my reasoning, and maybe we can agree on a format.
1) My principal criticism of the current paragraph is that it (a) implies that the Senate Select Committee was criticizing Wilson for saying that he had debunked the documents in his editorial and (b) ignores that Wilson was an off-the-record or anonymous source for each of the three articles I cite, as follows.
2) I'm pretty sure that it's a fact that, as I said, "Although Wilson did not make this claim in his July 6 editorial, three earlier news articles for which Wilson had provided source information did claim that the Wilson had debunked the Niger documents," as follows.
2) (a) May 6, 2003: Nick Kristof writes a piece stating: "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged." According to a later Washington Post piece, Wilson was a source for the article.
yes but not a source for that claim', which is at issue here. The sentence you wrote, while technically correct, seems misleading here as the article says "according to someone present at the meetings" that envoy (i.e. Wilson) reported that the docs were forged -- that someone at the meetings was obviously not Wilson.-csloat 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2) (b) June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus writes a piece stating "After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." The same later Washington Post piece cited above confirmed that the envoy and the former government official were both Wilson.
This is the quote that Wilson apologized to the SSCI about, indicating he had not actually seen the documents. But he does not here claim to debunk the documents, only to say they may have been forged and then states the reason. It sounds like he is recollecting what he read about a couple months earlier. By June it was well known the IAEA had invalidated the documents.csloat 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2) (c) June 30, 2003: Ackerman and Judis report that a prominent offical/former ambassador "returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. 'They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,' the former ambassador tells TNR."
This really says nothing one way or another about whether Wilson claims to have debunked anything; again, I'll note that this is some time after the IAEA officially debunked the Niger documents.csloat 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3) It seems to me that it's possible that articles (a) and (c) sourced their "Wilson revealed the forgeries" to someone other than Wilson, which is why I stated my original piece neutrally - that three articles for which Wilson had acted as an anonymous source had stated that Wilson debunked the Niger documents. I think it's up to the readers whether they want to infer that four separate journalists over the course of three articles could make the same error, but I was careful not to draw the conclusion. (I'd argue that the Pincus article (b) isn't really susceptible to an alternate analysis - it directly sources the envoy's conclusion that the names and dates "were wrong" to the "former government official," who we now know is Wilson.)
Actually, the journalists seem to be pretty clear on who said what, and I don't see the claim that Wilson did the debunking actually sourced to Wilson in any of them. You're right about the Pincus article but this is a much less significant point, and it was well after the docs had officially been debunked.-csloat 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your thoughts - in particular, do you think that "Although Wilson did not make this claim in his July 6 editorial, three earlier news articles for which Wilson had provided source information did claim that the Wilson had debunked the Niger documents" is false, or just incomplete? I'll sleep on it and see if I can come up with another way to write it. Thanks, TheronJ 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is misleading, because it makes it appear as if Wilson took credit for something that would make no sense for him to take credit for. By June everyone following this knew the documents were forgeries, and they had not learned that from Wilson. He misspoke to Pincus - or Pincus misquoted him - and he clarified things when confronted in the Senate about it. This is a totally trivial point, except for the fact that it has become one of the anti-Wilson mantras that is often cited by those who want to claim that Wilson is some kind of liar or traitor. The issue at hand is rather trivial -- he seems to have claimed to have seen the documents when he hadn't, but he does not seem to have claimed that he verified that they were inaccurate. He's not a documents expert, and there would be no reason to make such a claim, since nobody would believe it anyway; the report of the IAEA debunking the documents came out in March.
In any case I'm not sure what purpose is served by dwelling on such trivia, but if you must rewrite this it should make clear that the documents were publicly debunked in March and that there were inaccurate reports in June that Wilson did the debunking. If you want to dwell on the Pincus quote, you should add Wilson's response, which is that he acknowledged to SSCI that it was a misstatement. There is no reason to characterize this as a significant aspect of the Plame affair, however, because it simply isn't.--csloat 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're right - I'm going to rewrite that paragraph to be shorter. IMHO, if you're going to have a section discussing "criticisms," it should accurately describe what those critisisms are, which the current section doesn't, but you're right that it should state Wilson's side too. Let me take one more crack and tell me what you think.TheronJ 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for considering these things :) My guess is that wilson probably had a source close to the documents who either faxed him a copy or told him directly that they were terrible forgeries. But I haven't seen that speculation anywhere either. Like I said, I think the whole thing is trivial. -csloat 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me the entire Wilson debate can be deleted. It clearly serves as a distraction to the actual crux of the affair: 1 who divulged the identity of a CIA operative? 2 How is it that despite numerous reports explicitely doubting the WMD and OBL allegations the Bush administration still had to invad Iraq?--Nomen Nescio 23:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend deleting it, but this page is getting overlong. If someone wanted to try tackling a major reorganization, I think about half the info could be spun off to other pages and linked back to the main page. (Opinion poll data, I'm looking at you.)TheronJ 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

csloat recent edits

I am justifying my recent changes below; some of these are reactions to recent anonymous, unexplained changes by 70.17.64.42:

1. "concerning the unauthorized disclosure" -- nobody is contesting whether there was an unauthorized disclosure; the investigation is about who did it. The fact that Libby got busted for perjury along the way does not negate that.

Ummm, no one has been charged with unauthorized disclosure, have they? Libby has been charged with obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements, not making an unauthorized disclosure. The investigation is in part to find "whether there was an unauthorized disclosure." At this stage, none has been declared by the prosecutor.--Mr j galt 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct, because certain individuals are stonewalling that investigation. One made the mistake to lie when he was trying to keep info from getting out.--Nomen Nescio 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's speculation. I think he lied because it is politically embarrassing to leak info. Hopefully a clear picture will eventually emerge.--Mr j galt 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
When one emerges we can publish a clear picture; there is no need to publish your speculation at this point. The issue here is that nobody contests that there was an unauthorized disclosure. If there was none, there would be no DOJ investigation. The fact that they are still looking into it suggests that they still believe one existed. More to the point, the CIA told them one existed, and they are the only ones with the authority to say.-csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Deleted "It is questionable, however, whether an agent who, for example, drives his car every day past the guarded gates to the CIA parking lot may properly be classified as a covert agent." -- this is unsourced here and it doesn't belong here anyway. It is discussed - and refuted - elsewhere in the article. This is silly; only the CIA has the authority to tell us who is and isn't covert, and they have clearly indicated Valerie Wilson's status when they asked for the investigation.

Of course it is not silly. If you are looking for cites, put up a fact tag. I will provide them (there are many). No official source has said Plame was covert, esp. the CIA. More POV nonsense. The content will be restored.--24.55.228.56 05:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is quite silly. I used to drive past the gates everyday... and I never went in because I had no affiliation with the CIA. Regardless of this fact, there is no cite for this and it appears to be a personal opinion. -Parallel or Together? 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the CIA did acknowledge that Plame was covert; aside from the obvious point (they asked for the investigation), I have cited Newsday July 22 2003 which clearly states that intelligence officials confirmed that Plame's status was covert. This was further confirmed in a NYT article in October. I have been having this dispute with 24.55.228.56 on several pages now and he never responds to those specific articles. The Newsday article is this one; the NYT one is no longer online but it is quoted in the article (Bumiller). The second sentence in the Newsday piece is "Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak." The article goes on to say that "A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer." These are not former officials but current ones. Can we please put this silly argument to rest? As I said elsewhere, the CIA and DOJ work in roughly the same town. They have rolodexes. They have secretaries who can schedule appointments. If CIA didn't think Plame was covert they could put an end to this whole investigation with a simple phone call. If you don't think the CIA started the investigation why do you think it started?--csloat 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I had to laugh when I read that the article you cite an anonymous source! Let me guess . . . Larry Johnson? LOL! There are many more sources with actual names that say she wasn't covert. I think the CIA did make a simple phone call to the special prosecutor and that's why no one has been charged or will be charged for disclosing the name of a covert agent. The only CIA correspondence regarding Plame that has been made public, states that she is CLASSIFIED, not COVERT.[22] The release of classified information is a much lesser offense than disclosing a covert agent's identity, but an offense nonetheless. --Mr j galt 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I had to laugh when you blatantly deleted part of the quote (now in bold above) and replaced it with "csloat recent edits" in order to censor the evidence that makes clear we are not talking about Larry Johnson. The article quotes two *acting* senior intelligence officials and the article makes clear they are not "former"... Larry Johnson, as you are so fond of reminding us, left the CIA years ago. The article makes it clear the investigation is proceeding as a result of a complaint from CIA. The prosecutor has not ended the investigation which indicates he thinks crimes may have been committed, and one person was indicted for perjury for obstructing an investigation into crimes, again suggesting the prosecutor thinks crimes were committed.
Who in the intelligence community "with actual names" is saying that she wasn't covert? Nobody in the CIA is saying that, certainly. I'm not sure I even know of any former agents saying that.
"classified" vs. "covert" -- are you joking? Valerie Wilson is not a document. If an agent's status is "classified," that means she is "covert." Or "undercover." Now, if you're saying that legally, the criminals involved may be able to plead for a lesser charge, releasing classified information (such as the name of a covert agent), rather than violating the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act, you may be correct, and that sort of point belongs in the article legitimately. (Personally, I think this is gonna get a lot uglier than that, because it looks like Scooter may be singing a little tune for us; possibly in the key of Rove.... but of course that is mere speculation).
By the way, thanks for the link to that document, which gives lie to your claim that the CIA did not ask for the Justice Department investigation.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If an agent's status is "classified," that means she is "covert." Or "undercover." -- csloat. Are you quite sure about this, csloat? I think we may be conflating two concepts of the term "covert" in this article. One term concerns the legal definition of the term "covert" which is set forth by statute and, if any exists, relevant case law. The other concerns the layman's understanding of the term "covert," which, I am willing to bet, is far more broad than than the legal definition.Evensong 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
We should be specific -- the IIPA definition is what you mean, not "the legal definition." And you're right, the IIPA definition requires the covert agent to do something overseas. I am not so sure that there is "relevant case law" supporting that definition -- I believe that definition was proposed for the purpose of this statute -- but I am not a lawyer. But the term "covert" outside of the IIPA means "undercover," which Plame clearly was. My point all along has been that arguments that she was not covert because she did not travel overseas are legal nitpicking -- the fact is she was under cover, and her cover was blown. The issue of whether the IIPA was violated is a separate issue. --csloat 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


No, I meant the legal definition. I have not yet been able to find a legal definition for "covert agent" outside of the IIPA. It may be the exclusive legal definition for "covert agent." Did you find a legal definition for "covert agent" outside of the IIPA? If so, please provide the citation. It would be helpful. And I agree. There probably is no case law interpreting that provision of the IIPA since, to my knowledge, no one has ever been tried under the that statute.
As for the other statutory favorite we have the Espionage Act, the act which criminalizes disclosure of classified information under certain circumstances. I looked around and found two blogs which present a fairly decent analysis of this issue. The righty oneand the lefty one.
As everyone probably knows, the real danger of using the Espionage Act involves the imposition of hard cooler time for both the leaker and the leakee. If Morrison still holds, then prosecution could mean that Rove, Woodward, whoever talked to Woodward (Armitage), Phelps, Phelp's unamed CIA sources, Novak, Cooper, Pincus could be sent up the river. An administration could concievablely classify every thing and chill the fourth estate out of business. (Hold on...evil neocon portion of my brian just experienced an endorphin rush...there, it's gone).
Which brings be back to the IIPA and the legal definition of "Covert Agent". I do not see a prosecution under the Espionage Act (although I see Fitz made a saber-rattling reference to it in his indictment of Libby). Thus the IIPA seems to the lead candidate for prosecution for the actual leak. And the legal definition of Covert Status" is no longer a mere matter of legal nit-picking.
Before I go, I just wanted to add that I fully expect a counter argument that regardless of Plames status under the IIPA and regardless of the possibility of an actual crime being charged for the leak (hey, Rove and Libby aren't out the woods yet on that score) Plame's status was clsasified; she at one time in the not too distant past was NOC; she could have had her assets left out to dry, possibly harming national security. ANd I welcome that argument. It is a core characteristic of the Plame Affair 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any case law relevant here, but I am not a lawyer. I've done some research on the history of the IIPA, but I haven't read the congressional debates. But your point is obfuscating here - I don't know of any specific "legal definition" of covert, but such is only relevant in the context of the IIPA, or some other law (as you point out, the Esp act covers "classified" information generally so did not define this term). But I do have a dictionary, and there is nothing in the word "covert" that means "traveling overseas". My suspicion is that the language was inserted into the statute because it was meant to protect agents overseas; remember it was inspired by former CIA agent Philip Agee and the magazine Covert Action Information Bulletin, which tried to go around exposing covert agents. The fear was that some of these people would be killed if their cover was blown. But travel is not part of the meaning of the term "covert"; it was added to the legal definition in order to suggest that covert agents are those who go on covert missions.
But look, my point that it is "legal nitpicking" was not meant to suggest this wasn't serious -- if I were the one who had leaked this information, I would be very concerned about the exact legal definition since it could keep me out of prison. But in terms of the significance of the Plame affair for an encyclopedia, that, as you seem to agree, is much larger than the nuts and bolts of a potential IIPA indictment. So wikipedia should have a section discussing the statute's definition and indicating that the people who compromised national security by exposing a covert operation might get away without being convicted of anything. And I would be happy to stick with the word "undercover" and only use "covert" in the legal sense, as long as it is made clear in the article why we are doing so.

Ultimately, as I have been saying, if the CIA says she's covert, she's covert. The CIA has said that she was a NOC and that she was under cover. Fitzgerald confirmed this. It doesn't matter if she was moving out of NOC status, as some articles seem to suggest; it is the CIA's call whether or not she was a NOC and whether or not she was undercover. A court will decide whether she is protected under IIPA.

All this is likely immaterial - it is clear she travelled on CIA business in the years before the indictment; the only people saying she didn't either present no evidence or they simply say she did not "live" overseas -- which is not required by the statute in this category. And of course wikipedia editors can whine that we don't have proof that she traveled, but look, this has exposed enough of the CIA's undercover operations as it is -- do you really expect them to do more damage by publicizing details about her covert operations?-csloat 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

3. I removed this silliness: "Due to the increased scrutiny caused by Wilson's talking points, it came to the new media attention that John Kerry, the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, had revealed the name of Fulton Armstrong durring the nomination of John Bolton." What's the point of this claim? It should be sourced and its relation to the Plame affair should be spelled out rather than sitting here like some kind of innuendo that doesn't know what it is really implying.

Democratic Senators accusing others of doing the very thing they are doing? Of course it is relevant!--24.55.228.56 05:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the Plame affair, not the "Fulton Armstrong" affair. I agree with the person who took it out - unless it is given some kind of context and reference, it shouldn't stay in. -Parallel or Together? 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Big surprise! One anti-Bush POV pusher supports another! This article needs a NPOV and discussing the hypocrisy of critics is certainly relevant.--Mr j galt 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to avoid personal attacks. I don't know how you reached this conclusion based on the two sentences above, where I merely asked for some context and a citation to be given.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no - Wikipedia should not be in the business of exposing hypocrisy. Bloggers do that sort of thing. If you want to quote a blogger making this point, we can have a debate about whether the quote is notable, but the claim here is original research.-csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

4. changed "operatives" back to "experts". Google for "IAEA operatives" and explain what that is before changing it back. It's made up. I also got rid of "reportedly" because that makes it sound like a rumor. The experts themselves did the reporting. They found no evidence of any such program, and in any case this is not the page to debate that issue on.

Calling them "experts" is POV. If you don't like "operatives" then let's use the term "staff." Plenty of google hits[23] and, afterall, that's what the IAEA calls them.[24]--Mr j galt 00:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "expert" is POV at all. However, if you do, I don't agree with "operatives" or "staff". The first doesn't make sense and the second is pretty vague - it could mean a secretary or janitor. Why not just use "The IAEA...". That would seem to be NPOV and we could avoid this whole argument over semantics.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
First, "IAEA expert" gets about twice the google hits than "IAEA staff." It is more commonly used in this specific context. Second, "staff" is a mass noun and would be grammatically incorrect in that sentence. Third, that change is not on the table; I think you would hear fewer objections than you do to "operatives" (though clearly "experts" is the preferred term of the media when referring to this specific incident.)--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

5. "speculation by arguing" is more accurate; the speculation about Wilson's motives is sheer speculation without evidence, whereas the argument that government officials should avoid harming national security is an argument, not a mere assertion (that is, it is supported).

This is a perfect example of POV pushing. The paragraph's wording was fine and NPOV. But csloat felt the need to tip the balance against the Bush officials.--Mr j galt 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No; this is an example of trying to use the language more precisely. An "argument" is a claim backed by evidence. An unsupported claim is an "assertion." "Speculation" refers to a claim whose only evidence is mind-reading or educated guesswork. This has nothing to do with tipping balances.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Erased the redundant fragment "mentioning Wilson's wife in public could be a chance for the Bush administration to discredit Wilson for his public critique on the validity of the Niger/Iraq yellowcake story." and replaced it with a meaningful alternative ("However,...").

You got to be kidding me. Accurate NPOV statement is replaced with this completely different outrageous POV sentence: "However, Cheney has since admitted that the trip was the result of a Vice Presidential inquiry." What?! Cheney never admitted that. What nonsense! POV warriors are destroying wikipedia. --Mr j galt 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a source for the Cheney sentence as well. Also, following it up with the sentence describing the leak as "mean-spirited" right after the Cheney sentence might be POV. I don't see how one sentence flows into the next here.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree the meanspirited thing is POV. The Cheney thing is accurate[25][26]. This part should probably be fixed, but Cheney did acknowledge this as I recall -- perhaps his office did. It is pretty firmly established in the mainstream media that it is the case.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Libby indictment reads: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return."
To clarify - Cheney did not ask Wilson to go to Niger. His office asked the CIA to investigate claims that Niger was selling uranium. The CIA asked Wilson to go as a result of that inquiry from the VP Office. At least, that is my understanding of this; perhaps it is incorrect.-csloat 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That's how I understand it too, has a good chance of being correct.--Nomen Nescio 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Took out the sentence "To date, there is no evidence that Brewster Jennings & Associates has ever had any employees other than Plame." -- this may be a matter someone wishes to dispute, but I have never seen this claim anywhere but Wikipedia. If no investigation into this has taken place, the claim is not really supported and is a form of original research on the part of wikipedia. Compare "To date, there is no evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever liked petting dogs." Has a scholar investigated this? If not, the statement might be true but it is horribly misleading as it implies that Lincoln most likely did not pet dogs, which is unknown. The same is happening here.

If you have evidence of another employee, supply it. Otherwise it stays in.--24.55.228.56 05:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR. -Parallel or Together? 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

8. Took out "and, in fact, whether Plame was 'covert' has not been legally established" as it is not the case -- there is no legal finding of covertness that must be met; the only issue is whether a statute makes exposure of her identity illegal. Whether she is "covert" or not is a call the CIA makes, and they have made it. The controversy over whether she is "covert" is explained elsewhere on this page so this line is not necessary and is indeed misleading.

The CIA has not made any such announcement.--24.55.228.56 05:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this, but when I revert it, it will take out this change as well, so whoever wants it in - put this one back and cite it please. -Parallel or Together? 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Expecting the CIA to acknowledge an agent's covert status directly is somewhat paradoxical. The CIA was concerned enough about the naming of Plame as an operative to refer the matter to the Justice Department (where the case remains under investigation). Moreover, the 'drive thru the gates' argument is a tired and refuted GOP talking point:
"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 (R-KS), on CNN Late Edition, 7/24/05 [27]
"There are thousands of undercover CIA employees who drive through the three gates at CIA Headquarters in McLean, Virginia everyday. " -Former CIA intelligence official Larry Johnson, at TPM Cafe, 7/24/05 [28]
LOL! Larry Johnson again! Every article that says Plame was covert either cites Larry Johnson (named or unnamed) or no source at all. This comment is completely assinine from someone who knows nothing about current CIA operations. Larry Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and he never worked as covert agent.[29] So unless covert agents have been illegally revealing their status to private citizen Larry Johnson, he is just talking nonsense. This is the guy who wrote an op-ed piece only two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, in which he argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism. He has zero credibility in the Plame matter or in anything else.
The only person indicting Johnson's credibility is you. Johnson did work as a covert agent, actually, and one of the reasons he knew Plame was covert was that he graduated the covert agent program with her. This is established in his testimony and nobody has published anything challenging these claims. Stop whining about the fact that he wrote an article that you don't like five years ago. That has nothing to do with any of this. The fact is he was a long time employee of the CIA and he publicly made these claims and nobody has publicly refuted them except you, meaning this is a bizarre form of original research. He is pointing out here that driving to the CIA does not "out" someone as an agent -- if this information is incorrect why aren't there former CIA agents refuting him on this? Or current CIA employees? Why has this point also been made by other former CIA and DIA folks (Pat Lang, I believe, in the Senate/House hearing comes to mind)? Again, all of this is immaterial - the fact is, the CIA is the only entity who can tell us if she is covert, and they have made clear that she is.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Further, "the available evidence suggests that Plame did travel abroad on CIA business in the five years before her identity was revealed, and was therefore a "covert agent" at least under the plain language of the {relevant} statute". [30]-- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No evidence is presented in that article to support the statement. (Mediamatters.org is a leftwing partisan spin vehicle founded by David Brock.) Her husband's own book documents that she had not been stationed overseas since 1997. --Mr j galt 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Blatant GOP-talking point falsehoods. [31]
Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron reported on the July 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume that "we should point out that the covert agent would have had to have been operating overseas within the preceding five years. And Wilson himself has said that his wife had not been covert since 1997."
Cameron's report, though vague, appears to be based on a July 14 USA Today article that used "little-noticed details" in Wilson's book, The Politics of Truth, to suggest that the outing of Plame did not violate the relevant criminal statute, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). The IIPA defines a "covert agent in part as someone "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." USA Today cited two of IIPAA's authors, Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford, who claimed that because Wilson's book indicated that Plame has lived in the United States since 1997, it is unlikely that she was covert under the law's definition. This argument is debatable, since the statute does not explicitly state that a covert agent must be stationed abroad. What is not debatable, however, is that nowhere in Wilson's book does he claim that that his wife has not been a covert operative since 1997.
The only thing I have to add to Ryan's response here is that the CIA did make this clear by asking for the investigation, as well as by having unnamed officials state the point clearly to Newsday. That's about all they're going to do; do you really expect the CIA to put on its web page, "Valerie Wilson was covert"??-csloat 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The CIA has confirmed that she was an employee and her status was classified. Why wouldn't they confirm that she was covert if it were true? No official source has ever said that Plame was covert and that needs to be made clear in this article.--Mr j galt 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are just nitpicking. An agent whose status was classified is by definition covert. The issue of whether Plame meets the technical definition of a protected agent established in the IIPA is a separate question -- one interesting to lawyers and to criminals wondering how much time they are going to have to serve. But it is not a question relevant to Plame's status as a covert agent whose cover was wrongly compromised. In addition, she probably does meet the IIPA standard, since she has left the country several times on assignments as established above (the claim that she had to "live" overseas is a distortion). But that is neither here nor there -- for the purpose of this article, Plame was undercover; that much has been established by the public record.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

9. I re-added "In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries" to the SSCI criticism section because it provides crucial info (that the documents were declared forgeries before Wilson supposedly took credit for the declaration).

Thanks for removing the weasel words and other half-truths. It is unfortunate that they creep back in. --waffle iron 00:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact you added weasel words, which I have reverted.--24.55.228.56 05:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
And I have reverted again. Please do not revert again, especially without addressing all of the points above, not just one or two. Also, remember to adhere to WP:NPOV. Also, please do not remove {{fact}} tags without supplying references or reaching consensus on the talk page, and don't delete references already provided for other facts and then put the tag in its place. -Parallel or Together? 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have removed the "good article" tag. This article is disorganized and filled with anti-Bush POV. It has a long way to go before it can be called good. I am also inserting the NPOV tag. --Mr j galt 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Have removed POV tag, since no discussion was started on that topic. Let's hear from other editors what they think. After sharing our thoughts we might tag the article once again.
Note, the fact that information is detremental to the Bush administration does not mean it is untrue.--Nomen Nescio 02:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Tag should definately remain up till some of this bullshit is weeded out. DTC 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific when adding NPOV tags. What about this article is "anti-Bush" and what is factually inaccurate? If we figure out the factual inaccuracies we can take steps toward addressing them; "anti-Bush" is not a specific indication of what is wrong with the page. Some of us may feel it is too "pro-Bush". Personally I don't see much information that relates to Bush per se either way.--csloat 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is factually inaccurate for you to repeatedly assert that Valerie Plame Wilson was a "covert" CIA agent when she was named in Robert Novak's column. You have tried to push your anti-Bush POV that the Bush administration outed a covert agent. No official source has stated that Plame was in "covert" status. Virtually every CIA employee's identity is classified. A tiny fraction are "covert." No charges were filed against anyone for disclosing a covert agent's identity because Plame was not covert. Until it is made clear that no official source has indicated Plame was covert when Novack wrote his column, the NPOV tag will remain. Only a true POV warrior would fight the NPOV tag while at the same time pushing his POV.--Mr j galt 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with being anti-Bush - it's about being pro-accuracy. The CIA has acknowledged to Newsday that she was working undercover -- what more do you want? A billboard? The exposure of covert assets (not just her but her whole front company and all of her contacts) has done enough damage as it is.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So, if she wasn't outed on what grounds did the CIA want an investigation?--Nomen Nescio 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question! She may have not been covert, but she was a classified status employee. And that is exactly what was documented in the CIA's memo on the topic.[32] It's a much lessor offense to reveal someone's claasified status, but it is an offense nonetheless. No officail source has ever said she was a covert agent when named by Novak. That's just POV that I am trying to straighten out here.--Mr j galt 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Your distinction between a "covert" agent and a "classified status" agent is an interesting form of original research. I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Someone whose status is "classified" is by definition "underrcover." Again this is irrelevant as the Newsday article clearly points out.

How likely is it the CIA is going to admit she was covert, when by doing so they directly endanger all those who have been working with her?--Nomen Nescio 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The CIA admitted she worked there and that she was classified. If an individual worked with her, wouldn't that already put them in danger? If you were an enemy of the US and you knew that classified CIA employee Plame worked with an individual, would you wait for the covert announcement before reaching your conclusions? Of course not. The CIA has already acknowledged she was a classified employee. Saying Plame was covert would not increase danger for those she worked with. The bottom line is that she wasn't covert and that's why no official source has said she was covert and no one has been charged or will be charged with revealing a covert agent's name. Plame was the only documented "employee" of her fictitious energy company. She had no coworkers. --Mr j galt 00:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is self-destructing. If she is a "classified" agent she is a "covert" agent, as far as I can tell. Again the issue of whether her identity is protected under IIPA is a different question. Also you have no idea whether or not she had coworkers. There has been no published information about that, although some claim that her exposure did hurt other agents, and one may have been killed. But in any case your claim that she had nobody working with her is unfounded speculation.--csloat 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, it means, being covert has many more consequences than being classified. In other words, the damage might be greater when people know she is covert. Besides, how many really covert agents do you knoew? In or outside US intelligence? They don't confirm it ever!--Nomen Nescio 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC on this page and Valerie Plame

I have started an RfC on this page and on Valerie Plame 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.--csloat 08:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Commodore, my two cents is as follows: (1) as I understand it, the page uses three terms about Plame's status: (a) whether she was "covert", (b) whether she was "undercover", and (c) "whether the status of her CIA employment was classified." Some section on the page should explain whether those are diffirent terms. Covert in particular isn't defined anywhere and isn't linked to any definition, so it's hard to pin down the argument, much less reach a conclusion. (2) More generally, given that there is a debate, I think the best bet is to fairly explain both sides. As I understand it, you think that the CIA referral is conclusive proof that Plame was covert; while other people think that other evidence, particularly Fitzgerald's explicit refusal to state a conclusion on the issue, indicates that the CIA (might have been/was) wrong. You're a thoughtful writer, and I personally would trust you to draft something that clearly explains both sides of the argument - do you want to take a crack at it? Thanks, TheronJ 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see the difference between "covert" and "undercover." I have read a lot about the CIA, and while I know people who have worked in intelligence, I never have, and I don't claim to be an expert on this. I just read and write a lot about it. So perhaps there is a difference that I don't understand but I have seen no expert explain it. As for "classified" - that word is used to describe information, not individuals. An individual's status might be "classified"; that would (to me) make that person "covert". But that does not mean they are on a "covert" mission -- or, indeed, that they are doing anything of importance. If those who think that "covert" means something different than "undercover" would like to explain the difference, I will be interested to learn what it is they think. As it is, this makes no sense to me -- jgalt posts a letter proving the CIA thinks plame's identity is "classified," and claims that is proof that she is not "covert." I just don't understand what he means. There is the legal question of whether a certain law was violated, and therefore how much jail time the criminals will receive, but that is really not a significant issue -- either way, exposing Valerie Wilson's identity was illegal, immoral, and it undermined national security. --csloat 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
One more thing - I wanted to address the point about "Fitzgerald's explicit refusal to state a conclusion on the issue" since galt brings it up a lot too. He was not asked to state a conclusion on the issue. He was clarifying a point that he was responding to, and reminding everyone that this was not the point of his investigation. My interpretation of that is that he is acknowledging that deciding Plame's status is the job of the CIA, not the Justice Department. He made the statement in a press conference where he was asked not whether she was covert but whether he thought that Libby knew that she was covert when he outed her. It's clear from the question that even the questioner thinks she was covert.--csloat 16:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

The edits anon continues to revert to have not been substantiated here. Please stop reverting en masse and make each edit separately, with corresponding discussion here on talk. What you have incessantly reverted has been refuted here in good faith by multiple editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The changes were made by your fellow anti-Bush POV warrior, csloat, without consensus. Every point has been refuted here. The article should return to its prior state until a consensus is reached. I will also re-establish the NPOV tag which you have so rudely removed.--Mr j galt 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Your attribution of 'anti-Bush POV Warrior' belies YOUR biases here, as this is an article on the Plame Affair, not Bush. Stop reverting and attributing biases (a blatant form of personal attack) and start discussing facts. None of your arguments have been refutations, they have been POV with selective disregard of facts - like "Wilson's Book" and the "CIA gates". Repeating talking points does not suffice as factual discourse. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The truth is an absolute defense. If anyone has any doubts about your anti-Bush POV pushing, they can review your many recent edits on 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities. You and csloat seek to extend your anti-Bush POV pushing to the Plame articles. I will do what I can do to maintain NPOV. P.S. Thanks for welcoming me as a new editor!--Mr j galt 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You're not off to a good start, attacking your fellow editors so blatantly without cause is bad behavior. And please - bring on the truth... but leave the name calling behind. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
User:RyanFreisling, in your last revert, you wrote "rv. they have not been discussed - assertions have been made by you without substantiation. Do not revert." I am planning to revert, but I will make a good faith effort to address any issues you don't think have been discussed. (I think all matters have already been covered here.) What would you like me to substantiate or discuss?--Mr j galt 04:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Every assertion under the numbered points, for example, contains plenty of declaration on your part without substantiation. A review of the above discussion has you making statements without objective fact or evidence to back it up. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be specific. Every point was addressed by me or others. Please re-read the section. If you can't cite a specific issue that has not been addressed, I will assume it has been addressed and you just don't agree with the response. I really don't want any issue to be left unaddressed--Mr j galt 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your responses above have been either refuterd as factually incorrect or just plain speculation. I refer to the specific numbered conversations above in 'csloat recent edits' and feel no need to repeat them each here. Read the section, and review your posts, and identify for me any facts you've raised that you feel actually 'addressed' the issues. Any reversion by you on the basis of those posts is plainly unfounded. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Just as I suspected. You can't give any specifics because every point was addressed. Watch for my revert!--Mr j galt 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of fact, not a talking points platform. Make whatever edits you feel are in the best interests of factual accuracy and readability, and I'm sure they'll be accepted by the community. The edits in your 'revert threats' are not in the best interests of factual accuracy, and haven't been accepted. It's really that simple. The points I refer to are specific and your lack of facts to substantiate them is well-evident. I'll trust the community's judgment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

First - my apologies; I incorrectly noted in the edit summary that galt made 3 rvs but in fact he has only made one (so far) today as of 7:45 am PST; the other two were yesterday.

A quick summary (sigh - again!) of the changes that galt wants to make and their refutation above. These points are all covered above in arguments that he conceded --

  1. "whether there was an unauthorized disclosure" - that issue is not being investigated by Fitzgerald; he clearly even said he was not speaking to whether or not Plame was covert in a quote galt is fond of. It is clear she was; it is established above with evidence from NYT and Newsday as well as in a pdf from the CIA that calls her status "classified." Galt thinks there is a difference but cannot (or will not) explain it.
This issue has already been explained to csloat. I will re-publish it from above:
Ummm, no one has been charged with unauthorized disclosure, have they? Libby has been charged with obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements, not making an unauthorized disclosure. The investigation is in part to find "whether there was an unauthorized disclosure." At this stage, none has been declared by the prosecutor.--Mr j galt 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes it easy; I'll just repost my response from above, which you did not answer: The issue here is that nobody contests that there was an unauthorized disclosure. If there was none, there would be no DOJ investigation. The fact that they are still looking into it suggests that they still believe one existed. More to the point, the CIA told them one existed, and they are the only ones with the authority to say.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A covert agent is also known as a spy or secret agent or undercover agent. Thousands of employees have classified positions but very few are covert agents. If members of the Bush administration revealed the name of a covert agent it would be a major crime, possibly even treason. Csloat may not be able to see the difference but Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald can. That's why Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that Plame was classified, but he refused to state that she was covert:
Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.
We've dealt with this quote over and over. The emphasis here is clearly on the issue of "knowingly, intentionally" -- not whether a covert agent was outed. He is not speaking to whether she was covert, as he says clearly; the issue is whether Libby knowingly outed her. He was not asked about whether she was covert. The reason he is not speaking to it is it's up to the CIA, not the prosecutor. Again, if she was not covert, this entire investigation could have been settled long ago with a phone call. Why wasn't it? Your distinction between a "classified" agent and a "covert" agent is interesting original research. My understanding of the terms is that "classified" pertains to information, not to people. And if only her "position" was classified, well the investigation doesn't make any sense, since Novak didn't reveal her position; he just revealed that she worked for the CIA. Finally you are ignoring the concrete evidence from at least two intel officials who spoke with Newsday for the 7/22 story.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. "ocunsel" -- galt insists on spelling the word "counsel" in this bizarre way. He continually reverts to a version of the page featuring this spelling so I assume it is his preference.
LOl! I want wikipedia to have no typos. I will correct this on my next edit.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty telling of your style that you have been hammering away here, reverting a version with embarrassing spelling errors without even looking it over. The error was pretty glaring since the word shows up in bright red when you look at diffs. Think before you revert.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. galt insists on the unsourced claim "It is questionable, however, whether an agent who, for example, drives his car every day past the guarded gates to the CIA parking lot may properly be classified as a covert agent." This is original research (and indeed former CIA agents point out it is flat out wrong).
If a source is all you think is needed, then use a fact tag. The repeated claims of original research are growing old. How many sources do you need?
"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)
I saw these, you already posted them; and of course I have no problem with including them in the article. But you didn't include them - you included the POV sentence that "It is questionable, however, whether an agent who, for example, drives his car every day past the guarded gates to the CIA parking lot may properly be classified as a covert agent." It is not for Wikipedia to say that this is questionable, especially when we see former agents telling us that such claims betray a complete ignorance of how the CIA works. Johnson was covert and he went to the office all the time. Not a single one of your sources has been employed at the CIA and I am not aware that any of them is any kind of expert on intelligence matters. Frankly, I believe the CIA over these people, and they have made their position clear in a letter you cited.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. galt inserts "Due to the increased scrutiny caused by Wilson's talking points, it came to the new media attention that John Kerry, the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, had revealed the name of Fulton Armstrong durring the nomination of John Bolton." -- more unsourced original research; this has nothing to do with this page. galt wants it in to "expose hypocrisy." That's not wikipedia's job.
Do not put words in my mouth. I wrote:
Big surprise! One anti-Bush POV pusher supports another! This article needs a NPOV and discussing the hypocrisy of critics is certainly relevant.--Mr j galt 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC) It is still relevant.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh, yeah, you wrote that "discussing the hypocrisy of critics is certainly relevant." My point above was that it is not.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. He continually changes "IAEA experts" to "IAEA operatives" even though he has conceded the latter phrase is never used (check google). He made a half-hearted attempt above to justify "IAEA staff" and while this was still disputed as incorrect, yet he continues to insert "IAEA operatives" which is simply a nonexistent neologism.
"Experts" is POV. I will use "staff members" on my next edit.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No; "experts" is how the media refer to this particular mission every time. "Staff members" could be secretaries. You don't send secretaries to look for nukes. I showed you that google finds IAEA experts twice as much as IAEA staff, and it seems the former is far far more frequent in reference to this specific incident. "IAEA staff members" gets less than 500 hits, none that I see to this particular mission.-csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. he changes "speculation" to "argument" where the former is more appropriate, and "arguing" to "asserting" where the former is more appropriate. He claims this is a POV issue but it has been clearly explained that it is simply about precise use of the language (again, see the discussion above).
It is being imprecise with language to push Anti-Bush POV. The wording was fine and precise in the original. Csloat can not specify what was wrong with the original wording.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did. Please re-read where I dealt with this above. Your understanding of these terms is simply inaccurate.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. he removes a {{Fact}} tag where one was inserted after an unsourced claim. He refuses to provide a source for the claim but insists on removing the tag.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with fact tags. I think they should be used more often. Any deletion of a fact tag was inadvertent. I will restore it on my next edit.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is because you do not think before you revert. You are just reverting these pages because you feel you are in some kind of contest with me and others whom you have called "POV warriors" and other nonsensical names. This is totally sloppy, yet you are reverting indignantly as if there was no possibility that you might be wrong. We will never improve these pages with such conduct.-csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. he keeps changing wiki syntax for indented quotes to the HTML BLOCKQUOTE tag. I am not sure what his argument is for this change.
I have no objection here. Csloat should have just fixed this rather do a major revert with POV edits.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk about the pot and the kettle -- you're the one sloppily introducing such errors with your major POV reverts!--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. he included redundant speculation "However, mentioning Wilson's wife in public could be a chance for the Bush administration to discredit Wilson for his public critique on the validity of the Niger/Iraq yellowcake story." This point is already made in the paragraph. This was changed to a claim that was sourced and discussed in talk. There has been other dispute about this sentence, but his edit warring has precluded any attempt to resolve problems over this particular sentence.
There was nothing wrong with the sentence.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh, yes there was. It was redundant and speculative.-csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. He continually removes a citation from a washington post article, replacing it with the {{Fact}} tag. I am not sure what to call that other than vandalism.
Inadvertent again. I will fix it on my next edit. Thanks for bringing it my attention.
  1. galt continues to censor the sentence "In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries." This is a factual claim that provides important background for the paragraph that follows; he for some reason would not like readers to see this sentence.
If you can source it, I don't have a problem with it.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I realize this has been answered below, but this is the problem here -- why do you demand sources for things which you know damn well are true and have no reason to doubt? You never brought up that you didn't think this was true, and of course not, because everyone is well aware of this. Yet you delete the sentence - not just add a fact tag but delete the entire sentence - because it undermines your POV. That is the problem with your conduct here - you are not trying to make this article more accurate; you are erasing legitimate info even when you know the info is true.--csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. galt continues to eliminate the accurate claim "The anonymous star thus fits the timing of the Plame leak." which is from the section on the CIA book of honor.
The entire anonymous star section is pure speculation and not encyclopedic.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No; it is sourced, and the claims made are accurate. There was a source for the timing fit as well though it seems someone else deleted it.-csloat 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that covers it all (once again). There are points that could use some editing, but the edit war has prevented any real tinkering with the controversial parts (such as the Cheney claim). I am going to remove the POV claim about the "mean-spirited" action but otherwise keeping everything else that has been clearly justified. If someone wants to discuss a particular change we should do that but there is no further justification for wholesale reverts.--csloat 15:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


I have responded to every point.--Mr j galt 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

'responding to' and 'factually justifying my revert warring on' are not the same thing. I see you describing someone's contributions as 'anti-Bush', again... and I see you making declarations of your opinion. But I still do not see any factual points or backup to your assertions. You're gonna have to back up your edits with more than opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you just expressed your opinion. LOL! Please refrain from expressing your opinion on wikipedia. Unless I have stated otherwise, all of my edits have been factually justified.--Mr j galt 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Trollish behavior is also bad form. Facts, please. Just the facts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which specifically states that "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." is a personal attack. I think your continued "anti-Bush" statements (regardless of the question of whether they are true) are personal attacks. Please refrain from such statements in the future. Also, you seem to misunderstand what kind of information is acceptable in an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and provide credible sources for any information you would like to see in the article. Jacoplane 02:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? It might help if you mention the editor involved. If it is who I think you mean-I think your continued "anti-Bush" statements (regardless of the question of whether they are true??????) are personal attacks.- you must have missed the numerous ad hominem arguments be that editor. (added and emphasised questionmarks)--Nomen Nescio 02:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Jacoplane was addressing User:Mr j galt. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio, I was adressing User:Mr j galt, because I felt it would be good for him to have another hard look at some of the official policies that exist on Wikipedia. I wrote sentence "regardless of the question of whether they are true" because it should not be at all relevant what kind of personal views someone has when editing Wikipedia, as long as they remain NPOV. I hope that answers your question. Jacoplane 03:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Jacoplane. Although I do not believe being referred to as anti-Bush is a personal attack (many actually embrace the label), I will avoid referring to individuals as anti-Bush in accordance with your guidance and focus on their POV edits. If someone's edits are anti-Bush, I will call their edits anti-Bush, not the editor. Thanks again.--Mr j galt 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Jacoplane. Indeed, facts are more difficult to grasp than the principle of an ad hominem attacks. Perhaps the identified editor will discuss the matter in a civil tone and refrain from trying to bully his way into the article.--Nomen Nescio 06:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

IAEA Cite

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council. [33]

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the Iceberg and some suggestions

Note: the following input was left unsigned on my talk page by an anonymous user. I think he makes a couple good points and it presents a good starting place. Let's see csloat address each point to see if we can reach agreement.--Mr j galt 04:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, galt, you need to address the points relevant to the page that have been made over and over again, rather than trying to shift ground to random suggestions from an anonymous editor that are not relevant to the dispute. I am not going to repeat myself again -- your arguments have been buried in a mountain of evidence that suggests (1) Plame was undercover, (2) your changes are unwarranted. I don't see anything below refuting the evidence on this at all. I have no objection to adding cites to true statements (as he calls for below) nor do I have objections to many of the recommended changes -- but these are not the changes you have been forcing down everyone's throat here, so I'm not sure how it is relevant. I also don't object to quoting people who say they think she wasn't covert - I have not complained about that at all, and I do not remove legitimate sourced claims like you do. But I do object to you removing the responses to those claims from more credible sources. This whole thing is a smokescreen and you know it.-csloat 04:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"But I do object to you removing the responses to those claims from more credible sources." -- csloat. With all due respect, credibility determinations on this controversial issue should emphatically be left to the competence of the reader, not the editor. Present both sides of the issue and let the reader decide. (NB newbie editor here -- here is my IP: 63.229.212.32)
You can sign with four tildes in a row. I am not saying anything different than you are, NB -- as I said, I do not object to quoting these sources. I do object to the continual removal by galt of legitimate sources. That is what this dispute is about, not about who should determine what is credible. Readers can quickly see who is credible when the evidence is presented fairly.--csloat 06:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The column[34], by conservative pundit Novak, was published eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, in a New York Times op-ed [35], criticized the George W. Bush administration's use of "unreliable" "yellowcake" documents as part of its rationale for the Iraq War. Some discussion should be included as to whether the Bush Administration did in fact rely on these yellow cake forgeries. A good dicussion could appears here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Report

"Wilson claimed that Novak had conspired with Bush administration sources to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism. It is a federal crime for anyone with authorized knowledge of the identity of an active or recently active undercover CIA operative to knowingly divulge it to persons not otherwise authorized to know it."

Although most certainly a true statement, this assertion should have a cite.

"While Fitzgerald is bound by grand jury secrecy rules from disclosing that more indictments are planned,"

"[T]hat more indictments are planned," should be changed to "whether more indictments are planned" for a NPOV.

"The Plame Affair includes the subsequent Special Counsel investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the actions of Bush administration officials — including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Ari Fleischer, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney[3] and unknown others, including CIA officials — regarding their knowledge of the leak of Plame's identity."

Was the special counsel charged with investigating the "actions" of Bush Administration officials, or their knowledge of the leak of Plame's indentity? Or Both? Perhaps the language should be simplified with a cite to the actual document delegating investigative authority to Mr. Fitzgerald. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf This document states that Acting Attorney General delegated the authority to investigate the "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's indentity... ."

Note [5] does not support the contention that "some beleive that [Fitzgerald's] remarks might indicate that [further indictments] are unlikely. Note [5] links to a transcript of Fitzgerald's October 28, 2005 presser.

"Valerie Plame has been a CIA employee for 20 years."

Cite should be provided.

"Oddly enough the French had warned the Bush administration, a year before the State of the Union, that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.[12]"

The phrase "oddly enough" is not NPOV and should be removed. The reader should be left to decide if it is odd. Also, note [12] leads to a document no longer available.

"But current critics say the French were denying the evidence because of their involvement in the Oil For Food Scandal."

This assertion needs a cite and at least some of the "current critics" need to be named. This is an example of "Generalization in the use of weasel words."

"Wilson's central claim was that several reports and investigations were done on Niger, among them his own on a journey in 2002, and all found the claims from President George Bush about a contact between Iraq and Niger to be unsubstantiated. He claimed the information given by the American government before the Iraq war was based on deceptions and false information."

In Wilson's July 6, 2003 article, he did not claim that "several reports and investigations were done on Niger, among them his own on a journey in 2002, and all found the claims from President George Bush about a contact between Iraq and Niger to be unsubstantiated." His article focused on his own investigation. Without other documentary support, this characterization of Wilson's "central claim" constitutes original research and should be removed.

"Although Wilson wrote that he was certain his findings were circulated within the CIA and conveyed (at least orally) to the office of the Vice President,"

Wilson's exact words are avaibale. Should they not be used? Here they are: "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."

Frankly, that article is rife with subtle phrasing, weasel words, dead links, redundancies, and is written from a left of center point of view. It also contains some very good analysis.

There has got to be some way for you and csloat to agree to disagree and work together to improve this article. Csloat has got to concede the point that sufficient uncertainty exists as to Plame's true covert status. For this article to be NPOV, some mention that legitimate questions as to the degree of her covert status remain. The perspective that she had some "undercover" status is also legitimate. Include both perspectives with good sources, and let the reader decide. - 63.229.212.32

This take provides a fresh perspective that could help us reach some middle ground. (and, no, I didn't write it.) Why don't both editors weigh in on each issue?--Ombudsperson 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Fresh perspective is good - however it's not true that there is real uncertainty regarding Plame's covert status. The argument began with the 'any agent driving by the CIA gates cannot be undercover' and moved to 'prove she traveled overseas in the past 5 years'. The issue behind that argument is not truth, it's an attempt to minimize the real impact of this leak by alleging that announcing this agent's name and CIA employment wasn't a leak of a 'covert agent'. Of course, it was. The case would not have been investigated by CIA, referred to Justice and prosecuted if it were not. The only uncertainty is that introduced by what has been shown to be a baseless GOP talking point. Whether Plame was covert under IIPA or merely 'classified' does not change the fact that her classified CIA identity was leaked. As Fitzgerald (the man prosecuting the leak) himself factually illustrated:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
"Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
"The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
"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." [36]
If we can use this fresh perspective to focus on the facts, not 'balance' the issue with a 'he-said, she-said' POV tennis match, I'll be well pleased. A discussion of whether the leakers can be brought up under the IIPA is a valid point for the article to address - but introducing doubt as to whether the leak was a crime or not on the basis of Plame's covert status is NOT factual.
Hopefully, a willingness for all the editors to focus on the facts will allow the articles frozen by Galt's unfounded mass reversion to be unprotected. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to refresh my recollection, the evidence that Plam was "covert" is (1) that her CIA employment status was classified; and (2) that the CIA made a criminal referral, right? IMHO, that's evidence on one side, but doesn't settle the issue - it's necessary to make an inference that the CIA (i) examined the question of whether Plame qualified as legally covert under relevant statues and (ii) the CIA was right. I have as much faith in secretive bureaucracies as the next guy, but I don't think the question has been conclusively resolved. I would recommend starting a whole new page for discussion of Plame's covert status (if there isn't one already) and linking it to short neutral paragraphs discussing the dispute on both the Plame Affair and Valerie Plame pages. That would let us discuss the issue, both factually and legally, without the tennis match effect. TheronJ 14:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether Plame met the standard of a 'covert agent' under the IIPA or not, the CIA investigated the leak of a classified CIA agent's identity, and referred it for investigation and prosecution. The issue of whether Plame was 'covert' under IIPA or not only speaks to whether the leakers can be charged with treason, not whether they can be charged with a crime. The talking point blurs that line, and seeks to conflate the criminality of the leak with the technicality as to which statute the leak could be brought under (and the potential charge). That's the deception. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there must be a way to explain (1) the dispute over whether Plame was covert under the IIPA, (2) the dispute about the degree to which her identity was actually held secret and (3) the dispute about the harm done by her exposure clearly and fairly. It's fairly irrelevant whether anything is a "talking point" - the only question is the evidence. (Side comment - I don't even know what a "talking point" is in this context - can't talking points be true or false, depending on the evidence?) Thanks, TheronJ 14:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely with your points 1., 2., and 3. In this context 'talking point' refers to a message that's delivered repeatedly and by a wide number of affiliated individuals in order to drill it into the public consciousness. When such messages are not factual, they are often decried as 'talking points'. In this case, the 'talking point' has been 'Plame was not covert, so no crime was committed'. Both sides of that assertion are untrue statements, and that's the kind of deception that we must avoid reinforcing in Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Ryan here, and I want to add a couple things -- (1) Theron is incorrect about the point that the only evidence is the CIA referral. We have the accounts of reporters based on interviews with current and former intelligence officials. This includes the Newsday article as well as many others that Mr galt has yet to address. We also have all of the evidence that she was specifically operating under non-official cover (NOC) status -- please see the debate over at Template talk:Plamefull where I brought up more information including articles by NYT and Time magazine that investigated and reported her status. The only response the "talking points" have to this is that Plame drove to work - a point which is totally irrelevant in context. One can drive to work every day and still be operating undercover, as numerous former CIA agents confirmed at the hearing in July of 05. None of the people repeating the talking points have ever specifically addressed the claim that she was a NOC. In sum, there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that she was covert, and the only thing suggesting she wasn't are some repeated talking points by people who frankly seem not to know what they are talking about. (2) Theron is also incorrect that we have to wonder whether the CIA got this right -- it is not a question for them to investigate facts about; it is a question of designation and it is their call to make the designation! In other words, if the CIA says she is covert, she is covert -- unless they blatantly misread her file or something else highly unlikely, there is no way for them to get it "wrong," since it is their call from the beginning. It is not the Justice Dept's call or anyone else's. It's like your employer getting your job title wrong -- they're the ones who gave it to you in the first place. Now -- whether this means the IIPA definition of covert was satisfied is another question. I have never objected to including such speculation on this page, but as Ryan correctly I think points out, we should not blur the line here.--csloat 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There is really no debate that Plame was, at one time, NOC. She was. That really is beyond any reasonable dispute, in my humble opinion. The real issue is whether she was NOC at the time of the nascent 2003 Novak column. More precisely, the issue is whether she was undercover and, if so, to what degree damage was caused and what was done to prevent that damage. It is through this lens that the "Plame Affair" derives a lot of its meaning. Was this a case where her indentity was leaked for retaliatory purposes and great damage to national security ensued due to her outing? Or was this a case of a highly politicized affair where in actuality no meaningful cover, if any, was blown, no meaningful attempt was made to prevent that cover being blown, and no damage to national security ensued.
This admittedly somewhat crude dichotomy, in my respectful opinion, constitutes the core of the Plame Affair. I think that if one side concedes that Plame was, in fact, NOC and undercover at one time and if the other side concedes that Plame may have had no meaningful cover at the time of the Novak column, we can reach a compromise. 63.229.212.32 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a misframing (intentional?) of the issue. If she was still 'covert' as per the IIPA at the time Novak outed her (as a vast preponderance of evidence suggests) or if she was merely 'classified' in general (having not traveled overseas in the prior 5 years), the leak of her identity was a crime. The CIA confirmed it, and the DoJ is investigating it. There is NO concession that 'Plame may have had no meaningful cover at the time of the Novak column'... because it's patently untrue, and unsupported by the available evidence. That argument has only been made in 'talking points', without any substantiation.
Likewise, there are nearly a dozen citations of well-established media and government sources stating her cover was 'classified' or 'covert', and that that cover was blown by Novak. Accordingly, whether the leakers can be charged with treason (or executed) under the IIPA or whether the crime is not punishable under the IIPA is the only point at issue regarding Plame's covert status. Insistence she was not 'covert' is simply unjustified by the available evidence - bearing in mind that covert assignments (even ones which are blown) are not discussed until they are declassified, and finding definitive evidence (like her CIA assignment list or travel itinerary) will be very difficult until such time as her NOC status is declassified. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon agrees with Mr j galt

Looks like we definitely should handle the ongoing controversy about her covert status, in an appropriate and factual way, along political lines. There have been many individuals in this case but James Guckert, the former male prostitute who, as 'Jeff Gannon' had 2 years of day passes into the Washington press pool and who had such controversial access to the Plame memo, is a core figure AND also stridently believes Plame was not covert and is repeating that assertion today on his blog (without any evidence, however).

The media is getting just what it wanted: a Bush administration official on trial in the Valerie Plame affair. But as the old axiom warns: "Be careful what you wish for."
As I have been saying for some time now, journalists will be called to testify - and without ANY protection - about what they knew about Valerie Plame and when they knew it. Plame was NOT covert, no matter what the CIA says. More than a dozen journalists in Washington knew she worked at the agency long before Robert Novak published his column. Each of them will have the opportunity to confirm that UNDER OATH in the very near future.
Bob Woodward didn't come forward out of conscience. He was tipped off that he would be on the witness list. Ohter journalists who didn't come forward have yet to face what will surely demonstrate that the entire mess is a liberal media generated phony scandal.
If you recall, I was the first reporter to confront Joe Wilson about the memo that proved he was less than honest about how he came to be chosen for the mission to Niger.
I'm ready to testify - in fact - I'm looking forward to it. [37]
LOL... I'm looking forward to that too; as if this thing isn't enough of a circus as it is. Gannon, of course, has been spreading a lot of this dirt from the beginning. It will be interesting to see how much he's willing to say under oath. Does he claim to have known Plame's identity before Novak outed her? Anyway I think you're right, this section should be about the politics of it, as there is no question this viewpoint is being put out there prominently, and it's being put out there for a reason.--csloat 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The contention that Guckert had access to the INR memo was soundly debunked about a year ago. Lefty Blog Debunks Righty Blog Debunks. The story was a dead end. 63.229.212.32 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff - The Wall Street Journal article was October 17, 2003 and the Wilson/Gannon interview in which Wilson was asked about the memo was October 28, 2003. The Washington Post article that made the false connection is here. Thanks anon! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Fitzgerald Agrees with Mr_j_galt

There are a large number of journalists, commentators, and politicians that say Plame was not covert, but Ryan Freisling and Csloat only want to cite a homosexual prostitute masquarading as a reporter! LOL! I guess that is also part of the Democratic talking points along with the covert/NOC nonsense! Bottom line, the guy who would know, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was asked if Plame was covert and he responded: "Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."--Mr j galt 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As you can plainly read in those very lines, Fitzgerald is not making the allegation. He's investigating the crime - the leak of her classified identity in July 2003. Claiming his comments corroborate your opinion (that Plame was not covert) is again factually incorrect and baseless. In this statement, made when Fitzgerald indicted Libby, Fitzgerald is saying that he is not asserting whether Plame was or was not covert. He is only saying he's not charging Libby with a violation of the IIPA. He is most assuredly not asserting Plame was not covert. To confuse this is a logical fallacy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We are still waiting on Csloat's response to the anon's blueprint for fixing this articleTalk:Plame_affair#Tip_of_the_Iceberg_and_some_suggestions. I am certainly willing to address those points if Csloat is.--Mr j galt 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not still waiting, we're dealing with one thing at a time, as you should. Introducing a raft of 'anonymously submitted' issues for editing is not the solution to unprotecting the page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If it breaks the stalemate here, what difference does it make if the draft of issues was written by an anonymous editor? And why would you want to disparage a new user who wishes to remain anonymous? Which reminds me, we are also still waiting on a citation for Ryan Freisling's claim on the Talk:Valerie_Plame page that Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years." --Mr j galt 04:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As we've said before, they're not breaking any stalemate, they're new issues. We're trying to resolve the issues that caused the page to be put in protection, remember? Of course, the details of whether Plame traveled overseas or not as a NOC officer are classified. I have not asserted she did so, I have stated the preponderance of evidence indicates she did so (as MSNBC and Media Matters, as well as others have stated. I've provided multiple cites. Below are a few more. Eyes on the ball, please. Back to the facts and logic, not confusion and conflation and misattribution of comments to individuals who didn't make them. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
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. (Dec. 9 2005) MSNBC
She may well have done so, but there is no reference here to traveling overseas "on assignment" while on her desk job and no reference to the "past 5 years" - which was your claim.--Mr j galt 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have said nearly a dozen times now, I made no such claim. You are now being aggressively repetitive with this insistence, and intentionally misleading. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas. (Oct. 8, 2003) WAPO
Again, no reference to traveling overseas "on assignment" while on her desk job and no reference to the "past 5 years." (There appears to be a pattern developing here.)--Mr j galt 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly, the citation doesn't prove she traveled on classified business in the last 5 years. It is an indication that she may have. Stop avoiding the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fast forward to 2003: Valerie Plame is married to Joe Wilson (the former ambassador’s tales of diplomatic exploits checked out), and they are the parents of 3-year-old twins.
Known by her married name, she lives a relatively quiet life in an upscale Washington neighborhood, helps run a support network for women suffering from postpartum depression and professes to work for a Boston-based energy consulting firm.
In truth, she is a covert operative for the CIA and a specialist in weapons of mass destruction, a fact unknown even to close friends and neighbors. MSNBC
Where is the reference to traveling? You claimed that Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years."[38] I hope that wasn't original research which is prohibited by wikipedia.--Mr j galt 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Now you're not making sense. This citation uses the specific language 'covert'. Is your obtuseness intentional? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In the summer of 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department -- acting on a request from the CIA -- agreed to launch a probe of the leak because the department agreed with the CIA's argument that Plame's status, as an NOC staffer, had been classified.
{...} (At the CIA, she was an NOC - "nonofficial cover" - sifting information on weapons of mass destruction. She worked with a front group, set up by the CIA, to make it appear that she was an energy analyst.) Philadelphia Enquirer
This is the last one. Again no mention that Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years." I think you may have forgotten the question. Ryan, if you made a mistake and created some original research by accident, that's cool. Just own up to it. Otherwise, I will keep waiting on the citation. Thanks.--Mr j galt 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you're attributing something to me I did not say, and you're being very insistent and trollish about it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, you said it 2 days ago when you wrote, "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."[39] As anyone can plainly see, you wrote it, but there is NO EVIDENCE to support that statement.--Mr j galt 12:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I stand by the statement "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." and have provided a dozen citations to back up the statement that it certainly appears that way. I did not state 'Plame traveled overseas in the past 5 years'. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of making your argument, preferring instead to distract and misquote mine. A dozen citations. A dozen. Citations. 'on the face of the evidence'. I stand by it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr j galt is moving the goalpost yet again. By changing your assertions and not answering the initial ones, with sources, why your position is correct you clearly are not interested in finding a solution. Why are you ignoring the numerous citations offered?--Nomen Nescio 05:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

who is john galt?

Mr galt, enough with the obfuscation. At issue in terms of the protected version of this page are the items spelled out above this nonsense. I did respond to the anon, as you know, and I said I did not have a problem with many of his/her suggestions. But they have nothing to do with the protection on this page, which is due to your insistence on relentlessly reverting to an inferior and inaccurate version. Given that you've ignored the substantive arguments and evidence refuting your version of the page, I assume you have conceded these arguments, meaning you accept the page version as it is and will stop reverting. If you have not, please let us know which changes you still think you will revert. We have pretty clearly substantiated the NOC issue with a mountain of evidence and you have produced nothing - not a single quotation from anywhere - directly addressing that point. Instead you keep falling back on Fitzgerald explicitly telling us what he is not addressing, and you take it as evidence of him addressing that point -- in your favor, natch. This is beyond a mere content dispute; I'm not sure how many different ways we can go over this point.--csloat 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Former Justice Department attorney Lee Casey says Plame was not a covert agent and therefore, no crime was committed. Contrary Source 1.
You conveniently omitted the prior paragraphs, which (uncharacteristically for Fox News), state the following facts -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
CIA sources say Plame was undercover as defined by the IIPA, though some others in the intelligence community have questioned how she could have fallen under the legal definition of "undercover officer" since she was on desk duty at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., for such a long period of time, qualifying her as having "non-official cover" status.
It's not clear whether Rove knew whether Plame was undercover and deliberately revealed it, which would rise to the level of a crime. Regardless, some within the intelligence community say they believe some of Plame's contacts have been permanently compromised and may have been exposed to grave danger as a result of her name being released.
Plame was not a "covert" agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters. Contrary Source 2
Victoria Toensing (the same writer as another source, below). She has been demonstrated to have passed numerous falsehoods in the interests of minimizing perceived damage on this case. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Her POV can be included on, but certainly not relied upon as objective fact. Quite frankly, she's a demonstrated liar and administration 'shill'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an op-ed by a couple of lawyers with no experience in intelligence and with close ties to the Bush Administration (one of them is Lee Casey, the same source you cite for #1). They make the same claim that she is a "bureaucrat" without ever realizing that one can be working a desk job and still be a covert agent. There are plenty of people employed overtly by the CIA; if Plame was one of them, we could look up her name in 2002 and you would have seen that she worked at the CIA, not "Brewster-Jennings." These guys are out of it, but the point is not to nitpick the evidence with my or someone else's analysis -- go ahead and put a quote from this in if you want, and we will put in the response from Johnson and others that point out that this is an obfuscation, that a "desk jockey" job is not inconsistent with that of a NOC.-csloat 07:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert." Contrary Source 3.
While of course there is a question (whose solution can only be definitively shown by releasing classified data), the rest of that post is not accurate - 'no-no for a person with a need for cover' - that has been roundly debunked. Also, the IIPA does not require 'permanent assignment'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
First, only the CIA decides what it means to be assigned to covert work outside the US; it doesn't matter if Victoria Toensig thinks "jetting" to Taipei doesn't count; what matters is what the CIA thinks. This entire piece shows how ignorant the authors are of covert work. It's not different from an undercover cop in this sense - many cops work desk jobs at the station and then do undercover work. Imagine a cop putting himself in harm's way day after day working undercover, then being told by the likes of Victoria Toensing that he's not a "real" undercover cop because he's got a desk at the precinct. What a crock! In any case she totally misinterprets the law that she helped write here -- the law does not say that covert status requires "permanent assignment in a foreign country" -- who does she think she's kidding? Finally, while her IIPA status may be an interesting nitpick, it is only that; it is not the crux of the issue (as you and galt both keep arguing in very similar terms and never at the same time.... ) You are nitpicking over how severe the exposure of a covert agent was, not whether a covert agent was exposed, and your arguments keep changing around this point.--csloat 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In a surprise, closed-door debate, Senate Democrats last week demanded an investigation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. Here's an issue for them: Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was "covert," or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode. It was, after all, the CIA that requested the "leak" investigation, alleging that one of its agents had been outed in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Yet it was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling. Contrary Cource 4.
Victoria Toensing, as mentioned above, (a Republican lawyer, friend of Novak and co-author of the IIPA), has argued previously that Novak outed Plame because he wanted to "expose wrongdoing" and has consistently gone on the record with misstatements, attempting to minimize the impact of this case. Her POV is welcome, but must be seen in that light. [45]
This piece does not say she was not covert; it just blames the CIA for poor procedures here. That may be true but does not deny in the least the fact that an undercover agent was exposed.csloat 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities. Contrary Souce 5.
This is not a contrary source. This merely repeats the requirement for IIPA (the specific law the speaker is referring to), not the burden of proof for a crime. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
if she travelled abroad on work she is protected by the law. Read the IIPA yourself. Also, that question is interesting but beside the point as I mentioned above.-csloat 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
We can trade contrary articles around forever. We can attack the credibility of our respective articles. You can say that a lot of my sources are either anonymously sourced or derisively refer to them as "talking points". I can claim that a lot your sources are anonymously sourced (e.g., the Timothy Phelps article) or are sourced by Larry C. Johnson, Ray McGovern, or some other member of VIPS an organization advocating the unlawful leaking of classified information.
'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity'? Sounds a lot like 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'. That article cites former CIA agents who did not have direct knowledge of Plame's career and assignments, as Larry Johnson has himself claimed to possess (having been in Plame's entering class) - and while an interesting article, in my opinion this 'source', an organization of VIPS is not nearly so informed on the subject of Plame's actual status when her cover was blown by Novak in July 2003.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As for VIPS, that's interesting, and I can raise a lot of points in their defense -- after all, they are commenting not on leaking classified information but on exposing information about illegal activity on the part of members of the Administration -- a very different thing, as the law properly recognizes. I have offered multiple sources, as has Ryan, and I think you know that the real issue is this: my main source is the CIA itself, who is the only authority that can answer this question one way or another. And they have.-csloat 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
But the fact of the matter is that on controversial subjects, it is important to recognize that what we beleive in maybe wrong. Otherwise we're going to tbe chasing our tails forever. If we can't accept that, we come dangerously, if not fatally, close to being permanetly locked into a non NPOV perspective, like this one: (There is NO concession that 'Plame may have had no meaningful cover at the time of the Novak column'... because it's patently untrue, and unsupported by the available evidence.)
There is no concession that Plame may have had no meaningful cover. Her cover was classified. Fitzgerald and the CIA both stated so, unequivocally. Can you demonstrate that she had no 'meaningful' cover, objectively? It's hard to prove a negative - but even so, there doesn't even seem to be an objective meaning to your phrase 'meaningful cover'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That being said, I think this article has a lot of potential. There is already a lot of balance contained in it, including a pretty decent balance as to Plame's status. So I am a bit surprised that the thread got locked because the editors can't agree on this issue.
You shouldn't be surprised. The article was protected because Mr. j galt consistently introduced false information, and would not work constructively, instead blanking and reverting his edits back until the page progress crept to a halt. The reason the article is so good is because other editors have been able to work their agreements out without disrespecting one another. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
But this article also needs a lot of work. The first thing I would I suggest is a full source audit. I see a lot of blogs being used as sources, (e.g., http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/is_max_boot_usi.html Blog not subject to peer review, self published, no legal department]), there are several dead links, possible copyright violations: (e.g., The following text appears under "CIA CONSPIRACY": "The suggestion of a plot by CIA officers is countered by an explosive series of articles in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica. Investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15, 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax." This is similar to this statement appearing here: In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15, 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax. (I permission has already been obtained, then good).
You are aware that's a blog post by Larry Johnson himself, not just some third party blog - and therefore is a more valid source for Johnson's POV than some random blog, correct? The point of your including that cite here, however, escapes me still. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's all for now. I have more to say, but I am running out of time. 63.229.212.32 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Error regarding the confidentiality agreement

The article currently reads:

Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium. [218] Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement with the CIA since he is not an employee of the CIA. Such a confidentiality agreement is standard practice should anyone be a CIA employee. In addition, if any CIA employee publishes information on a classified trip, it would be illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from leaking classified information through their spouses. [219]

This is not correct. A confidentiality agreement is required for non-CIA employees who are on a specific assignment. CIA employees are governed by the law that prevents CIA employees from publishing classified information. Wilson has described the trip as "discreet" but not "classified." The question is why? The report being investigated was classified. Why should the CIA treat the investigation of the report in a non-classified manner? In any case, the article as stated is incorrect. CIA employees do not sign confidentiality agreements, non-employees do. RonCram 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, and thank you for pointing that out. It raises several questions. 1 Are you saying that CIA employees are not required to keep information secret? 2 Do you have a source supporting your suggestion that non-CIA employees need to sign an agreement? 3 Do you have a source that knows whether or not, and why, Wilson signed such a statement, if assertion 2 is correct?--Nomen Nescio 19:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course CIA employees are required to keep information secret. That is the point I made above. CIA employees are bound by statute not to disclose secrets. Non-employees are required to sign confidentiality agreements. You asked for a source. Visit CIA leak chimera In the article, Joseph diGenova states the CIA had to answer 11 questions to the Justice Department about the steps they took to keep Plame's identity secret. He says the information the CIA provided was "materially false." Read this quote carefully:
In addition, he pointed out that the CIA paid for Wilson’s trip, didn’t ask him to sign a confidentiality agreement, didn’t object to his writing the op-ed article in the Times and allowed him to conduct TV interviews and to appear in a photo with his wife in Vanity Fair, he noted.
I hope this was helpful. RonCram 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That article, besides being written by the husband of Victoria Toensing, who is known to have systematically lied about this case, says he thinks the CIA lied to the Justice Department on their response to the questions that must be answered for an investigation into the IIPA. He doesn't say which questions he thinks they lied about and he doesn't offer any evidence to back up this charge. If the CIA lied on that form, it is likely a federal crime, and I'm sure we will see the investigators unearth such lies. The fact is, this is just an assertion by a known hack. He also never states that the CIA requires non-employees to sign anything, which was the substance of this argument to begin with. But simply whining that the CIA is lying does not hold any water here.--csloat 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You agree employees are forbidden to disclose information. This must mean they have signed an agreement. Otherwise nothing can bind them. Second, you state the information the CIA provided was "materially false." In effect, this means everybody tells the truth, except the CIA, they are lying. I hope you understand this is ridiculous. The CIA is lying! Yeah, right. What do you think of this one. Jack Nicholson says he is an actor, but my sources tell me that this information is "materially false."--Nomen Nescio 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not understand. Let me clarify. CIA employees are required to sign an employment agreement. The agreement spells out the provisions and the penalties of the federal statute that prevents CIA employees from discosing secrets. These penalties include federal prison time. If an employment agreement was never signed or was lost, the CIA employee would still be subject to the federal law and possible prison time. Non-CIA employees are not subject to the federal law. They are required to sign confidentiality agreements that may subject them to criminal or civil penalties, depending on how it is written. Regarding CIA making "materially false" statements, it was news to me the CIA had to make representations about the steps they took to keep Plame's identity secret. Her employment was known by many people, so DiGenova's statement appears to be accurate. Regarding your Nicholson example, anyone saying that would not understand the legal term "materially false." For the sentence to make any sense at all, it would have to occur in the context of a legal proceeding. A "material statement" is one that is essential to the case. However, a "materially false" statement is not necessarily a lie or perjury. For the statement to be perjury, the person making the statement would have to know it was untrue at the time. I hope this helps. RonCram 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a source for your claim that non-employees are required to provide confidentiality agreements. Let's also have the evidence that this trip was classified -- that is simply not clear to me in anything here. There is no real relationship between Plame's exposure and this trip until after the trip, so the writer is simply wrong that the lack of such agreement (assuming it were actually required) invalidates the investigation -- the one has no impact on the other. Perhaps Wilson committed a crime by not signing something but that is a totally independent investigation, I would think. Also, your statement that "her employment was known by many people" is flat out false. The FBI investigated this, as did several newspapers, and found that none of the Wilsons' friends and neighbors and relatives knew anything about her employment. The only people claiming to have known beforehand have changed their stories (e.g. Vallely, McInerny) or are just flat out not credible. If anyone had such knowledge and instead of going to the FBI with it, waited instead to spout it on a right wing talk show, they are guilty of obstruction of justice at the least. In any case, thanks for the language lesson, but the claim that the CIA statements are "materially false" is simply the belief of one hack; it is not substantiated in any material way.--csloat 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
csloat, I did provide the source that a confidentiality agreement is required, Joseph DiGenova. According to Wilson (if you read the article), the CIA took the position that his trip was "discreet" but "not classified." That is what people are upset about. How can the CIA treat an investigation into a classified report as "not classified?" The lack of a confidentiality agreement appears to foresee (and implicitly approve of) the trip becoming common knowledge. Wilson did not commit a crime by not signing something, the CIA failed in its duty. Plame's employment was known by many people. Several journalists and people around Washington have said they knew about it and learned it in a way that made them think it was common knowledge. Read the article. Wilson drove her own car to the CIA everyday. Langley is watched by every intelligence agency around. If her neighbors did not know she was CIA, the Russians, Israelis, Chinese and Saudis certainly did. The claim the CIA's statements are "materially false" is the belief of one man, an exceptionally good lawyer. He may be wrong, but he certainly has a point worth investigating. RonCram 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Aside from, yet again, failing to support your claims with sources, you reinsert this: "Plame's employment was known by many people." Evidently you have not read the Libby indictment, nor this article, which show that is incorrect. How surprisng, RonCram making statements that violate known facts.

Most interestingly, he still fails to explain how all the speculation (or should I say distraction?) in the world -who send Wilson, was Plame covert, yellowcake forgery, is there life on Mars- proofs Wilson was incorrect in stating the Bush administration had no evidence for their uranium claim.---Nomen Nescio 01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that you're not being intentionally obtuse so let me re-explain -- the investigation is into the leak of Plame's identity as a covert agent. It is not into the exposure of Wilson's trip, which may not be classified. I don't think anyone is upset about it but Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing. If the CIA failed in its duty to require Wilson to sign something, that is not relevant for this page, or at least not to the question of whether Plame should have been protected by the IIPA. But again you have not provided any proof that the CIA should have required Wilson to do anything except the speculation of a known hack who thinks they were making false claims (but who won't tell us what actual claims were false). I've already responded to the garbage about Plame's identity as a covert agent being known - it is BS. The FBI found no evidence of it, nor did the NYT. The people who claim they knew are making stuff up or they would have gone to the FBI themselves, and they wouldn't keep changing their story. Lots of covert agents drive to CIA every day when they are not on a covert mission. This is insulting - imagine an undercover cop being told that he was not really undercover because he went back to the station to fill out paperwork! I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Russians, Israelis, Chinese or Saudis knew Plame was an agent -- not a shred. The only people I've seen claiming that are retired Generals with an axe to grind and a theory of "mindwar." Perhaps he has a "point worth investigating" -- call a private investigator, or send a note to the FBI, or the NYT. But it's not the encyclopedia's job to investigate it.--csloat 01:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Observing that Wilson did not execute a formal security agreement is very relevant to the Plamegate and should be part of this page. It is directly relevant to to whether Plame should be afforded IIPA protection and that is a core issue of the Plame Affair.
For IIPA protection to apply it must be proven that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." 50 USC 421 Although charged with the primary duty of taking the affirmative measures to conceal thier relationship with agents sensitive to national security, the CIA failed to secure a routine formal security agreement from the husband of such an agent, then hired him, a man with no intelligence gathering experience, to investigate classified information, circulated around him a classified report containing that information, allowed him to talk to the press and then write all about his CIA work in an artcile criticizing a sitting president in a time of war published in one of the most widely read and influential editorial pages in the world. Whatever it was that this sloppy spy-craft was meant to accomplish, it most certainly was not calculated to conceal Plame's affiliation with the CIA. Quite the contrary. It appears that it was carried out with complete disregard to this affiliation. Allowing Plame to drive back and forth from Langley is also not confidence inspiring. Observing that the CIA routinely allows other agents to daily drive back and forth from the the headquarters of the largest spy organization in the world is not exculpatory. Quite the contrary. It is damning evidence that the CIA is failing in the duty imposed upon it by the IIPA to protect its agents.
Revealing the idendity of agents sensitve to national security is a terrible thing. A lot of blood and treasure is expended to build spy networks, and they are delicate. The government has wisely criminalized it with a law imposing a penalty that denies the offfender of his or her liberty for up to ten years. Plus a hefty fine. But before it can impose this ruinous sentence, it must first demonstrate that it too has fulfilled its primary duty to protect the agents. That's only fair.
The CIA is rich, but it is not infinately wealthy. It also has limited manpower. Time is a natural limitation. It is rational to assume that it expends its wealth, manpower, and time on its agents commensurate to their sensitivity to national security. Therefore, noting everything the governemt did and did not do in concealing its relationship with Plame is not only relevant relevant to the applicability of the IIPA; it is relevant to answering the question about just how sensitve to national security she really was.Evensong 18:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's try again. The IIPA concerns the leaking of Plame's identity. Not of Wilson's trip, which it's not even clear was classified. So whether or not you are correct about Wilson needing to sign something is irrelevant to whether Plame's identity was protected. Totally, utterly irrelevant. You are just trying to confuse the issue with this? You call it "sloppy spycraft" which may or may not be true but is irrelevant; you say it "was not calculated to conceal Plame's affiliation" but that's because it had nothing to do with Plame's affiliation. It certainly did not expose her affiliation! I am sure the CIA does many things that are not "calculated to conceal Plame's affiliation." That does not mean they are calculated to do the opposite. Imagine how long the article would be if we included everything the CIA did that did not help protect Plame!
Again your point about her driving to the office has been refuted over and over and over and over. I feel like a broken record. This is what many covert agents do when they're not on assignment elsewhere. The CIA satisfied its obligation re:IIPA to protect her identity by giving her a front company and a false identity. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and we still don't know what the law will conclude on this, so I'm not objecting to quotes about her driving to work being included here. I know those of you who are determined to defame the Wilsons will insist on it; my only insistence is that such claims be balanced with the refutation provided by former CIA agents who confirm that driving to work is as normal for an undercover CIA agent as it is for an undercover cop.--csloat 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
We are going to have to agree to disagree and let both perspectives in. I don't see any other way to get the page unlocked. Evensong 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This page was locked because Mr galt would not allow both perspectives in. It is really up to him to agree to behave for us to get the page unlocked. I have been advocating this the entire time -- I disagree with this information but I do not object to its inclusion on the page and I never have. Take a look at the edit history leading up to the page protection -- it is the same story on Valerie Plame and on Larry C. Johnson. Galt has been advocating the removal of relevant, sourced information about these points. As I said just above, all I am asking is that such claims as these be balanced by the opinions of experts with more knowledge on the topic explaining why these claims are false. (As the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, the remedy for false speech is not censorship but more speech).--csloat 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's not create revisionist history. In fact, the record shows that Csloat repeatedly removed relevant information in wiki articles that could possibly paint Plame, Wilson, John Kerry, and, especially, Larry C. Johnson in a negative light. Every attempt I have made to create balance in this article was reverted by Csloat and company.--Mr j galt 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The record regarding csloat's accuracy and ongoing civility is indeed clear. As is yours. Stop making personal attacks (unfounded in actual events or otherwise) and contribute constructively towards resolving the issues you raised in your attempt to bring 'balance'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL.... this is the first time I've been accused of trying to paint John Kerry in a positive light. I want to add that I've been inserting things that put Johnson in a negative light -- i.e. the fact that he's a registered Republican :) But as you are well aware, I have not been deleting relevant information - I have been inserting more information, which you have been deleting -- a simple glance at the history of the edit war demonstrates that.--csloat 21:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Csloat has repeatedly deleted any information that may reflect poorly on Plame, Wilson, Johnson, Kerry, etc. For example, in this article he removed the section that stated Kerry had previously outed a CIA agent, but left the section that said Kerry called for an investigation in the Plame matter.[46] Readers should have all of the information about Kerry and CIA disclosures, not just those that reflect positively on him. People who have any doubts about Csloat's POV can review his blog at http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 Csloat says here that Johnson's status as a Republican is negative, but he suggests in his blog that Wilson's Republican affiliation is positive because it takes "the p#ss out of the Bush Administration's talking points." [47] POV pushers are ruining wikipedia and I wish they would just cut it out. If you have strong views on political material, you shouldn't be editing wiki articles on those subjects.--Mr j galt 03:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted that one line because it is not relevant to this page. Put it on the Kerry page, I promise I won't touch it :) Believe me, I have very little reason to defend Kerry. I explained that edit above, and you did not respond, indicating you either agree with my explanation, or you are simply unable to think of a reason I might be incorrect, so it's a little disingenuous to bring it up now.
This is like the sixth time you've mentioned my blog as if it were relevant to anything we were discussing. I'm sure people can find my blog by looking at my user page if they really care. If you read the sentence you are quoting, what I said "takes the piss out of" the Bush administration's talking points is the fact that former CIA agents are calling him on his bullshit -- not that Johnson is a Republican. Besides, my comment above about it was a joke, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. As for people with strong views not editing wikipedia, please take your own advice, or leave that argument alone.--csloat 06:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The error has not been corrected. Under the CIA Conspiracy section, the article reads as follows:

Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement with the CIA since he is not an employee of the CIA. Such a confidentiality agreement is standard practice should anyone be a CIA employee.

This is simply incorrect. CIA employees are bound to secrecy by federal statute. Only non-CIA employees on a specific assignment are required to sign. This is an important issue that is being purposely obscured by the "Hate Bush" crowd so popular among wikipedia editors. The CIA should have required a confidentiality agreement and did not. In addition, it appears the CIA has lied to the Justice Department in order to get a special prosecutor involved. [48] The article needs to be unlocked long enough for this error to be corrected. RonCram 18:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to you that the CIA lied to the Justice Department to start a bogus investigation? Talk about original research. It's original anyway, LOL. Back here on earth, the CIA likely recognizes that such a lie would be easily caught and that heads would roll for such a thing. It is also likely that the CIA's job is actually protecting the country rather than starting phony criminal investigations in order to appease the "hate-Bush" crowd on wikipedia. You haven't made clear what any of this has to do with the Plame affair.--csloat 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reactions of Former CIA Agents

I have some suggestions for improving this section.

On 20 July 2005, eleven former CIA officers backed Valerie Plame in a three page statement and characterized the leak of her identity as damaging "national security and threaten[ing] the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering." [151]
"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the eleven said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

The CIA agents are not named in the article. I suggest that some effort be made to find an alternative source naming the 11 CIA officers and to find the three page statement. Since the article does not specify the date of the 11 CIA officer's backing of Plame, it may be more accurate to say that, "On 10 July 2005, it was reported that eleven former CIA officers... ."

Former DCI George Tenet told a Senator that he was "furious" with the Bush Administration about the leak in 2003.[152]

Unfortunately, this link leads to a page announcing that the article is no longer available. My search for an alternative source has lead to sources stating that Sen. Shumer claimed that Tenet him he was furious with the Bush Administration. Either a source directly quoting Tenet should be found, or a source quoting Shumer's claim should be found and made more clear that it is a claim of the Senator's.

And Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA colleague of Plame's in the late 1980's, heavily criticized the Bush Administration's handling of the leak: "This is wrong and this is shameful. Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson."[153]

Somewhere in the article it should be clearly noted that Larry C. Johnson is a member of VIPS, a left-wing advocacy group, which, among other things, advocates the disclosure of classified information for what they claim is "whistle-blowing".

I found this opinion regarding VIPS. Link

VIPS does not seem to have a website, but its email is vips@counterpunch.org, and their open letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch (run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open letter in opposition to the war at Common Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern's email is also at CounterPunch. He is giving a briefing today [Tuesday] with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He has charged that if WMDs are found in Iraq, they may well have been planted. He believes Tenet's job is safe because if Tenet were fired, he would reveal that the White House ignored intelligence warnings pre-9/11. McGovern has urged CIA analysts to illegally release classified documents to show what he believes to be true, specifically citing Daniel Ellsberg.
Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell.

None of this makes VIPS evil. But it is clear they are not neutral and are advocating a non-neutral leftist point of view. That fact needs to be made clear in this article.

On 22 July 2005, Johnson,[154] along with former CIA case officers David MacMichael and James Marcinkowski[155], former senior CIA analyst Mel Goodman, and retired Army colonel and DIA officer W. Patrick Lang,[156] testified at a Senate Hearing on the consequences of the leak.

It should noted that this was not precisely a "Senate Hearing," which would include both senate majority and minority participation. I can't find it in the congresional record. Link However, I do find it here. This Link. It should be precisely noted that this hearing was a Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing. Otherwise, the partisan nature of the hearing remains undisclosed to the reader.

It should be noted in the artcile that James Marcinkowski and David MacMichael are also members of the partisan advocacy group VIPS.

Fred Rustmann, a covert CIA agent from 1966 to 1990, was briefly a supervisor of Valerie Plame Wilson during her early career at the CIA, although he left the agency before she went undercover. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," he told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."[158] It is not clear how Mr. Rustmann, who left the Agency in 1990, would know this, since Plame is said to have gone undercover after 1990.[citation needed] And investigations by the FBI and by journalists revealed Rustmann's comments to be "baseless"; friends and neighbors of the Wilsons had no idea that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA before reading about it in Novak's column.[159][160] [161]

This paragraph is pretty inchoherent and seems to be the victim of an edit war.

There are some sources in this paragraph citing Media Matters. It should be noted in the artcile that Media Matters is a liberal group claiming to monitor, analyze and correct conservative misinformation in the media. Link That there is conservative bias in the media is POV, just as it is POV to claim that there is liberal bias. There are links on the linked Media Matters page which lead to more neutral sources. Those should be used, not Media Matters. There is nothing wrong with citing Media Matters as long as its partisan perspective is disclosed. Evensong 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your nitpicks about proper sourcing. The hearing was actually Senate and House democrats and that is already noted in the article elsewhere; this mention should be fixed too (it took place in the Senate which is why it is referred to that way). The VIPS stuff can go on a page about VIPS or a page about Larry C. Johnson but I don't see how it is relevant here, except to poison the well. If you think it should be inserted, then we also have to insert an explanation of what VIPS really is, rather than your ridiculously POV and misleading statement that they are a "leftist" group urging illegal activity. Such information does not belong on this page; it is totally tangential and the connection to the Plame affair is a form of original research. Same with your claims about Media Matters -- we can have a link to an article about Media Matters where their mission is explained, but I fail to see the need to explain their mission here, since they are just being cited to explain certain facts, not to expose "conservative bias" in the media. Shall we also identify Rove as a right wing hack for example, and insert "conservative" every time we cite a conservative source? Shall we mention every partisan group that Robert Novak belongs to? Or General Vallely? I think such qualifiers are sometimes relevant, but in the cases you point out here I fail to see their relevance, and it is pretty obvious this is just a naked attempt to poison the well. If you have evidence one of these people is lying because they are conservative (or liberal), then that may be relevant, or if they are clearly expressing a POV, but I don't think we need to include it in every sentence. Besides, none of this has anything to do with why the page was protected -- until we resolve that issue, there is little point in debating every nitpick.--csloat 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "leftist illegal advocating advocacy group" is POV, over the top, and not appropriate for this page. How about this for a description: "Larry C. Johnson, Ray McGovern, James Marckinkowski, and _______, are members VIPS, an whistle-blowing advocacy group composed of former intelligence officials,"? Provide the link to VIPS where whatever the affiliation they have with COunterPunch would be discused. No need to tackle that issue here. Also, just mention it once, early in the article. After that, just use thier names with no other qualifications or reference to VIPS. Listing it repeatedly crosses the line into POV. As for Media Matters, they provide critiques of news articles in an attempt to expose conservative bias. That is necessarily POV. How about this: "Liberal media watchdog Media Matters," or "Liberal media analysts Media Matters"? Again, just list it once, no need to beat the reader over the head with thier perspective. As for Rove, we could say this: "Conservative political operative and presidential advisor Karl Rove". As for Novak we could say, "Conservative columnist Robert Novak". As for General Vallely, I don't think he is widely recognized as anything in particular, so we could just use his name and title. As for trying to poison the well, I really am not. It seems to me that this article has been written mostly by those sympathetic to Plame. Then some conservatives periodically came along, got emotional, made some quick edits, hurt some feelings because some people's hard work got altered or deleted, and got into an edit war, inadvertently lowering the quality and readability of the article. I am excited about working with you to make this the best Plame Affair description on the web. As for why this page is protected, I think I am going to stay out of that for a while. I wasn't here when it happened. For now, I am just going to spend a few of my free hours each day making recommended changes so we can hit the ground running when the page is unlocked. Evensong 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is there is no reason not to be "sympathetic" to Plame - with all the smears and innuendo being hurled, nobody has legitimately suggested that she actually did anything wrong. In any case, I think a link to the Media Matters page is fine; they don't describe themselves as "liberal" nor does the page, so I don't see why we should add that POV here. "Media watchdog" is fine. This isn't an issue of conservative bias so I don't see why it is relevant anyway; this is an issue of facts that have been reported. As for VIPS, I still don't see the relevance -- undoubtedly Mr. Johnson (a Republican, by the way) belongs to other organizations too; should we list them all? Should we indicate that Karl Rove ran a racist campaign in South Carolina to unseat John McCain when we mention his name? If we can establish that VIPS membership is relevant to the Plame affair, we might have something here, but I haven't seen the link, except through your original research. The Johnson page, of course, should mention that he is a VIPS member, just as the Rove page should list his political activity, but such things are not clearly connected to the Plame affair.-csloat 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If a controversial figure such as Larry Johnson is to be quoted in this article, of course we should provide wiki readers with the relevant information about Johnson that would help them assess his motivation and credibility. --Mr j galt 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If it were common practice in the media to do so I would agree with you; however it is not, and as such constitutes a form of original research. The fact that someone belongs to a particular group does not tell us anything about his motivation and credibility. If it did, someone would publish comments to that effect. Until that occurs we shouldn't be doing it on wikipedia. The information may be relevant to his bio page but not to this one. Your claim that he is a "controversial figure" in this light, and your implication that his motives should be questioned, is utterly without merit.
On another note, since you've decided to join us again, can you please help us settle the page-locking problem? The page is not likely to be unlocked until you agree to quit disrupting it. You have given up on all of the arguments justifying your changes; can we assume you have come to your senses? Or are you just waiting to start revert wars again?--csloat 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you still maintaining that Plame was a covert agent at the time of the Novack article even though all evidence, including the special prosecutor's statements, suggests that she was not? I think your repeated assertion that Plame was unquestionably covert is a major obstacle to unblocking the article. I am willing to concede to a statement that Plame MAY have been a covert agent, but no one knows for sure. Are you willing to meet me half way? --Mr j galt 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the wikipedia policy regarding controversial issues: Link
Attribute assertions

When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions likewise should be attributed to an acceptable source. An editorial from a mainstream centrist media organization is best, because it can usually be assumed to represent the opinion of a meaningful segment of the population, but don't rely on the journalist to always accurately report the bias of its sources. Alternately, a text from conservative or alternative media or a focus group can be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms. For example,

   * The conservative American churchgroup...
   * The liberal anti-war group...
   * The right-wing pro-Israel advocacy group...
   * The radical Islamic group...
   * The indigenous rebel movement...

Identify the possible bias of the source (including organisational, financing, and/or personal ties with biased, interested parties). If the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible). (One example is the much-disputed distinction between a terrorist and... a freedom fighter, but other disputes are certainly possible.) In the event that non-centrist points of view are presented, it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives. Link.

If Larry C. Johnson, McGovern, et al, are to be characterized as a source on this page, or if any other member of VIPS is used as a source, we must, by the above quoted wikipedia standards, identify his or her potential bias, including organisational, financing, and personal ties with the parties. A VIPS link wont do it, because that does not clearly identify, on the page, the person's potential bias and POV. The same goes for Media Matters. My proposed laguage was about as neutral as I can get without running afoul of the above quoted standards.Evensong 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
As per the last paragraph of the section you cited:
If the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible). (One example is the much-disputed distinction between a terrorist and... a freedom fighter, but other disputes are certainly possible.) In the event that non-centrist points of view are presented, it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives.
If we're discussing VIPS' opinion, or Media Matters' opinion, then your observation stands. However, if we're discussing private citizens in controversial circumstances who are not speaking on behalf of any group, or of objective events where the assertion is factual (like quotations or video clips), we should follow the part I highlighted, and exactly as csloat suggested, and link to the article without a need for 'disclaiming' the source's perceived bias. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The stutus of VIPS is not disputed. Larry's membership is not disputed. It is what it is.Evensong 05:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just so I understand, your observation is that he's a former CIA agent, belonging to the group VIPS. And in his statements regarding the Plame affair, how exactly has his membership in that group been relevant? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Guidelines for controversial articles clearly applies to both organizations and "private citizens." It says to "[i]dentify the possible bias of the source (including organisational, financing, and/or personal ties with biased, interested parties). If "private citizen" Larry Johnson has "personal ties with biased, interested parties" (e.g., VIPS), that should be disclosed in accordance with wiki policy.--Mr j galt 04:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just so I understand, what is VIPS' interest with the Plame incident? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
VIPS is an anti-Iraq War/anti-Bush group. They claim, "It is now quite clear that the outing of Valerie Plame was part of a broader White House effort to mislead and manipulate U.S. public opinion as part of an orchestrated effort to take us to war."[49] Larry Johnson is not just a member, he is part of the VIPS Steering Group.--Mr j galt 11:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so they made a statement about the Plame affair. That's their sole relation and interest? Just on the basis of your one example, I'd question the relevance. After questioning it and doing some research, I have no objection to his affiliation with VIPS' Steering Group' being used to describe his POV. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr galt, I had not seen that article before; it is a good one. But it is not an official statement of VIPS -- it is quite clearly an article by Larry Johnson, who is identified as a member of the steering committee. It also identifies him as former CIA and State Dept -- would you say that it is an official statement of the State Dept.? I think it would be just fine to include a paragraph that identifies VIPS as yet another in the growing chorus of authoritative voices criticizing the Bush Administration for its manipulation of public opinion, though I would question its relevance to this page -- can you find an official statement by VIPS on the Plame affair? If so, then a quote from that would certainly be on point. But I do object to the notion that we should include VIPS membership as some kind of POV litmus test. Should we call Johnson "a card-carrying member of the VIPS"? I don't think so; but I do think this organization's opinion is notable and relevant, especially since there are several former intel officials involved, so please do let us know when you find an official VIPS statement on Plame's outing. If you just want to use VIPS membership to smear Johnson, we should also include that he is a registered Republican (or at least still was as of 2005). --csloat 21:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Correcting the Record

Csloat wrote, "It's possible that you're not being intentionally obtuse so let me re-explain -- the investigation is into the leak of Plame's identity as a covert agent."[50] A review of the DOJ correspondence that authorized the Special Prosecutor's investigation indicates no mention of the word "covert."[51] In fact, the investigation is an "investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." Repeatedly attempting to insert the word "covert" into the Plame issue will not help us reach NPOV.--Mr j galt 04:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to the Department of Justice. From the Libby Indictment:
Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, 
Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury 
Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States 
Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United 
States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false 
statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).
Yes, you read correctly. The Grand Jury (which has been renewed) conducted an investigation into possible violations of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel)'. You cannot continue to claim this investigation is not intended to determine whether a covert agent's cover was blown. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The indictment said that, among other laws, the grand jury was investigating possible violations of the act that covers the disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel. Despite all of the evidence of Libby's activities and nearly 2 years of investigation, the initial grand jury came down with no indictments on this issue presumedly because Plame was not covert. Looking for possible violations is not conclusive that a covert agent is involved. The grand jury has to first determine into whether there was a covert agent before it can determine whether a covert agent's cover was blown. No official source has ever indicated that Plame was covert. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asked if Plame was covert and he responded: "Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."--Mr j galt 17:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
He wasn't saying anything about those issues because he was not making any indictments regarding them. You assume he won't make any in the future, thus reading into it too much. A implies B does not mean B implies A. It's a logical fallacy on your part. --waffle iron 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume nothing. Although no evidence has been presented to the public that indicates Plame was covert, I leave open the very remote possibility that Fitzgerald could some day say that Plame was covert. So until he or another official says Plame was not covert, or until the grand jury ends without an indictment on that count, it continues to be an open question. To assume that Plame is a covert agent because Fitzgerald is looking for possible violations of an act that covers covert agents is a logical fallacy on your part. As long as there are POV pushers here who want to conclude that Plame was covert without any official source, we will have an impasse.--Mr j galt 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly right, J Galt. The argument that "Plame was covert because there is an investigation into the disclosure of her covert status" is a classic petitio principii, (i.e., the fallacy of begging the question). A begging the question fallacy is one where the evidence is really a restatement of assertion to be proved. In this case, the evidence presented to prove the assertion (there is an investigation into the disclosure of Plame's covert status) assumes the assertion is true (Plame was covert).
To resolve this impasse, it may be helpful to identify exactly how it is that agents are identified as "covert" or "undercover" and in what context these terms are being discussed. The law is one way such agents are indentified. The IIPA has a clear definition as to what a "covert agent" is. One the other hand, the IIPA does not classify agents. It is just a way that the law determines whether the agent's status is one whose unauthorized disclosure requires the imposition of criminal sanctions.
The other method of identifying an agent's stauts is not well known to me. I am assuming that there is a classification system. Link I have heard terms such as "light cover", "official cover" and "non-official cover".
If we are going to resolve this dispute over Plame's "covert," "allegedly covert," "undercover" or "allegedly undercover" status, then we are going to have to determine, exactly, what it is that is disputed. There should be some source out there defining these terms to our mutual satisfaction. I am thinking not of a dictionary, but of some sort of documentation from the intelligence community defining these classification. Evensong 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
NO one is arguing that the investigation is proof of her covert status. It (and the language used by the prosecutor and the indictment) is, however, strong evidence of her covert status. There is other evidence (dozens of cites) that has already been brought to this discussion as well. The original argument J glat posted was 'all evidence indicates Plame was not covert'. That is the false assertion which has brought us here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Explicate the meanigful difference between "proof" and "substantial evidence" as it pertains to this impass. Evensong 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously asking me to define 'evidence' and 'proof' for you? Come on. I'm using both words (and their concepts) in the common usage. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, as he has stated, the behaviour by Libby et al, prevented him from successfully investigating the outing. Therefore the lack of prosecution should not be seen as proof Plame was not covert, but that the original investigation was substantially hindered by named individual and possible others.--Holland Nomen Nescio 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that we don't know whether Plame was covert?--Mr j galt 18:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That is not what I said. Fitzgerald's investigation was sufficiently obstructed to result in a lack of progress. Meaning, because of stonewalling by known individuals there is, at this time, not enough progress to warrant any conclusion as to the possible intentional outing of Plame.--Holland Nomen Nescio 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Once more, Mr galt, you are nitpicking on the word "covert" and losing the argument even on those grounds. Fitzgerald, of course, was not asked whether Plame was covert at the time of her outing; he was asked whether he thought Libby knew that she was covert when he outed her. Part of his response is to say that he is not speaking to the question of her covert status. You say you are awaiting his final decision on the matter. That may be relevant with respect to whether the letter of the IIPA was violated, but it is not relevant in terms of the harm done, which is that an undercover agent's cover was blown. Since you nitpick about the word "covert," let us be clear, you are actually nitpicking about the letter "t" because Fitzgerald clearly says that her "cover was blown." So we know she was "undercover" (this language is also used by CIA officials -- the only people in a position to tell us whether or not she was covert -- in the Newsday article you continue to ignore). So in order to settle this nonsense how about we use the word "undercover" throughout the article, and include a short section discussing the definition of "covert" used in the IIPA and explaining that there are many who claim she was not actually "covert" according to this definition. We could lay out the arguments on both sides there, contextualizing with a statement that she was decidedly "undercover" and that her "cover was blown," but that there is a question among some about whether she was "covert" according to the terms of the IIPA. (The IIPA stuff must be specified, since the word "covert" in any other context is the same as "undercover"; check a dictionary.) I think that would be the best way to settle this without removing information that you seem to believe is valuable.--csloat 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No official source has ever described Plame as "undercover," "covert," or a "NOC." Csloat is reading things into Fitzgerald's remarks that do not exist. At his press conference, Fitzgerald made his position very clear so that others don't misinterpret or twist his words: "Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." We can say that Plame was a "CIA officer," and her association was "classified,", but we cannot conclude that she was "undercover," "covert," or a "NOC." Those words are Democratic talking points and POV speculation that have no place in wikipedia.--Mr j galt 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just being duplicitous. You are restating your (logically bereft) argument over and over, while ignoring the clear evidence before you. If you even remember, your original argument was 'all evidence indicates Plame was not covert'. Your argument is debunked, you have not proven that assertion. Period. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In addition, we have several official sources using the words "undercover" and "NOC." And again all you are doing is repeating a point that has been demonstrated over and over to be incorrect. Fitzgerald himself said her "cover was blown." And of course CIA officials confirmed both "undercover" and "NOC."--csloat 06:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Fitzgerald NEVER used the word "undercover." Because of your POV[52], you are reading things into Fitzgerald's "cover was blown" remark. He made himself abundantly during the same press conference when he said: "Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." In fact, there has never been an official source that said Plame was "covert" or a "NOC." Larry Johnson is an anti-Iraq War/anti-Bush partisan who left the CIA in 1989 and never worked as a covert agent. He is not an official source. Like Fitzgerald, the CIA only indicated that Plame's status was "classified," not covert.[53] Please stop trying to push your POV[54] here.--Mr j galt 14:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You have now quoted that same passsage at least four times, each time failing to prove your point with it, and refusing to engage in an attempt to listen to others or understand why your argument is wrong. Your behavior is becoming trollsome. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the third time you have made a troll reference with respect to my contributions. This is disrespectful, rude and a violation of the wiki policy on civility. I am hereby requesting that you not do it again.--Mr j galt 15:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Until your behavior changes to reflect an actual attempt on your part to resolve the issues that forced the article into protection, which your revert warring caused, I can see little other explanation for your circular arguments and lack of civility. Please don't take it as a personal attack - I simply have a strong concern that your intentions here, as illustrated in your baiting and evasive and illogical arguments, are not sincere. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I will also note that I am still seeking a cite for Ryan Freisling's assertion: "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."[55] Although I have asked several times, Ryan Freisling has yet to provide any evidence or source that says Plame "traveled overseas on assignment under such status in the past 5 years." Every time Ryan Freisling writes here, I eagerly look to see if she has found a source for her surprising conclusion.--Mr j galt 15:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have answered this, another of your erroneous red herrings, numerous times as well, with numerous sources to back up both parts of my assertion - and apparently, your behavior has not improved. All you seem to do when confronted is deflect to another point, never acknowledging the obvious debunks to your fetid arguments - and that kind of behavior will not result in the article's release from protection - it will instead, make your presence here on Wikipedia short-lived. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan, this is no longer a content dispute, since this guy has refused to engage in any actual discussion of the content other than to repeat the same tired points over and over again and then refer to my blog as some sort of personal attack. He has been shown a mountain of evidence by several editors refuting his points but he keeps making them. Even the one editor who agrees with him refuses to defend his conduct here and is willing to reach a reasonable compromise.--csloat 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to put this to rest one more time, here is a recent piece from one of the authors of the Newsday piece which galt conveniently keeps ignoring. The piece clearly established that Plame was undercover and a NOC, of course. This is a more recent (1/19/06) piece by one of the authors, and he discusses the piece: "Our story was the first to establish that Plame was undercover. In fact not only was she working for the secret 'D. O.' or Directorate of Operations at agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, but she was also still in transition from an even deeper underground mission as a 'NOC' for Nonofficial Cover, posing as a businesswoman during agency-sponsored trips to Europe." Their story quoted intelligence officials -- not ex-officials but current ones -- and it establishes three things: (1) Plame was undercover, (2) Plame was a NOC, and (3) Plame used her undercover identity in trips out of the country. Of course, these three items have already been pretty firmly established with other evidence but I just wanted to include this recent piece.[56]csloat 08:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The so-called Newsday story names no source! No names at all! I have asked repeatedly for you to provide an official source for your allegation that Plame was a covert agent, undercover, or a NOC and you have failed to provide a single one. You have provided only stories quoting ex-CIA analysts who would have no knowledge of Plame's 2003 status, or those with no named source at all. In the only official CIA document we have seen on Plame, the CIA Director of Congressional Relations, Stanley Moscowitz, stated that her identity was classified, not "under cover." [[57] I have no problem with including your citations in the article, but they must go alongside all the others that say she was not covert. --Mr j galt 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but in case you hadn't noticed, at issue is an organization that operates covertly. I realize you have trouble understanding the term "covert" so let me explain: it means secret. So I'm not surprised at all that when CIA officials talk to the press they do so under condition of anonymity. These are not ex-CIA analysts quoted, and you know it. Please re-read the sentences quoted from CJR, then go back and read the Newsday article. Then perhaps you will be able to read Fitzgerald's indictment and actually understand what he was saying at his press conference when he said her "cover was blown." Also, you bring up some interesting original research distinguishing between "classified" and "under cover" -- please identify the source of this research. Thank you.--csloat 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hold the presses! If you are suggesting that "classified" status and "covert" status mean the same thing, then, my friend, we have broken the impasse on this topic. I will simply change every reference from "covert" to "classified" so that we will both be happy. Hallalujeh!--Mr j galt 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If you read what csloat actually wrote, and not just spin off into some mad tangent again, you'll see he wrote distinguishing between "classified" and "under cover", not covert. It's already been explained a half-dozen times what difference is relevant between 'covert' and 'classified' (the word 'covert' is only distinct to one statute, in so far as the IIPA defines a 'covert agent') - and you've never bothered to respond. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I was asking csloat the question. But since you answered, I will assume csloat feels the same way. If you both believe "classified" and "under cover" mean the same thing, that's okay, too: I will change every instance of "under cover" to "classified" within the article. We are making progress here!! Thank you!--Mr j galt 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again your logic is, well, absent. 'classified' and 'under cover' do not literally mean the same thing. 'Classified' is a general term, and 'under cover' usually relates to a person, in my best understanding. If one's identity is classified, then presumably one is operating under a cover (because the vast majority of people do not live without public identities). And anyway, even if someone DID feel that they mean the same thing, why would you feel that changing every instance of one, to the other, would be a good thing? Your judgment seems sorely lacking. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Wrongdoing by Plame

In the discusssion above, csloat makes the claim that no one has suggested Plame has done anything wrong. Not true. A number of people, including former Governor and Sen Zell Miller, have suggested that the entire plan to send Joe Wilson to Niger and then publish Wilson's misleading op-ed piece was unethical, if not currently unlawful. This is why Miller and others support a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent the spouse's of CIA employees from doing what the CIA employees are not allowed to do by law. The fact Wilson was not required to sign a customary confidentiality agreement makes it appear certain members of the brass at CIA were also in on the plan. It appears safe to say that Libby was trying to get the press to investigate this whole shenanigan when he got caught in the "outing an agent" trap. RonCram 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Libby was indicted (and he resigned as Cheney's Chief of Staff) for lying to investigators. Caught in a trap? Perhaps, but one of his own devising. It's not 'safe to say' that Libby was trying to get the press to investigate wrongdoing by Valerie Plame. It's a lot safer to say that Libby was participating in revenge against Joseph Wilson for debunking what was the President's #1 excuse for war in his SOTU address... the "16 words". -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wilson did not "debunk" the president's statement. Wilson actually learned that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger in 1999 and CIA analysts thought this was interesting because it would tend to support the view that Saddam had sought it more recently. The president's statement was confirmed by the Butler Report. It has never been "debunked." RonCram 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wilson concluded the report, already described as unlikely, was indeed false. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron your portrayal is so full of disinformation it's ridiculous. Also, you seem to still be under the delusion that Valerie Wilson sent her husband to Niger; that myth has been thoroughly debunked. The irony is that he was actually sent as a result of an inquiry from Cheney's own office. Of course, you are well aware of this, since it is in the article and has been in the press for months. I know you love conspiracy theories but this one is really over the top -- a covert agent and her diplomat husband (neither with any particular record of political action on the part of democrats, and in fact we know Wilson supported Bush in 2000) conspire with the "brass" at the CIA to instigate a false investigation into Scooter Libby because they knew ahead of time that he would lie to stonewall the false investigation? It might make an interesting movie plot though; you're near Hollywood, aren't you? Find a scriptwriter to do something with these bizarre fantasies rather than insisting that they become part of an encyclopedia.--csloat 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Roncram, please excuse Csloat's belittling comments. In fact, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated the matter (using secret documents and testimony made under oath) and concluded that Plame recommended her husband for the trip to Africa. The report says:
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.[58]
Keep up the good work, Roncram. Csloat is hereby reminded of the wiki policies on Original Research and Civility.--Mr j galt 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Your spin isn't sticking - sorry. This is the same, tired old misreading of the material. It contains the proof you wanted to dispel, that Plame did not send Wilson:
CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information {...} when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA.
CIA's Counterproliferation Division was discussing who to send, Plame offered up Wilson's name. That's what the record says happened. This is a no-spin zone. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Galt - if you would please show me in the quoted paragraph where it says Wilson sent her husband to Niger, we would all have a better understanding of what the heck you're talking about. I do see that she "offered up his name," but that wasn't what we were talking about. Ron was suggesting a far-reaching conspiracy that involves Valerie Wilson as mastermind, manipulating the CIA, State Department, and even the Vice President's office into all kinds of illegal and treasonous activities just to secure the indictment of a relatively unknown white house staffer on perjury charges. I'm not sure "offering up" a name qualifies. In any case, Media Matters has thoroughly and authoritatively dealt with this myth. The Senate did not actually reach a conclusion as to whether it was accurate; you incorrectly state that they did and simply quote part of their statement on the matter. The memo itself has been disputed by CIA officials.[59] They quote a CIA official in a LAT July 2004 article: "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. ... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes." But none of this matters, since, as I said, offering up a name is not the issue -- Ron wants us to believe that she engineered the trip, which is completely false; she simply didn't have that authority. Finally nobody has established motive or any kind of reasonability threshold for this conspiracy theory. Neither of the Wilsons was especially anti-Bush (or anti-Libby?) in any way until after the Niger trip. Joe Wilson's claim to fame before all this was as an agent for Bush's father, staring Saddam Hussein down with a noose around his neck, daring the dictator to hang him. Zel Miller wants us to believe this guy and his undercover CIA agent wife hatched a plot to bring down the white house (or at least severly inconvenience a relatively unknown staffer) out of some treasonous sentiment that can't really be specified other than with vague intimation that it has something to do with the anti-Bush crowd. I agree this conspiracy theory is a notable one worth mentioning, but it is ludicrous to demand that we rewrite the entire article in order to give such theories more credibility.
Now, speaking of wild conspiracies, I'm gonna go watch 24.--csloat 03:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Every major news organization is on record as saying no covert agent was outed

Every major news organization, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters, and the White House correspondents, joined to filed a friend of the court brief [60] on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. They said:

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the “deep cover” required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. § 426 (“covert agent” defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington – not stationed abroad – for a number of years."[61]

Thirty-six news organizations have adopted this position in their court brief. To restore NPOV, this will probably be the first thing I insert into the article once it is unprotected .--Mr j galt 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That brief authored by... Victoria Toensing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So you're working under the assumption that if enough people say something, it's true? The news media put their cursory support behind her because they didn't know what she wasn't saying.--waffle iron 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Wiki policy is that if enough secondary sources say something, it's at least worth reporting. TheronJ 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between reporting the news and filing an amici curiae. To be fair, the brief does make some good points. However, it was written with a purpose in mind (to advocate for Miller and Cooper and is not equivalent to fact but rather opinion. To state the opinion of these news organizations as facts reported by them would be misleading. I see nothing POV about mentioning the brief in the article, though I'd like to know exactly how jgalt would like to phrase it.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this should be reported here too, but of course as an opinion, not as a fact. Indeed, several of the news organizations concerned have printed that she was undercover, a NOC, and/or covert in their articles.-csloat 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Would that be the same media supporting the Bush administration's claims SH had WMD and planned 9/11?--Holland Nomen Nescio 07:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User conduct problem

Apparently Mr j galt (talk · contribs) has decided to ignore Wikipedia policy on disputed content and circumvent the RfC on these pages. His recent edits to Karl Rove, Downing Street Memo, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, James Marcinkowski, Non official Cover, and yellowcake forgery are all blatant attempts to circumvent the RfC on Plame affair, Larry C. Johnson, and Valerie Plame by spreading the disputed content to numerous other wikipedia entries. This is a destructive and uncivil way to deal with disputes over content, and I feel that this has gone way beyond a content dispute and into a conduct dispute. This is certainly grounds for a user conduct RfC; Mr j galt, I once again implore you to stop violating Wikipedia policies and engage in a civil discussion on these issues. Please revert your changes to those pages until the RfC process is complete. --csloat 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of bad conduct on your part on this page and others to justify an RFC on your conduct. If that's where you want to go, we will do it together. I do not believe the RFC on this page prevents me from editing those pages. What policy are you referring to? I am new to wikipedia and I am unfamiliar with such a policy. Please cite it.--Mr j galt 06:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said the RfC prevents you from editing those pages. The problem is not that you edit other pages; the problem is that you are deleting items on those pages based on disputed content that is directly part of the RfC. It is Wikipedia policy that an RfC be resolved through discussion geared toward reaching consensus. You are circumventing that process by spreading the disputed content to other pages instead of first resolving the disputed content. I should not have to explain this to you as you are well aware of what you are doing. You seem to have decided that you are losing the relevant arguments here, and instead of trying to think of reasons to dispute those arguments or trying to move toward consensus, you have simply imposed your POV on other pages. Is there an explicit wikipedia policy against this kind of abuse? I don't know, but I am willing to bet that most Wikipedia admins would agree that such behavior violates the spirit of the RfC process. --csloat 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

CSloat's conduct

Exactly as I suspected: Csloat is making up wiki rules that don't exist. As he acknowledges, there is no policy that prevents me from editing other articles and he has since edited them himself! He has been floating his conduct RFC strategy to bully and silence me since the day I began editing.[62][63] Apparently this is his m.o. to silence new users. It is he that has displayed bad conduct, not me. He is the one who has ridiculed the contributions of others here and launched ad hominen attacks in violation of the wiki policy on civility.[64][65] He has attempted to turn this article and others into an extension of his own anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War blog[[66] in violation of the wiki NPOV policy. His bad conduct needs to cease immediately. He is again warned.--Mr j galt 12:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are accusing csloat of bad conduct - which he has not displayed. You, on the other hand, have consistently dismissed and ignored the discussion points of others, and consistently (and trollishly) parrotted the claims and complaints of others made against you, reversing them against your accuser. It is your conduct here which is at issue, which includes personal attacks, incivility, misrepresentation and deceitfulness... and it is unacceptable. Straw man complaints like yours are extremely transparent. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, I've just noticed you have just begun making erroneous edits to nearly a dozen Plame-related pages. Will correct, and unfortunately, I think I'll need to file an incident report. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikistalking is not only bad form, it is a violation of the wiki policy prohibiting harrassment. Please refrain from following me to other articles I edit and reverting my edits. You have been warned. --Mr j galt 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If you make groundless and unfounded edits, I will correct them. If you feel that is 'wikistalking', I would ask you to re-read the policy again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your behavior is trollish, galt, and turning around and accusing me of bad conduct does not cut it. You are intentionally misrepresenting my point, clearly explained above, about your conduct with regard to the other articles that you have spread disputed content to. As for the conduct RfC, if you read my comments with regard to the RfC, you will see a decision to hold off on the conduct RfC in order to try to pursue this through the article RfCs. I have not been trying to bully you into silence with the RfC; on the contrary, you have been given over and over every opportunity to make your case here. Instead of trying to engage in dialogue, however, you persist in repeating the same arguments over and over, which have been decisively answered, and then you gave up even on that and simply took your disputed content to numerous other pages in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. This is an obvious and objectionable attempt to circumvent the RfC process, and it is a naked attempt to avoid dialogue when you don't have the evidence to back up your assertions. Once again, I implore you to cut it out.--csloat 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, you're not a "new user" and the RfCs on these articles did not start "the day you began" -- according to your user contributions page you created the account in August 2005, and your anonymous mayhem on the Larry C. Johnson page and the Valerie Plame page began shortly thereafter. Apparently you were wreaking havoc on other pages too as your anonymous user talk page confirms. Your edits have been attempts to do two things: (1) insert original research implying that Larry C. Johnson is a liar at the heart of the Plame affair, even though no published account supports this assertion, and (2) insert an intentionally misleading interpretation of the quote from Fitzgerald's press conference in order to supposedly support the claim that Plame was not covert. (He says "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." You take that as evidence that she was not covert. He is asked if he knew whether Libby revealed her covert status knowingly. You take that as the question "was Valerie wilson covert?") You ignore all evidence that she was operating undercover and you insist on more original research to justify nitpicking over different interpretations of the phrases "classified," "undercover," and "cover was blown." You have persistently made these edits and arguments in a hostile, uncivil manner, and you have now avoided discussion altogether and simply taken your edit warring to other articles. It is tedious to keep repeating this since everyone here knows it.--csloat 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
In addition to your ad hominem attacks on me and others who do not share your POV, I now must add wikistalking to your list of offenses. Everywhere I edit, you follow me and revert. That, my friend, is a violation of the wiki policy prohibiting harrassment.--Mr j galt 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr galt you are unbelievable. You avoid dialogue on all the issues, you arrogantly take your edit war to a dozen other articles without responding to the disputes, and when you get called on this conduct you divert attention by calling me a wikistalker. I'm not trying to harrass you galt. I could not care less about you. But I do care about the truth, and your attempt to distort it by making bad faith edits all over wikipedia are the problem. Take a close look at what I reverted; in every case I was preventing you from spreading disputed content to other pages (you'll notice, for example, that I left your many repetitive -- and false -- edits calling every single VIPS member "an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration.") So don't flatter yourself - I'm just not interested in stalking you. You are just trying to circumvent the RfC on the Plame issue by taking your false and disputed content to other pages. This is disruptive, and you are only doing it to make a WP:POINT. Cut it out.--csloat 05:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr galt, I see you have experienced the same thing I did. csloat seems incapable of pursuing facts with a NPOV. His favorite tactic is censorship. He will do almost anything to keep facts out of an article that do not comport with his worldview. Unfortunately, csloat has a number of fellow wiki editors who are willing accomplices. I have not had much time to edit recently, but have read your comments on a few occasions. Keep up the good work. RonCram 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr Cram I'm not sure you've been following any of this very closely - can you please indicate what facts I censored? I have, in fact, resisted Mr galt's censoring of facts, not the other way around. I realize you and I have had our differences, but you're now stating things that are completely incorrect.--csloat 18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Libby wants CIA to confirm Plame's classified status

Libby's Lawyers Seek Papers on Plame's CIA Employment
Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff urged a court yesterday to force a prosecutor to turn over CIA records indicating whether former CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment was classified, saying the answer is not yet clear.
The defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby also asked that the court require Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to turn over any informal assessments conducted by the CIA to determine whether the leak of Plame's identity in July 2003 damaged national security or agency operations. [67]

I guess if the CIA complies with Libby's lawyers' request to release classified information regarding Plame, we might get formal confirmation soon. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why edit warring is so bad for the encyclopedia

There have been some pretty major developments involving a number of aspects of the Plame affair in the past few days - and with the article protected, we're stuck on talk. This is why the kind of edit warring behavior we've seen is so bad for Wikipedia.

Ex-Aide Libby Wants Classified Materials
By TONI LOCY The Associated Press, Tuesday, January 31, 2006; 8:35 PM
WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for a former top White House aide want access to classified intelligence briefings to show that he had more pressing matters on his mind than lying about leaking the identity of a CIA operative to get even with her husband for criticizing President Bush.
In a 21-page filing in federal court Tuesday, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby accused prosecutors of withholding evidence they say they need to mount a defense.
Specifically, Libby's lawyers are seeking copies of the highly secretive President's Daily Brief, a summary of intelligence on threats against the United States, given to Bush from May 6, 2003, to March 24, 2004.
"Based in part on the documents, Mr. Libby will show that, in the constant rush of more pressing matters, any errors he made in his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony, months after the conversations, were the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory, rather than a willful intent to deceive," the lawyers argued.
The dates of the intelligence briefings are significant to Libby's case. May 6, 2003, marks the first time the media referred to Wilson's findings in Niger, and March 24, 2004, was Libby's last appearance before the grand jury.
Libby's lawyers also want a federal judge to force special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to provide copies of notes that Libby took during the same time period and any security assessment made by the CIA to determine whether any damage was done by the Plame disclosure.
"It is material to the preparation of the defense to ascertain whether any damage to national security in fact resulted from the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment status," Libby's lawyers said.
In a Jan. 9 letter to Libby's lawyers, Fitzgerald said he believes he is obligated to turn over only documents in the FBI's possession.
Fitzgerald also said he did not have _ nor did he request _ many of the documents that Libby's lawyers want.
"As you are no doubt aware, the documents referred to as the Presidential Daily Briefs are extraordinarily sensitive documents which are usually highly classified," Fitzgerald wrote. "We have never requested copies of any PDBs."
Libby's lawyers said they believe Fitzgerald should obtain the documents from the CIA and the vice president's office and turn them over to the defense team. The defense lawyers said they reserve the right to seek records kept by other government agencies, including the State Department, Office of the President and the National Security Council. [68]

However, in the NY Daily News, James Meek claims Fitzgerald DID receive PDB's and other classified materials in the course of his investigation:

Leak prober got supersecret files
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK, DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU, February 1, 2005
WASHINGTON - CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald collected 10,000 pages of documents - including the most sensitive terrorism memos in the U.S. government - from Vice President Cheney's office, he said in court papers released yesterday.
Without serving any warrants in his probe of who outed CIA officer Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald even obtained censored copies of the President's Daily Brief, the supersecret CIA threat memo for President Bush.
Now Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's disgraced former chief aide, is asking a court to force Fitzgerald to fork over all the documents to fight charges of perjury and lying to the FBI.
Libby will show that "any errors he made in his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony, months after the conversations, were the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory rather than a willful intent to deceive," his lawyers argued.
The special counsel got the presidential briefing in his hunt for any files concerning Plame or her husband, Joe Wilson, a diplomat sent to Niger in 2002 to see whether the African regime sold uranium to Iraq.
Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy. [69]

Fitzgerald, in his response letter to Libby, dated 23 January 2006, claimed that White House emails had been improperly destroyed:

"In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal achiving process on the White House computer system." [70]

Moreover, he states:

Lest there be any doubt, we do have some documents responsive to your request which we are electing not to produce because we do not agree that we are obligated to provide them. {...} 'We are specifically withholding subpoenas (and correspondence) which were addressed to reporters whose testimony was directed towards government officials other than Libby.

It's getting interesting! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is! It's only a matter of time that this edit war, and the silly republican talking point that it is over, will be pretty much obsolete. I don't know why Libby's lawyers want the PDBs, but if those become public, I expect we will be learning about a lot more than just whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert....--csloat 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Quick Proposal Regarding "Covert"

It seems to me that most of the editing war of the last few weeks has been over the issues 4 and 5 of the following sentences (all of which I think are basically undisputed in the form I write them below).

(1) There is no dispute that Valerie Plame's status as a CIA employee was classified.

(2) There is no dispute that Valerie Plame was assigned Non Offical Cover (NOC) status by the CIA. (There may be some dispute about whether she was NOC for the year or two before her outing, but I don't think so).

(3) There is some evidence that the CIA and/or Wilson/Plame may have been careless with Plame's employment status, but the weight of the evidence is that they were not.

(4) Given (2) and (3), Valerie Plame met the common definition of "covert" - her employment was officially secret, and only known by a limited number of people. (Whether those people included "Washington insiders" such as Andrea Mitchell is in dispute, but at the very least, it wasn't general public knowledge)

(5) With that said, there is a dispute about whether Plame met the IIPA's definition of "covert" .

My proposal would be this - remove all references to "covert", and replace them with whatever it was Fitzgerald said. ("Classified"). That term is undisputed, and doesn't invite confusion between the colloquial definition and the IIPA defition. Create a new section - "Possible Violation of IIPA" - that specifically explains (1) that there's no serious dispute that her employment status was classified and therefore met the dictionary definition of "covert," but (2) there is a dispute about whether her employment status met the IIPA defition of covert. JGalt can lay out his evidence in that section (as can everyone else), and we won't have the confusion that this covert war is spreading over the rest of the article.

Any thoughts? TheronJ 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "classified" refers to information, whereas "covert" can refer to an identity. I think we should use the term "undercover" when appropriate rather than "classified," which still satisfies your conditions. I don't see why we can't say "covert" but clearly state that we are using the common definition of the term. I agree about having a section on the IIPA definition where the issue can be clarified. I also think it is very important to include that she had NOC status, a fact which is, as you say, undisputed. (We can include a sentence or two about the fact that some people claim she was moving away from NOC status, but the fact is she was a NOC, which is the most dangerous kind of cover). The term "undercover" is consistent with what Fitzgerald said as well as with what CIA officials have said on the record to reporters.--csloat 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Undercover" it is, then. I can see your argument for "covert," but I think eliminating covert altogether (except for one section explaining the dispute) will get rid of most of the edit war. Thanks for your thoughts. TheronJ 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm very appreciative of your efforts to help reach consensus and reverse this protection, Theron. Here's my concern. The only difference between 'classified' and 'covert' identity as per the IIPA is the '5 years overseas' clause - therby making a proposed distinction between 'covert' and 'classified' ill-suited for this article. To shy away from the word is, in essence, to misuse the word. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
(4) The term "covert agent" means—
(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; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Information to be integrated after the article is unlocked

Feel free to use this as scratch pad for info to be added at that point.

Article about when Scooter Libby knew things from the National Journal

Analysis of this by a liberal blog

I haven't had a time to read either in great detail, but they look to add quite a bit more to what is known about the chronology of who knew what when. --waffle iron 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection and Unprotection

I could not find a reason on this talk page for the protection of this page. I checked and found it had been protected on Jan 23 due to an edit war. Protection is used in this case as a cool down period. As it is now over a week later, I am unprotecting this page, but welcome any discussion about this here. --Zippy 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On further review of this talk page, I do now see the reason. I believe the discussion has cooled down somewhat, but would understand if an admin desired to re-protect it in order to aid the process of coming to a consensus. My read of the discussion is that the discussion is in the process of winding down, but I welcome comments from those actually involved in it as to whether they agree. --Zippy 06:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Libby Learned Plame's Identity from Cheney!

New Details Revealed on C.I.A. Leak Case
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff told prosecutors that Mr. Cheney had informed him "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion" in mid-June 2003 about the identity of the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak case, according to a formerly secret legal opinion, parts of which were made public on Friday.
The newly released pages were part of a legal opinion written in February 2005 by Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His opinion disclosed that the former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., acknowledged to prosecutors that he had heard directly from Mr. Cheney about the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson, more than a month before her identity was first publicly disclosed on July 14, 2003, by a newspaper columnist.
"Nevertheless," Judge Tatel wrote, "Libby maintains that he was learning about Wilson's wife's identity for the first time when he spoke with NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11." Mr. Russert denied Mr. Libby's account. [71]

Holy shit. By the way, here are the unredacted pages [72] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And here's confirmation that Libby told Fleischer of Plame's identity, arguably in hopes he might leak it:

Also contrary to Libby’s testimony, it appears that Libby discussed Plame’s employment on several occasions before July 10. (See 8/27/04 Aff. at 11-12.) For example, then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer recalls that over lunch on July 7, the day before Libby’s meeting with Miller, Libby told him, “[T]he Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. . . . [H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA.” (II-545-47.) Describing the lunch as “kind of weird” (II-590-91), and noting that Libby typically “operated in a very closed-lip fashion” (II-592), Fleischer recalled that Libby “added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t.” (II-546-47.) Though Libby remembers the lunch meeting, and even says he thanked Fleischer for making a statement about the Niger issue, he denies discussing Wilson’s wife. (I-108-09, 156, 226-27.)

And according to the redacted pages, Fitzgerald described Plame as a covert agent

Taken directly from the legal pages:

As to the leaks’ harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame’s work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.) In addition, Libby said that Plame worked in the CIA’s counterproliferation division (I-53-55, 245- 46), * * * * * [REDACTED] * * * * *
Most telling of all, Harlow, the CIA spokesperson, though confirming Plame’s employment, asked Novak to withhold her name, stating that “although it is very unlikely that she will ever be on another overseas mission . . . it might be embarrassing if she goes on foreign travel on her own” (II-168-69), a statement that strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point.

And last, the testimony of Judith Miller appears to be key to prosecution of IIPA violations:

Given the evidence contradicting Libby’s testimony, the al counsel appears already to have at least circumstantial grounds for a perjury charge, if nothing else. Miller’s testimony, however, could settle the matter. If Libby mentioned Plame during the July 8 meeting—and Miller’s responses to the documentary subpoena suggest she has notes from that conversation (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 19-20)—then Libby’s version of events would be demonstrably false, since the conversation occurred before he spoke to Russert. Even if he first mentioned Plame on July 12, as he claims, inconsistencies between his recollection and Miller’s could reinforce suspicions of perjury. What's more, if Libby mentioned Plame's covert status in either conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable.

Newsweek's take

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

--waffle iron 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you waffle iron -- I think this pretty clearly puts the content issues here to rest. I do hope Mr galt can now be persuaded to accept that she was indeed covert and stop misquoting Fitzgerald to try to prove the opposite.--csloat 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Heh, I just read this more closely and see that Newsweek is actually quoting the documents Ryan makes reference to above. So thanks again, Ryan!  :) I do hope this puts some of the nonsense to bed and we can get on with actually improving these pages rather than wasting time in needless debates over red herrings.--csloat 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree that it's an important new development. And I do think it shifts the presumption to covert. It doesn't end the controversy--Fitzpatrick did not provide any evidence and said contrary statements in his later press conference--but like the judge, I will assume more details will be forthcoming. We shall see. If he doesn't charge Libby with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or ultimately produce any evidence, it will change things. I look forward to his new report, new press conferences, new charges, answer from Libby's defense attorney, the Libby trial, etc. and I will especially watch for any developments in the covert matter. I also think his new foray into the yellowcake documents will be very interesting. Have a great day!--Mr j galt 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The only reason it doesn't end the controversy is because people like you are determined to revive it. Fitzpatrick never said anything "contrary" to this. It's hilarious to me that your whole BS viewpoint has until now been predicated on your interpretation of what you thought Fitzpatrick was saying, and now it is clear that he never said any such thing. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you now make the indefensible argument that Fitzpatrick contradicted himself. The judge said clearly that the reason Libby was not charged under the IIPA was because Fitz could not show that Libby knew Plame was covert -- not because Plame might not have been covert. Now I realize none of this will convince you, but your insistence on living in a fantasy world should no longer hold up wikipedia, right?--csloat 11:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You continue to disparage my contributions (suggesting that I live in a fantasy world) in violation of the wikipedia policy on civility. I will again ask you to refrain from such comments. --Mr j galt 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And please stop referring to my viewpoint as "BS." That's a violation of the Wikipedia policy on civility.--Mr j galt 11:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This revelation on Plame's covert status is new. You were premature in your covert claims in the past. It is a big story in Newsweek exactly because it is a new revelation that addresses an ongoing controversy. Stop gloating because the story cut your way. It could have just as easily gone in the opposite direction. I have a feeling this story will have a lot more twists and turns.--Mr j galt 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop gloating because the story cut your way. - this isn't about sides, it's about what is and isn't factual. This was a fact before this particular piece of the puzzle was produced... numerous sources including the WaPo, NYT, and MSNBC all described her status as 'covert' since the leak by Novak. No one is gloating, we're just trying to make the articles factual, and I myself am hoping you will start to see your contributions here not as defending 'a side', but as helping identify 'the truth'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, (1) jgalt's concession that the presumption in favor of Plame being covert is a step towards conciliation, maybe everyone could try assuming good faith one more time; (2) in light of this, I think it's fair to say that the great weight of the evidence is that Plame was "covert" for purposes of both common usage and the IIPA; (3) so it's probably about time for jgalt to give up on most of his side of the recent edit war, especially in the introductions; but (4) with all that said, let's try to preserve a place somewhere for people with lingering doubts about the degree of Plame's status to make them. (As long as they stick to NOR). The "Plame wasn't covert" argument isn't *quite* as far gone as the flat earthers (yet) and even they get to have their say . . . TheronJ 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with the above comment. And I certainly did not intend to "gloat." So let's have a section for the "lingering doubts" about her covert status but otherwise let's stick to the facts.--csloat 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh - Maybe Not

Bryon York has a fairly convincing caveat to the Newsweek article here. I haven't checked his original sources yet, but he argues, reasonably convincingly, that if you read the actual Fitzgerald affidavit to which Tatel refers, it doesn't look like Fitzgerald was claiming that Plame had been covert within the last five years. TheronJ 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the article, and it is not in the least bit convincing. It is all well and good for Byron York to second-guess the Judge's decision and claim that he has misread Fitzgerald. But it's pretty clear even from the part quoted from Fitzgerald's footnote that Fitzgerald believed the sticky question was not whether Plame was covert (the CIA, after all, started the investigation because they believed she was) but rather whether Libby knew she was covert. The quotations from Fitzgerald's recent letters establish that he wanted to focus on the perjury/obstruction charges rather than the IIPA charges, but they do not lend any credibility to the view that she was not covert. As I have said before (a point Mr galt has never responded to), only the CIA can tell us whether or not she was under cover, and they have made that clear by launching the investigation (and acting CIA officials confirmed that her status was specifically NOC, or Non-official cover). Debates about how deep her cover might have been are beside the point. And York's intimation that it is Fitzgerald's responsibility to "prove" she was covert is just silly -- he is prosecuting Libby under other charges that are more likely to stick. Fitzgerald tells the defense attorneys he is not going to release classified documents establishing Plame's covert status because they are not relevant to the case; it is not his responsibility to "prove" her covert status at all. As far as we are concerned all that is necessary is for the CIA to assert her covert status. As far as the IIPA is concerned, these issues become more relevant, but Fitzgerald has made the decision to stay out of that (probably because a conviction will be easier under the current charges, and carries less need for exposure of even more classified information).
Anyway, I do not object to including York's tortured reading of the Judge's opinion on the page, but I do not think it changes whether or not the page uses the term "covert." There should be a section on questions about her covert status and we can put fantasies like this in there, but it should be clear that the United States Court of Appeals has ruled clearly on her covert status. I really don't have the energy to continue debating this with people who are determined to bend over backwards and perform logical contortions in order to continue believing something that is manifestly untrue. By all means, people should believe whatever they want, and it is fine for wikipedia to record such beliefs, no matter how bizarre and self-serving, when they come from well known published sources. But I don't think we should continue to hold up editing based on the speculations of someone in the National Review (and the Weekly Standard article on this which is no doubt sure to follow....)--csloat 19:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Fitzgerald's statement proves she was not covert, only that if York is describing Fitzgerald's affidavit correctly, Fitz might not have said one way or the other, which would put us back where we were a couple days ago. Anyway, I'm sure we can work it out, and need to read Fitzgerald's affidavit before I opine too much further. TheronJ 19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I know you weren't saying that, but Mr. York appears to want us to conclude that. Fitzgerald did tell us that her cover was blown, and the District Court determined that he showed that she met the terms of the IIPA protection clause. The lines York pulls out of Fitzgerald's communication do not tell us anything contradicting this; what they tell us is that Fitz does not think it is his job to prove she was "covert" under the terms of the IIPA. And he is quite correct, since Libby has not been charged with violating the IIPA at this time. The Court points out that the reason he was not so charged had nothing to do with disputes about Plame's covertness but rather about the difficulty of determining Libby's state of mind. We should not take Fitzgerald's statement that he is not required to provide proof of a particular fact as evidence that he disputes that fact or is even uncertain about it. It is simply not on the list of items that he feels he is required to provide proof of.
In any case, one thing I can tell quite clearly from a brief glance at this document filed by Libby's attorneys is that the distinction maintained by galt and some other editors here between a CIA agent whose status is "classified" and a "covert agent" is nonsense. (Look at p. 17, where the attorneys explain their claim that Fitz is required to turn over documents that show that Plame's status was "classified.") Certainly even Mr galt agrees that her employment status was classified since the CIA asserted that in their request for an investigation. Again I repeat that the only people in a position to tell us Plame's employment status are her employers, i.e. the CIA. -csloat 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, here is something Mr. York (intentionally?) left out of his quotations from Fitzgerald's 1/9 letter: "In our view, documentation regarding Ms. Wilson's then classified job status is not relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false. That Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified may generally be relevant for the limited purpose of placing the investigation in context does not mean that all documents discussing that fact become discoverable in a perjury prosecution." (emph. added). It's pretty clear that Fitz believes she was covert; he just doesn't believe he is required to prove to the defense attorneys that she was covert.--csloat 22:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The more I read of this stuff, the more I can see how much York is cherry picking to make his case. Look at p. 5 of Fitzgerald's 1/23/06 letter -- footnote 3: "I note that Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified but has since been declassified so that we may now confirm such status." This is in the same section of the letter that York quotes from, so he surely read it. Fitz makes clear why he will "neither confirm nor deny" Wilson's travel schedule -- "Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibitying the disclosure of classified information." York is taking Fitz's statements -- which are specific responses to specific requests for documents - out of context in order to paint a picture of uncertainty about Plame's covert status. Fitzgerald is very careful in his response to every question; Mr. York, unfortunately, is not very careful in his use of quotations from these documents. -csloat 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Csloat wrote "There should be a section on questions about her covert status and we can put fantasies like this in there, but it should be clear that the United States Court of Appeals has ruled clearly on her covert status." Could someone please show me where the United States Court of Appeals ruled on Plame's covert status? I only saw mention in a footnote that it was Fitzgerald's assertion but no evidence was provided. Was there another decision that I missed?--Mr j galt 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite. Make that "held" or "found" instead of "ruled." Since that's all you choose to dispute in the above, it seems like we may be nearing a version of the page acceptable to all parties?--csloat 19:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll jump in and dispute this now - it's just not true that "the United States Court of Appeals has ruled clearly on her covert status." (1) The Court as a whole didn't rule anything of the kind. The language at issue is in Judge Tatel's concurrence, not the main opinion. (2) Even Judge Tatel didn't rule, find, or hold that Plame was covert. On p. 28 of his opinion, he refers to Plame as an "alleged covert" agent, while on p. 38, Judge Tatel suggests that because Fitzgerald refered to Plame as a covert agent in footnote 15 of his affidavit, Fitzgerald must have some evidence that Plame was covert. However, when you look at footnote 15 of Fitzgerald's affidavit, that's not what he was saying. TheronJ 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Right - I was conceding that this was not a "ruling," and I apologize for using such a loaded term. I believe "find" or "hold" is reasonable here, but I am not wedded to the terms if you don't like them either. I think you are unduly influenced by Mr. York's thesis, which I have addressed above. You may not find my points convincing, but you aren't even addressing them. There are several instances in which it is clear that Fitz thinks she was covert, including the relevant footnote (your assertion "that's not what he was saying" notwithstanding). I have quoted other passages besides the footnote. But the real point here is that this is a red herring - Fitz has been very careful to limit his statements to those relevant to his case, which is why he is not addressing her covert status. But it is not up to him to "prove" that she is covert. We're basically talking about a job title here -- if the CIA asserts she is covert, she is by definition covert. And they have clearly done so from the beginning -- in an official capacity when they asked for the investigation, and in an unofficial capacity when CIA officials told reporters that she was undercover and a NOC. (I have also pointed out that the distinction some draw between "classified" and "covert" is a false one, as even Libby's lawyers seem to understand in their documents). It's disingenuous for York to capitalize on Fitzgerald's careful attempt to delineate what is and is not relevant to his burden of proof. As far as the judge's opinion here goes (is "opined" ok for you?), I believe his reading of the footnote is reasonable. It is clear from the footnote that the only issue Fitz considers contested is whether or not Libby knew she was covert, not whether or not she was covert. I think Fitz is also careful to not release any more classified information than is necessary -- it's pretty obvious Libby's defense strategy is "graymailing the CIA -- trying to force the prosecution to release classified documents they don't want to release. If Fitz gets into the question of what Plame was doing while she was covert, it is a slippery slope in terms of the number of classified documents that Libby's lawyers will request -- I believe that Fitz is making a strong effort to avoid this by making it clear that these charges do not require him to prove anything about Plame's covert status. In any case, it is not for wikipedia editors (or NRO columnists, for that matter) to second-guess the judge's interpretation of Fitzgerald's words -- we should quote him, and, in the section "Regarding Plame's covert status" we can quote York, who will read this passage the way he wants to anyway. --csloat 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had responded. I guess an exact quote would be fine, although I request that it not be in the introduction, because I don't think it's cut and dried either way, and the intro is too long already. I think your proposal of quoting Tatel and Fitz is fine. I actually don't think we disagree much on the conclusion, actually -- (1) Plame was clearly "covert" inasmuch as the term means that the CIA had classified her employment status and given her a cover employment; (2) there is some dispute about whether she satisfied the IIPA definition of covert, although you can read the tea leaves one way or the other if you're inclined to. TheronJ 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds about right to me.--csloat 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of Links to Source Documents

At http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/ (look for "Plameologists Go") there are lots of links to source documents. Should we incorporate those links in here? Where? Thanks. (Offbeat idea: what about in Template:Plamefull? Or, can one make a sub-category of External Links, as I'd date to see this buried amongst links to articles -- as these are actual court documents) -- Sholom 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction Is Way Too Long

There's no reason for the introduction to be this long. Does anyone want to take a stab at writing a two paragraph neutral intro and moving all the analysis below the jump? TheronJ 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree, although I'm not sure I'm up for the task myself. (I guess what I'm saying is that I would support your efforts to do so!) Sholom 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A Suggested New Introduction

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Plame affair and CIA leak scandal1 (rel. CIA leak grand jury investigation) are common terms for a United States political scandal concerning the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Robert Novak reported Plame's status in a July 2003 column in the Washington Post. As of January 2006 a special counsel investigation continues.

The column[73], by conservative pundit Novak, was published eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, in a New York Times op-ed [74], was critical of the famous "sixteen words" in George W. Bush's State of the Union address regarding Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Africa.

In the article Wilson claimed to have been sent to Niger following a request by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to investigate Saddam's interest in African uranium. Wilson's op-ed piece failed to mention that he had learned Saddam had tried to acquire African uranium in 1999, a fact CIA analysts viewed as supporting the claim of more recent efforts to buy uranium. Wilson only mentioned he found no evidence Saddam had recently sought uranium.

Wilson viewed Novak's column as the result of a conspiracy with Bush administration officials to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism. It is a federal crime for anyone with authorized knowledge of the identity of an active or recently active undercover CIA operative to knowingly divulge it to persons not otherwise authorized to know it.

The Plame Affair includes the subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the actions of Bush administration officials — including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Ari Fleischer, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney[75] and unknown others, including CIA officials — regarding their knowledge of the leak of Plame's identity.

Critics of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson have pointed out that it would have been illegal for Valerie Plame to have written the op-ed piece her husband wrote. They have called for a new "Plame Rule" that would prevent the spouses of CIA employees to disclose information that would have been illegal for the CIA employee to disclose.

I tried to shorten the Introduction as much as possible and bring some balance to the POV. Other information in the Intro should remain in the article, but needs to be relocated. What do you think? RonCram 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. A lot shorter. I think all the "missing" material is in the article itself. Tbeatty 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the fact that it is shorter but am uncomfortable with the blatant POV-pushing that you have chosen to include. First, all indication of Plame's covert status has been deleted here. Of course we have dealt with this issue and decided that it should be indicated that she was covert (it is not illegal or even objectionable to identify an overt CIA employee, of course). RonCram's version seems to simply ignore the weeks of discussion on this issue. Second, the statement that Wilson lied (or misled) in his article seems far too POV for the intro. It is of course demonstrably inaccurate, but that discussion is not for the intro. Third, the claim that CIA analysts disputed Wilson's conclusion is again demonstrably false and certainly does not belong in the intro. The CIA, we now know, was quite insistent with the Bush Administration that the claim was not supported by the available evidence. I understand that Ron;s wording comes from his understanding of the SSCI report - I have debated that issue with him elsewhere and I don't think we need that debate again; his conclusions do not belong in the intro as if they were facts however. Finally, the silliness about the "Plame Rule" needs to be eliminated. That can be under the conspiracy theory section where it belongs, but the call for a "plame rule" is not that notable; it comes only from Zel Miller and some right wing bloggers; no serious scholar or journalist takes this seriously. I think it is ludicrous to elevate such conspiracy theories in wikipedia. I am not calling for their deletion but they do not belong here in the intro as a strong or notable position. Really, we have discussed these things many times before; RonCram appears to be taking advantage of the call for a better intro as an opportunity to massively skew the POV of this piece and to circumvent months of debate on these issues.--csloat 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice job. I'm a bit uncomfortable with POV in here, too. But leaving that aside, a few quick comments: (a) Someone ought to double check that all the deleted matierial is indeed in the article; and (b) one strong (albiet minor) suggestion: put the date of either Wilson's original NYT article, or Novak's article, in the text of the first or second sentence of the second paragraph. -- Sholom 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My Suggested Revisions to RonCram's Intro 2.0

Ron, I think that's a great start - thanks for taking the effort. I tend to agree that it's a little right-wing POV (and I say that as a right-winger). I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but I think we should strip as much argument as we can and include it below the jump. I would suggest these revisions to your intro:

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Plame affair and CIA leak scandal1 (rel. CIA leak grand jury investigation) are common terms for a United States political scandal concerning the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. Conservative pundit Robert Novak reported Plame's status in a July 2003 column in the Washington Post. As of January 2006 a special counsel investigation continues.

Novak's column[76] was published on July 14, 2003, eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, published a New York Times op-ed [77], that was critical of the famous "sixteen words" in George W. Bush's State of the Union address regarding Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Africa.

Wilson and others have alleged that Novak's column was the result of a conspiracy with Bush administration officials to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism, and that Bush administration officials had endangered national security by exposing a covert operative of the CIA. In response, various critics have speculated that Wilson's actions were part of a deliberate attempt to leak information damaging to the Bush administration, and have proposed rules preventing spouses of CIA agents from disclosing similar information in the future.

The Plame Affair includes the subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the origin and motives for the leak. As a result of the investigation, it has now been revealed that at least two Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, together with other, unrevealed individuals, did reveal Plame's employment at the CIA to a number of reporters shortly after Wilson's op-ed was published. Although Fitzgerald has not initiated a prosecution relating to the leaks themselves, he has indicted Libby for one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in the course of the FBI and grand jury investigations.

Everybody let me know what you think. I'd like to get something everyone can agree on, that's short and too the point. CStoat, I've taken a shot at addressing your concern - I've said Plame was undercover in paragraph 1 and that Wilson and others allege she was covert in paragraph 2 - I would be more than happy with a section below explaining that she was "covert" as that term is commonly used but that there's a dispute about whether she was "covert" as that term is defined in the IIPA. Thanks, TheronJ 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the last paragraph - we don't know what Fitzgerald has or has not uncovered in the way of evidence. That open question is at the heart of the controversy. We know only what he's acted upon in the way of indictments. I edited down the last paragraph accordingly. And I agree with your suggestion re: the treatment of the word 'covert' and the IIPA, in order to address the controversy around that issue. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This looks a lot better to me, in terms of POV issues, and I think it's a lot better stylistically as well. Thanks for the work everyone has done here.--csloat 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an improvement over the current Introduction. However, I do not see how it is possible to leave out of the Introduction the political controversy this case has generated. Despite csloat's objections that the suggested "Plame Rule" is only supported by Zell Miller and a few bloggers, the fact remains that it is being considered as a change to federal law. In addition, former Special Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova has accused the CIA of making "materially false" statements in the referral of this case to the Justice Department. There is a controversy here about the behavior of Plame, Wilson and the CIA. The Introduction does not need to take up a lot of these issues (the facts can be spelled out more completely in the article) but it seems blatantly POV to leave these issues out of the Introduction entirely. Since when is only one side represented in a political controversy? RonCram 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would suggest we remove the words "CIA Leak Scandal" as that term is confusing and will become more so. The CIA is now conducting internal investigations into several leaks of information by CIA personnel unrelated to this controversy. If there was only one CIA leak, it would be fine, but the term is now confusing. RonCram 13:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to disagree, strongly - the suggestion of a 'Plame Rule' is a marginal, partisan response to this scandal... it's not at the heart of the scandal. Nor is the conduct of the CIA/Wilson/Plame at the heart of the scandal... the scandal is about the revelation of a CIA operative's covert identity. I'm not saying it doesn't belong at all, but it's definitely not 'intro' material. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, that is your POV coming through. My POV is that the Novak and others in the administration felt something was very wrong and they wanted the press to investigate it. They did not know Plame was covert or they would have handled it differently. Regardless of whether you see the point or not, this information is critical to readers and belongs in the Introduction. One POV cannot unilaterally decide another POV is not worthy of mention in an Introduction. RonCram 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron, at every turn (including the RfC) you have consistently cried 'POV pusher', called me a bully and accused me of bias - I am NOT a POV pusher, I am trying to accurately describe this issue. PLEASE STOP! I consider it a personal attack to attempt to minimize my opinion by accusing me of having a (irreconcilable/illogical) or political Point-of-View. We ALL have points-of-view and it's uncivil of you to make these attacks. Very uncivil. Please please stop. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, my comments to you have been fair. I am sorry if you are offended, but you do have a POV, as do I. One POV does not get to dictate to another POV what facts are important. It is that simple. RonCram 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They have not been fair - they have been aimed at me, not at my edits. At my political views, and not my contributions. I ask you to simply refrain from calling me names like 'POV pusher' and 'bully', and that you discuss the content of my edits, not dismiss them as 'POV pushing' when they are plainly about specific points, not about 'spin'. I ask you again, civilly, to refrain from such comments and to treat me and my edits as you would treat any other editor's. In this case, the basis of my desire to eliminate the 'Plame Rule' mention from the intro is that, quite simply, it's not noteworthy enough for the intro. It's an interpretation of motive that some individuals involved have expressed - but certainly not a mainstream view of what has taken place. As I've already said, I believe it can be included in the article, but not so prominently as to be in the intro. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ryan here. I googeled "Plame" and got 4.5 million hits. I googled "Plame Rule" and got 78 and most of them were on blogs. No way is it at the heart of the scandal, and therefore it doesn't need to be in the Intro. -- Sholom 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The number of hits generated on google is not an appropriate measure here. It is illegal for CIA employees to make the kind of disclosures Wilson made. In addition, it should have been illegal for Wilson to write the op-ed, but the CIA failed to get him to sign a Confidentiality Agreement. The reason these things are illegal is because the Congress does not want our intelligence agencies to usurp the power of making foreign policy. When the CIA finds a way around the law, that would concern any Administration. The issue here is central to the controversy. Proponents of one POV cannot determine what facts are important to the other side. It is crucial to any NPOV article that the facts are laid out in a brief way that support both POVs. That is the only way the article can be NPOV. RonCram 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron you're right -- Lexis/Nexis is a much better gauge of notability than google, since it only includes published sources. So I searched all newspapers and found exactly one hit for "Plame rule" -- an op-ed by Zell Miller. This isn't even discussed in regular articles. It belongs on the Zell Miller page, perhaps, and maybe somewhere on this one, but not in the intro. Period. As for your points about Wilson doing things illegal, you are performing original research, and it is wrong, at that. Wilson was not in the CIA - there is no law against writing an op-ed. (It is telling of your POV, by the way, that when a former ambassador points out that Bush was lying to get us into a war, your response is to suggest the ambassador may have acted illegally). As for the suggestion that the CIA "found a way around the law," let's recall that there is an investigation going on. If the Special prosecutor finds any evidence of that, I'm sure there will be published accounts of it -- at that time, we can enter it into wikipedia. But Victoria Toensing's husband's speculation is not notable enough for the intro (and it is a pretty bizarre suggestion). It is not "central to the controversy" -- it is a fringe viewpoint that might deserve some mention here but not as part of the intro, which should lay out the actual scandal, not some bizarre spin on it.--csloat 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Version 2.1

I made a few minor revisions and included the material needed to make the article less POV. Take a look.


 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Plame affair 1 (rel. CIA leak grand jury investigation) is a common term for a United States political scandal and controversy concerning the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. Robert Novak reported Plame's status in a July 14, 2003 column in the Washington Post. As of February 2006 a special counsel investigation continues.

The column[78], by conservative pundit Novak, was published eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, published a New York Times op-ed [79], that was critical of the famous "sixteen words" in George W. Bush's State of the Union address regarding Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Africa.

Wilson and others have alleged that Novak's column was the result of a conspiracy with Bush administration officials to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism, and that Bush administration officials had endangered national security by exposing a covert operative of the CIA. Critics of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson have pointed out that it would have been illegal for Valerie Plame to have written the op-ed piece her husband wrote. Former Governor and Senator Zell Miller called for a new "Plame Rule" that would prevent the spouses of CIA employees from disclosing information that would have been illegal for the CIA employee to disclose. In addition, former Special Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova has publicly accused the CIA of making “materially false” statements to the Justice Department in the referral of this case for prosecution.

The Plame Affair includes the subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the origin and motives for the leak. As a result of the investigation, it has now been revealed that at least two Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, together with other, unrevealed individuals, did reveal Plame's employment at the CIA to a number of reporters shortly after Wilson's op-ed was published. Although Fitzgerald has not initiated a prosecution relating to the leaks themselves, he has indicted Libby for one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in the course of the FBI and grand jury investigations.

Please tell me what you think. RonCram 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to do it, but I think the best solution would be to boil down the last paragraph to one sentence on the response to "Wilson and others," and add it to that paragraph. I understand that my version doesn't have anything on the response to Wilson's charges, but think that the "Plame Rule" paragraph has too much detail. Thanks, TheronJ 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can figure out how to shorten the paragraph without leaving out necessary info, I would be interested in seeing it. However, there are two separate points: the "Plame Rule" and the allegation the CIA made materially false statements. Both of these need to be introduced in the Introduction. RonCram 15:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Strike this and go back to prior version I think the whole last paragraph is superfluous, and we should strike this alternate, return to the prior one (good job, RonCram, on that fine piece of writing :) ) around which we are building a nice little consensus. We can provide the arguments coming from the administration and it's allies in the article, just as we will have the arguments against. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How is the article going to be viewed as NPOV when evidence supporting Bush is relegated to the back of the bus? The fact is that if Plame had written the op-ed piece, it would have broken the law. Bush administration officials wanted the press to investigate this issue and rightfully so. The fact Plame/Wilson skirted the law with their little maneuver is central to the controversy, not superfluous. RonCram 15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Another vote for Strike this and go back to prior version I have to agree with Ryan here. As I wrote above, I googled "Plame" and got over 4.5 million hits. I googled "Plame Rule" and got 78 and most of them were on blogs. No way is it at the heart of the scandal, and therefore it doesn't need to be in the Intro. The fact that Plame/Wilson skirted the law with their little maneuver is not central to the controversy -- what is central is that people in the Executive "outed" (whether inadvertently or not) a CIA official who was married to a critic of the Administration. That's the entire reason why the story has "legs" and that's why there was an independant prosecutor. -- Sholom 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet another vote for that. "Plame rule" is Zell Miller's term only -- there is only one article on this in a newspaper, and it is by Miller himself. This is not notable here. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Plame or Wilson by the mainstream media, just by a few fringe voices. And the only person charging the CIA with wrongdoing is someone with a vested interest in the case. If the Prosecutor brings charges against Plame or the CIA then we can move these thoughts to the intro.--csloat 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've edited my version, above, to try to accomodate Ron's concerns. Any thoughts? TheronJ 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad compromise. Nice job. I went and labeled it "2.0" (so we could distinguish it), and also inserted the date of Novak's column. Let's put this to bed already. BTW, has anyone double-checked to make sure that all the excised stuff from the Intro is indeed covered in the body of the article? -- Sholom 16:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I like Theron's version, except the point about the 'spouse of a CIA employee releasing info that would have been illegal for the employee themself' (sic) is meaningless - another 'talking point' with little substance. Wilson was sent to Niger, and made his report, and his subsequent op-ed. Wilson did, not Plame. Wilson made the determination and discovery of information himself. His marriage to Plame is not the reason he wrote the op-ed, nor the source of the information contained within. The reason the op-ed, and the leak of his wife's identity took place was his report - and the reception it got in the administration. Plame did not 'leak' or provide the information thru or to Wilson... Wilson himself went to Niger and made the determination. For this reason, I think this text:
the spouses of CIA employees from disclosing information that would have been illegal for the CIA employee to disclose.
(or the equivalent) is misleading and should be stricken. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, people are allowed disclosing vital information on government misconduct. Since the entire story hinges on the misrepresentation/fabrication of "facts" to invade Iraq, this might be seen as whistleblowing.--Holland Nomen Nescio 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Theron, I appreciate the effort. However, you have left out the fact that it would have been illegal for Plame to have written the op-ed piece. That is truly critical to understanding the response of the Bush Administration. They were certainly seeking investigative reporters to dig up how this was allowed to happen. You also left out the allegation the CIA made "materially false" statements in the criminal referral. This is also crucial to understanding the controversy. However locating the information higher in the Introduction so it is not the last paragraph seems to make it more palatable to the anti-Bush crowd, so I have modified my Introduction to include the material in the location you chose. I have already conceded the point that criticism of Wilson'article does not have to be in the Introduction. Perhaps you can see your way clear to approving the Introduction 2.1. RonCram 17:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron, with all due respect, you can't have it both ways. One one hand, there are objections to calling Plame "covert" because no judicial document said so. OK. Fine. But now you are asserting that had Plame done what Wilson did, it would have been illegal. Has there been any adjudication to back that assertion up? (Furthermore, Plame _didn't_ do it, Wilson did). Has there been any adjudication, as you are asserting, that the CIA made materially false statements in the criminal referral? And, in any event, as it seems every other person here is saying: those are side issues. The central core issues are:
  • her identity/position, which was classified, was exposed to the press
  • those in the White House were doing the exposing
  • one of them was indicted.
The rest is detail. -- Sholom 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I see it an intro has to explain what it is: Identity of CIA employee revealed! To limit this intro, the discussion on who did what and why, and would it be illegal, should be in the article itself.--Holland Nomen Nescio 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This part has to go completely:
"Critics of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson have pointed out that it would have been illegal for Valerie Plame to have written the op-ed piece her husband wrote. Former Governor and Senator Zell Miller called for a new "Plame Rule" that would prevent the spouses of CIA employees from disclosing information that would have been illegal for the CIA employee to disclose. In addition, former Special Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova has publicly accused the CIA of making “materially false” statements to the Justice Department in the referral of this case for prosecution."
Put this later down the article, but the conspiracy theories of random individuals not central to the controversy do not belong here. Unless you think we should put every individual's thoughts on the scandal in the intro? Shall I see if I can find appropriate quotes from Larry Johnson, Pat Lang or even Michael Moore to stuff in the introduction? Come on. These claims are bogus, they have been refuted, and they are simply not notable. The claim of DiGenova has never been evidenced -- which claims of the CIA do you think he thinks are "materially false"?? He has never said. Because he's probably full of it. But it doesn't matter - you can put his bogus claims later in the article but putting them in the intro gives them undue prominence and totally distorts the issue for POV reasons.--csloat 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Impressed

May I just say that having followed recent debates, here and elsewhere, this is turning into a very civil exchange of arguments. My compliments.--Holland Nomen Nescio 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

New Version

I see Theronj put the less controversial version up - thank you. I still have problems with this sentence and would like it changed: " In response, various critics have speculated that Wilson's actions were part of a deliberate attempt to leak information damaging to the Bush administration, and have proposed rules preventing spouses of CIA agents from disclosing similar information in the future." I am not sure two people = "various critics." Actually it's only one person when you add the second clause ("have proposed rules..."). There should be something here mentioning that Plame and Wilson have their critics, but the argument outlined here is far too specific to be accurate. I think it is better if we eliminate that second clause (unless Ron can provide more infomration backing up his claim that such a rule has been taken seriously by anyone but Miller?) Thanks.--csloat 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Replaced Intro (Intro 3.0)

Per our discussion above, I have replaced the main introduction with my proposed replacement -- my understanding is that no one objected to the general tenor of the intro, although there are a few concerns, discussed below. I thought that setting the revised introduction in the main text will give us a platform to respond to the following concerns.

1) Is the deleted material preserved in the main article? (Sholom) - I don't know if the deleted text is in the main article, but if anyone wants to check and add it in, I would have no objection. My long-term plan is to move the Fitzgerald quotes to the Valerie Plame article (if they're not there already) and then have a short section here linking to that and explaining the "covert" dispute that we've gone over above. In the short run, if someone thinks they're essential, we can move them to the "covert" discussion in the main text of the article.

2) The "Plame Rule" (RonCram)

Ron, if I understand you correctly, you think that the introduction should have some reference to the Wilson critics' response to the scandal. I don't disagree, but, IMHO, the discussion of the "Plame Rule" is too detailed for the introduction -- if we include it, then people on the other side will want a similar amount of detail, and then we're back to introduction bloat. Can you check out my "In response, various critics . . . " sentence and see if you can live with it as a (very brief) summary of the other POV?

CSloat, I understand that you think it's still too specific, and I'm pretty flexible on how much detail we put in, as long as we fairly represent the idea that "other people disagree." What do the other people watching this page think?

In general, I understand Ron's point that there is a response to Wilson, and I don't object to making it clear that there is a difference of opinion, so if someone can come up with a better (but still high-level) way to represent the various responses to Wilson's accusations, I would be grateful. Thanks, TheronJ 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit to remove the 'rule' phrase. The readability and accuracy of the summary is now better as a result, in my opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that csloat, above, noted that he found in Lexis/Nexis the "Plame Rule" a grand total of one mention -- I think your removal is the proper course of action. Good job. -- Sholom 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to the "other people disagree" entry. The manner in which these anonymous people are written off does nothing to explain the Bush Administration response of talking to reporters. The fact it would be illegal for Plame to have written the op-ed piece is well-established, well-sourced and central to the controversy. The way the three of you have hammered through a "concensus" is typical of why many editors and readers have lost faith in the ability of wikipedia to produce NPOV articles on controversial subjects. csloat, Ryan and Theron, do not understand the perspective of the Bush Administration and therefore cannot evaluate what pro-Bush information is or is not significant enough to merit being in the Introduction. The only way to bring balance to the article is to state both sides briefly. Democracies have to protect the rights of minorities. The majority, in this instance csloat, Ryan and Theron, should allow the minority to have one paragraph in the Introduction that can state the pro-Bush POV clearly and factually without threat of censorship or "Introduction bloat." RonCram 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We are trying to remove all POV! You are now claiming that you want to add what you yourself call a pro-Bush POV! -- Sholom 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron, I would honestly like to reach consensus on this issue. I'm happy to discuss possible compromises with you and the group, or if you want to appeal for some kind of consensus by one of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, I think that would be fine too. I'm interested in your opinion, and I would love to come up with an appropriately short way to include it in the intro.
Overall, we're already one paragraph over the three-paragraph limit suggested by Wikipedia:Lead section. Obviously, that's just a style guide, and not cast in stone, but my opinion is that your proposed "Plame rule" paragraph is too much detail. Do you have a more concise summary of the response to Wilson that we could discuss? Remember, you can write a summary that lets people know the broad outlines of the response, and you can put the details in the body of the article. TheronJ 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron, this article really is not about "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush." While it obviously involves the Bush Administration, and politics, I feel it can be represented fairly without automatically being a political screed in either direction. I don't think our different politics need to distort the factual representation of events. If there were more people clamoring for a "Plame Rule," then that would be notable. But they aren't, and Wikipedia should not pretend that they are just in the interest of "fairness" to the "pro-Bush" camp.--csloat 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hogwash, csloat. The article is dominated by entries written by Bush haters. I honestly do not mind that as long as the entries are factual. What I do mind is having the Bush haters decided unilaterally that information that provides balance is disallowed. That is wrong and shameful. An article cannot be "Neutral Point of View" if it contains information that only gives one side of the story.
Theron, your feeling that the paragraph gives "too much detail" cannot be given much credence. The paragraph deals with two issues and is three sentences long. If there is a way you can get all of the information in the first two sentences in one shorter sentence, fine. But it is critical readers understand that it would have been illegal for Plame to have written the op-ed piece. This fact is what motivated Zell Miller to call for a "Plame Rule." And there is strong evidence the CIA made "materially false" statements in the criminal referral to the Justice Department. That is not a lot of detail. When you have four paragraphs that are negative toward Bush Administration, you can certainly spare one paragraph that would tend to balance the story and the paragraph is completely accurate. People with a contrary POV do not get to determine what is "notable," as csloat wants to do. That is not how editors operating in good faith work. If you want to see a balanced article, you allow the other side to state their case in a brief space. To do otherwise is to violate the spirit of wikipedia and democracy. RonCram 15:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
While I am less impressed with your efforts to discredit the opinions, and impune the motives, of other editors working in good faith, I would ask you to focus on WP:NPOV. You seem to completely misunderstand the policy. Your argument above is illogical, in that it is all framed in terms of 'what is negative to the Bush administration' and 'what is positive'. The issue is not so dualistic, and the desire to place the article in that 'frame' of reference is, itself, POV. We can describe the facts, the popular view, the detractors' view, the possible motives or outcomes, etc... but framing it in terms of how 'pro-Bush' or 'anti-Bush' the content is absolutely the wrong approach to maintain NPOV. Let's focus on the facts as they are known, and let's be sure to provide the proper 'altitude' and 'depth' where appropriate to explain the relevant POV's of various individuals involved. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, when dealing with a controversial topic such as this, it is impossible not to know there are at least two sides to the story. You said my desire to frame it that way is in itself POV. Nonsense. Your desire to see and authenticate only one side of the controversy is, in itself, POV. To be NPOV the article must admit the situation is controversial and make every effort to include facts on both sides, if there are facts for both sides. Factual information is being precluded from entry in the Introduction for the sole reason it is sympathetic to Bush. That is POV. The facts, as they are known, are these: Plame would have broken the law if she had written the op-ed. That is a fact. It is obvious to any objective observer that this skirting of the law (enlisting her husband for the trip, the CIA not having him sign a Confidentiality Agreement and allowing him to write an op-ed) would be troubling to the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration would naturally want investigative reporters to dig into the facts. Second, it is a fact that Zell Miller has called for a new "Plame Rule." Miller's "Plame Rule would make it illegal for spouses of CIA employees to disclose information that would be illegal for CIA employees to disclse themselves. The proposed law is a very reasonable response to an obvious bending of federal statute. Miller's proposal is notable by itself, regardless of whether it ever becomes law, because of Miller's stature as a statesman and because it shows why the Bush Administration would concerned about the op-ed. The actions of Plame/Wilson would have to be considered a dangerous precedent to allow. Third, there is good reason to believe the CIA made "materially false" statements to the Justice Department when they made the criminal referral. That fact would tend to support the conclusion the CIA was behind the actions of Plame/Wilson because the CIA also failed to have Wilson sign the Confidentiality Agreement. Do you begin to see a pattern in the CIA's behavior? The fact is this is a controversial topic. Your decision to prevent readers from access to this information, no matter how many voters side with you, is pure censorship and anti-Bush POV pushing. I have stated my position as clearly as possible without personal attacks of any kind. I am attempting to bring balance to the article. I have my own POV but no one can accuse me of pushing a POV. To push a POV, one has to attempt to censor facts from the article one finds uncomfortable. I have shortened articles for better readability but I have NEVER edit warred with someone (tried to keep facts out of a story when an editor with a different POV believed those facts were essential) because of my POV. I have never done that and I never would. When you read a fact and it makes you uncomfortable or you find it disturbing, that does not mean it should be deleted. More often than not, it is a fact that needs to be considered and fully integrated into your worldview. Coming to terms with uncomfortable facts help us to grow as people. RonCram 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to help me grow. Can we focus on the facts, though? Almost everything you said above is your own POV ("tend to support", "would have broken the law", etc.) or outright falsehood ('obvious bending of federal statute', ... and literally, one ironic statement follows the next. "Bush admin would naturally want investigative reports to dig into the facts", "skirting of the law (enlisting her husband for the trip", "the CIA not having him sign a Confidentiality Agreement and allowing him to write an op-ed", "CIA made "materially false" statements to the Justice Department", "obvious to any objective observer", "pattern in the CIA's behavior", etc. appear to me to be utterly without substantiation. I was stunned by your comment 'No one can accuse you of pushing a POV'? I'm sorry, but in order not to be rude, I'll refrain from indicating how fallacious that comment is with further comment. However, I was disheartened by your comments about me, about what you see as my "decision to prevent readers from access to this information is pure censorship and anti-Bush POV pushing" and that I supposedly "see and authenticate only one side". That's uncivil and bordering on outright personal attack. I've asked you repeatedly to stop calling me names 'POV pusher', etc. and consign yourself to the issue at hand. I've done no such thing (push POV in defiance of facts), and although you can continue to ignore what people say regarding your insistence on placing extreme views in Wikipedia articles, you cannot change the facts. That's why I am asking you yet again to discuss the facts. There may be two sides to an argument, but facts are facts. That is where common ground begins - not accusations of POV pushing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron, a few points/questions:
  • It clearly wasn't unilateral -- there's a least four of us that have been discussing in the last few days who all agree
  • Why is it "critical readers understand that it would have been illegal for Plame to have written the op-ed piece"? She didn't write the piece
  • Why is "there is strong evidence the CIA made "materially false" statements in the criminal referral" central to the issue? After all, the criminal referral was accepted, leading to an investigation, a special prosecutor, and Fitzpatrick still indicted Libby.
  • The "Plame rule" is essentially off of everybody's radar screen -- why is that fact not apparently relevant to you?
  • NPOV does not mean "balanced". Some times the facts are such that an attempt to create balance is misleading. (Do we, e.g., need to hear a long defense of what the Nazi's did in the name of "balance"?)
-- Sholom 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, answers/clarifications:

  • When four people who all have the same POV discuss and then choose to ignore (not one meaningful concession) the one person with a different POV, that is a unilateral action. Why not wait for the input of Mr j galt, or Evensong or any of a number of others who frequent the page before making a decision? Why choose to ignore facts from a different viewpoint? Does that really paint an accurate picture for readers?
    • Nobody is ignoring facts because they are from a different viewpoint. Facts are neutral. We are simply saying that facts that are relatively minor in importance don't belong in an intro -- Sholom 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps God sees facts as neutral. Facts are not treated as neutral here. Facts are treated as ammunition. Facts are required for building a world view or philosophical construct. Do you not understand that any debate has to appeal to facts? Do you truly not see that this is a controversial subject with two separate camps? Do you not see that if the CIA had not made materially false statements, there would be no investigation? Are you really claiming that is of "minor importance?" RonCram 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You are the only one using facts as "ammunition" here Ron. The rest of us are asking for evidence that these conspiracy theories have enough notability to include in the intro. Instead of seeking out such evidence, you have chosen instead to claim a wikipedia conspiracy of "leftist editors" (including one who is to the right of Joe Lieberman). Wikipedia is not about providing ammo for ideological debates. We can record facts here that are encyclopedic and notable. Nobody is claiming that if the CIA started a false investigation it would not be important. What is being claimed is that there is no evidence of such other than a nonsensical statement from DiGenova who does not ever say what the CIA specifically said that was supposedly false. It's ludicrous!--csloat 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct. Plame did not write the piece. However, Plame did recommend her husband for the trip to Niger. That fact is well-established. Contrary to normal practice, the CIA did not require Wilson to sign a Confidentiality Agreement. That is an unusual oversight for an agency devoted to keeping secrets. What Wilson learned (that Saddam did seek uranium from Niger in 1999) was completely ignored in his op-ed, showing that he had an axe to grind. (I have agreed to leave this information out of the Introduction. What concessions has your side made?) Any objective observer would note that if Plame or the CIA had wanted to publicly contradict President Bush, they could not do it themselves but would have to enlist the help of someone outside the agency. In other words, it appears Plame and others in the CIA found a way to skirt the federal law that prevents CIA employees from disclosing secrets. Do you truly not understand how this action could set a precedent that would be harmful to this country? How would you like it if the CIA undermined the foreign policy of President Clinton? And do not try to give me anything about Bush "lying" about the "16 words." The fact is the Butler Report fully supported the President's statement about Saddam seeking to buy uranium in Africa (not just Niger).
    • There is plenty of evidence that Plame did _not_ recommend Wilson for the trip. The intro should not be about Wilson -- it should be about Plame getting outted and Libby being indicted. -- Sholom 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Not true. The Senate Select Committee on Prewar Intelligence stated that Plame recommended her husband for the trip. This is important because it shows the involvement of the CIA in disclosing secrets. Do you truly not understand why the Administration would be concerned about the law being skirted in that manner? RonCram 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Recommended" is not the same as sent him. Besides, that is dealt with in the article already, and your "side" is fairly represented.--csloat 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact the CIA might have made "materially false" statements in the criminal referral is critical to understanding the controversy. The CIA wanted the investigation off of their actions and onto the Bush Administration. The false statements were the reason a Special Prosecutor was named. Since the CIA did not take the proper steps to keep Plame's work secret, it is highly doubtful any law was broken in naming Plame as a CIA employee. Without the false statements, Fitzgerald could not have gone on his "fishing expedition." If someone (like Libby) has a faulty memory, he gets charged with perjury even though he broke no laws that started the investigation in the first place. Do you not see this as an injustice?
    • Can you bring a non-biased source (DiGenova is hardly non-biased) that says that the CIA made "materially false statements" ? And let me ask you another question: the papers are full of allegations that Libby claims that Cheney directed him to disclose classified information. Is that relevant? Should that go in the intro, too? -- Sholom 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • DiGenova is not a party to the action. He is accused of no wrongdoing by either the CIA or the Bush Administration. I cannot think of anyone more non-biased than DiGenova. Certainly there are many others who agree with DiGenova, including the editor who interviewed him for the story. Regarding your question, I am not familiar enough with the story to have a strong opinion. Do you think Libby is making claims that Cheney does not want him to make? I doubt it. Why would Libby invite a situation where the Vice President would take the stand and call him a liar? If you asking why Cheney did not just have the information declassified, I do not have an answer for that. It seems to me that would have been the better route for him, but I certainly do not see any problem for either Libby or Cheney. If you feel it is essential to the Intro, I would only ask that you keep the entry very short - possibly just one sentence. The issue can be more fully discussed in the article. RonCram 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
DiGenova is married to Victoria Toensing. His claims have been specifically refuted. If you can produce evidence that there are significant numbers of published sources agreeing with him, we may have something here, but all we have now is your assertion. -csloat 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Plame Rule" is far from dead. Just as the wheels of justice grind slowly, so also does political opinion. Politicians want to see where, if anywhere, the investigation by Fitzgerald goes before supporting the law. But the fact is, the law is a very reasonable response to the bending of the statute discussed above. It is especially critical this proposal be discussed in th earticle because it gives insight into the motives of Bush Administration officials at the time these officials were talking to reporters. Investigative reporters are suppose to investigate misconduct by the government. It is not always politically expedient for the Bush Administration to launch their own investigation into what happened. It might have looked like "political retribution" to do so. But encouraging investigative reporters to do their job is not usually seen as a bad thing. However, if the Bush Administration had known Plame was covert (if she was), then I am certain they would have taken a different approach.
This definitely ranks among the more bizarre things you've claimed in this conspiracy theory. The Bush Administration, known for its complete disdain for the media, suddenly decides to use it to investigate government misconduct that the Constitution normally would require them to investigate themselves? Maybe so, but if it's true it can't be mentioned here until the media actually take the bait and we have published accounts of such an investigation. --csloat 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that someone above could find only one reference to it in a newspaper shows that it is a minor micro-blip on the political scene. -- Sholom 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That fact means nothing at all. A new bill may have been introduced on the floor of the Senate with a different name and it would not show up on the search at all. The main point is that the fact the law was skirted would be a concern to the Bush Administration. They would want an investigation and felt, for whatever reason, that it would be best if the news media investigated it. This is a hugely important issue. Do you really want the CIA to undermine future presidents? Do you really want the CIA to usurp the power to make foreign policy? I do not think you understand what is at stake here and why the Bush Administration would be upset and want it investigated. RonCram 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well then let's have the title of the bill, Ron, or a number. Let's have the Congressional Record debates about the bill, and note the opinions of various Senators on the issue. Let's have the newspaper articles talking about it under another name. Let's have the quotations of pundits on television, the white paper about the bill published by think tanks, the Oprah interview with Zell Miller's intern. If the CIA is usurping foreign policy here, where are the former CIA agents publishing tell-alls exposing the traitors who initiated this illegal action? Why is it that every former CIA agent I can find evidence of does not back up these claims? Why has Paul R. Pillar, who recently left the CIA and has made some very significant public statements in a Foreign Affairs article, not seen fit to mention this conspiracy? Surely Porter Goss would have tried to get to the bottom of this? Surely the entire CIA is not filled with anti-Bush ideologues who would go so far as to commit traitorous actions (using the DOJ to investigate the VPs office for phony charges during wartime??)? Do you realize how insane that sounds? And even if you don't, can you please find something more than a couple of opinions to back it up? Why is there no actual journalist willing to mention this theory if it is so notable? --csloat 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct. NPOV does not mean "balanced." It also does not mean "Non-POV." It does mean "Neutral POV" and the ONLY way to achieve a neutral POV is to allow the other side to state the facts that are essential to understanding the case from all sides. Will these facts take up the same amount of space? Almost always the answer is no. In fact, "balance" is not even the goal. I am asking for one paragraph in the Intro out of five!! Each side needs to get as much space as is necessary to state the essential facts. It should be accepted by all that one side of a controversy cannot dictate what is essential to understand the other side. It would be ridiculous on the face of it for me to claim the Introduction should not include the fact Libby was indicted. What if I got a bunch of pro-Bush people together and voted that section out of the Introduction? Would that make it right? Of course not. It is just as ridiculous for the anti-Bush editors to vote out of the Introduction the bare minimum of facts I laid out in my very simply stated introduction. That one paragraph consisting of three sentences does not "contain too much detail" nor is it out of balance with the rest of the Introduction. RonCram 12:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You keep claiming there are "sides" being taken here, and you seem to claim that points taken from both sides makes something NPOV. I think that the Intro should contain the major points and not the minor ones. I think it does that. -- Sholom 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Really? You do not think it important that if the CIA had told the truth, no special prosecutor would have been named? You do not think it is important that the Bush Administration was concerned about how the CIA was able to disclose secret information in an effort to undermine the president? If you really do not understand these things are important, I do not know what to say to you. RonCram 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You did not read what I wrote most recently very carefully (although admittedly I could have written it better). It may be relevant. Nevertheless, while I objected to the inclusion of Plame rule, etc., in the list of four questions -- when I responded to this particular claim, I did not object to its inclusion -- rather, I wrote: "Can you bring a non-biased source (DiGenova is hardly non-biased) that says that the CIA made "materially false statements" ? And let me ask you another question: the papers are full of allegations that Libby claims that Cheney directed him to disclose classified information. Is that relevant? Should that go in the intro, too?" Those questions still stand. -- Sholom 14:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I answered those questions above. DiGenova is not a party and he is not biased. You have no cause for claiming DiGenova is biased (other than you may consider him a conservative). Others who are not biased who apparently agree with DiGenova include Albert Eisele, the editor of The Hill. [80]
            • You did not answer my questions above. Let me make a few points:
              • DiGenova is an extreme partisan -- and he and his wife are personals friend of Novak! See [81]. As for general partisan bias, see, e.g., [82], [83], and [84].
              • I'll ask you again: can you bring a credible media source that the allegations that the CIA (no, not an editorial piece) lied in their criminal filing?
              • You not answer the following question: the papers are full of allegations that Libby claims that Cheney directed him to disclose classified information. Is that relevant?
              • You did not answer the following question: do the allegations in the prior bullet-point belong in the intro? -- Sholom 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, let me restate myself again. The fact DiGenova is friends with Novak does not make him biased. You cannot just look at a man and say "Because you are a conservative, I do not have to listen to you." Such a position makes no sense. You asked for other people who held DiGenova's opinion and I provided a link. I fail to see why you should disregard an opinion piece since you are asking for someone's opinion. Regarding the last two questions, I have already stated my position that inclusion of this in the Intro would be acceptable as long as it was short and factually accurate. I gave you my take on the story. I do not think it is significant. Perhaps time will prove me wrong. It is not my job to tell the anti-Bush crowd what is essential to their perspective. I have never deleted information just because it was negative toward someone I respected or supported someone I did not like. RonCram 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To add to what others have said here, (1) at least one of the editors opposing your changes describes himself as on the "right" politically, and (2) you are trying to achieve "balance" by inserting material that is not true. I have no problem with giving what might be considered "pro-Bush" views on this a voice here if their voice is represented in the public sphere, but I don't see Zell Miller's conspiracy theory and his call for a "Plame Rule" as notable at all. You have presented no evidence that the CIA made "materially false" statements, certainly no "strong" evidence of that. The unsupported assertion of someone with a vested interest in the case hardly counts as strong evidence! He doesn't even indicate what he thought to be materially false! --csloat 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, to answer your comments (1) I understand that one of the editors describes himself as on the "right" politically but on the right of who or what? To the right of John Kerry? Probably. To the right of Joe Lieberman? I doubt it. He has taken steps to mediate at times, but he has only asked me to make concessions. He has never asked your side to make any meaningful concessions. (2) You know full well I am not trying to achieve "balance." If I wanted balance I would have asked for four paragraphs, not one! You also know the facts I have stated are true. Just because you do not see Miller's call for a new Plame Rule as notable does not make it unnotable. Why not let readers know about it and let them make up their own minds? Your constant desire to control what people know or think is not good. Regarding evidence of the CIA making "materially false" statements, if I had presented such evidence you would have disallowed it for "original research." What I did provide was the evidence from the source who made the claim, former Special Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova. csloat, you know me well enough to know I do not make this stuff up. Contrary to your statement, DiGenova said the CIA made false statements about the efforts they took to keep Plame's work secret. Federal statute requires the CIA to take certain specified steps to preserve covert status. If the CIA does not take those steps, no law is broken and no prosecution is valid. In the article I sourced, DiGenova said: "I believe the agency didn’t properly protect [Plame’s] identify because they didn’t want to and clearly didn’t try,” he said. “To think that journalists are being put through this is crazy. Where we are now is absolutely absurd." DiGenova is right when he says the CIA clearly did not try to keep Plame's status secret. By law, if the CIA had taken the proper steps, Plame would not have been allowed to drive her own car to and from Langley. RonCram 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In all the above I don't see a single mention of what "material" the CIA supposedly lied about. This is bogus. Federal statute does not require "certain specified steps." It requires that the CIA be "taking affirmative measures" to cover her identity, which it was by having a front company and having her keep her identity a secret. The law says nothing about not being allowed to drive to work. Imagine an undercover cop being told he was not really undercover because he went to the office to do paperwork. DiGenova is spouting nonsense, which is fine, and your conspiracy theory about this is already on the page; it is not notable enough for the intro. As for Zell, it is not me who doesn't think the Plame Rule is notable -- it is all the world's news organizations. It has never been mentioned in any article about this issue anywhere that I could find other than Zell Miller's opinion piece. Just because you believe it is notable does not make it so; we need evidence.--csloat 15:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
csloat, I have been assured that covert agents are not allowed to drive their own vehicles into CIA HQ. They are driven in unseen by CIA drivers. Langley is watched by all the major intelligence agencies, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, and many more. It is not at all similar to undercover cops. My brother used to be an undercover cop. The bad guys do not have the resources necessary to maintain surveillance of the police department so your example does not apply. DiGenova is highly credible and this has become part of Libby's defense. There is absolutely no way you can claim the statements made by the CIA are not an issue. Regarding Zell Miller, his opinion piece gives clear evidence of why the Bush Administration would be concerned about this happening. The CIA found a way to skirt the law and that is not a precedent the Bush Administration could allow to stand. There is no way you can deny that you would be unhappy if the CIA sought to undermine President Clinton and dictate his foreign policy. RonCram 18:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You have been assured by who Ron? Come on. Langley may be watched but there are also many people driving in and out of there. According to Larry Johnson, 40% of the people driving there are undercover. If your brother was undercover you understand -- there are times when he is on an undercover assignment, when he is "in the field", and there are times when he goes to work to do paperwork or whatever. DiGenova's wife has been caught in known misrepresentations of this particular case; he is not objective and not credible. More important, he is not notable. Zell Miller gives clear opinions, not "evidence," but it's telling that you don't understand the difference. As for the CIA skirting the law, this is sheer nonsense. This would be a major crime. As for Clinton, I did not vote for him, ever, and it's not about whether I would be happy or not here. The fact is that your conspiracy theory is not backed up by coverage from credible sources.--csloat 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I'm to the right of Joe Lieberman, except on his censorship stuff, where I'm more libertarian. I'll grant I'm not to the right of Ron. (And up until now, I've generally started on the opposite side of clsloat on the Plame pages about the use of covert, the impact of Judge Tatel's concurrence, and the criticism of Wilson relating to his pre-op-ed leaks. We've usually been able to reach consensus, but it's just not true that we're some gang of Bush-bashers.)
Ultimately, I don't think any of that is relevant here. I think we have three and a half related questions. (1) As a matter of wikipedia policy, what level of factual detail is appropriate for an introduction? (2) Does the POV policy require allowing Ron a paragraph in the introduction to write whatever he wants (3) Assuming that we can't compromise, what other dispute resolution mechanisms exist to resolve the problem and (3.5) Is there a policy to determine whether the "Plame Rule" analysis is important enough to place in the introduction. I'm open to suggestions on all of them. TheronJ 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason I used Lieberman is because he is strongly in favor of the War on Terror, including the removal of Saddam. But I think you knew why I used him already. I have to admit, Theron, that I have not seen you bash Bush or speculate gleefully at any negative news that comes out, as I have with the other editors. Perhaps you are not a Bush basher or perhaps you are more sophisticated and subtle. I do not know. But I do know that you have asked me to make concessions when you have not asked others to do so.
(1) What matter of detail is appropriate for an Introduction? It is clear that the main points have to be introduced. When dealing with controversial subjects involving more than one camp, we have to be careful to represent the main points as each camp would see them. One camp cannot decide for the other camp what their main points are. Let the reader decide if their point is worthy of consideration.
(2) The POV policy does not require allowing any one editor to say whatever he wants. However, I believe I could quickly come to concensus with Mr j galt or Evensong or many other conservative editors. More importantly, all the principles of fair play dictate that people with a different viewpoint have the right to state their own main points. It some cases, it may require two paragraphs.
(3) We should work this out by ourselves before we discuss other means of resolution.
(3.5) See the answer to (2) above. RonCram 15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we can take Ron's suggested changes to a vote or get another RfC on this page if we need to move beyond this impasse. But I don't see any reason that NPOV requires putting stuff in the intro that is not part of the basic mainstream representations of this topic. There is only one article in newspapers about the "Plame Rule" and it is an op ed. There is no single reporter in the world who found it notable to comment on. You really think that is encyclopedic? You really think DeGenova's opinion, which he never specifically elaborates on, is notable enough for the intro? It would be like me demanding that random quotes from Michael Moore belong on the intro to the George W. Bush page for "balance." This is not about fair play Ron -- we don't put things that are false or are not notable on pages just because one editor demands to be heard. It's that simple. Please stop pretending you are being censored.--csloat 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not pretending to be censored. The censorship is obvious. DiGenova's position has become part of Libby's defense. Yes, it is notable. The suggestion for a Plame Rule may not have generated a lot of ink yet, but the fact the CIA found a way to circumvent the law is notable and shows why the Bush Administration would be concerned and why they would want reporters to investigate it. I do not see any reason to rush into an RfC at this point. This should percolate for a while in every's minds. I would Mr j galt and Evensong to respond prior to the RfC (if they ever come back to wikipedia). RonCram 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
DiGenova's position is no more notable than the example of Michael Moore above. There is no evidence that the CIA "found a way to circumvent the law." That is ridiculous. The CIA is an instrument of the executive branch Ron. I'm not saying CIA operatives have never done illegal things but to request a phony investigation against members of the executive branch? This strains credulity. But that's not the issue -- if the conspiracy theory you suggest was notable, it would be something someone would report on. It has not been reported on, only commented on by someone awfully close to the case. Also, if you think you are right, why are you afraid to ask for comment from anyone besides galt and evensong? It's clear to me you see this as a "pro-Bush" vs. "anti-Bush" fight rather than a discussion about facts.--csloat 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This is about facts. Your POV is causing you to denigrate the importance of the facts. DiGenova is a former Special Prosecutor, the same position held by Patrick Fitzgerald, so I think his comments are far more pertinent than anything Michael Moore may say. The CIA is part of the Executive Branch but the biggest mistake Bush made as president was allowing George Tenet to remain as Director of CIA. Tenet constantly advanced those in the CIA who opposed Bush. Since Porter Goss has taken over, he has had to fire many of the top people at the CIA. The hostility between the White House and the CIA has been going on since 9/11. This discussion is about facts and the implication of those facts. People who are anti-Bush cannot evaluate what information is essential to the viewpoint of people who are not anti-Bush. I am not afraid of comment by people other than Mr j galt and Evensong. More than anything I want Theron, Sholom and others to read my comments and give them full consideration. It takes time for truth to sink in sometimes. I resent any effort to short circuit the process. All the principles of fair play dictate that the majority allow the minority position to faithfully state its own position. You cannot seriously expect to tell the other side what their POV is. The facts important to both sides have to be presented so the readers can make up their own minds. I am not asking for balance, only asking for one paragraph in the Introduction. I have made concessions and you have made none. RonCram 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If this is about facts, stop personalizing it. It's not about the minority position vs. a majority here but rather about the lack of evidence for the position you are pushing. If DiGenova's remarks are as notable as Moore's, where is the media coverage? As for Tenet, this shows your lack of information about this. Tenet was Bush's ally throughout the leadup to the war. He fell on his sword when ordered to, as the DCI must, and he actually discounted many of the analysts in the agency who were complaining about the Bush misuse of intelligence. I want you to respond to my points above Ron -- you are basically saying that every single analyst and official who had anything to do with this was a traitor, willing to sell out his country to support the Democrats. Committing gravely illegal actions in order to bring down a President. And not a single one broke ranks nor has a single person at the CIA or formerly there called them on this vast conspiracy. But this isn;t about how bizarre your conspiracy theory is -- it's about the fact that it has been completely unnoticed by journalists, historians, and anyone else writing about this other than a couple of ideologues. You have not made any concessions Ron -- you are still insisting on putting stuff in the intro that is totally non-notable.--csloat 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A comment by an outsider

While reading the talk page of the RFC on Mr j galt, I found a comment by someone I have not seen post here, Avriette, who wrote:

I suggest all of you go back to the drawing board and try to work this out. Because there are more people on your side, you have taken that as freedom to suppress conflicting views. How could that possibly be good faith? Avriette 15:29, 5 February 2006

Avriette has said more concisely and clearly what I was trying to say above in "Replaced Intro 3.0." You all have to learn that when you do not hold a particular viewpoint, it is difficult for you to understand the viewpoint and the implications of it. You are also not the best judge of what material is essential to the viewpoint. Without doubt, this is a controversial subject. For you to treat it as if there is only one side of the story is not fair to readers or to yourselves. You cannot hide from these facts. You must face them and possibly adjust your worldview. RonCram 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense, Ron, this has been explained clearly to you already - the issue is not censorship of anything. Nobody is censoring the non-notable facts you keep harping on; the problem is that nobody sees them as notable enough to include in the intro. And in all the verbiage you've produced this morning, you have not produced a single shred of evidence to change the fact that these are simply not notable.--csloat 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
csloat, your comment does not add anything to the discussion. Your last post was a political message to your compadres saying "Don't listen to him! We have chased off Mr j galt and Evensong and we can chase this guy off too!" csloat, this is censorship plain and simple. If the CIA made "materially false" statements on the criminal referral, then Fitzgerald's investigation is all about a non-crime. If the statements had not been made, Libby would not be indicted. Do you really think you can convince other people that these facts are not notable? If Plame really manipulated events in order to disclose secrets in her husband's op-ed piece, do you really think that is not notable? Do you really think the Clinton Administration would not have been upset if the CIA did that to them? Do you really want the CIA to determine foreign policy? RonCram 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron what are you talking about? Where have I said anything similar to "We have chased off Mr j galt and Evensong"? This is an unwarranted personal attack Ron. I know you and I have had our differences but there's no need to make it personal. The point is not whether the CIA made "materially false" statements but rather about whether there is evidence that enough people think they did to warrant inclusion in the intro. You keep whining censorship but in fact these facts are included in the article, just not hilighted in the intro as if millions believed them. There is no evidence Plame manipulated anything -- she suggested her husband for the trip but had no authority to order him to go. She did not run the CIA Ron. The Clinton Administration is totally irrelevant here; that is just your effort to make this about right vs. left. As for your last question -- no, I don't; what I want is for the CIA to operate independently of politics as it managed to do relatively well in previous administrations (even Reagan's, when it operated illegally in many ways). Do you want the President to have accessed to independently analyzed intelligence about foreign policy? Or do you prefer that the CIA be a highly politicized group of ideologues who will produce reports that support the President's choices no matter what the facts are? The problem here in general is what former CIA official Paul R. Pillar (the agency's lead counterterrorism analyst) wrote in Foreign Affairs: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."--csloat 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If the Bush administration really manipulated events in order to lie the US into war, do you really think that is not notable? Meaning, "what if," and "suppose" do not sound like they should be mentioned. And, why does this marginal info need to be in the intro? Shall we include all the possible "what-ifs" in the intro? Furthermore, if the CIA made "materially false" statements on the criminal referral, it will come out in the trial. Until such time, it would be wise to keep the crystal ball out of the article.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, I disagree. The entire article is about facts that will come out in the trial, if it goes that far. The fact the CIA may have made materially false statements in the referral is part of Libby's defense. There is no way this information is not notable. Nomen, I suggest you read the discussion above to fully understand the argument. To answer your question: If you have any evidence Bush lied to get us into the war, I will make no effort to delete it. I wish you and your allies would act in the same evenhanded manner.RonCram 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different

Interesting developement, it is suggested Cheney authorized Libby to leak info:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.[85]

This is explosive material, or at least it could be.--Holland Nomen Nescio 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, we should note that this info primarily comes from somebody (Libby) who would like nothing better than to be aquitted. Passing the blame further up the line may just be a strategy. On the other other hand, there is indeed other evidence and/or other assertions that this occurred. -- Sholom 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
He would really be in need of a brain, if he were to perjure himself a second time. In light of what we already know I tend to believe him.--Holland Nomen Nescio 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we agree. I tend to believe him, too -- but I don't quite regard it as conclusive. -- Sholom 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The plot thickens, now it is "let's wait and see" time.--Holland Nomen Nescio 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too far out in front of this, as Rove might say -- it's worth remembering that Tenet's July 11 statement discussed the NIE. Considering that we know Libby denied even learning about Plame from anyone other than reporters, I suspect he was talking about the same stuff that Tenet was authorized to (and did) disclose. TheronJ 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that; the NIE info is included; cf:
Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.
The new item here is not the NIE but that Libby plans to claim that he interpreted Cheney's "authorization to release classified info" as a blank check to also leak the name of a covert agent. I'm not sure how well such a defense will work unless Cheney said something more specific, and it's not clear he did from this article. But of course a lawyer will say anything to try to get their client off.... What is potentially explosive is that Libby is considering rolling on Cheney at all; if there is more information implicating Cheney and/or others, Libby's position may be instrumental in bringing it out. Or, if the evidence does not exist that there is any deeper systematic wrongdoing, Libby will fall on his own. We still don't know, methinks, if such evidence exists here.--csloat 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Valerie Plame Leak Sabotaged America's Iran-Watching Intelligence Effort

An important and provocative report has just been published that suggests that Iran was the target of much of Valerie Plame's covert investigative work and that outing her identity had far worse consequences than has thus far been acknowledged.[86]Holland Nomen Nescio 13:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. [87]RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... My listings provider lists that the topic of tonight's show is "Four families with premature babies are tracked at the neonatal intensive care unit of Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital of New York-Presbyterian." Somehow, I think you might have been duped by that "Cybercast News Service", whatever that is. Besides, this topic would appear to be tangential to this article's topic, at best. But, I'm prepared to stand corrected. :) --NightMonkey 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the guide on my cable box also mentions premature babies on tonight. It is possible they made a last minute change to tonight's show. The other possibility is that I misunderstood the article which says the show is going to air "Wednesday." Today is Wednesday, but it may mean Wednesday of next week. The Nightline website actually is no help at all because it does not say what the show is about tonight. I would say we should DVR or watch it tonight and if it is not on, watch again next week. RonCram 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The right wing web sites (GOPUSA, Newsmax, etc.) say it is, indeed, tonight. I fail to see, however, how that has to do with outting a CIA agent. Sholom 17:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, it is a complicated story, but I will be happy to explain it to you. Since 9/11 the CIA has been in a policy battle with the Bush Administration. Witness Michael Scheuer, Paul R. Pillar and Valerie Plame. These people have constantly denied that Iraq was a threat, that Saddam cooperated with al-Qaeda (even though analysts at the DIA believed Saddam did cooperate) and some wanted to downplay Saddam's WMD. The CIA, has a whole, strongly confirmed Saddam had WMD, at least chemical weapons. But when the expected stockpiles of WMD were not found, these CIA officials claimed the Bush Administration ignored those who disagreed that Saddam had WMD. In the case of Plame, she found a way to skirt the law that prevents CIA employees from disclosing secret information by sending her husband on a trip, not having him sign a confidentiality agreement and allowing him to write an op-ed piece critical of the president. (Pillar also leaked classified information.) The Bush Administration was obviously unhappy with this. The CIA is supposed to confine itself to gathering and assessing intelligence and counterintelligence. CIA officials are not supposed to get in public debates with the president about policy. The administration did not want Plame's actions to set a precedent that would be harmful to future presidents. (Do you really want the CIA to dictate foreign policy to President Hillary?) So the administration asked investigative reporters to look into Plame's actions. Unfortunately, administration officials did not know Plame was covert. Since the removal of Saddam, a great deal of information showing that Saddam had cooperated with al-Qaeda and did have WMD has been ignored by the intelligence community. The information that did leak out (the documents to CNS News and the "Saddam Tapes" Nightline will report on) had to come through unofficial channels. This shows the CIA has been blocking the release of this information. RonCram 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, Ron is completely wrong about most of the above, but what can I say, he loves conspiracy theories. What is obvious, and what has been clearly confirmed over and over again by several different sources and reported in the mainstream media, is that the Bush Administration was manipulating intelligence, not the other way around (and of course, it's not just the CIA but also DIA and NSA and State Dept intel that was involved). This is tangentially related to the Plame affair at best. Nevertheless I'll be watching nightline (anyone know what time it's on?) to learn more about this; I looked at the Intelligence Summit website and it does mention a speech on the Saddam tapes by "Anonymous" scheduled for Friday. There is no question in my mind -- and I say this as a long time opponent of Ron's conspiracies -- that there is *something* afoot with these documents and tapes, though it is unclear what at this point (and I am not yet persuaded by CNS's assertion that the tapes "are being called" a smoking gun (no indication of who is doing the "calling," of course). --csloat 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
One more thing on this (and I agree with TheronJ below that none of this is relevant to this page) -- ABC has released some information about the supposed "smoking gun" linking Saddam to terrorism and/or WMD. Apparently the smoking gun is more of a wet blanket.... the "most dramatic" information here is Saddam talking at a meeting about how terrorists could cause a lot of damage to the US with WMD -- "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 ... that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.... This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq." I'm sure that Ron will read this as proof positive that Saddam worked with al Qaeda but most experts are likely to be more skeptical about that. The article also claims there is evidence on the tapes that Saddam was covering up some CBW activity from the UN in 1995 - as if we didn't already know that. The important question regarding WMD, as others have pointed out, was not Saddam's intentions but whether he posed a credible WMD threat in 2003. There doesn't seem to be anything on these tapes to demonstrate that, at least based on this piece, but I'll wait with baited breath... I do wonder how the WMD theorists explain why Saddam, if he had such a threatening WMD capability in 2003, chose not to use it, and instead to hide in a dirty hole once the bombs started dropping?--csloat 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, Theron is saying that some of this discussion is related to this page. I am glad he seems to have an open mind about considering it. The underlying fact that the Bush Admin did have good reason to suspect WMD and terrorist training in Iraq may seem tangential but truly goes to the heart of the issue. There is definitely a fight between the CIA and the White House. (See some of the links in the Paul R. Theron article. When the basic facts prove to support the WH's position, how can that not be considered relevant? Also, csloat, are you telling me you are not surprised to hear that Saddam threatened the U.S. with terrorists using WMD? You don't find that relevant or interesting or anything? What Saddam is saying is that he has foreknowledge of terrorist events against Americans (and he told U.S. officials!!!) but plans on having deniability. Deniability is the whole reason for using terrorist groups. The footprint he wants to leave is an al-Qaeda (or Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) footprint. csloat, it will be interesting to see how many people continue to share your worldview after this story airs. RonCram 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely unclear on where you see Saddam threatening the US with terrorists using WMD, other than as a warning that terrorists would likely do that on their own. There's a big difference, in case you haven't guessed. Any Arab leader in the world -- as well as plenty of other leaders, including American ones -- had similar conversations in the 1990s. Certainly anyone paying attention to the fact that terrorists were looking for WMDs had this thought. Saddam likely warned US officials (prior to August 1990, when he was an ally of the US) because Saddam, like most Arab leaders, found these terrorists threatening. It may be hard for you to grasp, but these are pretty well accepted facts. There is nothing in the conversation published that indicates that Saddam had anything to deny! Anyway, you're right, Ron, it will be interesting to see whether this non-story changes anyone's mind. My suspicion is that ABC will not try to overstate these conversations, but that your friends at CNS and Weekly Standard will certainly jump all over them.--csloat 01:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That pretty much jives with my impression after seeing the commercial: Saddam wanted to do bad things to the US, but he never could get his act together, and thought other people would do something. Break about the siren animated gif. The reason the commercial sounded so dire is because it's a sweeps stunt. --waffle iron 23:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Ron's issue of whether the Bush admin had good reason to suspect WMD is an interesting issue, but most appropriate for other pages. Similarly, CSloat's issue of whether the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence is also background at best to this page. (It's also hotly disputed enough that the fight should stay on pages devoted to that issue). On the other hand, whether (1) the Plame leak was motivated by Libby's (and others) belief that Wilson was part of a CIA CYA leak campaign, and (2) whether there is evidence of such a campaign actually existing are more relevant to this page. I tend to believe (1) is true and would be interested in stacking up the wiki-worthy evidence for (2) and seeing how it stands, and will write about them if I ever get the time. TheronJ 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, what is clear is that the post-war intelligence has been just as bad as the pre-war intelligence. The only way for low-level government officials to move these documents and tapes into the public debate was to release them to media or to organizers of the “Intelligence Summit” that csloat mentioned above. The CIA has shown no interest in investigating the claims of former Iraqi General Sada who says Saddam ordered his WMD flown to Syria or the claims of the Syrian journalist who identified the locations the WMD was stored in Syria. Lots of other evidence that went to the CIA fell into a black hole never to see the light of day. That is why government officials who find this stuff have refused to turn it over to the CIA. BTW, csloat is not correct when he says all of the Intelligence Community agrees with the CIA. Many of them do, but the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence also talks about a DIA analyst who says the CIA has good raw intelligence but their conclusions should be ignored. When the CIA saw the policy decisions they advocated being ignored, they claimed the intelligence was ignored or “cherry-picked.” That is hogwash. The CIA does not have the right to usurp the power to make policy, which is exactly what Valerie Plame was trying to do. RonCram 23:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL... Ron you are really the only one in the world who seems to believe that there is some kind of left-wing conspiracy at the CIA of all places. Most of these people are Reaganites... I'd like to know who the DIA officer is that you're referring to Ron -- it's been a while but in my recollection it was someone at OSP in the Pentagon who made that comment, not a DIA analyst. If there was such an analyst saying that, his comments were at odds with the DIA's conclusions regarding these issues; it would be incorrect to state his opinion as part of what intelligence agencies have concluded. We already know the OSP was designed to circumvent the CIA's analysis of the evidence. I'd also like to know how you are privy to what the CIA has been investigating regarding Syria's WMD. General Sada is generally not considered credible, but even non-credible information tends to be investigated, so I would be very surprised if the CIA has not been working on this. Who knows, however, what with Porter Goss firing everyone who knows anything about terrorism in 2004 and with the White House undermining the CIA's own WMD programs by exposing secret agents. As for the CIA not having the right to usurp the power to make policy, you are absolutely correct, which is why they could not have done so. Your assertion that Plame was trying to do that is beyond ludicrous, since she never had any authority to send her husband anywhere, and because you have shown not a shred of evidence that she harbors such criminal conspiratorial motives (which you evidently believe she shares with Wilson, with Pillar, and with dozens at the CIA who must have been involved in such a conspiracy). Ron you are literally describing a vast plot involving dozens of people who are not especially "left-wing" in any way (some of whom are quite the opposite) -- a plot that would be as treasonous as it is dastardly and premeditated. I suppose Occam had a shaving accident.--csloat 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying dozens of people but George Tenet, Michael Scheuer, Paul R. Pillar, Valerie Plame and Larry Johnson are some of the anti-Bush people who are fairly well-known now. Several of them have committed unethical acts, like leaking classified NIE or skirting the disclosure laws by having your husband write an op-ed. I'm not the only one who is talking about the CIA's war against the White House. Read the links posted on the Paul R. Pillar article and you will see what I mean. Regarding the CIA has not investigated the claims of General Sada, I have only the word of Congressman Hoekstra who said he talked to a CIA official who told him they have no interest in his claims. The CIA has made no attempt to survey the sites identified in Syria (and the chemical weapons were moved soon after the story came out anyway) so it seems obvious the CIA is not interested in the truth.RonCram 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - you want me to believe in a conspiracy involving George Tenet and Michael Scheuer? On the same side? As Paul Pillar?? And you think George Tenet is "anti-Bush"???--csloat 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It was Tenet who okayed Scheuer's book published under "Anonymous" during the 2004 presidential campaign. Pillar had his own anti-Bush book (actually an updated version of an old book) come out in Jan of 2004. Both Scheuer and Pillar did not believe Saddam, a Baathist, would cooperate with Islamic fundamentalists like al-Qaeda, but we saw the Baathists had no problem cooperating with al-Qaeda after Saddam was removed. No one doubts that. Now we have Saddam's words on tape about their cooperation with terrorists. All of these guys are on the "bad intelligence" side. Bush, Cheney et al were right and the CIA got it wrong. RonCram 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Painting all those people as anti-Bush is close to POV. I'd frame them all as anti-'shitty intelligence'. --waffle iron 00:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not just POV; it's sheer fantasy! Tenet was as close to Bush's lapdog as a DCI could be! Scheuer had nothing good to say about Tenet, and certainly was not conspiring with him on treason! Scheuer published his first book as Anonymous in 2002, two full years before the election! Pillar has said nothing aligning himself with either man. Have you actually read Scheuer? If you had, you'd know that describing him as "anti-Bush" is just ludicrous. This guy is obsessed with bin Laden, not Bush. Thinking Bush is wrong is not the same as being "anti-Bush" enough to commit treason, especially among this crew of lifelong public servants. Also, what happened after Saddam was removed is irrelevant and you know it -- in fact, Scheuer, like Larry Johnson, warned that the one thing that would bring the Baathists and the jihadists together was a US invasion of Iraq. I guess that's a nuance you missed? Come on. Finally, "Saddam's words on tape" say nothing about his "cooperation with terrorists." Nothing. At least, according to what is published on the ABC website. He clearly says this is not coming from Iraq. I can show you published pre-911 reports from American terrorism experts making much the same point. So are they working with al Qaeda too? This is beyond ridiculous.-csloat 01:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, your "See no evil, hear no evil" view of Saddam is not credible. On the tape tonight, Saddam clearly threatened U.S. and British officials with WMD level terrorist attacks. Of course, Saddam wants people to blame the Islamic terrorists and not Iraq but his hope is pure fantasy. Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda do not have WMD capability, only Iraq does. Someday (when the Paul Pillar types are all gone), the CIA will get around to investigating the claims of General Sada and the Syrian journalist who idenitfied the sites where Saddam's WMD were stored in Syria. Until then, we will have to be satisfied with the words of Saddam that terrorists are going to attack the U.S. with WMD. BTW, your claim Scheuer's book was published in 2002 is just wrong. I looked it up on Amazon and it was published July 15, 2004. [88] BTW redux, your claim that a book titled Imperial Hubris is not anti-Bush is not likely to gain you credibility either. RonCram 06:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You are deluded if you think that is my view of Saddam. I have been openly against Saddam since the 1980s, when the US was looking the other way while he gassed the Kurds. But that does not mean I have to see WMDs where there are none. The point clearly made in the tape is that any individual could get WMDs and it doesn't have to be a state. Saddam predicts an attack eleven years earlier and even warns us about it and you take that as evidence that he planned it! Even when he explicitly says such an attack would not come from Iraq. Bizarre.--csloat 07:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Re Imperial Hubris: Read the book. Then read the one he wrote in 2002. He doesn't like Bush's approach to terrorism, for sure, but to call him "anti-Bush" as if he's on the same side as Michael Moore or Howard Dean is absurd. And to call the book an attempt at electioneering is also ludicrous since he wrote much of the same argument in 2002.--csloat 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You write: ‘’The point clearly made in the tape is that any individual could get WMDs and it doesn't have to be a state.’’ You are repeating the words of Tariq Aziz during a planning session trying to convince themselves they can convince the world they were not behind the WMD attack on America. Do you really think “any biologist” can make a germ, put it in a bottle and dump it in a water tank and kill 100,000? That is what Aziz said! If that were true, al-Qaeda would have done so long ago. WMD are too expensive, dangerous and difficult for the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda to produce. There will be no WMD terrorist attacks without a state sponsor or state vendor of the weapon. I’m not saying Scheuer is anti-Bush in the same way as Michael Moore. He is anti-Bush in the same way as Paul Pillar and Valerie Plame. The CIA is not supposed to get into public disputes with the president over foreign policy. They are especially not supposed to do unethical things like publish books against the president during an election year or release classified information like an NIE. This is ridiculous, csloat. These guys are simply indefensible. There is no way you would like it if the CIA did this to President Clinton and neither would I. RonCram 07:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron, you are mind-reading Tariq Aziz; I am referring to what he and Saddam actually said. I'm also a little confused - I guess I haven't been paying attention to the news lately, but did I miss a germ attack on America? The one you claim that this tape proves Saddam cooperated with al-Qaeda to plan? As for what Aziz said about "any biologist," yes, that is a common point that was made since the 1970s by terrorism experts like Brian Jenkins of RAND. Your theory of state-sponsored terrorism has been thoroughly debunked by terrorist experts for decades. It's a dangerous illusion -- if it were accurate, the war on Iraq would have ended al-Qaeda's terrorism rather than been the impetus to a massive expansion of their terror!
I'm not going to debate you about Scheuer; it's pretty clear to me you haven't cracked either one of his books. And it's pretty clear to me that you don't have any evidence to support your claims -- that Scheuer, Tenet, and Pillar were in cahoots to commit treason is absolutely ridiculous. And Clinton has nothing to do with any of this, as you well know.--csloat 07:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is another news story from ABC News.
ABC News obtained the tapes from Bill Tierney, a former member of a United Nations inspection team who translated them for the FBI. Tierney said the U.S. government is wrong to keep these tapes and others secret from the public. "Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," says Tierney. U.S. officials have confirmed the tapes are authentic, and that they are among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office.[89]RonCram 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note:

Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction, told ABC News the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003.[90]
Holland Nomen Nescio 19:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, at the end of the Nightline piece Brian Ross said something telling; he noted that these tapes were not conclusive of anything but that each side in the debate would find a way to make the new evidence support their side anyway.--csloat 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)