Talk:Plame affair/Archive 7

message: This pretty much settles the "covert" issue; it's clear now that Plame was working on intelligence issues as a covert agent with NOC status and that she had sensitive assignments overseas during the time period necessary to qualify for protection under the IIPA.  I'm not saying the IIPA will actually be enforced, particularly with certain figures obstructing the investigation, but it's clear now both that Plame's status should have been protected under the law and that in outing her, Rove et al. not only destroyed her career but also greatly compromised national security by undermining an ongoing intelligence operation (as well as burned all her contacts and anyone else using the Brewster Jennings cover).   The irony is that she was working on gathering intelligence to support Bush's case for war in Iraq.  It will be interesting to see what the WaPo editors and others who have pounced on this forthcoming book as evidence that the "Plame affair" is over will have to say once the book actually comes out; based on what little has been published so far, it is clear that the authors have reached some very different conclusions.--csloat 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm no.  It says her foreign assignment ended in 1997 (six years before the disclosure).  Further, it says she was sent with government intellignece agents to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence which would imply that she did NOT enjoy NOC status while on this trip.  Also, interestingly enough, it ties her to the Aluminum tubes.  Since she was CIA, she was part of the report that said they WERE for nuclear centrifuges (the CIA claimed nuclear uses, Energy departement said possible rocket bodies).  --Tbeatty 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, yes?  The IIPA doesn't require a "foreign assignment."  It requires that the agent be sent abroad on intelligence work - which she was (dates are not clear but some time between 2001-3).  There is nothing indicating she did not "enjoy" NOC status in Jordan.  And it's not just Jordan; it says she "occasionally flew overseas" during this period to monitor operations.  I agree about the tubes; it is ironic that the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent who was working to find evidence supporting his Iraq war case.  I guess people will continue to read only what they want to read into articles like this no matter how much evidence comes out, but it will be interesting to see where the spin goes when this book is published.--csloat 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The language says "served" overseas.  Single trips outside the U.S. would not qualify jsut as it would not qualify as "served" in the military.  Otherwise, GWB would be considered a combat veteran as he has toured Iraq as Commander in Chief.  But my interpretation, as well as yours, is why it will not hold up to scrutiny since it is not clearly sourced.  It should be left out unless/until a charge that uses the IPAA definition is brought.  She should not be referred to as a "covert agent" after 1997 since the IIPA has a definition that is not consistent with her service (or at best ambiguous).  As for the tubes, I was pointing out that she is one of the people who say the tubes are for a nuclear reactor.  That was her report to Congress and she believed that Iraq was reconstituting in Nuclear weapons program.  If Korn is correct and she was part of the team who evaluated the Aluminum tubes, it puts her at direct odds to her husband.  I don't think the Bush administration burned her, I think it was Wilson they were after and this disclosure was inadvertant.  --Tbeatty 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite your source for the bizarre definition of "served overseas" here; frankly, I think you're making it up.  The Bush analogy is nonsensical; if Bush had been sent to Iraq on a mission for the US military as part of an ongoing appointment as a machine gunner or something, then, sure, we could say he "served," just like when Valerie Wilson went overseas as part of an ongoing appointment as a NOC dealing with WMD issues, she too was "serving."  As for IIPA, I don't think charges will be brought under it, because we have some of the criminals involved disrupting the investigation -- hence the perjury and obstruction charges.  That is independent of her status as a "covert" agent, which she clearly was in the general sense, and now the evidence points pretty clearly that she met even the more restricted definition of covert given in the IIPA.  Whether or not charges are brought against anyone under IIPA does not change her status as covert.  As for the tubes, I understand your point, and I agree that it is ironic that in their zeal to assault Wilson, members of the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent -- inadvertently or no -- who was basically working on their side.--csloat 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Criminals?"  I don't know where you are from, but here in America, we have a concept called "innocent until proven guilty."  I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with it - it would help in your editing Wikipedia. Valtam 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please - high horse unnecessary; I did not and would not add that word to the article.  I assumed it would be understood that I was expressing my opinion that the people who committed crimes here are "criminals," not a court's.  I do support due process and criminal rights for Scooter Libby and anyone else charged with crimes in this situation.  (However, I am extremely disturbed by the fact that certain people - specifically Mr. Rove - continue to enjoy security clearance.  Revocation of such clearance does not need a court finding of guilt in this situation.)--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: maybe armitage "burned" her because she was working with the white house.  the conspiracy theories can go on forever.  corn's article basically confirms what was already known.  she was an noc, but not a deep cover noc, since she served time at an embassy and, now we learn, worked with jordanian intelligence officials.  so both sides of the covert debate can claim being correct.  Anthonymendoza 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armitage didn't burn her.  Rove and Libby (and plausibly Cheney) did.  Corn's article does confirm what is already known, I agree, but many people still seem to think that certain things were not known. There is no distinction made in that article (or anywhere else that I know of) between a NOC and a "deep cover NOC" -- I suggest that such distinction is based on guesswork by Wikipedia editors.  I see no evidence that her work in Jordan compromized her NOC status, nor her cover as an embassy worker.--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: corn's article says this about NOC's:  NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. but if plame met with jordanian intelligence officials, wouldn't she have been known to the jordanian government?  and this is from a time magazine article from 2003: Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, [Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official] said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments.  and the chicago tribune stated that plame had diplomatic cover while serving at an embassy:A CIA veteran with 20 years of service was quoted in the Tribune article as saying "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period and that diplomatic cover would have meant she would have been known to "friendly and opposition intelligence services alike".  so there is a distinction between an NOC and a deep cover NOC, and it's not my "guesswork".  what i don't understand is why you are the only editor you doesn't see the significance of Armitage being the initial leaker.  i know in the past you've commented on Rove being "frog marched" out of the white house, but he isn't going to be charged. and neither is cheney. and libby trial will have nothing to do with plame's outing.  ask yourself this: if armitage hadn't of told novak about plame, would we have a plame affair?  rove only confirmed what armitage already told novak, and all indications are that rove told cooper after he learned novak would be writing an article about it.  libby told miller, but she didn't and never intended to write about it.  nobody burned anybody or conspired against anyone. even the washington post and the new york times are distancing themselves from Joe Wilson.  there was no conspiracy to out plame.Anthonymendoza 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So was she a NOC or not?  You seem to be claiming both things here.  The "deep cover" argument by Rustmann is the first and only place I've seen that, and his credibility on this issue has been called into question by several other former CIA officers.  The anonymous guy who says having a diplomatic job means that she wasn't a NOC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, at least, if other CIA officials are to be believed on this.  I still don't see any evidence of a distinction in kinds of NOC; Rustmann's comment sounds like he is making the distinction on the fly.  Of course, neither of us works at CIA, at least I know I don't, and I don't believe you have ever claimed to, so neither of us can say with certainty whether that is an official distinction.  As for the Jordanians, I have no idea whether they knew she was a NOC, and the article does not appear to make a claim either way on that issue.  But it's nice that you're so sure of it.  As for Armitage, which is the big issue here, the Times and Post are just wrong this time around.  The Armitage info is nothing new.  The book which this info comes from is coming out in a couple days I think; you will see then (assuming you read it, or about it) that its authors clearly do not agree with the WaPo assessment of the Plame affair as a big waste of time.  Armitage was clearly not the only person spreading this information about Plame to the Washington press corps.  Fitzgerald - who knew about Armitage back in '03 - stated in court documents that "there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14."  According to WaPo (10/12/03), "two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists."  That article reports that an administration official told them the disclosure was "unsolicited" and that it was "part of their broader case against Wilson."  Rove called Matthews and said that Plame was "fair game" in the attack on Wilson (Newsweek 7/11/05).  Your claim that Rove told Novak about Plame after Armitage told him is immaterial -- Rove talked to Novak about Plame the same day Armitage talked to him, and his confirmation of this information was a separate crime.  We also know for a fact that Rove talked to Cooper 3 days later, offering up the same information (and no, I don't see any indications that Rove knew Novak would be mentioning it, though that is immaterial to any of this as well).  If Armitage shot his mouth off first, that hardly changes the nature of any of this.  It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this, but is also irrelevant to the question of whether there was a "Plame affair" or of whether there was something immoral, criminal, and detrimental to national security that was done by people in the White House and VPs office who wanted to attack a former Ambassador for doing his job.--csloat 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so know Rustmann is not credible.  ok.  but yes, i am claiming both.  she was NOC, but not enough to fit under the IIPA definition, and no real harm came from her outing, as andrea mitchell, bob woodward, and dana priest have all reported.   but i see where you are coming from now when you write "It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this".  you are waiting for another shoe to drop.  i don't believe there are any other indictments to come involving this case, but let's wait and see. as for the armitage info being known, yes, some theorized it was him, but now that we know for sure, it does change the entire aspect of this affair.  you cite the post to prove a big conspiracy, yet say they are wrong when they begin to distance themselves from Wilson.  and yes, fitzgerald has said there is ample evidence that white house officials discussed plame, but he doesn't suggest it's criminal, or even immoral; rather, if you read the entire document, he uses that info to rebute claims by libby that he had other things on his mind and thus forgot about discussing plame.  fitzgerald is arguing that wilson's column was at the forefront of cheney's mind and thus makes it more plausible that libby perjured himself and obstructed justice. we'll see what happens at libby's trial, as he is innocent until proven guilty, and we can't base our judgment solely on the documents of a prosecutor.  but regardless, i believe your grasping at straws but i commend you for sticking to your guns. but if in the end libby is the only person indicted,  the plame affair will only be remembered as a big conspiracy theory that didn't materialize.Anthonymendoza 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I thought another shoe might drop.  As a patriot, I suppose I am hopeful that one does, but I am not making any predictions, given how weird this case has been.  Your claim that no harm has come from her outing is ludicrous given what we now know about what she was doing; Mitchell, woodward, and priest are incorrect if they have reported that (former CIA officials Johnson, Marcinkowski, Grimaldi, and Cavan, as well as former DIA officer Lang, as well as several current CIA officials who remain anonymous, have all reported otherwise.  I trust their word over the reports of two reporters (neither of whom is a huge hack - well, perhaps woodward - but you haven't indicated where their info came from) and certainly over the word of Andrea Mitchell, who has been shown to have deliberately distorted this on occasion, who has a clear investment in the case, and who has admitted having "misspoke" about this.  As for Armitage, there is no evidence that it "changes the entire aspect" of this affair.  The crucial issue is that the White House went after Wilson and in the process of doing so they (willfully or ignorantly) burned an important national security outlet.  Whether anyone gets hung out to dry for that is not something I will predict, though, again, as a patriot, I do not hide the fact that I have my hopes.  That Armitage is a blabbermouth is beside the point -- the whole reason he was looking at a document with this info about Plame in the first place is because people in the White House had started up a smear campaign.  As for my citing the Post and saying they are wrong about something else - I cited a report and said they were wrong in an editorial.  Look, the Post publishes a lot of different things and has many different writers.  It is quite possible they get some things right and others wrong.  Are you suggesting the report I cited - a basic statement of facts based on Fitzgerald's investigation - was a lie?  Finally, I must again emphasize that whether anyone else gets indicted is a separate issue.  My car was stolen.  The thief was never brought to justice.  I doubt you would claim that the latter fact proves that nothing illegal or immoral took place.  Sometimes the evidence is not there to convict a criminal for wrongdoing (especially when there is obstruction of justice and perjury going on!)  I can't see how anyone can claim that what took place was not immoral.  National security was compromised by the exposure of an undercover CIA agent who was working on WMD issues, and it was done for a cheap political attack on someone else who was working for the Administration.  (And this after the Admin even backed off the claim that Wilson was refuting!)  If a Democratic administration had done anything like this, we'd have seen everyone involved tried for treason by now.  I'm not saying that should happen here, but I am saying I find it very difficult to understand how you can claim these actions as morally defensible.  Plead ignorance or stupidity if you want to defend the Admin on this but claiming it was morally justified seems absurd.  And, by the way, I have one final point - it doesn't matter if you believe Plame was doing anything important with WMD issues.  The outing of plame was also an outing of her cover company, which was a large CIA investment and may have exposed other agents and operations.  Chances are the CIA had to call it quits on everything Valerie was involved in, and possibly lost relationships with other assets abroad.  But even beyond that - and this is crucial - the question of the longer term effect on CIA covert operations needs to be stressed.  Being an undercover agent of any kind is already dangerous - especially being a NOC.  An agent knows that they could be killed or worse if their identity is exposed.  It's bad enough that the "bad guys" might figure out their identity, but it is a lot worse if they cannot trust their own government to not blab their identity to reporters!  We can only imagine the longer term effect of this action on recruiting and retention of covert agents who do this dangerous work.  If I were a covert agent in 2003 when this happened I might be looking for early retirement options.  This is, I think, one of the reasons the CIA took this so seriously when it happened, and it's a reason conservatives should be taking it seriously too.  We can debate liberal vs. conservative ideas all day long, but at some point there are certain issues where American liberals and conservatives both should be responding as Americans first rather than as representatives of political parties.--csloat 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the car analogy doesn't work here since the reason no one was brought to justice for stealing your car was because he/she wasn't caught.  in this case, fitzgerald knows who all the players are, what they said, who they talked too, etc, and no one was charged with leaking classified info.  and i'm not suggesting fitzgerald's report was a lie, just that your misreading it.  fitzgerald was making an argument that libby couldn't have forgotten conversations about plame because she and wilson were discussed deeply in the vp's office. but he doesn't suggest the fact that she was discussed was criminal.  as far as everything else, Armitage has now stated that in 40 years of government service, reading and dealing with memos and classified documents, he has never seen a covert agents name printed in a memo.  that tells you how thinly veiled her cover was.  or perhaps the state department needs to review the guidelines for writing classified memos.  i just think this is all so overblown.  there's no question plame's career was ruined, but the fault lies with armitage and the author of the state department memo, rather than rove, libby , bush, etc.  there just simply was no conspiracy to out her.Anthonymendoza 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The car analogy works.  The reason no one was brought to justice is that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for the theft.  That does not mean the theft was not a crime.  The reason Fitzgerald has not charged anyone but Libby appears to be the same - there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with leaking classified info.  The fact that Fitzgerald has talked to everyone does not mean he is confident there is enough evidence to indict -- in fact, the obstruction of justice that occurred likely made it difficult to gather all the evidence necessary.  What did I misread in Fitzgerald's report?  Fitzgerald said Plame was undercover until her cover was blown by Novak.  Fitzgerald doesn't need to address whether this was criminal - he would not be involved if no criminal activity were involved.  As for whether Plame was thinly veiled -- who wrote the memo?  Not the CIA, but State, and you may be right that they should review their procedures for writing memos.  And, again, it doesn't matter how "thin" you think her cover was; the fact is, if the CIA says she is undercover, that is what she is.  Complain to them about doing a poor job, but that does not excuse whoever exposed her.  And it does not excuse Rove and Libby and whoever else for contacting 6 news outlets (at minimum) in order to attack Wilson through his wife.  This may be "overblown" too - I'm not arguing that it's not - but I do think this is serious, possibly more serious than actions that have brought impeachment proceedings against previous presidents.  If the VP's office knowingly compromised national security in order to smear someone for criticizing actions that are already on tenuous moral and legal grounds (i.e. intentionally manipulating the case for war by ignoring key evidence or distorting other evidence), that is quite serious.  Debates about how deep her cover was or whether there were other people hurt by her outing are secondary; the primary issue (at least in my opinion - and I acknowledge that's all we're discussing at this point, and that the only reason I'm continuing this conversation is that, as TheronJ noted, "speculation is fun") is the abuse of power by the executive branch and the placing of petty political revenge over national security concerns.--csloat 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm confused. was someone arrested for stealing the car and not charged, or was no one arrested because of lack of suspects?  i admire your passion on this issue and i too was drawn to this story because of all the issues you raised.  but i stopped taking it seriously when joe and valerie wilson posed for vanity fair.  to me, the whole affair became a political stunt after that.  and as details continue to emerge, i think this was all a waste of time.  but i agree there were serious questions involved here and the investigation was warranted, just way overhyped.  we'll see where the civil suit goes.Anthonymendoza 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody was arrested, but what is the difference?  If someone was arrested and not charged would that make the analogy more useful for you?  Didn't happen to me, but it has certainly happened, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree there was still a crime committed if a car was stolen.  As for the rest of it, I think we're nearing some common ground.  I agree with you that posing for Vanity Fair was a lame move on their part.  Then again, if Vanity Fair asked me to pose for them, I'm sure I would do it, and think about the fallout later.  Certainly they wanted to get the word out about the scandal, and here was an outlet willing to do that.  I'm not sure whether the civil suit matters much; it's a vehicle to keep public attention focused on this, I suppose, but to me this issue is important whether or not Wilson is vindicated by some kind of legal settlement.--csloat 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The article states that Plame worked out of CIA headquarters starting in 1997.  Obviously, you can't be covert if you are walking in and out of CIA headquarters every working day... Valtam 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false.  It's a canard that has been thoroughly refuted long ago.  You think undercover cops don't go to the police station?--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything there that indicates the trip to Jordan or the other overseas trips she took "would not count," sorry.  That seems to be your interpretation.  Same with your claim that "served" implies a duty station not at CIA HQ (and I also don't see any place where you learned where she was stationed in Jordan or her other trips).  Nor do I see anything about how many weeks you have to be somewhere for it to count.  I also see nothing in the Corn article or anywhere else that indicates that Jordanian officials "almost certainly" knew anything.  As for what Corn's article added that was new - it's strange, since you've mentioned a few of the things yourself, otherwise I would just reply that you obviously hadn't read it if you think that was all that was new there.--csloat 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being in Jordan is not "serving" in Jordan.  Look at military billets.  That's the way it works.  If you go to Canada for week on business you aren't considered to be working in Canada.  You don't pay their income or labor taxes, etc, etc.  Going to Jordan as part of her work at a Langely desk would not count as serving outside the United States.  As for whether Jordan intelligence official knew her status as CIA employee seems pretty self-evident.  Why else would they talk to her?  Here is the interesting bit.  By tying her to Aluminum Tubes, Corn makes it clear that the statement "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons" a year before the invasion and after her husband returned from Niger.  If her husband didn't believe that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, he didn't convince his wife.  --Tbeatty 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Tbeatty, I'm not buying it.  Where is the evidence that going to Jordan to do CIA business doesn't count in the IIPA?  You are just asserting it, and it's not convincing.  Where is your information about the other trips she took overseas?  Where is your evidence that she didn't get paid, that this was "part of her work at a langley desk" (what a loaded pile, sorry) or that the Jordanians would not talk to her if she was undercover?  You are just asserting things - I'm glad you're so sure of these things, but I'm sticking to what I actually see evidence for.  Your link to the CIA 2002 document tells us nothing.  I never disagreed that Plame likely thought Iraq was trying to acquire nukes.  Frankly, I think Joe Wilson likely thought so too before he went to Niger and discovered otherwise.  But that is neither here nor there - this information makes a Plame/Wilson conspiracy less likely, not more.--csloat 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The simplest thing is to wait for reliable sources to opine on the circumstances of Plames' trip and whether it renders her covert.  However, since speculation is fun, let me say that: (1) I still think Fitzgerald's unusual effort to avoid saying she was covert suggests that he wasn't confident that she was; but (2) the trip is one more thing on the other side of the scale.  (As to whether she was undercover on the trip, I would be very interested in seeing what the reliable sources have to say -- I can imagine that it would be hard for a Brewster Energy executive to get the Jordanians to talk about the specifications of aluminum tubes they sold to Iraq, but OTOH, there's a good chance that she at least traveled under her cover just to avoid being kidnapped. TheronJ 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we already have Corn "opining" on the matter here.  I believe the book comes out today; looking forward to further revelations.  But I suspect instead of "reliable sources" you specifically mean Fitzgerald.  I don't agree that he has gone through any unusual efforts to avoid saying she was covert - I think he has simply chosen his words very carefully in general, something he is well known for doing.  He has said she was under cover, and a judge has said that he thinks Fitzgerald believes she was covert under the restrictive IIPA definition.  We already know she was "covert" in the normal, non-restrictive sense.  (The requirement for international travel is a legal fiction; it is not a part of the normal definition of covert in lay terms, as we have discussed in the past).--csloat 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not confuse a lack of charges with a lack of evidence of criminal activity.  We know Plame was covert in the general sense; the CIA has acknowledged over and over now that she was working under cover, and Fitzgerald has said as much, as has a federal judge.  In the specific sense of the IIPA there has been a debate, though the Corn article seems to settle that debate too, since the only question about her "covertness" per the IIPA was whether she travelled out of the country on business during that time, and it now appears that she did so several times.  Your claim that there was no law broken because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with breaking a law is a ludicrous argument.  My car was stolen a few years back.  Nobody was charged with stealing it.  Are you saying no law was broken?  My car was found some 25 miles away stripped and on cinder blocks.  I am fairly certain there are laws against stealing cars and stripping them for parts in my state.  Your claim that Wilson is the one who outed Plame is even more ludicrous.  It's just nonsense.  Wilson was doing the job he was asked to do and he wrote his op ed not to grind an axe but to do his duty as an American citizen.  He was asked to do a job and he did it, and the Admin didn't like the answers he learned, so they stonewalled him and lied about it.  He knew the 16 words were false and shouldn't have been in the speech, how could he have kept quiet about it?  The nonsense that Plame sent Wilson or collaborated with Wilson on some kind of agenda-driven trip is complete bullshit, as you should know.  Newsday June 22 2003 - senior intel officer notes "[Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."  SSCI report p 40 - Valerie Wilson was not even at the meeting where the question of Joe Wilson going to =niger was raised.  Wilson was picked for the niger trip because he was uniquely qualified for it.  And the David Corn article confirms that the SSCI claim that Valerie "offered up" Wilson's name was a misunderstanding of something in a Douglas Rohn memo.  It also points out that she was on the Bush Admin side in the whole WMD thing, so it's hard to give claims of a Plame-Wilson conspiracy any credence at all.  And your claim about what "true under cover agents" do or don't do seems entirely based on your experience as an undercover wikipedia editor editing with an anonymous IP rather than any knowledge of how the CIA works - or doesn't work - here in the US.--csloat 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commodore, you say: He knew the 16 words were false.  Your statement is flat-out untrue - see the Butler Review, which says: [W]e conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded.  The fact that you are either ignorant of the facts, or are willfully distorting them, casts any claims you make into a dubious light. Valtam 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Tenet, the 16 words never should have been in the speech.  The Butler review is just wrong on this count.  They never established any evidence of the 16 words being true; my guess is this was a CYA on their part.  But my guess doesn't matter - my point was that the US has backed off of that claim because we knew it to be unsupported, based in part on what Wilson found when he went to Niger (but also based on other sources of information).  The key documents here turned out to be forgeries.  There is no need for personal attacks here; please read WP:AGF before engaging me in any further discussion.  Thanks.--csloat 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commodore, I am assuming good faith and I am not making a personal attack.  You make a statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", which is demonstrably false.  Why would you do such a thing?  The only reasons I can think of is you are ignorant of the matter, or you are not, and are intentionally making a false statement.  If there is another explanation, I'd love to hear it.  How is your statement demonstrably false?  The forged documents, which Wilson claimed to have seen, were not the only evidence supporting this claim.  See the entry on the 16 words.  It talks about Blair's testimony about separate sources for the claims, as well as Jack Straw's testimony that British intelligence supporting the claim had not been shared with the CIA, and was based on reliable intelligence.  Your statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", is false.  Valtam 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming I am willfully distorting facts and that any claim I make is dubious is a strange way of assuming good faith.  Claiming I am intentionally making false statements is simply not assuming good faith.  Tenet admitted the 16 words were false; I misspoke if I attributed what the Bush Administration knew to what Bush the man knew.  I don't know what Bush the individual knew; but I know what his Administration knew and what he should have known before addressing the nation.  Sorry if my words confused you.  What Blair and Jack Straw thought is not relevant here; what is relevant is what the Bush Admin thought, and that information should have been influenced by Wilson's report, among other information from IAEA and elsewhere, that suggested there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.  And today we have the bipartisan SSCI's relatively authoritative conclusion on the matter - "Postwar findings tdo not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa.... claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious'....  The ISG found no evidence that indicated Iraq sought uranium from Africa.  The ISG did recover evidence that Iraq explicitly turned down an offer to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo."  With the release of this report I don't see how anyone can continue to defend the position that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.--csloat 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SInce this is tied very closely to IIPA, I think we must use the more restrictive defintion.  It is a disservice to use the same words with two different meanings and this is the heart of the matter.  I think it is enough to say her employment status is classified.  WE should also be the most conservative when we use the term in relation to the criminal provisions of IIPA.  Saying she was a "covert agent" and then pointing out that revealing a "covert agent" is felony with regards to the IIPA, while at the same time, behind the scenes, trying to say "covert agent" means two different things is a poor argument.  I think in the context of the Plame affair, where the violation of IIPA is a very real possibility but not yet reality, we must defer to the definition in the IIPA.  That means until legal source says that IIPA was or wasn't violated, we should simply stay on the side with the most surety.  Namely, don't say "covert agent", say her "employment was classified" or that she had "non-official cover".  Both of those terms convey the facts without advancing the position that IIPA was violated.  It is possible to use the dictionary to work your way from those terms to "covert agent" but in the end it comes down to IIPA and it will fail that test until charges are brought.  --Tbeatty 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, is there still doubt that Plame was a NOC? Fitzgerald has already said that at the time of her outting her employment with the CIA was "classified" (see 1f of the indictment). 1d of the indictment also notes that the outing of individuals in Plame's situation would prevent their "future use in a covert capacity".  However, that being said, Armitage outing her may not have been a violation of IIPA.  In order to violate IIPA Armitage would have had to know that she was a NOC and he would have had to intentionally outed her.  Granted I haven't read every single article on Armitage's outting, but all the news I've seen have said that he knew she worked for the CIA, but didn't know in what capacity she worked for the CIA, and that he released the information on accident.  If that is true, then even though Plame was a NOC at the time of her outing, there is no violation of IIPA.  It also appears that Fitzgerald has known about Armitage's outting since 2003. One would think that if Armitage did violate IIPA he would have been charged by now. All in all, the lack of any charges related to IIPA does not prove that Plame was not a "covert agent", it just indicates that no one that knew she was a NOC intentionally outed her. --Bobblehead 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it means that not enough evidence has been found to prove what anyone knew when they outed her.  Of course, you're right that there is no serious dispute about whether she was covert.  As for Tbeatty's argument about the specific IIPA meaning of covert, the solution is not to just use the non-intuitive meaning in all cases; rather, the solution is to be clear when you are using the more restrictive term.  I definitely agree we should not confuse the two meanings, but just using "covert" to mean "covert + working outside the country in the past 5 years" is a bit deceptive in this context.-csloat 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the indictment of libby also says fitzgerald was investigating possible violations of the IIPA as well.  the question has always been why wasn't anyone charged with this.  it goes to the heart of the whole affair.  she was classified and an NOC.  but she either didn't fit the description under IIPA, fitzgerald couldn't prove she was intentionally outed, or he found she wasn't intentionally outed.  i personally find it interesting that the CIA requested an investigation into the matter not for IIPA violations, but solely for leaking classified information.  isikoff's piece states fitzgerald couldn't prove armitage knew she was covert. and jason leopold wrote a piece for raw story last year that states fitzgerald couldn't convince the grand jury she was covert (though i don't trust leopold's reporting anymore).  Anthonymendoza 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Commodore: Apologies.  I understand your argument, and I should have done a better job assuming good faith. Valtam 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that, and I'm glad the argument is more clear now.--csloat 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  covert status settled 

message: The confusion on this point stems from the fact that there are two aspects to Plame's confidential/discrete employment status. First of all, let's not dispute that as a CIA employee, it's fairly reasonable to accept that Plame was - at least to some degree - discrete about he employment actvities. However, let's not confuse the political aspect ie; Wilson, et al shouting "they outed Plame for revenge" with the legal, ie: Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with a making an illegal "leak". Based on the facts so far, it's pretty clear that Plame's employment privacy was not protected by law at the time it "leaked" out. However, as to whether or not she was keeping a low profile, hence working "covert", it seems that to some degree she was. At the same time, her status of "covert"/discrete or lack thereof, does not prove or disprove that there was a "leak" from the legal standpoint. If no applicable anti-"leak" was law broken (which, because Fitzgerald did not charge anyone, this seems likely), then it's important that we use care so as to not imply or suggest via the word "covert" that any legally sanctionable "leak" occured. To sum up, as I see it, legally there was no "leak"; pragmatically, Plame was previously working discretely, Wilson did make himself an adversary of White House via the Op-Ed, WH did seek to rebut and defuse him and it certainly looks smelly that Wilson/Plame as Democrat players, had their fingers in the get Bush pie on the "16 words" angle. Frankly, it seems to me that Wilson has only himself to blame for the exposure Plame got. Those two tossed the dice trying to stick it to Bush and it blew up in their faces. Why others here can't see this, puzzles me. I would say that up until the point where Wilson wrote that OpEd and invited scrutiny, a fair characterization of Plame's emplyment status would be "confidential". However, I feel that she willingly shirked that confidence when she got her blabber-mouth husband involved in his obviously agenda-driven trip and then failed to rope him in prior to his axe-griding OpEd. Wilson pissed in the punch bowl at the party and when he did that, it's quite reasonable to inquire as to how he got his entrance ticket. If Plame truly wanted to stay out of the spotlight, she would have kept a leash on Wilson. True under-cover agents do not allow their spouses to attract press and political attention to themselves.87.118.100.99 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not confuse a lack of charges with a lack of evidence of criminal activity.  We know Plame was covert in the general sense; the CIA has acknowledged over and over now that she was working under cover, and Fitzgerald has said as much, as has a federal judge.  In the specific sense of the IIPA there has been a debate, though the Corn article seems to settle that debate too, since the only question about her "covertness" per the IIPA was whether she travelled out of the country on business during that time, and it now appears that she did so several times.  Your claim that there was no law broken because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with breaking a law is a ludicrous argument.  My car was stolen a few years back.  Nobody was charged with stealing it.  Are you saying no law was broken?  My car was found some 25 miles away stripped and on cinder blocks.  I am fairly certain there are laws against stealing cars and stripping them for parts in my state.  Your claim that Wilson is the one who outed Plame is even more ludicrous.  It's just nonsense.  Wilson was doing the job he was asked to do and he wrote his op ed not to grind an axe but to do his duty as an American citizen.  He was asked to do a job and he did it, and the Admin didn't like the answers he learned, so they stonewalled him and lied about it.  He knew the 16 words were false and shouldn't have been in the speech, how could he have kept quiet about it?  The nonsense that Plame sent Wilson or collaborated with Wilson on some kind of agenda-driven trip is complete bullshit, as you should know.  Newsday June 22 2003 - senior intel officer notes "[Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."  SSCI report p 40 - Valerie Wilson was not even at the meeting where the question of Joe Wilson going to =niger was raised.  Wilson was picked for the niger trip because he was uniquely qualified for it.  And the David Corn article confirms that the SSCI claim that Valerie "offered up" Wilson's name was a misunderstanding of something in a Douglas Rohn memo.  It also points out that she was on the Bush Admin side in the whole WMD thing, so it's hard to give claims of a Plame-Wilson conspiracy any credence at all.  And your claim about what "true under cover agents" do or don't do seems entirely based on your experience as an undercover wikipedia editor editing with an anonymous IP rather than any knowledge of how the CIA works - or doesn't work - here in the US.--csloat 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commodore, you say: He knew the 16 words were false.  Your statement is flat-out untrue - see the Butler Review, which says: [W]e conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded.  The fact that you are either ignorant of the facts, or are willfully distorting them, casts any claims you make into a dubious light. Valtam 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Tenet, the 16 words never should have been in the speech.  The Butler review is just wrong on this count.  They never established any evidence of the 16 words being true; my guess is this was a CYA on their part.  But my guess doesn't matter - my point was that the US has backed off of that claim because we knew it to be unsupported, based in part on what Wilson found when he went to Niger (but also based on other sources of information).  The key documents here turned out to be forgeries.  There is no need for personal attacks here; please read WP:AGF before engaging me in any further discussion.  Thanks.--csloat 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commodore, I am assuming good faith and I am not making a personal attack.  You make a statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", which is demonstrably false.  Why would you do such a thing?  The only reasons I can think of is you are ignorant of the matter, or you are not, and are intentionally making a false statement.  If there is another explanation, I'd love to hear it.  How is your statement demonstrably false?  The forged documents, which Wilson claimed to have seen, were not the only evidence supporting this claim.  See the entry on the 16 words.  It talks about Blair's testimony about separate sources for the claims, as well as Jack Straw's testimony that British intelligence supporting the claim had not been shared with the CIA, and was based on reliable intelligence.  Your statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", is false.  Valtam 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming I am willfully distorting facts and that any claim I make is dubious is a strange way of assuming good faith.  Claiming I am intentionally making false statements is simply not assuming good faith.  Tenet admitted the 16 words were false; I misspoke if I attributed what the Bush Administration knew to what Bush the man knew.  I don't know what Bush the individual knew; but I know what his Administration knew and what he should have known before addressing the nation.  Sorry if my words confused you.  What Blair and Jack Straw thought is not relevant here; what is relevant is what the Bush Admin thought, and that information should have been influenced by Wilson's report, among other information from IAEA and elsewhere, that suggested there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.  And today we have the bipartisan SSCI's relatively authoritative conclusion on the matter - "Postwar findings tdo not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa.... claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious'....  The ISG found no evidence that indicated Iraq sought uranium from Africa.  The ISG did recover evidence that Iraq explicitly turned down an offer to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo."  With the release of this report I don't see how anyone can continue to defend the position that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.--csloat 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SInce this is tied very closely to IIPA, I think we must use the more restrictive defintion.  It is a disservice to use the same words with two different meanings and this is the heart of the matter.  I think it is enough to say her employment status is classified.  WE should also be the most conservative when we use the term in relation to the criminal provisions of IIPA.  Saying she was a "covert agent" and then pointing out that revealing a "covert agent" is felony with regards to the IIPA, while at the same time, behind the scenes, trying to say "covert agent" means two different things is a poor argument.  I think in the context of the Plame affair, where the violation of IIPA is a very real possibility but not yet reality, we must defer to the definition in the IIPA.  That means until legal source says that IIPA was or wasn't violated, we should simply stay on the side with the most surety.  Namely, don't say "covert agent", say her "employment was classified" or that she had "non-official cover".  Both of those terms convey the facts without advancing the position that IIPA was violated.  It is possible to use the dictionary to work your way from those terms to "covert agent" but in the end it comes down to IIPA and it will fail that test until charges are brought.  --Tbeatty 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, is there still doubt that Plame was a NOC? Fitzgerald has already said that at the time of her outting her employment with the CIA was "classified" (see 1f of the indictment). 1d of the indictment also notes that the outing of individuals in Plame's situation would prevent their "future use in a covert capacity".  However, that being said, Armitage outing her may not have been a violation of IIPA.  In order to violate IIPA Armitage would have had to know that she was a NOC and he would have had to intentionally outed her.  Granted I haven't read every single article on Armitage's outting, but all the news I've seen have said that he knew she worked for the CIA, but didn't know in what capacity she worked for the CIA, and that he released the information on accident.  If that is true, then even though Plame was a NOC at the time of her outing, there is no violation of IIPA.  It also appears that Fitzgerald has known about Armitage's outting since 2003. One would think that if Armitage did violate IIPA he would have been charged by now. All in all, the lack of any charges related to IIPA does not prove that Plame was not a "covert agent", it just indicates that no one that knew she was a NOC intentionally outed her. --Bobblehead 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it means that not enough evidence has been found to prove what anyone knew when they outed her.  Of course, you're right that there is no serious dispute about whether she was covert.  As for Tbeatty's argument about the specific IIPA meaning of covert, the solution is not to just use the non-intuitive meaning in all cases; rather, the solution is to be clear when you are using the more restrictive term.  I definitely agree we should not confuse the two meanings, but just using "covert" to mean "covert + working outside the country in the past 5 years" is a bit deceptive in this context.-csloat 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the indictment of libby also says fitzgerald was investigating possible violations of the IIPA as well.  the question has always been why wasn't anyone charged with this.  it goes to the heart of the whole affair.  she was classified and an NOC.  but she either didn't fit the description under IIPA, fitzgerald couldn't prove she was intentionally outed, or he found she wasn't intentionally outed.  i personally find it interesting that the CIA requested an investigation into the matter not for IIPA violations, but solely for leaking classified information.  isikoff's piece states fitzgerald couldn't prove armitage knew she was covert. and jason leopold wrote a piece for raw story last year that states fitzgerald couldn't convince the grand jury she was covert (though i don't trust leopold's reporting anymore).  Anthonymendoza 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Commodore: Apologies.  I understand your argument, and I should have done a better job assuming good faith. Valtam 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that, and I'm glad the argument is more clear now.--csloat 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Covert" vs. not "covert" 

message: (She also assisted operations involving Iran and WMDs.)  this sentence is the only mention of Iran in Corn's article.  this is from the raw story article: While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran. anonymous sources drive me crazy!Anthonymendoza 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq or Iran?

message: Either Plame was:
#a known employee of the CIA (hardly anyone says this)
#an employee whose connection to the CIA was "classifed" (but was not "CIA agent" working undercover)
#a "CIA agent" working undercover
I hear there is a law which applies to the 3rd case. Like suppose your "cover story" is that you're a tourist or embassy clerk, but you are really a CIA spy in Russia. Somebody reveals your CIA connection, and you and/or your family are murdered. 
But what about case #2 where you're not one of several hundred "secret agents" but just another analyst like tens of thousands of others? Does the same law apply? (And if so, who says so?) --Uncle Ed 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The law you've heard about is the IIPA, and it has a specific definition of "covert," not "undercover."  The latter term has been used by Fitzgerald and by the CIA, along with "classified."  This is (or was) covered in the article, and there have been numerous discussions of it on the talk page; it might be helpful to look through the previous discussions on this topic on this page and in the archive (search through the pages for "covert"; that covers a lot but there has been a lot of discussion on these pages of that dispute).  Plame was a NOC (non-official cover), which many consider the most dangerous kind of undercover agent, since you travel without diplomatic protection -- if you're busted in another country, the CIA essentially pretends they don't know who you are (I'm oversimplifying of course).  Few dispute that fact.  That still does not mean she was protected by the IIPA, which is still a matter of debate for some people (and of course nobody has been charged under that law).  Hope this clears it up.--csloat 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One minor clarification. Plame's status as a NOC is protected by IIPA, but only from people that knew she was a NOC. So the fact that she was outed and no charges have been filed to date should not be taken as an indication that she was not protected by IIPA. It's just that Armitage may not have violated IIPA when he outed her. --Bobblehead 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame's status

message: I suggest deleting the paragraph in the introduction that talks about why Wilson was picked for the trip to Niger. Introducing the controversy over that sub-topic distracts from the main flow of events leading to the outing. rewinn 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it should be somewhere in the article, since it establishes conclusively that Wilson was picked for his expertise and experience, not because he was Valerie's husband.--csloat 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be somewhere. However Wilson's full qualifications seem to be so extensive that they were largely editted out of the introduction. I sympathize with the desire for conciseness up front, but Wilson was so massively qualified for the gig that his qualifications may merit their own small sub-section. rewinn 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed it because Wilson's qualifications can be found on his wikipedia page, and the intro has a link to it.  if a reader wants to learn about his qualifications, they should read his page. that was my reasoning.Anthonymendoza 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cmon, Wilson was picked because his wife pushed for him.  He didn't have an real credentials for this and didn't do any real work while in Niger. However it doesn't belong in the intro sinec it is only a side part of the controversy, who leaked and why is the core. 131.107.0.75 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, sorry, but that's BS.  Wilson was the best possible candidate for the job -- he had experience in Africa, he had experience with Saddam, he had relationships with most of the people he needed to talk to.  And, in fact, his wife didn't "push for him"!  That is a myth that has been pretty well shattered by the Isikoff/Corn revelations (and, in fact, the evidence prior to that was pretty clear anyway -- you have some vague statements about her "offering his name up" that turned out to be a misinterpretation, and you have clear statements from the CIA that she wasn't even at the meeting where he was chosen for the job).--csloat 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly were Joe Wilson's qualifications?  No intelligence gathering experience.  No security agreement.  He was the best possible for the job?  A high profile former US official with no cover was the best we had for a discrete mission?  Sip your own BS, Cslaot, but I am not buying it.  A lot of the misinformation you complain about comes from you.  Evensong 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is what was removed from the article: "he is a former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital. He was also Director for African Affairs in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and had relevant experience as Acting Ambassador to Iraq during the First Gulf War under then-President George H W Bush"  This was not a secret intelligence gathering mission.  Wilson was sent to speak openly with the major figures who would have knowledge of such a transaction.  Larry Johnson puts it this way: "Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa?  Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job.  Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA.  My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America.  There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets."  You may not like Johnson but his argument here is impeccable.  And cut out the personal attacks Evensong, it looks desperate and feeble.  You have turned out to be wrong on just about every issue (if not every single one) that we've discussed here.--csloat 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Introduction need reasons Wilson picked?

message: Since I got reverted for not properly explaining why I removed a majority of the EL. Here we go:
#I wasn't saying that only government sources are the only acceptable links to include in the section.
#What I was saying was that the external links section is not a dumping ground for links that editors feel should be included in the article, but don't want to take the time to put them in as an inline source. (see WP:EL#What should be linked to) 
In my opinion, the only links in this section that didn't meet the dumping ground criteria were the State of the Union address and Fitzgerald's official website.  The rest were a repeat of links that were already in the article and/or did not have any information in them that wasn't already in the article, so they don't meet the criteria listed in WP:EL. The external links section is not for linking to specific articles on the subject (unless it adds something substantive to the article in an NPOV manner, but can not be added to the article due to copyrights), it's for linking to entire sites dedicated to the article and unless the site is NPOV, they need to include a description of which POV they are pushing. As an example, a link to Think Progress's tag for the Plame affair with a description along the lines of "Plame affair articles on a liberal website critical of the George W. Bush administration" is acceptable, but links to specific articles on Think Progress is not acceptable as they should be in the article as references. --Bobblehead 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the State of the Union is a repeat of inline ref #2. Constructive 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me suggest that you do a couple at a time, then let it sit for a day or three, explaining in talk as you go? It will take longer, but would raise fewer hackles. Probably educate the other editors (such as myself) as well. I didn't do the revert but I can imagine someone reacting strongly to a large edit, especially since this is a contentious article. rewinn 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: According to Novak, the Armitage leak was not just idle gossip.  And according to a conservative source who spoke with Robert Parry, Armitage and Rove have a lot closer relationship than it would appear.  The source told Parry "Armitage isn’t a gossip, but he is a leaker. There’s a difference."  Interesting.  I don't know what all this means other than, it ain't over yet.--csloat 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What isn't over yet. Neither Rove nor Armitage will be indicted.  The article is based on "A well-placed conservative source,"  which is just laughable.  Why would Armitage conspire to "out" Plame? and obviously Fitzgerald is aware of Novak's account.  so why wasn't Armitage then indicted?  I just don't understand the fuss over all of this anymore. Anthonymendoza 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information we know about any of this comes from "well placed sources"; why is this one more laughable than any other?  I'm not sure why you see indictment as the only thing that would make this worth fussing over.  As I've said a few times now, that is one issue but hardly the only important thing going on here.--csloat 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect Plame Affair the article ain't over yet. People are still editting Terri Schiavo and Flat Earth.  Most substantively, Plame Affair will probably include information about the civil suits which ... I state without fear of contradiction ... will take years to resolve.  rewinn 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curiouser and curiouser 

message: perhaps we should start a debate here to settle the intro paragraph once and for all.  the basic question is,  What is the "Plame affair"?  here's my opinion. the plame affair is the allegation that plame's name was leaked intentionally for political payback.  the fact that armitage was novak's initial source, libby was indicted, rove was scrutinized but not indicted, and that no one was charged with leaking her name are all pieces of the story, but don't necessarily define what the plame affair is.  the plame affair has always been about the allegations, not the criminal investigation.  all the relevant facts of the case are for the body of the article and not the background.  therefore i don't think it's necessary to include that fact that armitage was novaks source in the intro.  a one sentence intro is fine stating that "the plame affair is the allegation that plame's name was leaked intentionally for political payback".  Anthonymendoza 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this for an intro? 149.9.0.56 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the endless back and forth over the intro paragraph

message: :Joseph Wilson, whose wife was outed as a CIA operative, was found to have lied about Iraq being disinterested in Nigerian yellowcake. Why does the article not reflect this? There is a liberal bias that permeates... never mind. Just get this article in the proper shape. As referenced in my sig, there's already one unsolved mystery bungled by authoritarian hacks. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, you're wrong.  Wilson was quite correct about that (and, in fact, he was only stating what the State Department's intelligence agency already knew).--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Wilson was proven to be a liar in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, regarding the forged documents.  See page 45 of the report.  Here's the relevant portion: The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article... which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.  So Wilson is a known liar; whether he lied about the yellowcake, or merely misrepresented his own report, is not entirely clear. Valtam 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please.  He has long since acknowledged that he made an error with that comment - it was the State Dept intel who had come to the conclusion that the documents were forged.  Calling him a liar on that point - which he has admitted he was wrong about - and then using that to say he was lying about his own report (which has been confirmed by every other investigation into the matter) is a bit hysterical, to say the least.--csloat 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson allegedly lied 

message: as if this affair wasn't bizzare enough, now we learn fitzgerald granted immunity to ari fleischer in a very unconventional way.  given what has been revealed so far, it's clear fitzgerald targeted the vice president's office in his investigation.  while the press is abuzz over cheney's behind the scenes efforts, there are two interesting bits of info here.  according to Cathie Martin, cheney had dictated eight "talking points" for his staffers regarding joe wilson and ordered Martin to "get all the facts out."  yet none of the talking points mentioned valerie plame, and according to martin "It didn't seem appropriate or helpful for us to get that out...It gave me some explanation but we didn't need it as a talking point."  so much for the conspiracy to out her.  another point of interest is that fitzgerald has apparently sided with the senate intelligence committee and is trying to convince jurors plame played a part in planning joe wilson's trip.  i can see why since that would bolster his case.  one things for sure, libby has a damn good lawyer.  he's been able to show the jury that each of fitzgerald's witnesses at one time or another had memory problems with regards to what they told who and when. and while everyone thinks it's a bombshell that rove may testify, he's being called by the defense and his testimony will actually back up libby's claim that he first learned of plame from russert, since rove will testify libby told him such. interesting stuff!    Anthonymendoza 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "so much for the conspiracy to out her" - sure, except perhaps the conspiracy wasn't to out her, but to get Joe Wilson.  Outing her was then likely a means to an end (or, to be generous to the veep, a side effect of the conspiracy). csloat 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ari Fleischer

message: The CIA's assessment that Iraq was conducting a nuclear program was based off of aluminum tube orders and magnet production, not uranium from Africa. Also, does anybody know (or care) that Iraq has natural uranium deposits and intelligence officials believed they could get the bomb within 5 years without any imported uranium? 65.185.190.240 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a big deal to anyone who works undercover or who considers working undercover doing something dangerous to protect the country; if they can't be sure their own government won't protect their identity, why would they agree to do such work?  You may not care, but a lot of current and former intelligence officials certainly do. csloat 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Csloat that plame losing her classified cia status was no trivial matter.  but now that a clearer picture is emerging, i don't think this scandal has lived up to any of the hype.  and as the LA times put it, in the end it's the CIA who bears much of the responsibilty for plame losing her career.  fitzgerald is currently trying to establish a motive for libby lying, and it appears he's going to argue that once libby realized plame's status was classified, he backtracked and tried to cover up.  this is all a far cry from the notion that the vice president's office or the white house deliberately outed her.  joe wilson was running around telling anyone who would listen that he went to niger at the request of the vice president's office and that he single-handedly proved the white house manipulated the case for war.  in the ensuing political battle that emerged, plame's name was tossed around (since, as prosecution witnesses have testified, she played a part in planning his trip) until her name and cia affiliation was published.  in my personal opinion, wilson should have known that declaring war on the white house and writing op-eds would lead to press scrutiny, and that private aspects of his life were bound to come out into the open.  it's the nature of politics and is an essential part of daily political life in DC.  to say he outed her is wrong, put his actions did contribute, as did the actions of the CIA and the white house.  i view plame's outing more as a political casualty than a conspiracy. Anthonymendoza 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question there was a conspiracy to bring Wilson down; you're right though that she was a political casualty of that.  Again, the bottom line is that the CIA's going to have a much harder time recruiting new undercover agents when it is clear that their undercover identity can easily be compromised by members of the administration when politically expedient.  Sure Wilson played a part in this -- he found information that led him to believe the administration was lying, and he made it a point to make that information public.  This is the real story here, that the admin was probably lying (or at least incompetent) and when caught, rather than coming clean, they played politics and (intentionally or no) sacrificed real national security interests in order to score a political point against Wilson.  Should Wilson not have done what he did?  I suppose his wife would have stayed undercover if he had kept his mouth shut, but it seems to me we should encourage those who find evidence of Presidential misconduct to come out with it rather than to shut up about it.  Imagine if someone in the Clinton administration had outed a CIA agent to get back at those who exposed the blue dress... csloat 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it doesn't matter 

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

message: This piece is a pretty good read.  I hope she's wrong but a pardon in december does make sense from the Bush Administration's perspective.--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is she debunking, exactly?  Also, a pardon wouldn't be Bush's style. He was at 69 last year, and that puts him very, very low according to this list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're right!  That list is cool; my guess is that most pres pardons occur as they're leaving office, so we'll see how low his number stays, but you're right, according to that it is extremely low.  As for the article, she is debunking the claim forwarded by many that the Isikoff/Corn book Armitage revelations mean that there is no "Plame affair."  Particularly notable is her point that at the time Armitage revealed the classified info to Novak, he was indeed a vocal proponent of Bush Administration policy toward Iraq, whatever his private doubts might have been at the time.  The other notable info is that he appears to be making false claims or playing dumb about when he figured out that he was the source of Novak's article.--csloat 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Novak said he didn't know she was an uncover operative. He said he thought she was an analyst. Wasn't that made clear in the article? 71.212.13.204 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that that the article is clear on Novak's claim, as it is on others, including the Lexis/Nexis analysis of his prior use of the word "operative".  If he remained consistent in his use of that word, then it begs the question of how he concluded that it applied to her.  Just a thought.  Constructive 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debunking the Armitage Myth

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

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

message: Do we really need every article written about this in the references section?  I would prefer to stick to important and oft-quoted documents and trial documents rather than every opinion piece in Slate, the Nation, and so forth.  I trimmed the 20-some Hitchens cites that were recently added, as I did on the Wilson page; apparently the person who added them got upset and stalked me to another page.  I invite him to explain here why those cites are all necessary.  This shouldn't be a repository of every opinion piece written about the plame affair.  We already have footnotes where every article worth quoting in the essay is cited; do we really need all these articles here under references as well? csloat 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need a references section at all, as it's completely redundant? If the article is properly cited in the main body, all the references needed should be in the notes section, and the entire References section can be deleted. Of all the actual sources cited, the vast majority are from secondary sources in the press, not trial documents. And I'm not upset, or stalking anyone. If you look at the edit times, you'll see my edits here were a few minutes after the ones in the Wilson article, several hours before you took the axe to them. I included the Hitchens pieces because he's written voluminously on the subject, and quite rightly eviscerated what was left of Wilson's credibility. Nathanm mn 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "stalking" I referred to was that you went to the Clarke page and made the claim that my edits were vandalism without ever having participated in that discussion or having edited the page before -- you did this right after I deleted the Hitchens stuff; perhaps it was just a bizarre coincidence.  I agree a lot of the references section should be trimmed down, not just the stuff I deleted.  That stuff jumped out because it was a host of articles from a single (and extremely opinionated, not to mention drunk) source, but there is a lot of other cruft that could be removed.  Or we could go the other direction - there are at least as many David Corn pieces I could add to the list, or pieces by Larry Johnson, or other pro-Plame sources.  This thing will be lengthened without limit.  I'd rather not see that and would prefer that editors agree to put only really important or representative articles in that section rather than trying to outdo each other with more articles representing opinions on one side of the issue. csloat 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing someone of stalking also violates your beloved WP:AGF, and not just for mere edits, but an actual crime (in many jurisdictions). Hitchens is definitely opinionated and reputed to be a drunk, but nobody's successfully challenged the veracity of his writing on this subject. Corn tried to challenge Hitchens here, but repeated some now discredited theories, and Hitchens responded here. Again, why don't we just take delete the entire References section? If some of them have further relevant information for the article, cite them as a footnote. Nathanm mn 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to your opinion that Hitchens is right but that really isn't the point, is it?  I think it's useful to have a references section with government documents, court documents, key articles that have specifically been commented on in the media in a widespread manner (e.g. the Wilson editorial, the Novak editorial, and such; even the Washington Post editorial perhaps), but putting every opinion piece that is relevant here makes this into a ridiculously long references section -- every article by hitchens goes in, then so does every opinion piece by Wilson, Corn, Isikoff, johnson, and so on, etc. ad nauseam.  That's my objection to this slippery slope. csloat 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even read my comments above? I'm suggesting deleting the entire section, not adding to it. Besides, the references section is already ridiculously long. As it now stands there are 37 references, including not one single court document. And the only government document is the "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence". If these references are already cited in the footnotes, they're redundant. If they're not, how about adding the relevant information from the source to the article, then cite them properly in the footnotes? Nathanm mn 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it if you like.  NY Scholar has presented a good argument not to below. csloat 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Delete it if you like": is not a consensual option.  It is not acceptable to delete a whole section of information that is pertinent and sourced in Wikipedia articles.  See the guidelines in Wikipedia:Editing. That is a "major edit" not a "minor edit" and affects the meaning of the article in that each source posted is meaningful (full of significant information). --NYScholar 03:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references section 

message: User:70.113.220.11 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boondoggle link corrected 

message: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plame affair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.  (Scroll up to talkpage header.) --NYScholar 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with you on this one.  i deleted the above nonsense as i think it would lead to POV edits.Anthonymendoza 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

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

message: i removed this from the article:
Beginning in mid-February 2007, the Public Broadcasting Service television program Frontline presented a special four-part series entitled News War; in Part One: Secrets, Sources, and Spin correspondent Lowell Bergman 
it's already in the external links section and adds nothing to the main article, unless someone who watched it wants to add some quotes from the program. Anthonymendoza 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frontline

message: i also deleted this section as i think it generally lowers the quality of the main article.  it should be in external links section if it must be included:
*The plot of an episode of season 16 of the NBC television series Law & Order entitled "Kingmaker" (episode no. 369), which first aired on May 3, 2006, parallels aspects of the Plame affair.See Summary of Episode "Kingmaker" at Tv.com (CNET Networks Entertainment), accessed February 19, 2007.  Anthonymendoza 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allusions to the Plame affair in popular media

message: This article has waaay too many quotes - 37 uses of the purple quotes, and countless other smaller quotes. Dont many of these come from copyrighted sources? --Astrokey44 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well within fair use guidelines of U.S. (and international) copyright law to quote passages from copyrighted works for purposes of inquiry; the quotations are from sources being used to document the subject.  The article properly identifies the sources of the quotations.  (A practice that is the opposite of plagiarism; quotation marks establish identity of the sources of quotations.) See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite.  One can quote passages to illustrate and to support controversial points: WP:POV.  Your statement that the article "has waaay too many quotes [quotations]" is a POV on the article.  When there are fewer quotations to support points, other people object to their being "too few" supporting quotations and so on.  The article is a controversial article and has a contentious editing history.  The quotations give evidence to avoid people's objecting that statements are not being adequately documented.  In the article sources' views are cited and documented with quotations from those sources for that reason (in my view).  People have edited this article adding very POV statements of their own without adequate documentation from the sources that they have cited; the quotations reduce that kind of distortion and help establish the verifiability of points claimed. --NYScholar 06:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  overquoting 

message: How can a CIA operative be covert when he or she walks into the CIA building everyday in plain sight? Anyone watching who goes in and out can figure out that she works for the CIA and is thus not "covert". Simple, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people walk into that building.  How can a narcotics officer be undercover if he walks into the police station?  This is silly.  Valerie Plame testified under oath to Congress this morning that she was a covert operative.  I think this debate is over. csloat 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covert vs. non-Covert? 

message: Well, we've seen that even the sworn testimony of Valerie Plame and the claim of CIA director General Hayden will not convince those who think Victoria Toensing is a greater authority on CIA matters than the CIA, but the following videos are enlightening:  this video of part of Plame's testimony focuses on Rep. Cummings' questions to Plame, which have been taken out of context by others.  Here she clearly explains why she was "covert."  And, for a smile I highly recomment Larry Johnson's appearance on Countdown.  My favorite comment -- "It's time for some drug testing to see what kind of hallucinogens Victoria Toensing has been taking." csloat 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are missing the point. As established by Hayden's comments into the record at the Waxman hearing, the term "covert" does indeed encompass whatever status Plame actually had when her named was 1st mentioned by Armitage, et al. However, let's not confuse that with the more narrow constructions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I listened to Victoria Toensing's testimony closely and I do not think that we ought to be posting mocking comments about her ("hallucinogens"). Personally, I think that Toensing made some very good points. One of them was her contention that the burden of "affirmative steps" to protect Plame's identity should have prudently included CIA telling White House - 'Whoa Nelly, back off, confidential status' when WH inquired. Certainly at the very least, a high clearance CIA staffer should have called a high clearance White House staffer and made it plain that mentioning Plame was off limits. That they didn't, speaks volumes. As I see it, Plame's cover in 2003 was very thin, virtually non-existant. She defiantely was not covered by IIPA at the point of name revelation. The point at hand is that we need to avoid taking sides and to do that, we need to parse the facts with precision. Plame was (slighty) covert. She was not covered by IIPA. I think this assessment is well borne out by the current public facts. Samdira 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toensing's opinion is her own regarding what the CIA should have done, but it is notable that she is not someone with experience or expertise in the field of intelligence (other than as a lawyer).  The CIA did take "affirmative steps" to protect Plame's identity including the establishment of a front company and identity which Plame used.  Could the CIA have done more?  Perhaps, but that really isn't what the statute is about (and Toensing should be aware of this).  Did Grenier make a mistake when he told Libby about Plame (assuming that is what happened)?  Probably (though he has stated that he assumed a high level Bush staffer like Libby would have clearance for classified info and would know better than to reveal it to reporters).  Did the CIA tell Novak "whoa nelly back off" as you say?  We know for a fact that they did.  As you see it, Plame's cover was "thin," that is fine; what is your background in intelligence and covert action?  It doesn't really matter what you or I think; what matters is that as far as the CIA was concerned, Plame was covert.  Your claim that "she definitely was not covered by the IIPA" is an interesting opinion, but that's all it is.  I would posit that all the facts seem to point in the other direction, but my opinion really isn't worth any more than yours, except to me.  So if you really want to avoid taking sides and "parse the facts with precision," then you should be saying "Plame was covert.  She may have been protected under the IIPA."  "Slightly" covert is like " slightly pregnant," as far as the issues here are concerned.  And until the IIPA is actually enforced in some official manner in the Plame affair, we have no way of determining for a "fact" whether Plame was covered or not.  All we have is a lawyer's opinion -- a lawyer with a well known stake in the matter, at that. csloat 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look, if all laws were interpreted the same way, we wouldn't have lawyers.  Whether plame was covered under the IIPA just because the CIA and Plame herself say she was covert doesn't settle the issue by a long shot.  both lawyers who testified before waxman's committee made that clear, so it's not just solely Toensing's opinion. (on a side note, i would also argue that Larry Johnson also has a "well known stake in the matter."  let's not forget he lit up the blogosphere when he said his sources told him fitzgerald would indict 22 people).  but in the end, this case wasn't about the leak or the IIPA.  let's not forget that libby was acquitted of his conversations with cooper and his conversations with miller weren't even part of the indictment.  in the end, libby was convicted of lying about how he learned about plame, not who he leaked it too.  and with fitzgerald not talking, everything else about this case will forever be left to interpretation.  only one person has ever been charged under the IIPA, so the notion that the law has an "exacting" standard is valid, as are questions as to whether plame fit the IIPA definition.Anthonymendoza 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: also, the only successful prosecution under the IIPA involved agents stationed overseas.  there is no legal precedence to say that, because plame occasionally traveled overseas to monitor operations while she was stationed in DC, she thus fits the IIPA definition.  it's actually quite the opposite.  and if anyone had been prosecuted in this case under the IIPA, i'm sure Libby or Rove would have had no problem finding a lawyer who would have argued this point. to what avail, we'll never know.  also, while it's true a judge interpreted fitzgerald's affadavit to mean that Plame was covert under the IIPA, it's important to note that fitzgerald was arguing that "[Judith Miller's] testimony is essential to determining whether Libby is guilty of crimes, including perjury, false statements, and the improper disclosure of national defense information."  Fitzgerald won the argument, compelled Miller to testify, and still didn't charge anyone with a violation of the IIPA.  which means that even if Fitzgerald believed Plame was covert under the IIPA, in the end that statute still didn't apply to this case.  Fitzgerald's argument was ambiguous, though, as reflected in the judge's opinion when he stated "Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support."Anthonymendoza 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The quote on the Larry Johnson page you link to says "There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment," not that there will be 22 indictments.  And Johnson's credibility really isn't the issue here.  (2) The IIPA does not require that an agent be "stationed" overseas; it says only that the agent be "serving" outside the US or "has within the last five years served outside the United States," which we know for a fact Plame was.  (3) You are right that the interpretation of the law is at issue here, and that without a conviction under it, we cannot say for certain either way, which is why I said the most correct statement was that she may have been protected by the IIPA.  I specifically wrote, "And until the IIPA is actually enforced in some official manner in the Plame affair, we have no way of determining for a "fact" whether Plame was covered or not."  My perception is that the evidence overwhelmingly leans in favor of her being covered, since there are simply no credible arguments being made by the other side (the "stationed" point being easily dispensed with), but I acknowledge that is my perception and that I won't be able to convince those who choose to believe otherwise.  (4) Speculation about why Fitzgerald chose not to prosecute under IIPA is simply speculation.  To say that it was because the IIPA was not violated is not credible; many laws are violated that are not prosecuted.  One could easily argue that Fitzgerald didn't think he could get an IIPA conviction because of Libby's obstruction.  (5) Speaking of Libby, you point out that he was not convicted of his conversation with Cooper, but fail to acknowledge that he was convicted of "knowingly and corruptly" trying to "influence, obstruct and impede" the administration of justice; or that he was also convicted for lying about his conversation with Tim Russert as well as his conversation with Mr. Cooper.  The only charge he was acquitted of was of making false statements to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper; he was convicted of making false statements to the FBI about his conversation with Russert and of lying to the grand jury about both conversations.  I'm not sure why you made that point - it doesn't seem to apply here - but as stated it seemed incorrect so I wanted to clarify that. csloat 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but the question of what the legal definition of "serving" is would be the legal fight.  and with only one IIPA conviction in the history of the statute, the current precedence is that the CIA operative has to be stationed overseas.  but as usual, i think you and i are arguing the exact same point, and coming to the exact same conclusions, only articulating our arguments from our different points of view :)  with regards to libby, the juror (Collins, i believe) who has been speaking to the press has said Russerts testimony is what convicted Libby.  the Cooper conversation came down to a he said/he said, and thus provided reasonable doubt.  it was also my impression that the conversation with Judith Miller was dropped from the charge.Anthonymendoza 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to kick a dead horse, but there is no precedent favoring a particular interpretation of the word "serving" under the IIPA.  Just because the one person convicted was stationed there does not mean that the Court interpreted the word "serving" in any particular manner. csloat 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Covert, again

message: Rather than bicker about our various nuances & opinions, let's see if we can agree on some updates to the article. I think the introduction needs to be updated and clarified. Among other things, I think it should be more past tense as Fitzgerald's investigation is over, and he has stated that he does not expect more charges. Therefore, at this point, if there are any more "allegations", they are only going to be from the media or from various partisans pursuing an agenda. Feedback? Samdira 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've been editing this page for quite some time (longer than i'd like to admit), and i can tell you that the introduction has been the subject of many edit wars.  reaching a consensus on the intro has been nonexistent.  if you want to give it a try, go ahead, but expect your edits to be reverted or challenged.Anthonymendoza 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: There's no rush... ASAP is relative on a wiki. Samdira, since you've taken a few comments of mine too personally I hope you will take this one dispassionately - I would describe the existing intro (while wordy) as significantly superior to the one you posted, on a number of grounds (accuracy, lack of grammatic focus, the use of 'weasel-words', general focus, etc.) and so I would generally oppose the introduction of much of what you wrote. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to future efforts! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with csloat, that the intro should be about 4-5 sentences with no mention of armitage, or quotes that appear later in the article.  and i agree with Ryan that the current intro is wordy.  we should start this debate with a simple debate as to what the plame affair is.  i think the plame affair is the allegation that bush administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of a covert cia operative as retaliation against a war critic.  is this an acceptable premise? Anthonymendoza 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs updating 

message: To showcase various ideas for changing the intro, let's try using a subpage:
* /intro
I used to do this sort of thing when I was an active mediator, and it's often a big help. Contributors aren't under so much pressure this way. --Uncle Ed 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I'll support whatever approach a visible consensus strongly and dispassionately indicates, but I generally oppose branching like this. I think editing can occur productively on this article and the failings of the intro are not so egregious as to prevent constructive editing. I just want to go on the record in opposition to the proposal to branch. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Ryan -- I think that's a good approach for sections that are the subject of  current edit wars (e.g. the Juan Cole intro, where I took Ed up on his suggestion).  I don't think we're at that point with this page.  I support the current intro for now. csloat 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. The subpage idea is a safety valve, so that we can blow off steam. If the pressure is well below the safety limit, then the valve need not operate. I'll leave it just in case. --Uncle Ed 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sandbox

message: In the introduction, I would like to replace the words "indicating that she may have been" with "which impacted her status as" and I ask for group consent. Samdira 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like either one. csloat 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like either as well.  --Tbeatty 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just stunned to admit that I agree with both Tbeatty and Csloat over the very same issue. :) Cheers all! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Please see these edits , ,  and . Please pay particular attention to the edit sumaries. I am concerned the introduction is wrongly implying that the White House knew Plame was covert. This has not been establshed - not in the media, not in court and not here. There are plenty of CIA employees who are not covert. Also, I do not like the word "because" being used to explain the CIA referral. Don't tell me that "Tommy parked his car because...". The "because..." is opinion, not fact. Just tell me "Tommy parked his car." Don't tell me the CIA did something "because...". We have no public evidence that this was the sole reason CIA made the referral. These two problems aside, I think the intro is pretty good now. Samdira 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the intro is better, but still wordy and still a bit too long.  i disagree with the assertion that "For someone to find out she worked at the CIA means that either something was declassified (not the case), or classified information was leaked (appears to be the case)."  Plame testified that she didn't know if white house officials knew she was covert, and also testified that some CIA operatives in her division were not classified.  she basically stated that the officials who discussed her should have used precaution because she was a CIA employee who might be covert.  but when asked if they knew she was covert, she stated that the prosecutor should answer that.  also, Armitage, the first leaker, told the press that in his 30 some years in government, he'd never seen a covert cia operatives name in a state department memo, meaning he didn't know she was classified.  so the above premise is not correct, but the allegation that officials knew she was covert and outed her intentionally is/was at the thrust of the controversy.Anthonymendoza 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: i'm not sure what i did but could someone revert or tell me how to revert the article to this version.  i tried to make a simple edit and somehow screwed things up. thanks!Anthonymendoza 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, hope you gave the right diff though. Arkon 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, thanks!!  i still can't figure out what i did :) Anthonymendoza 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert, please

message: i removed this section:
Testimony of some reporters in trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
The Associated Press's Michael J. Sniffen reports that on February 12, 2007, 
i think it's more appropriate for US v. Libby page, but i can't figure out where to put it there.  any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Testimony of other reporters