Talk:Plame affair/Archive 4

message: Let me ask a quick question: why don't we have a single picture of Valerie Plame in this entire article?  User:Ich Ich 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (untitled) 

message: Thanks, anthonymendoza, but I was not "trying" for anything.  If you have added material that is factual and verifiable, you have improved the article, whether or not that material supports my POV. This is not a tit-for-tat "I'll debunk your quotes if you debunk mine" kind of game; it's an encyclopedia, and regardless of my personal POV, I am pleased to see more substantive information added to the entries.  I also think you're incorrect that the rawstory "is based on" on the damage assessment; the damage assessment is an additional piece of information that was communicated to the rawstory writer.--csloat 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then don't accuse me of "cherry-picking your favorite sentences, especially when the context suggests opposite conclusions!".  i added what i thought was relevant, i stand by it, and if you think more material should be added (which you did) than add it.  i got the impression you were trying to debunk the fact that mitchell and woodward both claimed to have been told about a damage assessment report, even though the Raw Story also cited a damage assessment report, which your edits failed to show.  i'm not playing games.  if you disagree with me, don't start throwing accusations of cherry-picking around. like you, i take this site seriously.  Anthonymendoza 23:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: further, i didn't include the quote from the washington post article about a formal damage assessment not having been done because it's already mentioned in the section.  i had already included a link to fitzgerald's letter to libby's defense team about this. no need to be redundant.  Anthonymendoza 01:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SOrry, it did appear to me that you had cherrypicked from the Washington Post article to reach the opposite conclusion of the article, but perhaps that was unfair.  I will assume good faith more consistently with you in the future as you have been more than reasonable in other edits and interactions.  The RawStory piece is months after the Mitchell/Woodward comments, so I don't really see an inconsistency there, but I had not even noticed the damage assessment stuff in that article before. As for Woodward and Mitchell, the WaPo article was the same week as their comments which made the issue seem a lot more relevant.  Anyway I apologize for being accusatory.--csloat 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, the only reason i saw an inconsistency was because the raw story article said the damage assessment was ordered by James Pavitt, who left the CIA in late 2004, if i remember correctly.  therefore it's very likely (to me at least) that raw story, mitchell and woodward's sources were citing the same report, just were told different interpretations by there sources.  no need to apologize.  i acknowledge that when i first began editing this page, some of my edits were unreasonable and probably left a negative lasting impression.  Anthonymendoza 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nice try csloat" 

message: Should we remove the current event tag as it's no longer current. Thanks JAbeach 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are many different directions this page could proceed in the near future.  from what i've been reading, a final decision regarding Rove is expected soon.  while that decision could be seen as the end of the "Plame Affair", the upcoming Libby trial would keep this page a current event.  plus, with plame's book expected next year, and with Novak also eventually planning a "tell-all" column, much of this page may have to be rewritten, as alot of it is speculation.  therefore, i think the current event tag is still needed.  Anthonymendoza 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: Are there any independent and original, credible sources out there connecting all of the following issues to the "Plame Affair"?
# 2003 invasion of Iraq 
# War on Terrorism
# Yellowcake Forgery
# Downing Street memo
# White House Iraq Group
And if so, do these sources also cite all the following as central figures:
# Stephen Hadley
# Karen Hughes 
# Mary Matalin
# Colin Powell 
If not "yes" to the first part, then this appears to be an article combining a diverse spectrum of speculation into a coherent theory not elsewhere documented, (i.e., original research).
If "yes" to the first part but "not yes" to the second part, then, again, this appears to be an article combining a diverse spectrum of speculation into a coherent theory not elsewhere documented, (i.e., original research).
If "yes" to the first part and "yes" to the second part, then where? Evensong 
04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to delete this material absent primary sourcing.  Evensong 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: I am proposing that we delete the first six paragraphs of the Background section of the article.  They have nothing to do with Plame.  If there is no objection within seven (7) days, it will be done.  Evensong 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could all synthesized into one or two paragraphs.  There is useful background info to the Plame affair there, though not necessarily about Valerie Plame Wilson (this isn't the Valerie Plame article, of course, though Evensong's objection does suggest that "Plame affair" may not be the best title), so it shouldn't be deleted completely.-csloat 19:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What info relates to the Plame Affair please.  With Citations.  Evensong 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please articulate clearly whether you object and the reasons.  Evensong 20:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of it does, though it could be shortened.  Yes, I do object to just deleting it, as I stated above ("so it shouldn't be deleted completely"), for the reasons mentioned above.--csloat 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree it should all be condensed, with wiki-links to articles that go into greater detail about the topics.  i think the first and second paragraphs could be deleted, with the third paragraph remaining as is. all the other paragraphs could be condensed into a single paragraph. some kind of backdrop is needed to put into perspective why this case is relevant. Anthonymendoza 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Csloat.  Perhaps you can explain how each paragraph relates to the Plame Affair.  That would give me a better idea of how to trim the section, or the accepted parameters for adding new material" Evensong 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony has offered some suggestions, why not consider starting with those?  Anything done can be un-done, so be bold.  I'm not sure there's any value to initiating a debate over each paragraph; my feelings are that this material offers important background to what we're calling the "Plame affair."--csloat 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What language, exactly, within this material that offers important background to the "Plame Affair"?  Evensong 00:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the language; it is the substance.  Why don't you look at it yourself?  Or take a look at anthony's suggestions above (which I basically agree with)?  I feel like you are trying to draw me into a debate about it.  I am not interested.--csloat 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put you down as non-responsive.  Evensong 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me down where?  Why not just read the above, or read the paragraphs you have questions about?  This is very strange.--csloat 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want a specific objection?  I object.  I agree with some of the above in that the six paragraphs contain too much info and probably can be cut down to two -- but I think cutting it all is too much cutting. -- Sholom 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An objection to be specific orinarily contains not only an objection, but the reasons therefore.  I see only general, blanket objections.  I see no specific reason as to why or how, exactly, any information in the paragraphs in question relates to the Plame Affair.  Amendoza's comments do not really address this question.  Basically, I have objected to this material as not relevant.  Show me some reliable source showing it is relevant.  Evensong 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony wrote "some kind of backdrop is needed to put into perspective why this case is relevant" and suggested paragraphs 1-2 could be deleted, 3 should stay as is, and the rest should be reduced to one paragraph.  The reasoning is that it provides the "backdrop" to "put into perspective why this case is relevant."  I really don't think the claim is that controversial or difficult to understand and I don't see why anyone needs to unpack each sentence in the talk page.  But if you feel it is needed, by all means do so.  What I don't get is why you feel that it's OK to demand that others do that for you.--csloat 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the "backdrop" specifically; when you say "this case" what case, specifically, is it that you are referring to; finally, specifically, how does this "backdrop" put into perspective "this case" whatever this increasingly hypothetical "case" may be?  From what I can see, this section is written specifically lead the reader into viewing the Plame Affair through a lens which assumes that it is rooted in pre-war intelligence snafus.  That is but one perspective.  This article appears to present it as the only perspective.  But without knowing why this information is here, I can't really present any balance.  I am not demanding anything more than a clear statement as to why the information is relevant background.  It is a reasonable request, one which will improve the page through debate and consensus.  Evensong 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Deletion

message: Leopold is back; check it out.--csloat 09:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heheh, right on the tail of this: ; I see it's already been added.  Curiouser and curiouser.--csloat 12:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: some excellent analysis of all that's happening this morning.--csloat 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's excellent about it in any way, but TruthOut always cries wolf.  It's what they do.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The analysis of what's happening is what's excellent in that piece.  Far better than an assertion, IMHO.--csloat 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think the definition of Fitzmas may have to be changed.  after all is said and done, it's republicans celebrating and democrats scrambling to save face.  the firedoglake piece is just more wishful thinking.  it's time for bush-haters to let this go. Anthonymendoza 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I'm sure you mean me; I'll let it go just as soon as Fitzgerald does.  As for the piece, you should actually read it -- there's a lot of analysis in there quite apart from anything that might be labeled "wishful thinking."  Apart from thoughts about what might happen next, her take on the graymail strategy and her comments about Fitzgerald's professionalism are noteworthy.  IMHO, as I said; YMMV.  As for Fitzmas, I plan to accept whatever Fitzgerald winds up announcing, indictments or no.  It is sad that Karl Rove won't be one of the traitors punished for this, but I am glad to read that he is at least losing his influence at the White House.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he has decided to actually serve his country and help Fitzgerald, but I'm not holding my breath....--csloat 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't punish what wasn't a crime after all...Either way, once "official" word comes from Fitzgerald, a lot of stuff is going to have to be rewritten, especially the huge section in Karl Rove --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there was never a crime, there would not be an investigation.  A prosecutor of Fitzgerald's caliber is not going to waste this much of the grand jury's time; that much is obvious.  The issue is that you can't convict someone of a crime without a solid case, and such a case may not exist against Rove.  Or perhaps he did turn state's -- we still don't know what is in "Sealed vs. Sealed," though it could be nothing.  Either way, it's true that a lot of stuff will have to be written when Fitz closes the book on this.--csloat 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation, of course, was to see whether a crime was committed, not simply because a crime was committed.  Considering the source of "Sealed v. Sealed," I think we can easily dismiss it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of Sealed v. Sealed, as I understand it, is the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  And prosecutors do not waste this much of a grand jury's time and energy just "to see whether a crime was committed" but rather to find out if there is enough evidence to press on with a trial.--csloat 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: csloat, i wasn't referring specifically to you. i've been reading left leaning blogs all morning and the sentiment is the same on each page (a "well lets wait and see what this really means" approach to today's news).  and i did read the article you linked.  this paragraph is noteworthy to me: "And I’ve also said this, and it is worth a reminder:  Patrick Fitzgerald and his team are career professionals.  You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum.  You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it.  You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there.  It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it.  (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)"  after five grand jury appearances, fitzgerald couldn't prove anything, yet this analysis wants us to believe fitzgerald determined rove is "scum".  very intellectual argument.  but libby's trial may have surprises and the debate will continue. Anthonymendoza 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misreading her, I think.  She didn't say Fitz thought that, though she clearly thinks that.  But you're missing her argument completely, which is that Fitz is a professional who is not going to jump the gun, and who is not going to convict unless he can make a case stick.  She also points out that the investigation is over when he says it is over.  You do not keep a grand jury occupied with something like this for this long if there is nothing there.  Anyway, we can go on forever on this, but wait and see does seem like the way to go for now.--csloat 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, but here's what makes my head spin with regards to that.  fitzgerald has already said the bulk of the investigation is over.  and he already explained why he would continue to impanel the grand jury: "Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing."  rove's fifth grand jury testimony was a continuation of the first grand jury, not an indication the case is moving in a new direction.  where is it being reported that fitzgerald is broadening the case? his affidavit i posted above says that he's given libby pretty much all the evidence he's collected and that it all relates to what he was asked to investigate: the novak article. can you link some articles for me that indicate fitzgerald is expanding the investigation?  now granted, some new info may come from libby's trial, but the scope of the trial is such that i doubt anything earthshaking will emerge.  Anthonymendoza 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh; not closed at all, unless you choose to stop reading after the second or third paragraph.  To quote: "In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.... Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.... we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.... Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19."  Perhaps it will be closed monday?  (Or, to be fair, perhaps they will tell us on monday that they meant a week from monday, hehe... this whole thing is fishy, to be sure.)  One last thing - TO claims they will protect the confidentiality of their sources.  But if their sources turn out to have been feeding them disinformation (and that seems more and more likely with each passing day), I hope they will recognize that they should out their sources at that point.  Me, I'm still waiting to see the letter Luskin refers to, or to hear something definite from Fitzgerald.--csloat 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My god, when is he going to stop?  His credibility is in the toilet, yet he needs to grasp on this to have anyone read him again.  Sheesh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose?  Mine?  Leopold's?  Ash's?  Fitzgerald's?  Or Rove's?--csloat 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is truthout crying wolf again?

message: The latest Murray Waas piece claims Novak and Rove conspired to cover up the leak.--csloat 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this should be added to the main article. Anthonymendoza 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Waas article

message: the public opinion section references polls that are a year old. this section should be updated with new polls or deleted all together.  i think it should be deleted.  any other thoughts? Anthonymendoza 20:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be updated.  It's very useful information in an encyclopedia, especially if someone is researching public opinion about a particular issue.  The fact that the mass media covers polls about such events suggests that they are notable.  Especially over time, it is a good idea to have an indication of how the public responded to poll questions about a particular event at different moments in time.  I think it is particularly relevant here when there is speculation that the event may affect elections.--csloat 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree.Anthonymendoza 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: public opinion

message: Is this what they mean with interesting?:
:The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eeks