Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 1

message: The assertion that revealing "open secrets" does not violate the law is incorrect.  Properly classified information remains classified even after it has been improperly revealed, and publishing it remains subject to legal penalties.
Moreover, it is now clear that Plame was not merely undercover, but acting under "non-official cover," which is the most tightly held form of covert status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.217.122 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 December 2003
: Clear from what sources?  References with dates, please.  For some and perhaps all of the relevant time window, she was working out of the CIA's Langley headquarters as an analyst.  As noted below, her covert work stopped some time earlier, for reasons that are apparently not publically documented but freely speculated upon.  There are rumors -- probably undocumentable, like most private vocal conversations -- that both her husband's identity and her employer were common knowledge on the DC cocktail party circuit.  Their marriage is public record and was publicized in her husband's bio.  As cited in the article itself, the CIA confirmed her employment, which undermines the claim of non-official cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.232.116 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 July 2005
::  is a statement from a former (Republican) CIA agent that asserts Plame was a NOC. --Vile Requiem 01:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
: It appears that the content in this section regarding whether various legal tests have been met is speculative at best and probably inappropriate.  Perhaps the article would better serve the public interest and more closely conform to the spirit of Wiki if the discussion in this section were limited to an exposition of the law.  Judgement regarding whether or not the law was broken and by whom should be left to the courts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertrat (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2005
: Plame has held a desk job at the CIA in Virginia since 1994. She is said to have been outed by Aldrich Ames and also by Joseph Wilson, when they were dating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.79.106 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 July 2005
:: Got a cite for those last claims -- outed by Ames, outed by Wilson? The second is contradicted by the news reports of her neighbors and relatives having no clue about her CIA connection --Zippy 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Issue 

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

message: AN image of Plame is available @    --DuKot 7 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
: Neither of those links work. -Fsotrain09 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

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

message: The whole Plame affair needs to be a separate article that can be referenced from other articles, such as the Robert Novak Article and the Karl Rove article.  Right now there are several version/timelines of this in these various articles and it needs to be consolidated into one NPOV article.--Gangster Octopus 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Valerie Plame article might be the best starting point since she is notable only in connection with this incident. --agr 21:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

message: While I question the need to include Wilson's campaign contributions in the first place, they should at least be accurate.  It is not possible for Wilson to have "donated over $2000 to John Kerry in 2003" because $2000 is the maximum individual donation.  Your numbers are wrong. I also did an opensecrets search for the Gore contributions and got $1000... not the $3000 or $2000 you have put up.  CBDunkerson 22:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
: From what I understand, Wilson did contribute more than the legal limit to the Kerry campaign, but they refunded the difference.  John Barleycorn 22:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:: The $2000 for Kerry is correct, the list I linked to was compiled before the second $1000 payment had been tabulated, but the Gore donation was only $1000 as confirmed by opensecrets... there is a $2000 contribution listed TWICE there for the same date and then a -$1000.  When you remove the duplicate it comes out to $1000 total. --CBD 22:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to talk about compaign contributions, it is worth noting that she also donated to Bush's 2000 campaign. (69.140.166.42 04:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Contributions 

message: I read the following conversation on Slashdot. If true, it provides insight.
Anything listing her job would have had her working at the CIA front, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Completely unrelated to the government. Which also means she was DISAVOWED if she got caught, not sent home with a stern note and public complaints like those with diplomatic immunity pretending to work for the state department. Many times spouses of NOCs don't even know who they really work for. Although presumably hers did, considering who he worked for. OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.
and 
Actually, that's the real problem with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries. Now it is useless as a front for US intelligence. What's the problem with this? Well, there's been a lot of talk of oil production having reached its peak and begun its decline. Financial Times recently reported that the Saudis had admitted that OPEC oil production won't be able to meet world demand within 20 years. I don't know whether petroleum production has yet reached its peak and started to decline, and I don't know when OPEC will not be able to meet world demand. Wouldn't it be nice if at this time of uncertainty, the USA had some kind of asset capable of investigating these things from up close? Too bad a political vendetta destroyed major intelligence assets that could have helped with just that.
4.250.168.141 01:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I agree with the claim in the known background that "Later the CIA acknowledged that Brewster-Jennings & Assoc is a front company."  I searched the CIA's website for press releases that would have included "Plame" "Wilson" "Brewster" "Jennings" ...  I did find that Dun and Bradstreet had a listing for the company and that in 1999 that Valerie Wilson, CEO BJ&A gave $1000 to Al Gore's primary election campaign Kgrr 04:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt they issued a press release; in this context "acknowledged" probably means "nodded when a reporter asked if this was true." The Agency is not known for making a big deal out of its leaks or acknowledgments; it leaves that up to the media.  A press release would be totally out of character.  I also seriously doubt you saw anything that identified her as "CEO" of the front company. The Gore document I saw said "President" next to Al Gore, not her name. --csloat 21:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brewster Jennings 

message: Even though large news sources are reporting that Rove was the source of the leak, he is still innocent before found guilty by court.  Please mark which organization marked Rove as the leak source, otherwise this article deserves a NPOV on many of its sections.  --Mrmiscellanious 16:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rove's own lawyer has confirmed that he was a source. --CBD 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations 

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

message: I know that a lot of edits have been made to this article lately, but could someone please take a look at the end of this section as it makes very little sense. Specifically the line:
In the context of a political fight between mostly Bush administration supporters, a number of claims about both Wilson and Plame have asserted either that Plame was not actually undercover.
I do not know anything about this case, it having been overlooked by the British press, but it seems something is missing from this sentence, or maybe it is just very poorly written, as it makes little sense. Enlightener 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Background