Talk:Plame affair/Archive 5

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)
replies: text: I think it'd be ironic to include the photo of an outed spy. Better, perhaps, to use a photo of her cover organization; at least it cannot be injured by further publicity. rewinn 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question (s): 

message: Libby isn't the only one reaching out to the public for assistance:
:Coinciding with the filing of the Complaint, the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust has been established. Funds from the trust will help the Wilsons pay the substantial legal costs forced upon them by the unlawful leaking of Mrs. Wilson's covert CIA status. The objectives of the trust include: Counseling them in connection with their potential witness testimony during the upcoming trial of Scooter Libby; and Helping them to prepare the civil suit that will uncover the truth surrounding the leak, ensure all relevant public officials are held accountable for actions depriving the Wilsons of their privacy and constitutional rights, and serve as a deterrent to similar wrongdoing being committed in the future.  The Trust was established with the Wilsons' approval and provides that should the suit result in a payment to the Wilsons in excess of their legal costs, they will reimburse the Trust for all legal costs paid by the Trust. That money will then be distributed by the trustees to a charitable organization(s) that works to protect the rights of government whistleblowers. Contributions to the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust can be given at www.wilsonsupport.orgor sent to P.O. Box 40918, Washington, D.C. 20016-0918.Anthonymendoza 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Fees 

message: SListing the crimes for which Fitzgerald has not at this time issued indictments is not encyclopedic; it is also inherently pov since its only function is to make unprovable and unsourced implications about what indictments will be issued and what facts have been found.  If this absolutely must be included in the article, it would not be in the heading summary, but in a lower section, such as "Basis for specualiation on what will actually occur". rewinn 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing lack of indictment for grand jury in sessino is inherently pov

message: does the civil suit even stand a chance of going forward?  here's an analysis from Time:
The Supreme Court has ruled that Presidents have immunity and that cabinet officers have "qualified immunity," meaning that they cannot be sued unless, for example, they violated someone's constitutional rights and had a pretty good idea they were doing so. That leaves open the question of whether Vice Presidents get immunity, but the consensus among constitutional scholars is that they do, so Cheney lucks out. As behind-the-scenes guys, Rove and Libby probably get only qualified immunity, which means they'll have to show that the complaint fails to state any legal claims, if they want to get rid of it quickly.
And they may succeed on some counts. Plame and Wilson contend, for example, that the Administration violated their free-speech rights by taking "retaliatory action" after Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to several nations, wrote an op-ed piece questioning a central reason for attacking Iraq: President Bush's claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Presumably, the retaliation was the outing of Plame as a CIA official, but there's room to debate how much harm came of that act. She didn't lose her job or get demoted or suffer any other obvious damage. And even if the outing violated federal law (and there's still no evidence that it did), that wouldn't make it unconstitutional. So "the claim is much weaker than the typical claim" of harming speech through retaliation, says Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at UCLA law school. If the judge believes the claim is weak enough, he will throw it out.
--- Above Revision as of 01:36, 19 July 2006 by User:Anthonymendoza
The analysis however continues:
Which is not to say that the couple has no case. On several of their claims ? that "vindictiveness and illegitimate animus" caused the Administration to treat them differently from others in similar positions, for example, or that the defendants wrongfully disclosed a private fact about Plame ? there may be enough ambiguity about what really happened to propel them beyond a motion to dismiss and into discovery, a process that allows each side to demand piles of information from the other. That's a prospect an already shaky White House surely wants to avoid. 
Let us not be so quick to dismiss the outing of a CIA agent as no harm to that person. There are places in the world where CIA agents can come to harm and where Plame (and her children) would now be well advised never to visit. rewinn 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if the Wilsons can get the lawsuit into the discovery phase, it will be very significant.  but from every analysis i've read, that likely wouldn't happen until after 2008.  and since no criminal charges were filed with regards to the outing, each defendant in the lawsuit could plead the fifth if they wished too, and the Wilsons couldn't do anything about it.  so it's a long shot for sure.  but as a political liability for the white house, i think this plame affair is at an end.  Anthonymendoza 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Suit

message: I don't think the introduction should have a full paragraph devoted to the cover status of Brewster Jennings, but since another editor put it there, I just editted it to eliminate what appeared to be non sequiturs (the purpose of a front company is to look like a real company, so you make sure people put it on their internet resumes ... and send people to conferences so they can acquire the information for which the front exists.) Someone else could move the para, if you agree. rewinn 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brewster Jennings material in intro

message: I've read it alleged that Cheney's office had nothing to do with Wilson's trip to Nigeria. Has this been explored?  unsigned comment by  05:17, 25 July 2006 72.192.138.6 
:Unsourced allegations are not encyclopedic. There is no need to explore this until it is reliably sourced. rewinn 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may add it yourself.  Please source with a reliable source.--Tbeatty 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney's Involvement 

message: Wilson's basic allegation is that White House "outed" wife Plame for "revenge". Quite apart for the self-aggrandizing nature of such a claim (as in "I am such an important person, those in power seek to punish me...", we are left with the core issue which is: 1) Novak has stated quite clearly that HE is the prime mover of getting Plame's name out there and 2) Nothing in the record ANYWHERE contradicts this point. People can speculate and allege all they want BUT, Rove DENIED under oath that he was the initiator on this and Fitzgerald DID NOT charge Rove with perjury. Therefore, we can take it that: A) NOVAK asserts he moved the Plame identity public and B) the prosecutor accepts that Rove did NOT. These simple points when looked at, moot this entire article. That is, unless you now want to invent a novel theory based on a contention that Novak was engaged in CONSPIRACY at the behest of the White House and has been lying through his teeth about this all along. However, I for one, will not go there. Why? Because if that were true, Fitzgeraldd would have found that out already AND the media would have long ago sniffed it out. The simple truth is that Novak is a very good reporter and he came along with a timely scoop on others. Personally, I think that Richard Armitage is Novak's source and the only reason this was even a "scandal" is the media jumped at a chance to pin the tail on a Rove donkey. But now that it's clear that Rove DID NOT do anything illegal, immoral or unethical here, we are only left with fools lying and speculating about falsehoods. There is no "Plame affair". There never was any "Plame affair" and this entire controversy was nothing more than a media generated hype-storm.
:Sure, there is no spoon.  If this is what you believe, propose an WP:AfD and see how it goes.--csloat 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly one point of view that should be presented alongside the others.  In fact, it appears it already is, although the Armitage quote should be included, so feel free to add it.--csloat 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson's argument fails 

message: An anonymous editor keeps vandalizing the first line of this page and won't explain his edits.  I've already reverted him twice; can someone else do it now?  Should he be reported?--csloat 05:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several anon editors on this page and I am one of them, though tonight I made my 1st anon edit. Frankly, with all the harsh invective on this page, I would never expose my user name to the arguments here. In any case, I've reviewed the edit which you call "vandalism" and I happen to agree with it. It's much more accurate than the POV angle some editors here are pushing. 205.196.222.18 05:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I really don't give a shit who you are or who your anonymous friends are.  Why you're afraid to pick a pseudonym is beyond me -- it would allow your claims to be taken more seriously and it would help people distinguish you from other users for the purpose of clarity; it has nothing to do with attacking your claims.  (Just for the record, a pseudonym would make you far more anonymous than your IP address, which would tell a sleuth who your internet service provider is and where your physical location is; so the only purpose of not choosing an id is to intentionally create confusion, which makes it clear you and your friends are trolling).  If you are afraid of the "invective" then don't edit the page.  Look, I don't care what you want to call yourself; all I'm asking is that if you make significant changes to the page that you explain them and be willing to discuss them.  How hard is that to understand?--csloat 06:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon vandalism 

message: Well I just looked over Evensong's latest edits and, true to form, he has managed to create even more POV problems than we had before.  Nice work.  Adding two weasel words - "allegedly" and "supposed" - to the same sentence does wonders for readability.  The inclusion of "thinly veiled" before "cover" is an absurd way to bias the article from the beginning - that info is already available later in the article, and it is irrelevant to the point in that paragraph, since the controversy started not because of whether her cover was thin or "thick" (about which there is plenty of debate), but rather over the fact that it was leaked at all.  Phelps' denial was removed without cause, and Evensong even went so far as to act as an unpaid (presumably) spokesperson for Karl Rove, changing "Rove and his attorney do not dispute" to "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed" -- where did they "indirectly" dispute this?  They either did or they didn't, and presumably they don't need Evensong to cover for them if they want something disputed.  Anyway, I think this article has enough problems as it is, there is no need to create more with these weasely POV-shifts.--csloat 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Csloat.  I am "one of them"!!!  This is important stuff.  Keep raving. Evensong 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that.  Since you ignore the substance of my points, I assume you agree that a revert is in order?  Thanks.--csloat 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List your points.  Otherwise, all I see is a tantrum.  Evensong 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you aren't reading very carefully.  My points are above.  Thanks.--csloat 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List them please.  Evensong 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.--csloat 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not you did not.  You blended your points with argument, and it is not up to me to separate the two if you want me to address them.  List them if you want me to address them.  This is the third request.  Evensong 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, if you can't read, I'm really not sure what good "listing" them would do.  The arguments are right up above for you to read.  Good day.--csloat 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your points?  Evensong 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the points right above in the first paragraph in this section.--csloat 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not points.  That is argument blended with points. List your points, please.  Evensong 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His points are pretty clear. Read sentences 3-5 of his original comment. --waffle iron talk 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  List them.  Evensong 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Man, I wish someone would make a cliff notes version of this talk page. All those damned words. --sigmafactor 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He calls me out with a pov call but he can't cite a real charge.  Hey mate.  Give me  a list.  I will answer. Evensong 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.  You didn't.--csloat 05:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List the charges.  Evensong 05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sarcasm clouds his point.  Also, he does not explain how these words, as used, were weasel words.  Some things are "alleged" and should be labeled as such.  Plame's status as a covert agent is, in fact, unknown.  I  added the word "alleged" to show that it is unknown.  Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how about "supposed"?  One weasel word is more than enough and you are defeating readability.-csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I provided relevant documentation that Brewster Jennings as a cover was thin.  http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/.  Cslaot deleted it. There is nothing absurd about showing, with documentation, the degree of cover Brewster Jennings provided, particularly where that cover is being discussed on the page.  Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That info is already in the article, and the fact is in that place it does not belong.  The controversy does not rely on her "thinly veiled" cover; it relies on the status of her cover.  The "thinly veiled" part is debatable and your change pre-judges the debate.  There is no need for this information to appear a second time in the article.-csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I Explained the cause for the removal.  It was a long parenthetical statement awkwardly placed in the middle of a sentence.  I also noted that it should be included elsewhere.  There was a cause to remove it.  Csloat may not like the cause, but that is not the same as "no cause".  Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; that is a cause to place it elsewhere, not a cause to remove it.  I'm replacing it, and you can move it if you like but do not remove it.--csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The insinuation that I am some sort of paid political operative of Rove is a personal attack, and stinks.  I changed the wording in an attempt to avoid the fallacy of the unarticulated premise.  For example, if I leveled the charge that csloat was beating his wife, then noted that he has not disputed this charge (which he has not), I have created a controversy where none existed before.  Similarly, the way the page is written, a charge was leveled against Rove, out of the blue, and his lack of a response was used to enhance the credibility of that charge.  However, since Rove has never been directly confronted with that charge, there is no reason for him to directly confront it.  Hence the the phrase, "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed" the charge.  Evensong 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The insinuation was a joke, but it was based on something real - the fact that you are making arguments for Rove's legal team that even they refuse to make.  The charge is not leveled against Rove "out of the blue", which would be WP:NOR; it is leveled against him in an article that he and his lawyers have not disputed.  To claim that Rove has not been "directly confronted" with the article is not something you could know.  I find it unlikely that Rove and his lawyers are unaware of the publication known as TIME Magazine or this particular article.  Your phrase, "Rove and his attorney have not directly disputed the charge" implies that they have indirectly disputed it somewhere.  Where would that be?--csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: These are minor changes but the overall effect is a not so subtle POV shift, in an article that already has severe POV problems as it is.  I will leave in one of the weasel words in #1 above but the rest is going back.-csloat 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evensong's POV edits

message: Look, dude, it's not that I think your edit is that big a deal (though it is destructive of readability without a consequent substantive benefit), but can you please explain it?  When most of us non-anon editors make changes to this page, we at least have the courtesy to place a short explanation of the change in the edit summary box.  If you take this simple step you may find that your edits last longer.  You'll also find that if you log in, people will take your edits more seriously.  Thanks.--csloat 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Csloat, hey man.  I think we get along ok, so I hope you take this as just a little constructive criticism based on a pet peeve of mine.  I totally agree that the anon would be better served putting in an edit summary explaining his changes.  He/she really should do so.  But on to my pet peeve...I -really- hate that anon's don't get much respect.  I understand all the reasons for it, many are valid.  But I think most of us were anon's at one point, and I at least was semi-bullied into getting an account due to reverts just because I was anon.  Again, you are a great editor and a great contributor, so I hope this didn't come across wrong.  Talk to you soon. Arkon 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, and I apologize if I seem to be dissing people just for being anonymous.  My problem is simply one of confusion.  We have two, maybe three, anon editors who showed up at the same time, aggressively arguing the same point, and making changes without explanations.  If 87.whatever wants to be anon, that is his/her right, but he/she has to realize it makes it hard to distinguish him/her from 71.whatever and whoever else.  Even if the anon signed a pseudonym without actually logging in, things would be better.  And there really is no privacy argument for staying anon, since an IP address is arguably a lot less private than a pseudonym.  Anyway, I'll shut up about it, but I do hope these anon editors will see the value in logging in or at least distinguishing their contributions from one another in some easily recognizable way.  But more importantly, I hope he or she or they will start using edit summaries to explain his or her or their changes.  Again, to all the anons, sorry if I offended you.--csloat 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers like this are why I respect you.  Have a great weekend. Arkon 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and I appreciate you saying so.  You too!--csloat 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like almost all of your changes; your change to the first sentence in particular strikes me as more reasonable than either my version or the anon's version.  I notice you deleted this sentence however: "However, Cheney's office has since admitted that the trip was the result of a Vice Presidential inquiry."  My understanding is that that is quite accurate.  Do you have other information?  Thanks.csloat 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is accurate that Cheney asked CIA to investigate the Niger claim.  It's also in the previous paragraph.  I thought it was unnecessary to have the same rebuttal arguments in both paragraphs.  It might make more sense to try and separate out the Wilson/Cheney views into separate paragraphs completely so that tit-for-tat rebuttals don't keep compounding in the same sentence.  I was trying to avoid the "Cheney says this but Wilson says this however Cheney replied but Wilson countered after Cheney alleged...".  I will try to separate more and avoid redundancy and in-paragraph arguments.  Any sentence that startes with "however" is probably bad.  Generally, "however" can just be deleted.  Once that is done, it makes some of the statements seem redundant. --Tbeatty 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEY 87.118.100.99 

message: The ones I read were accurate.  The leak wasn't "Joe Wilson's wife is a secret agent or covert operative" the leak was "Joe Wilson's wife works for CIA."  This was classified at the time.  I think that is accurate to reflect that her employment was leaked, not her status.  I also removed some weasel words and some unneccesary rebuttal in multiple paragraphs.  It is not necessary to say "alleged" after saying "indicted."  A person is "indicted for perjury" not "indicted for alleged perjury."  "Indicted" means the same thing as "alleged" and it is not correct to use both terms.--Tbeatty 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like almost all of your changes; your change to the first sentence in particular strikes me as more reasonable than either my version or the anon's version.  I notice you deleted this sentence however: "However, Cheney's office has since admitted that the trip was the result of a Vice Presidential inquiry."  My understanding is that that is quite accurate.  Do you have other information?  Thanks.csloat 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is accurate that Cheney asked CIA to investigate the Niger claim.  It's also in the previous paragraph.  I thought it was unnecessary to have the same rebuttal arguments in both paragraphs.  It might make more sense to try and separate out the Wilson/Cheney views into separate paragraphs completely so that tit-for-tat rebuttals don't keep compounding in the same sentence.  I was trying to avoid the "Cheney says this but Wilson says this however Cheney replied but Wilson countered after Cheney alleged...".  I will try to separate more and avoid redundancy and in-paragraph arguments.  Any sentence that startes with "however" is probably bad.  Generally, "however" can just be deleted.  Once that is done, it makes some of the statements seem redundant. --Tbeatty 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest unexplained anon edits

message: Looking around I came across Scooter's grand jury testimony, which pretty much closes the case on the question the anon was debating earlier about whether Cheney was upset by Wilson's article.  I'm wondering if we have somewhere a collection of all the court documents and related documents in this case?  It would be nice to have that in one place without having to search for an hour every time we're looking for something...  If such a list is not on wikipedia, perhaps it should be?--csloat 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: go here. i've tried to keep it updated, but i'm sure it's missing some documents.Anthonymendoza 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court documents

message: It would be best simply to state that this is a controversy. Not a political controversy or a legal controversy, both of which shape the way you look at it and so are pov; but a controversy. There are many, many dimension to it, not the least of it are the security aspects (leaking under cover identities; destroying an anti-WMD program; the impact on recruting undercover assets.) While I have tried to accomodate the editors who want to get in the words "political" and "legal" by adding the 3rd qualified "security", I think a better 1st sentence would be just to start that it's a controversy ... it's a long, weaselly worded sentence as is. Also cut as unnecessary "originally" "one or more" "improperly" "details pertaining to" and "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)" all of which are explained further in the article. We also don't need "(also called the Plame CIA leak controversy)" because we if we listed all the other things it's been called the article would be near infinite. leaving us with a bland, compact, and uncontroversial:
"The Plame affair refers to a controversy stemming from allegations that White House officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s "under cover" employment status."
:"under cover" is a misleading word.  Her employment status was classified.  I don't think the original sentence had weasel words in it.  I prefer the original sentence.  --Tbeatty 06:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference as to "under cover" or "secret" or "covert" or what-ever. Please feel free (as far as I am concerned, which is not much) to use whichever term you feel is better. Mostly, I want short and npov. Cheers! rewinn 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tbeatty.  The original sentence was better.  This is unnecessary detail - for the purposes of this article, "under cover" and "classified" mean the same thing.  "Covert" too, although it has a slightly more specific meaning when used in the IIPA.  Moscowitz is not a central player in the media coverage of this controversy and has no place in the introduction, even if we use quotes from his letter.  Your comments are pretty irrelevant - I seriously doubt Bush will face impeachment no matter who is in the House, unless something more than this comes up.  But it would not matter to this article; the facts should be reported independent of Democratic or Republican talking points.  As for your demand that people "stop messing with" your introduction, please see WP:OWN: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]"  If you want to own an article on this topic, publish it in a real book or magazine.  (I think you'll find that you will need more of a byline than your IP address if you do).  But do not come here issuing demands to other editors or ultimatums about what you will and will not accept.--csloat 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial sentences should be short. The original senence is way, way too long. "Originally stemming" is redundant: "stemming" implies "originally". "One or more" is unnecessary since that phrase covers then entire universe of positive integers. "Journalists" is unnecessary since the "original" problem was the (alleged) outing by someone with security clearance. Most of the other words I deleted are similarly unnecessary. There is a very long article following the introduction, suitable for discussing the political, legal and other ramifications, and no need to stick them in up front.
* That said, I find it amusing that this article sucks up so much energy better put to better purposes. It's not as if a significant number of people come to this page not knowing something about the topic and are swayed to a particular pov. rewinn 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Type of controversy