Talk:Plame affair/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

(untitled)

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)

Iran

David Shuster reports that sources have told him how National Security was damaged when Valerie Plame-Wilson's identity was leaked by the White House. His intel sources say that she worked with gathering intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. The outing of her name specifically damaged our national ability to collect intelligence on Iran's nuclear capabilities.[1] Nomen Nescio 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying that these claims have been "confirmed" is a bit too strong for NPOV. 71.212.31.95 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying they are simply "repeated" is too weak -- they are not just repeated; it is clear from the article that MSNBC is reporting on what they found independently of raw story. I am reinserting "confirmed" because it is the term used in the press about the MSNBC report. I do see what you're saying, and if you think of a better term let us know, but please read, for example, Editor and Publisher: "MSNBC's David Schuster on Monday said he had confirmed an earlier report that she was helping to keep track of Iran's nuclear activity--not a front and center issue for the White House."--csloat 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the sources are anonymous, there is no way to know whether they are the same sources who tried to get the allegations out earlier by leaking to Alexandrovna. There is no indication that MSNBC's reporting goes beyond repeating the same allegations that were made previously. Shuster's report doesn't add anything substantive to the story or add anything to the credibility of the allegations. The only significance of the report is that MSM has picked up the story. To use "confirmed" in this circumstance is inappropriate because it may suggest that the validity of the allegations has been established. That just isn't the case. 71.212.31.95 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not relevant. It's clear that Shuster has spoken to intel officials himself. Shuster's report adds credibility in the sense that we are not relying on Alexandrovna's word alone anymore; it is now clear the information is coming from the CIA and not from a rogue reporter or magazine (as raw story was accused of being on these pages when they first released the report). It is still made very clear that the intel officials leaking this info are anonymous, so I don't think you need to worry about that. It's clear also that the term "confirmed" is what is used in the mass media. To use "repeated" is inappropriate because it suggests that Shuster did no new research here. That just isn't the case.

That said, I understand what you're saying about "confirmed" but you could say the same thing about any news report on this page - why choose this one? I am in favor of "confirmed" until we think of something better -- the point we want to get across is that MSNBC looked into the story and discovered evidence backing up the claims of Alexandrovna. Not that Shuster simply "repeated" her claims. --csloat 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, good work. Your recent change seems to address these concerns.--csloat 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"nice try csloat"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Current event?

Should we remove the current event tag as it's no longer current. Thanks JAbeach 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Rove: I'll be indicted

Hate to say I told ya so.... Well, if Leopold is right, of course. One thing is for sure; Anthony is right above -- this thing is still quite "current."--csloat 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also:

• http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/13/karl_rove_indicted_on_perjury_lying_to_investigators.php
• http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jason_le_060513_karl_rove_indicted_o.htm
• http://news.google.com/news?q="karl+rove+indicted"

-- Merry fitzmas 68.215.134.103 01:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

all of these links are to the Leopold article. any confirmation to this story? i find it hard to believe rove was indicted and no one told the Post or the Times. Anthonymendoza 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortly after Jason announced that he may reveal his sources, Larry Johnson pops up at DU for what appeared to be damage control. He also name dropped Wilson. I bet they are his sources. Evensong 17:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory; is there any evidence for it? A little difficult to believe, at least in Wilson's case, but I suppose it is possible.--csloat 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I remain in agreement that this seems quite suspicious. Until corroborated, I'm considering this a possible red herring. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So what was Cheney's role in all this? Check this out.... --csloat 08:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

• In a new court filing, the prosecutor in the CIA leak case revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney made handwritten references to CIA officer Valerie Plame — albeit not by name — before her identity was publicly exposed.[2]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Leopold

i know very little about Jason Leopold, but it appears his entire credibility as a journalist is now at stake. if Rove is indicted (or has already been indicted) his stature will increase immensely, but if Rove isn't indicted, i don't see him surviving the lynching he'll receive by bloggers. [3][4][5][6]Anthonymendoza 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Read this. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...

this is written in his wikipedia article:

Prior to writing News Junkie, Mr. Leopold had written a book entitled Off the Record. The book's release was permanently cancelled, however, following legal threats from one of the subjects of the book.[7] In that book, Mr. Leopold planned to reveal many secrets of his life as a young republican and paid 'reporter', breaking journalistic rules, and lying to employers about a criminal conviction. [8]Anthonymendoza 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

apparently Truthout has already felt some heat regarding Leopold's reporting [9]Anthonymendoza 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - that last one pretty well establishes that Truthout would not publish without double checking the sources.--csloat 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

this is all just too weird. [10][11][12][13][14]Anthonymendoza 01:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These too: [15] [16] Evensong 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser!--csloat 08:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Someone is having fun with this.--csloat 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i don't think they were having fun with it, i think they actually believed it. leopold's career is over if Rove isn't indicted soon. unless he reveals his sources and puts the spotlight on them. Anthonymendoza 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant whoever made up the story in the first place is likely having fun with this (assuming it is made up, that is, which now seems likely). It's possible someone wanted to discredit Leopold, although this would backfire if he does name his sources. It's also possible that someone wanted to make Rove sweat a bit (and certainly his handlers had to field a lot of unwanted questions from the press). Even if we never get to see Rove doing the frog march he richly deserves, I still find this whole thing pretty amusing.--csloat 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i think this is shaping up to be another defining moment in the evolution of the blogosphere. it's pranks like this that hinder the blogs from being taken seriously.

Mainstream news organizations say bloggers can say something is going to happen every day for months and then claim to be ahead of the pack when it does -- or forget about it when it doesn't. Bloggers complain that traditional reporters don't credit them for scoops when they are proved right.[17]Anthonymendoza 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blogosphere

what does everyone think about adding a section in this article about how several internet news sites reported from anonymous sources on impending indictments that never came to be. it can be done easily in a NPOV. there should be some reference to this because the blogs have become an integral part of the "plame affair". or should we wait to add a section like this when Rove's fate is finally decided. even so, i remember last year the blogs were ablaze with rumors that 22 indictments were coming. i don't want to include this section to discredit blogs or the sites that reported these stories. rather, the excitement this story has generated on the web is an important historical aspect of this case. Anthonymendoza 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, though I think it's more than just "blogs." Recognized media outlets are part of the circle. Interesting stuff though but the issues are not all that different from the pre-blog world. Government agent, rogue or no, comments anonymously to media outlet; information about the leak spreads, whether it is true or not. But the blogosphere makes it spread faster and farther, methinks. Still waiting for the other shoe to drop on Rove/Leopold, however. It does sound like Leopold did not make up his source, but if the info turns out to be wrong, I'm not sure why he would feel the need to continue protecting that source's anonymity.--csloat 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen (i'm not familiar with him either) is now reporting that Leopold was likely fed bogus information by Rove's people in order to create a diversion. he is also reporting that Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, was informed by fitzgerald that he, Luskin, is now a target of the investigation. here's what he wrote:

WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.' WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House.'[18]

this report is also spreading like wildfire across the blogs. i think the blogs are becoming the story now. i think there is a difference between being mislead by sources and just plain sloppy journalism. granted, there is a chance all this is true, but it all appears to be more wishful thinking than actual confirmation of the story. you're right, however. another shoe will drop and a clear narrative will emerge.Anthonymendoza 02:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Leopold's sources are unreliable. He certainly has them. But Leopold should have known that they did not have any inside information into Fitz's investigation. Evensong 08:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

i've read this several times and i just don't understand it. anyone care to translate for me.

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title. The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it. As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted. Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t [19]Anthonymendoza 02:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"[W]e erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle" means we reported a news event before it happened. In other words, they lied. Evensong 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Erred" does not mean "lied."--csloat 18:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok then. Res ipsa. Evensong 20:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Are there any independent and original, credible sources out there connecting all of the following issues to the "Plame Affair"?

1. 2003 invasion of Iraq
2. War on Terrorism
3. Yellowcake Forgery
4. Downing Street memo
5. White House Iraq Group

And if so, do these sources also cite all the following as central figures:

1. Stephen Hadley
2. Karen Hughes
3. Mary Matalin
4. 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)

I also want to commend all the good hard work all the editors have done on this article. Evensong 15:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to delete this material absent primary sourcing. Evensong 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

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)

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)

What info relates to the Plame Affair please. With Citations. Evensong 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, please articulate clearly whether you object and the reasons. Evensong 20:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What language, exactly, within this material that offers important background to the "Plame Affair"? Evensong 00:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'll put you down as non-responsive. Evensong 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wake-up call

What about this?

Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify in the perjury case against his former chief of staff, a special prosecutor said in a court filing Wednesday.[20]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to the Truthout story for the past week; apparently it still has some legs -- see updates here and here. And they claim that they have additional sources who have come forward to confirm the story. They also claim that the activity at Rove's lawyers' offices on the days in question suggest that the story may be accurate. Their current theory about why we haven't seen "fitzmas" yet is that Rove's lawyers were shown the indictment and that Rove agreed to turn state's evidence in order to save his own *ss. It's certainly plausible, and it helps explain Cheney being called if true. Either way, it better explains Truthout's "partial apology" than the ridiculous statement that they just "lied."

Of course some people here will tell me this is just left-wing wishful thinking, and that may be the case; I have never hidden the fact that I think this "affair" is part of a serious constitutional crisis nor my wish to see the traitors responsible brought to justice. But of course I'm not touching the article with any of this and until more widely recognized reputable sources begin discussing it I'm not sure what I believe other than that something big is coming down the pipe. I guess I'm just setting up to smugly say "I told ya so" later (or, alternatively, for Anthony and Evensong and others to tell me what a raving leftist lunatic I am). Anyone want to start the betting pool? Have a nice day! :) --csloat 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

at this point i believe the whole story is made up. given leopold's past, i'd say he created sources and convinced Ash of their authenticity. if an indictment had been handed down, we'd know by now, plain and simple. as far as "something big coming down the pipe", i'll take that bet. i just don't understand what everyone is waiting for, or expecting to happen. i really don't. i'm still convinced fitzgerald found out very early into the investigation who Novak's source was, determined he had nothing to prosecute on, and went after those who he determined gave false testimony. i don't think it's that complicated. the indictment is pretty straightforward. if outing plame was a criminal act, Libby would have been charged with it. fitzgerald has determined he discussed her with reporters, discussed her in detail with the vice president, and knew her status was classified. so where's the charge of outing an agent? and why are libby's lawyers doing everything they can to make the trial about Plame's cia status, and fitzgerald is doing everything he can to make the trial not about Plame? shouldn't it be the opposite if outing her was a criminal act? so again, what are we waiting for to happen? Anthonymendoza 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the whole thing is made up, Ash is in on it too, since he writes that further sources confirmed it after the Leopold story was criticized. As for what we are waiting for, only time will tell. Some speculate that Fitz is going after something more directly related to the Niger forgeries - that seems unlikely but I suppose anything is possible. If Rove is turning state's evidence, there must be something significant there, possibly more significant than Plame. Anyway I'm going to wait and see; it seems unlikely to me that both Leopold and Ash would manufacture something this significant just for yuks.--csloat 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

i still find it impossible to believe Leopold is the only reporter with knowledge of a rove indictment or the only reporter with the courage to report it. Anthonymendoza 20:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Leopold and Ash - two people. And I don't think it's about courage. If what they say now is accurate, what that means is they went to press with the news of the indictment before it was made public and before Rove had a chance to respond privately to prosecutors. If Rove cut a deal in the interim, and his lawyers remain tight-lipped, there really isn't anything for anyone else to report. My guess is that's what they mean by being "ahead of the news cycle." If they are just making it up, why has nobody asked them to print a retraction? Anyway, this is all speculation as I noted above; interesting perhaps but until someone more credible than Leopold reports something about this, we don't have much more to go on.--csloat 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

nothing to report? quite the opposite. also, there have been many reports of an imminent rove indictment coming, dating back to july 2005, all citing anonymous sources close to the investigation (i've personally counted seven such reports). none were asked to be retracted. Anthonymendoza 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

maybe i'm reading too much into this, but this heavily redacted affidavit by fitzgerald seems to imply that the scope of the investigation never went beyond who leaked plames identity to novak. it would seem to debunk the idea that fitzgerald is seeking broader charges:

In this affidavit, I describe the investigation at some length even though the specific items not being disclosed to the defense are very few. I have erred on the side of caution in describing the broader investigation in considerable detail because I am concerned that a literal reading of the relief sought by the defense — disclosing all documents or information regarding conversations between officials and reporters in spring 2003 regardless of when the documents were created — would sweep in virtually every grand jury transcript and reports of interview of most witnesses and many irrelevant documents as nearly every discussion or document about the investigation — even documents created in 2005 about conversations in 2005 — refer back to the baseline fact that information was leaked to reporter Robert Novak in July 2003. We are proceeding on the assumption that such a broad scope is not appropriate. However, we set forth at pages 2 through 12 a description of the larger investigation in order to provide the Court the full scope of the materials implicated by the language of that defense request, which, if complied with, would compromise “innocent accuseds” in an investigation where more than (redacted) witnesses have been interviewed and more than (redacted) witnesses have testified before the grand jury or in depositions ancillary to the grand jury. The affidavit then discusses at pages 12 through 15 what information is known to investigators about conversations between reporters and officials prior to July 14, 2003, and what information has and has not been disclosed to Libby. The affidavit then describes at pages 15 through 18 what documents, grand jury transcripts and related materials have been provided and what has not been produced.[21]Anthonymendoza 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is truthout crying wolf again?

Leopold is back; check it out.--csloat 09:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

heheh, right on the tail of this: [22]; I see it's already been added. Curiouser and curiouser.--csloat 12:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

some excellent analysis of all that's happening this morning.--csloat 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Case closed.Anthonymendoza 22:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Whose? Mine? Leopold's? Ash's? Fitzgerald's? Or Rove's?--csloat 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Khan sentence

Anthony pulled a sentence on Khan with the statement "this is nonsense." I don't think it is. It was poorly written, though I think if you leave out the last phrase it is much better. But Khan is certainly relevant as his outing establishes pretty clearly that Bush was willing to compromise secret information (and, in this case, an entire counterterrorism operation) for political gain. I think it is probably more important than Plame in some ways, but the media has not treated it that way. But it is notable that Bush critics point to it as further confirmation that Bush is willing to leak info important to national security (in that case, the name of an al Qaeda double agent) for political gain.--csloat 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

my understanding is that the New York Times first published his name and quoted Pakistani officials: The release of Mr. Khan's name - it was made public in The New York Times on Aug. 2, citing Pakistani intelligence sources - drew criticism by some politicians, like Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who charged that this leak might have compromised the search in Britain and Pakistan for Mr. Khan's Qaeda partners. (No officials in Britain, Pakistan or the United States have told The Times on the record that identifying Mr. Khan had such an impact).[23] and transcripts of a press background briefing showed Khan's name wasn't used:Earlier on, Reuters had reported, and I had repeated, that the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was given on background to the press by a Bush administration official. The assertion was confirmed by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in an Aug. 8 interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, in which she said that U.S. officials gave the name out on background. Both Reuters and Rice appear to have been wrong in this allegation, and I regret having repeated it. The transcript of the briefing, when released, did not contain Khan's name. However, I am not very embarrassed about being wrong, since Rice misled me. Her office later issued a correction, saying that she had just repeated back to Blitzer his own statement, and had misspoken. This performance by her seems to me bizarre and alarming, but there you have it.[24][25] so how does any of this relate to the plame affair??? Anthonymendoza 20:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I had not seen this before, but just reading the very next sentence after what you quoted above fills this in: "The point remains that had Ridge not made his announcement, the press would have had no occasion to go searching for the source of his information. The Bush administration decision to go public put a powerful spotlight on the Pakistani arrests of June and July." The Globe article you cite also indicates the problem here: "The stream of information has generated largely flattering stories about the Bush administration's efforts against terrorism -- including 'exclusive' cover stories in two of the three major newsweeklies -- but also prompted complaints that the White House was jeopardizing national security by revealing too much about its undercover operations." And also: "But several senior intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed dismay at the level of information that has been revealed to the media -- particularly the role that Khan's arrest has played. 'Most of the people I talk to are most shocked by some of the recent details being revealed about Al Qaeda,' said one senior CIA analyst who works on terrorism issues." And an NYT article a week after the BG piece indicates that the British Home Secretary expressed the same concern, and also indicates it was US officials who got the ball rolling:

The release of Mr. Khan's name -- it was made public in The New York Times on Aug. 2, citing Pakistani intelligence sources -- drew criticism by some politicians, like Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who charged that this leak might have compromised the search in Britain and Pakistan for Mr. Khan's Qaeda partners. (No officials in Britain, Pakistan or the United States have told The Times on the record that identifying Mr. Khan had such an impact). It was American officials, meanwhile, who released Mr. Hindi's name, details about his possible connection to Mr. Khan and information on his suspected role as the leader of a three-man team that surveyed the New York Stock Exchange and other buildings in New York. 'It's a big moment; and it's also very visible, and that's okay,' Ms. Townsend, the homeland security adviser to President Bush, said in the Aug. 8 interview on Fox News. 'People ought to feel good about the fact. What we're seeing now are the dividends based on the president's counterterrorism policies.' The same day Ms. Townsend and other Bush administration officials were on television heralding progress that had been made in American antiterrorism efforts, David Blunkett, who as home secretary in Britain serves as one of the country's top antiterrorism experts, was emphasizing his very different approach to making public comments about the Qaeda threat. 'I could have appeared a dozen times last week on radio and television, but I turned down the offers,' he wrote in a commentary piece published in The Observer in Britain. 'I would have merely added to the speculation, to the hype, to the desire for something to say for its own sake. In other words, to feed the news frenzy in a slack news period. Is that really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counterterrorism? To feed the media? To increase concern? To have something to say, whatever it is, in order to satisfy the insatiable desire to hear somebody saying something? Of course not. This is arrant nonsense.'

The Cole article you cite also indicates that the claim that the Pakistanis rather than the Americans gave up the name is disputed by Pakistani officials, so the claim that the US did not leak the name is by no means established beyond doubt. Cole offers evidence supporting this perspective: "Note that the Pakistani government had never before revealed Khan's name. It had never been mentioned in any Pakistani newspaper or any Pakistani news conference. Since Khan had been turned, he was perhaps the most valuable asset inside al-Qaeda Pakistani intelligence ever had." He also suggests that if a Pakistani official did out Khan, "It is possible that he believed that Ridge had given the show away anyway. That is, al-Qaeda members on hearing the details Ridge revealed to the American public would know that a real insider had been busted, and would inevitably become so cautious that the Khan sting operation might well have been fatally compromised. We know that after the Ridge announcement, the level of "chatter" among radical Islamists fell off dramatically." And Cole concludes, "The Bush administration at the very least bears indirect responsibility for the outing of Khan. Without the Ridge announcement, reporters would have had no incentive to seek out the name of the source of the information."

The Washington Post on August 17 confirms Cole's view that the answer to the question who leaked remains unclear:

So where did the leak originate? National security adviser Condoleezza Rice initially seemed to agree with a statement by CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Khan's name had been disclosed on background in Washington. "On background," she said, noting that the challenge was "giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat" without harming intelligence operations. A National Security Council spokesman said later that Rice had misspoken in appearing to confirm that the leak came from U.S. officials. So it remains unclear who outed Khan.

As for what all this has to do with Plame, the point that was in the article was that critics of the Bush Admin had connected the two as two examples of Bush compromising national security information for political gain. The evidence still supports that point (that critics made the claim), no matter who outed Khan.--csloat 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

the evidence does not support the claim. so is the new york times lying when they say they learned of khan from pakistani sources? and the claim that khan's name appeared in a background briefing has been refuted. so the only argument left is that "bush got the ball rolling" on the leak, which makes no sense since the leak cannot be tied to the white house. once the times ran his name, his cover was blown and he ceased to be an asset. there's a reason this story never went anywhere. it has no legs. and it doesn't belong on this page. does anyone else have an opinion?Anthonymendoza 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the story is tied to the white house by the sources you cited. To Ridge, anyway, and the comment of the British home sec is salient. The evidence supports the point that bush critics made this claim, not necessarily the claim itself. I think you're right that this story isn't nearly what I thought it was before reading all these articles, and I appreciate being corrected on it, but the evidence does support that bush critics did make the link. Whether this should be on this page or not is another matter, one I'm not entirely convinced either way of anymore.--csloat 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i can see this being written in the conspiracy section. if you fell this needs to be included there, i don't object. we can take turns editing it. Anthonymendoza 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a Plame conspiracy theory though; it's more of a swipe at the bush admin by analogy, and the analogy seems on less solid ground than I originally thought. Anyway I'm not rushing to put it back in at the moment; we'll see what others have to say, if anything.--csloat 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New Waas article

The latest Murray Waas piece claims Novak and Rove conspired to cover up the leak.--csloat 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

this should be added to the main article. Anthonymendoza 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

public opinion

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)

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)

i agree.Anthonymendoza 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Eeks

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.[26]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)