Talk:Plame affair/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

covert status settled

This pretty much settles the "covert" issue; it's clear now that Plame was working on intelligence issues as a covert agent with NOC status and that she had sensitive assignments overseas during the time period necessary to qualify for protection under the IIPA. I'm not saying the IIPA will actually be enforced, particularly with certain figures obstructing the investigation, but it's clear now both that Plame's status should have been protected under the law and that in outing her, Rove et al. not only destroyed her career but also greatly compromised national security by undermining an ongoing intelligence operation (as well as burned all her contacts and anyone else using the Brewster Jennings cover). The irony is that she was working on gathering intelligence to support Bush's case for war in Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the WaPo editors and others who have pounced on this forthcoming book as evidence that the "Plame affair" is over will have to say once the book actually comes out; based on what little has been published so far, it is clear that the authors have reached some very different conclusions.--csloat 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm no. It says her foreign assignment ended in 1997 (six years before the disclosure). Further, it says she was sent with government intellignece agents to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence which would imply that she did NOT enjoy NOC status while on this trip. Also, interestingly enough, it ties her to the Aluminum tubes. Since she was CIA, she was part of the report that said they WERE for nuclear centrifuges (the CIA claimed nuclear uses, Energy departement said possible rocket bodies). --Tbeatty 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, yes? The IIPA doesn't require a "foreign assignment." It requires that the agent be sent abroad on intelligence work - which she was (dates are not clear but some time between 2001-3). There is nothing indicating she did not "enjoy" NOC status in Jordan. And it's not just Jordan; it says she "occasionally flew overseas" during this period to monitor operations. I agree about the tubes; it is ironic that the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent who was working to find evidence supporting his Iraq war case. I guess people will continue to read only what they want to read into articles like this no matter how much evidence comes out, but it will be interesting to see where the spin goes when this book is published.--csloat 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The language says "served" overseas. Single trips outside the U.S. would not qualify jsut as it would not qualify as "served" in the military. Otherwise, GWB would be considered a combat veteran as he has toured Iraq as Commander in Chief. But my interpretation, as well as yours, is why it will not hold up to scrutiny since it is not clearly sourced. It should be left out unless/until a charge that uses the IPAA definition is brought. She should not be referred to as a "covert agent" after 1997 since the IIPA has a definition that is not consistent with her service (or at best ambiguous). As for the tubes, I was pointing out that she is one of the people who say the tubes are for a nuclear reactor. That was her report to Congress and she believed that Iraq was reconstituting in Nuclear weapons program. If Korn is correct and she was part of the team who evaluated the Aluminum tubes, it puts her at direct odds to her husband. I don't think the Bush administration burned her, I think it was Wilson they were after and this disclosure was inadvertant. --Tbeatty 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your source for the bizarre definition of "served overseas" here; frankly, I think you're making it up. The Bush analogy is nonsensical; if Bush had been sent to Iraq on a mission for the US military as part of an ongoing appointment as a machine gunner or something, then, sure, we could say he "served," just like when Valerie Wilson went overseas as part of an ongoing appointment as a NOC dealing with WMD issues, she too was "serving." As for IIPA, I don't think charges will be brought under it, because we have some of the criminals involved disrupting the investigation -- hence the perjury and obstruction charges. That is independent of her status as a "covert" agent, which she clearly was in the general sense, and now the evidence points pretty clearly that she met even the more restricted definition of covert given in the IIPA. Whether or not charges are brought against anyone under IIPA does not change her status as covert. As for the tubes, I understand your point, and I agree that it is ironic that in their zeal to assault Wilson, members of the Bush Admin wound up burning an agent -- inadvertently or no -- who was basically working on their side.--csloat 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Criminals?" I don't know where you are from, but here in America, we have a concept called "innocent until proven guilty." I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with it - it would help in your editing Wikipedia. Valtam 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please - high horse unnecessary; I did not and would not add that word to the article. I assumed it would be understood that I was expressing my opinion that the people who committed crimes here are "criminals," not a court's. I do support due process and criminal rights for Scooter Libby and anyone else charged with crimes in this situation. (However, I am extremely disturbed by the fact that certain people - specifically Mr. Rove - continue to enjoy security clearance. Revocation of such clearance does not need a court finding of guilt in this situation.)--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

maybe armitage "burned" her because she was working with the white house. the conspiracy theories can go on forever. corn's article basically confirms what was already known. she was an noc, but not a deep cover noc, since she served time at an embassy and, now we learn, worked with jordanian intelligence officials. so both sides of the covert debate can claim being correct. Anthonymendoza 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Armitage didn't burn her. Rove and Libby (and plausibly Cheney) did. Corn's article does confirm what is already known, I agree, but many people still seem to think that certain things were not known. There is no distinction made in that article (or anywhere else that I know of) between a NOC and a "deep cover NOC" -- I suggest that such distinction is based on guesswork by Wikipedia editors. I see no evidence that her work in Jordan compromized her NOC status, nor her cover as an embassy worker.--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

corn's article says this about NOC's: NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. but if plame met with jordanian intelligence officials, wouldn't she have been known to the jordanian government? and this is from a time magazine article from 2003: Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, [Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official] said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. and the chicago tribune stated that plame had diplomatic cover while serving at an embassy:A CIA veteran with 20 years of service was quoted in the Tribune article as saying "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period and that diplomatic cover would have meant she would have been known to "friendly and opposition intelligence services alike". so there is a distinction between an NOC and a deep cover NOC, and it's not my "guesswork". what i don't understand is why you are the only editor you doesn't see the significance of Armitage being the initial leaker. i know in the past you've commented on Rove being "frog marched" out of the white house, but he isn't going to be charged. and neither is cheney. and libby trial will have nothing to do with plame's outing. ask yourself this: if armitage hadn't of told novak about plame, would we have a plame affair? rove only confirmed what armitage already told novak, and all indications are that rove told cooper after he learned novak would be writing an article about it. libby told miller, but she didn't and never intended to write about it. nobody burned anybody or conspired against anyone. even the washington post and the new york times are distancing themselves from Joe Wilson. there was no conspiracy to out plame.Anthonymendoza 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So was she a NOC or not? You seem to be claiming both things here. The "deep cover" argument by Rustmann is the first and only place I've seen that, and his credibility on this issue has been called into question by several other former CIA officers. The anonymous guy who says having a diplomatic job means that she wasn't a NOC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, at least, if other CIA officials are to be believed on this. I still don't see any evidence of a distinction in kinds of NOC; Rustmann's comment sounds like he is making the distinction on the fly. Of course, neither of us works at CIA, at least I know I don't, and I don't believe you have ever claimed to, so neither of us can say with certainty whether that is an official distinction. As for the Jordanians, I have no idea whether they knew she was a NOC, and the article does not appear to make a claim either way on that issue. But it's nice that you're so sure of it. As for Armitage, which is the big issue here, the Times and Post are just wrong this time around. The Armitage info is nothing new. The book which this info comes from is coming out in a couple days I think; you will see then (assuming you read it, or about it) that its authors clearly do not agree with the WaPo assessment of the Plame affair as a big waste of time. Armitage was clearly not the only person spreading this information about Plame to the Washington press corps. Fitzgerald - who knew about Armitage back in '03 - stated in court documents that "there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14." According to WaPo (10/12/03), "two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists." That article reports that an administration official told them the disclosure was "unsolicited" and that it was "part of their broader case against Wilson." Rove called Matthews and said that Plame was "fair game" in the attack on Wilson (Newsweek 7/11/05). Your claim that Rove told Novak about Plame after Armitage told him is immaterial -- Rove talked to Novak about Plame the same day Armitage talked to him, and his confirmation of this information was a separate crime. We also know for a fact that Rove talked to Cooper 3 days later, offering up the same information (and no, I don't see any indications that Rove knew Novak would be mentioning it, though that is immaterial to any of this as well). If Armitage shot his mouth off first, that hardly changes the nature of any of this. It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this, but is also irrelevant to the question of whether there was a "Plame affair" or of whether there was something immoral, criminal, and detrimental to national security that was done by people in the White House and VPs office who wanted to attack a former Ambassador for doing his job.--csloat 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

so know Rustmann is not credible. ok. but yes, i am claiming both. she was NOC, but not enough to fit under the IIPA definition, and no real harm came from her outing, as andrea mitchell, bob woodward, and dana priest have all reported. but i see where you are coming from now when you write "It is true that Rove's lawyer claims he won't be indicted on this". you are waiting for another shoe to drop. i don't believe there are any other indictments to come involving this case, but let's wait and see. as for the armitage info being known, yes, some theorized it was him, but now that we know for sure, it does change the entire aspect of this affair. you cite the post to prove a big conspiracy, yet say they are wrong when they begin to distance themselves from Wilson. and yes, fitzgerald has said there is ample evidence that white house officials discussed plame, but he doesn't suggest it's criminal, or even immoral; rather, if you read the entire document, he uses that info to rebute claims by libby that he had other things on his mind and thus forgot about discussing plame. fitzgerald is arguing that wilson's column was at the forefront of cheney's mind and thus makes it more plausible that libby perjured himself and obstructed justice. we'll see what happens at libby's trial, as he is innocent until proven guilty, and we can't base our judgment solely on the documents of a prosecutor. but regardless, i believe your grasping at straws but i commend you for sticking to your guns. but if in the end libby is the only person indicted, the plame affair will only be remembered as a big conspiracy theory that didn't materialize.Anthonymendoza 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I thought another shoe might drop. As a patriot, I suppose I am hopeful that one does, but I am not making any predictions, given how weird this case has been. Your claim that no harm has come from her outing is ludicrous given what we now know about what she was doing; Mitchell, woodward, and priest are incorrect if they have reported that (former CIA officials Johnson, Marcinkowski, Grimaldi, and Cavan, as well as former DIA officer Lang, as well as several current CIA officials who remain anonymous, have all reported otherwise. I trust their word over the reports of two reporters (neither of whom is a huge hack - well, perhaps woodward - but you haven't indicated where their info came from) and certainly over the word of Andrea Mitchell, who has been shown to have deliberately distorted this on occasion, who has a clear investment in the case, and who has admitted having "misspoke" about this. As for Armitage, there is no evidence that it "changes the entire aspect" of this affair. The crucial issue is that the White House went after Wilson and in the process of doing so they (willfully or ignorantly) burned an important national security outlet. Whether anyone gets hung out to dry for that is not something I will predict, though, again, as a patriot, I do not hide the fact that I have my hopes. That Armitage is a blabbermouth is beside the point -- the whole reason he was looking at a document with this info about Plame in the first place is because people in the White House had started up a smear campaign. As for my citing the Post and saying they are wrong about something else - I cited a report and said they were wrong in an editorial. Look, the Post publishes a lot of different things and has many different writers. It is quite possible they get some things right and others wrong. Are you suggesting the report I cited - a basic statement of facts based on Fitzgerald's investigation - was a lie? Finally, I must again emphasize that whether anyone else gets indicted is a separate issue. My car was stolen. The thief was never brought to justice. I doubt you would claim that the latter fact proves that nothing illegal or immoral took place. Sometimes the evidence is not there to convict a criminal for wrongdoing (especially when there is obstruction of justice and perjury going on!) I can't see how anyone can claim that what took place was not immoral. National security was compromised by the exposure of an undercover CIA agent who was working on WMD issues, and it was done for a cheap political attack on someone else who was working for the Administration. (And this after the Admin even backed off the claim that Wilson was refuting!) If a Democratic administration had done anything like this, we'd have seen everyone involved tried for treason by now. I'm not saying that should happen here, but I am saying I find it very difficult to understand how you can claim these actions as morally defensible. Plead ignorance or stupidity if you want to defend the Admin on this but claiming it was morally justified seems absurd. And, by the way, I have one final point - it doesn't matter if you believe Plame was doing anything important with WMD issues. The outing of plame was also an outing of her cover company, which was a large CIA investment and may have exposed other agents and operations. Chances are the CIA had to call it quits on everything Valerie was involved in, and possibly lost relationships with other assets abroad. But even beyond that - and this is crucial - the question of the longer term effect on CIA covert operations needs to be stressed. Being an undercover agent of any kind is already dangerous - especially being a NOC. An agent knows that they could be killed or worse if their identity is exposed. It's bad enough that the "bad guys" might figure out their identity, but it is a lot worse if they cannot trust their own government to not blab their identity to reporters! We can only imagine the longer term effect of this action on recruiting and retention of covert agents who do this dangerous work. If I were a covert agent in 2003 when this happened I might be looking for early retirement options. This is, I think, one of the reasons the CIA took this so seriously when it happened, and it's a reason conservatives should be taking it seriously too. We can debate liberal vs. conservative ideas all day long, but at some point there are certain issues where American liberals and conservatives both should be responding as Americans first rather than as representatives of political parties.--csloat 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

the car analogy doesn't work here since the reason no one was brought to justice for stealing your car was because he/she wasn't caught. in this case, fitzgerald knows who all the players are, what they said, who they talked too, etc, and no one was charged with leaking classified info. and i'm not suggesting fitzgerald's report was a lie, just that your misreading it. fitzgerald was making an argument that libby couldn't have forgotten conversations about plame because she and wilson were discussed deeply in the vp's office. but he doesn't suggest the fact that she was discussed was criminal. as far as everything else, Armitage has now stated that in 40 years of government service, reading and dealing with memos and classified documents, he has never seen a covert agents name printed in a memo. that tells you how thinly veiled her cover was. or perhaps the state department needs to review the guidelines for writing classified memos. i just think this is all so overblown. there's no question plame's career was ruined, but the fault lies with armitage and the author of the state department memo, rather than rove, libby , bush, etc. there just simply was no conspiracy to out her.Anthonymendoza 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The car analogy works. The reason no one was brought to justice is that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for the theft. That does not mean the theft was not a crime. The reason Fitzgerald has not charged anyone but Libby appears to be the same - there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with leaking classified info. The fact that Fitzgerald has talked to everyone does not mean he is confident there is enough evidence to indict -- in fact, the obstruction of justice that occurred likely made it difficult to gather all the evidence necessary. What did I misread in Fitzgerald's report? Fitzgerald said Plame was undercover until her cover was blown by Novak. Fitzgerald doesn't need to address whether this was criminal - he would not be involved if no criminal activity were involved. As for whether Plame was thinly veiled -- who wrote the memo? Not the CIA, but State, and you may be right that they should review their procedures for writing memos. And, again, it doesn't matter how "thin" you think her cover was; the fact is, if the CIA says she is undercover, that is what she is. Complain to them about doing a poor job, but that does not excuse whoever exposed her. And it does not excuse Rove and Libby and whoever else for contacting 6 news outlets (at minimum) in order to attack Wilson through his wife. This may be "overblown" too - I'm not arguing that it's not - but I do think this is serious, possibly more serious than actions that have brought impeachment proceedings against previous presidents. If the VP's office knowingly compromised national security in order to smear someone for criticizing actions that are already on tenuous moral and legal grounds (i.e. intentionally manipulating the case for war by ignoring key evidence or distorting other evidence), that is quite serious. Debates about how deep her cover was or whether there were other people hurt by her outing are secondary; the primary issue (at least in my opinion - and I acknowledge that's all we're discussing at this point, and that the only reason I'm continuing this conversation is that, as TheronJ noted, "speculation is fun") is the abuse of power by the executive branch and the placing of petty political revenge over national security concerns.--csloat 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm confused. was someone arrested for stealing the car and not charged, or was no one arrested because of lack of suspects? i admire your passion on this issue and i too was drawn to this story because of all the issues you raised. but i stopped taking it seriously when joe and valerie wilson posed for vanity fair. to me, the whole affair became a political stunt after that. and as details continue to emerge, i think this was all a waste of time. but i agree there were serious questions involved here and the investigation was warranted, just way overhyped. we'll see where the civil suit goes.Anthonymendoza 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was arrested, but what is the difference? If someone was arrested and not charged would that make the analogy more useful for you? Didn't happen to me, but it has certainly happened, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree there was still a crime committed if a car was stolen. As for the rest of it, I think we're nearing some common ground. I agree with you that posing for Vanity Fair was a lame move on their part. Then again, if Vanity Fair asked me to pose for them, I'm sure I would do it, and think about the fallout later. Certainly they wanted to get the word out about the scandal, and here was an outlet willing to do that. I'm not sure whether the civil suit matters much; it's a vehicle to keep public attention focused on this, I suppose, but to me this issue is important whether or not Wilson is vindicated by some kind of legal settlement.--csloat 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Plame worked out of CIA headquarters starting in 1997. Obviously, you can't be covert if you are walking in and out of CIA headquarters every working day... Valtam 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is false. It's a canard that has been thoroughly refuted long ago. You think undercover cops don't go to the police station?--csloat 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is where it says she must be posted overseas in the last five years. Going to Jordan on a "business trip" would not count. Especially since she was going with Jordanian intelligence. "Served outside the U.S." implies a duty station not at CIA headquarters. A weekend trip or even a couple weeks would not suffice. In any event her "covert status" on this trip is certainly questioned as she went with Jordanian intellignece officials who almost certainly knew she was with CIA. It is still not clear that she meets the definition of "covert agent" within the IIPA. Korn's article didn't add any new information other than to confirm that Valerie Plame believed that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. --Tbeatty 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that indicates the trip to Jordan or the other overseas trips she took "would not count," sorry. That seems to be your interpretation. Same with your claim that "served" implies a duty station not at CIA HQ (and I also don't see any place where you learned where she was stationed in Jordan or her other trips). Nor do I see anything about how many weeks you have to be somewhere for it to count. I also see nothing in the Corn article or anywhere else that indicates that Jordanian officials "almost certainly" knew anything. As for what Corn's article added that was new - it's strange, since you've mentioned a few of the things yourself, otherwise I would just reply that you obviously hadn't read it if you think that was all that was new there.--csloat 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Being in Jordan is not "serving" in Jordan. Look at military billets. That's the way it works. If you go to Canada for week on business you aren't considered to be working in Canada. You don't pay their income or labor taxes, etc, etc. Going to Jordan as part of her work at a Langely desk would not count as serving outside the United States. As for whether Jordan intelligence official knew her status as CIA employee seems pretty self-evident. Why else would they talk to her? Here is the interesting bit. By tying her to Aluminum Tubes, Corn makes it clear that the statement "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons" a year before the invasion and after her husband returned from Niger. If her husband didn't believe that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, he didn't convince his wife. --Tbeatty 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tbeatty, I'm not buying it. Where is the evidence that going to Jordan to do CIA business doesn't count in the IIPA? You are just asserting it, and it's not convincing. Where is your information about the other trips she took overseas? Where is your evidence that she didn't get paid, that this was "part of her work at a langley desk" (what a loaded pile, sorry) or that the Jordanians would not talk to her if she was undercover? You are just asserting things - I'm glad you're so sure of these things, but I'm sticking to what I actually see evidence for. Your link to the CIA 2002 document tells us nothing. I never disagreed that Plame likely thought Iraq was trying to acquire nukes. Frankly, I think Joe Wilson likely thought so too before he went to Niger and discovered otherwise. But that is neither here nor there - this information makes a Plame/Wilson conspiracy less likely, not more.--csloat 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The simplest thing is to wait for reliable sources to opine on the circumstances of Plames' trip and whether it renders her covert. However, since speculation is fun, let me say that: (1) I still think Fitzgerald's unusual effort to avoid saying she was covert suggests that he wasn't confident that she was; but (2) the trip is one more thing on the other side of the scale. (As to whether she was undercover on the trip, I would be very interested in seeing what the reliable sources have to say -- I can imagine that it would be hard for a Brewster Energy executive to get the Jordanians to talk about the specifications of aluminum tubes they sold to Iraq, but OTOH, there's a good chance that she at least traveled under her cover just to avoid being kidnapped. TheronJ 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we already have Corn "opining" on the matter here. I believe the book comes out today; looking forward to further revelations. But I suspect instead of "reliable sources" you specifically mean Fitzgerald. I don't agree that he has gone through any unusual efforts to avoid saying she was covert - I think he has simply chosen his words very carefully in general, something he is well known for doing. He has said she was under cover, and a judge has said that he thinks Fitzgerald believes she was covert under the restrictive IIPA definition. We already know she was "covert" in the normal, non-restrictive sense. (The requirement for international travel is a legal fiction; it is not a part of the normal definition of covert in lay terms, as we have discussed in the past).--csloat 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Covert" vs. not "covert"

The confusion on this point stems from the fact that there are two aspects to Plame's confidential/discrete employment status. First of all, let's not dispute that as a CIA employee, it's fairly reasonable to accept that Plame was - at least to some degree - discrete about he employment actvities. However, let's not confuse the political aspect ie; Wilson, et al shouting "they outed Plame for revenge" with the legal, ie: Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with a making an illegal "leak". Based on the facts so far, it's pretty clear that Plame's employment privacy was not protected by law at the time it "leaked" out. However, as to whether or not she was keeping a low profile, hence working "covert", it seems that to some degree she was. At the same time, her status of "covert"/discrete or lack thereof, does not prove or disprove that there was a "leak" from the legal standpoint. If no applicable anti-"leak" was law broken (which, because Fitzgerald did not charge anyone, this seems likely), then it's important that we use care so as to not imply or suggest via the word "covert" that any legally sanctionable "leak" occured. To sum up, as I see it, legally there was no "leak"; pragmatically, Plame was previously working discretely, Wilson did make himself an adversary of White House via the Op-Ed, WH did seek to rebut and defuse him and it certainly looks smelly that Wilson/Plame as Democrat players, had their fingers in the get Bush pie on the "16 words" angle. Frankly, it seems to me that Wilson has only himself to blame for the exposure Plame got. Those two tossed the dice trying to stick it to Bush and it blew up in their faces. Why others here can't see this, puzzles me. I would say that up until the point where Wilson wrote that OpEd and invited scrutiny, a fair characterization of Plame's emplyment status would be "confidential". However, I feel that she willingly shirked that confidence when she got her blabber-mouth husband involved in his obviously agenda-driven trip and then failed to rope him in prior to his axe-griding OpEd. Wilson pissed in the punch bowl at the party and when he did that, it's quite reasonable to inquire as to how he got his entrance ticket. If Plame truly wanted to stay out of the spotlight, she would have kept a leash on Wilson. True under-cover agents do not allow their spouses to attract press and political attention to themselves.87.118.100.99 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse a lack of charges with a lack of evidence of criminal activity. We know Plame was covert in the general sense; the CIA has acknowledged over and over now that she was working under cover, and Fitzgerald has said as much, as has a federal judge. In the specific sense of the IIPA there has been a debate, though the Corn article seems to settle that debate too, since the only question about her "covertness" per the IIPA was whether she travelled out of the country on business during that time, and it now appears that she did so several times. Your claim that there was no law broken because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with breaking a law is a ludicrous argument. My car was stolen a few years back. Nobody was charged with stealing it. Are you saying no law was broken? My car was found some 25 miles away stripped and on cinder blocks. I am fairly certain there are laws against stealing cars and stripping them for parts in my state. Your claim that Wilson is the one who outed Plame is even more ludicrous. It's just nonsense. Wilson was doing the job he was asked to do and he wrote his op ed not to grind an axe but to do his duty as an American citizen. He was asked to do a job and he did it, and the Admin didn't like the answers he learned, so they stonewalled him and lied about it. He knew the 16 words were false and shouldn't have been in the speech, how could he have kept quiet about it? The nonsense that Plame sent Wilson or collaborated with Wilson on some kind of agenda-driven trip is complete bullshit, as you should know. Newsday June 22 2003 - senior intel officer notes "[Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." SSCI report p 40 - Valerie Wilson was not even at the meeting where the question of Joe Wilson going to =niger was raised. Wilson was picked for the niger trip because he was uniquely qualified for it. And the David Corn article confirms that the SSCI claim that Valerie "offered up" Wilson's name was a misunderstanding of something in a Douglas Rohn memo. It also points out that she was on the Bush Admin side in the whole WMD thing, so it's hard to give claims of a Plame-Wilson conspiracy any credence at all. And your claim about what "true under cover agents" do or don't do seems entirely based on your experience as an undercover wikipedia editor editing with an anonymous IP rather than any knowledge of how the CIA works - or doesn't work - here in the US.--csloat 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Commodore, you say: He knew the 16 words were false. Your statement is flat-out untrue - see the Butler Review, which says: [W]e conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded. The fact that you are either ignorant of the facts, or are willfully distorting them, casts any claims you make into a dubious light. Valtam 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Tenet, the 16 words never should have been in the speech. The Butler review is just wrong on this count. They never established any evidence of the 16 words being true; my guess is this was a CYA on their part. But my guess doesn't matter - my point was that the US has backed off of that claim because we knew it to be unsupported, based in part on what Wilson found when he went to Niger (but also based on other sources of information). The key documents here turned out to be forgeries. There is no need for personal attacks here; please read WP:AGF before engaging me in any further discussion. Thanks.--csloat 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Commodore, I am assuming good faith and I am not making a personal attack. You make a statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", which is demonstrably false. Why would you do such a thing? The only reasons I can think of is you are ignorant of the matter, or you are not, and are intentionally making a false statement. If there is another explanation, I'd love to hear it. How is your statement demonstrably false? The forged documents, which Wilson claimed to have seen, were not the only evidence supporting this claim. See the entry on the 16 words. It talks about Blair's testimony about separate sources for the claims, as well as Jack Straw's testimony that British intelligence supporting the claim had not been shared with the CIA, and was based on reliable intelligence. Your statement, "He knew the 16 words were false", is false. Valtam 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming I am willfully distorting facts and that any claim I make is dubious is a strange way of assuming good faith. Claiming I am intentionally making false statements is simply not assuming good faith. Tenet admitted the 16 words were false; I misspoke if I attributed what the Bush Administration knew to what Bush the man knew. I don't know what Bush the individual knew; but I know what his Administration knew and what he should have known before addressing the nation. Sorry if my words confused you. What Blair and Jack Straw thought is not relevant here; what is relevant is what the Bush Admin thought, and that information should have been influenced by Wilson's report, among other information from IAEA and elsewhere, that suggested there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. And today we have the bipartisan SSCI's relatively authoritative conclusion on the matter - "Postwar findings tdo not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa.... claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious'.... The ISG found no evidence that indicated Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The ISG did recover evidence that Iraq explicitly turned down an offer to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo." With the release of this report I don't see how anyone can continue to defend the position that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.--csloat 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

SInce this is tied very closely to IIPA, I think we must use the more restrictive defintion. It is a disservice to use the same words with two different meanings and this is the heart of the matter. I think it is enough to say her employment status is classified. WE should also be the most conservative when we use the term in relation to the criminal provisions of IIPA. Saying she was a "covert agent" and then pointing out that revealing a "covert agent" is felony with regards to the IIPA, while at the same time, behind the scenes, trying to say "covert agent" means two different things is a poor argument. I think in the context of the Plame affair, where the violation of IIPA is a very real possibility but not yet reality, we must defer to the definition in the IIPA. That means until legal source says that IIPA was or wasn't violated, we should simply stay on the side with the most surety. Namely, don't say "covert agent", say her "employment was classified" or that she had "non-official cover". Both of those terms convey the facts without advancing the position that IIPA was violated. It is possible to use the dictionary to work your way from those terms to "covert agent" but in the end it comes down to IIPA and it will fail that test until charges are brought. --Tbeatty 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, is there still doubt that Plame was a NOC? Fitzgerald has already said that at the time of her outting her employment with the CIA was "classified" (see 1f of the indictment). 1d of the indictment also notes that the outing of individuals in Plame's situation would prevent their "future use in a covert capacity". However, that being said, Armitage outing her may not have been a violation of IIPA. In order to violate IIPA Armitage would have had to know that she was a NOC and he would have had to intentionally outed her. Granted I haven't read every single article on Armitage's outting, but all the news I've seen have said that he knew she worked for the CIA, but didn't know in what capacity she worked for the CIA, and that he released the information on accident. If that is true, then even though Plame was a NOC at the time of her outing, there is no violation of IIPA. It also appears that Fitzgerald has known about Armitage's outting since 2003. One would think that if Armitage did violate IIPA he would have been charged by now. All in all, the lack of any charges related to IIPA does not prove that Plame was not a "covert agent", it just indicates that no one that knew she was a NOC intentionally outed her. --Bobblehead 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Or it means that not enough evidence has been found to prove what anyone knew when they outed her. Of course, you're right that there is no serious dispute about whether she was covert. As for Tbeatty's argument about the specific IIPA meaning of covert, the solution is not to just use the non-intuitive meaning in all cases; rather, the solution is to be clear when you are using the more restrictive term. I definitely agree we should not confuse the two meanings, but just using "covert" to mean "covert + working outside the country in the past 5 years" is a bit deceptive in this context.-csloat 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

the indictment of libby also says fitzgerald was investigating possible violations of the IIPA as well. the question has always been why wasn't anyone charged with this. it goes to the heart of the whole affair. she was classified and an NOC. but she either didn't fit the description under IIPA, fitzgerald couldn't prove she was intentionally outed, or he found she wasn't intentionally outed. i personally find it interesting that the CIA requested an investigation into the matter not for IIPA violations, but solely for leaking classified information. isikoff's piece states fitzgerald couldn't prove armitage knew she was covert. and jason leopold wrote a piece for raw story last year that states fitzgerald couldn't convince the grand jury she was covert (though i don't trust leopold's reporting anymore). [1][2]Anthonymendoza 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Commodore: Apologies. I understand your argument, and I should have done a better job assuming good faith. Valtam 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and I'm glad the argument is more clear now.--csloat 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraq or Iran?

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

Newly Released Senate Intel Info

Now that the Senate Intel Committee has released its report demonstrating that the Adminstration knew its pre-invasion intel did not support its claims, do we have a clearer picture on the Plame affair?

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report
• http://intelligence.senate.gov

i haven't read the whole report, but does it specifically mention wilson's claims? if it does, it should be included in the background; if it doesn't then all you are going to do is ignite an edit war about prewar intelligence here. this isn't the page for that. besides, the background section is now getting to be too long. can you clarify your inclusion of the report in the background? Anthonymendoza 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would remove what is currently the 5th paragraph (starting "The Butler Report") from the summary/background:

• The section is too long
• The accuracy of Wilson's claims is not a major element of the Plame Affair. Indeed if Wilson were 100% INaccurate, the outing of Plame would be all the more ironic. At most, the summary or background might note there is a controversy about Wilson's report, and let the body of the article go into detail
• If we evaluate one report for relevance to Wilson's claims then we should evaluate all of them; and do so in reference to what Wilson's actual claims about his trip actually are, not what the reports and Wilson's critics say Wilson said. That would be tedious at best

rewinn 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i completely agree with you on all your points. all of this belongs on a separate page, but not on this page.Anthonymendoza 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance

There are two main points of view about this "affair":

1. That Valerie Plame's (classified) employment by the CIA was a fact which it would be a crime for a government offical to reveal; and that a White House offical revealed this fact (to hurt Plame and/or her husband Wilson)
2. That Plame's CIA employment was classified, but that it would not be a crime to reveal; and that the fact was not revealed by a White House official

I'm not sure what proportion of people advocate these two POV's but they seem to correspond to Liberal (anti-Bush) and Conservative (pro-Bush) roughly.

I would like to see this article, as well as the Valerie Plame article itself, changed from a style which asserts POV #1 as "the truth" to a style which reports POV #1 as the point of view of whoever has been advocating it (like journalists at New York Times, politicians in the Democratic Party). --Uncle Ed 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Except neither option is true. ;) Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was classified and it is only illegal if the person outing her knowingly and intentionally leaked her employment status. As far as who advocates the POV that a crime may have been committed, should probably include the CIA and Fitzgerald in that list. Additionally, speculation as to who was the leaker should be at an end now that Armitage raised his hand. --Bobblehead 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the controversy is not just over whether there was a crime committed under the IIPA. There is concern over ethical, political, and national security problems created not just by the leaker, but by the White House officials who used the outing of Plame as an opportunity to discredit a perceived political opponent.--csloat 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Commodore, this POV needs to be attributed to its advocate. Perhaps you can clarify WHO made the charge that somebody "outed" Plame; or the charge that White House officials "used the outing" to discredit someone? And WHO expressed concern that the "leak" caused problems? (What problems do they say were caused?) --Uncle Ed 13:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The CIA made the charge that someone outed plame, as did the special counsel. The charge that officials used the outing to discredit wilson was made by the counsel as well as by numerous intelligence officials who spoke with reporters (mostly anonymous, though some named former intel officials). And problems caused by the leak have been documented by several reporters, most recently including Isikoff and Corn.--csloat 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed --- what exact language do you find POV? This article has been extensively discussed with respect to POV and, at present, is about as neutral as possible. It appears from your comments that you are unhappy about the article but until you are specific, nothing can be accomplished. rewinn 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet identified any specific "language", but the tenor of the article is the (now hidden) assumption that:

1. Plame was an "undercover agent"
2. Someone outed her "on purpose"

• Points #1 & #2 combined with the law against revealing a CIA agent's identity, amounts to law-breaking. (I agree with the validity of this argument, by the way. It's only the premises which are in dispute: liberals/Democrats say one thing, conservatives/Republicans say another.

I have therefore re-inserted, in the introduction, a clarification that the POV of the accusers is that the law was broken. It will be even better if, early in the article, we identify the accusers and summarize their justifications.

What we need to avoid is an article which implies (without ever coming right and saying it) anything like "White House officials did wrong". Even if they did, it's not Wikipedia's place to lay that blame. Wikipedia should report that some NAMED SOURCE blamed the White House (or the State Department) or "the Bush Administration", etc. --Uncle Ed 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Number 1 above is accurate; we've been through this. There are debates about the meaning of particular words in the legal sense - e.g. "covert" - but the CIA is the only entity with authority to tell us whether or not she was undercover or "classified," and they have indicated that she was. Fitzgerald has as well. Number 2 is not "hidden" in the article last I checked -- in fact, Armitage's role is pretty clear in the article, and speculation about the "purpose" behind things seems clearly sourced to specific reporters and commentators, though if you have complaints about specific I'm sure we can look at those. The POV that the law was broken does not belong in the intro, since the "affair" is not just about whether the law was broken but also about whether harm was done. I am not sure where you are getting your claim that Wikipedia is laying blame without sources here; again, if you cannot be specific about this, there is not much that can be done.--csloat 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted edits to the introduction that narrowed Plame Affair to Armitage and to illegal conduct. Those are very far from the only notable elements of the matter. rewinn 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame's status

Either Plame was:

1. a known employee of the CIA (hardly anyone says this)
2. an employee whose connection to the CIA was "classifed" (but was not "CIA agent" working undercover)
3. a "CIA agent" working undercover

I hear there is a law which applies to the 3rd case. Like suppose your "cover story" is that you're a tourist or embassy clerk, but you are really a CIA spy in Russia. Somebody reveals your CIA connection, and you and/or your family are murdered.

But what about case #2 where you're not one of several hundred "secret agents" but just another analyst like tens of thousands of others? Does the same law apply? (And if so, who says so?) --Uncle Ed 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The law you've heard about is the IIPA, and it has a specific definition of "covert," not "undercover." The latter term has been used by Fitzgerald and by the CIA, along with "classified." This is (or was) covered in the article, and there have been numerous discussions of it on the talk page; it might be helpful to look through the previous discussions on this topic on this page and in the archive (search through the pages for "covert"; that covers a lot but there has been a lot of discussion on these pages of that dispute). Plame was a NOC (non-official cover), which many consider the most dangerous kind of undercover agent, since you travel without diplomatic protection -- if you're busted in another country, the CIA essentially pretends they don't know who you are (I'm oversimplifying of course). Few dispute that fact. That still does not mean she was protected by the IIPA, which is still a matter of debate for some people (and of course nobody has been charged under that law). Hope this clears it up.--csloat 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One minor clarification. Plame's status as a NOC is protected by IIPA, but only from people that knew she was a NOC. So the fact that she was outed and no charges have been filed to date should not be taken as an indication that she was not protected by IIPA. It's just that Armitage may not have violated IIPA when he outed her. --Bobblehead 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does Introduction need reasons Wilson picked?

I suggest deleting the paragraph in the introduction that talks about why Wilson was picked for the trip to Niger. Introducing the controversy over that sub-topic distracts from the main flow of events leading to the outing. rewinn 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that it should be somewhere in the article, since it establishes conclusively that Wilson was picked for his expertise and experience, not because he was Valerie's husband.--csloat 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be somewhere. However Wilson's full qualifications seem to be so extensive that they were largely editted out of the introduction. I sympathize with the desire for conciseness up front, but Wilson was so massively qualified for the gig that his qualifications may merit their own small sub-section. rewinn 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i removed it because Wilson's qualifications can be found on his wikipedia page, and the intro has a link to it. if a reader wants to learn about his qualifications, they should read his page. that was my reasoning.Anthonymendoza 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cmon, Wilson was picked because his wife pushed for him. He didn't have an real credentials for this and didn't do any real work while in Niger. However it doesn't belong in the intro sinec it is only a side part of the controversy, who leaked and why is the core. 131.107.0.75 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry, but that's BS. Wilson was the best possible candidate for the job -- he had experience in Africa, he had experience with Saddam, he had relationships with most of the people he needed to talk to. And, in fact, his wife didn't "push for him"! That is a myth that has been pretty well shattered by the Isikoff/Corn revelations (and, in fact, the evidence prior to that was pretty clear anyway -- you have some vague statements about her "offering his name up" that turned out to be a misinterpretation, and you have clear statements from the CIA that she wasn't even at the meeting where he was chosen for the job).--csloat 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly were Joe Wilson's qualifications? No intelligence gathering experience. No security agreement. He was the best possible for the job? A high profile former US official with no cover was the best we had for a discrete mission? Sip your own BS, Cslaot, but I am not buying it. A lot of the misinformation you complain about comes from you. Evensong 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what was removed from the article: "he is a former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital. He was also Director for African Affairs in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and had relevant experience as Acting Ambassador to Iraq during the First Gulf War under then-President George H W Bush" This was not a secret intelligence gathering mission. Wilson was sent to speak openly with the major figures who would have knowledge of such a transaction. Larry Johnson puts it this way: "Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets."[3] You may not like Johnson but his argument here is impeccable. And cut out the personal attacks Evensong, it looks desperate and feeble. You have turned out to be wrong on just about every issue (if not every single one) that we've discussed here.--csloat 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Since I got reverted for not properly explaining why I removed a majority of the EL. Here we go:

1. I wasn't saying that only government sources are the only acceptable links to include in the section.
2. What I was saying was that the external links section is not a dumping ground for links that editors feel should be included in the article, but don't want to take the time to put them in as an inline source. (see WP:EL#What should be linked to)

In my opinion, the only links in this section that didn't meet the dumping ground criteria were the State of the Union address and Fitzgerald's official website. The rest were a repeat of links that were already in the article and/or did not have any information in them that wasn't already in the article, so they don't meet the criteria listed in WP:EL. The external links section is not for linking to specific articles on the subject (unless it adds something substantive to the article in an NPOV manner, but can not be added to the article due to copyrights), it's for linking to entire sites dedicated to the article and unless the site is NPOV, they need to include a description of which POV they are pushing. As an example, a link to Think Progress's tag for the Plame affair with a description along the lines of "Plame affair articles on a liberal website critical of the George W. Bush administration" is acceptable, but links to specific articles on Think Progress is not acceptable as they should be in the article as references. --Bobblehead 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the State of the Union is a repeat of inline ref #2. Constructive 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you do a couple at a time, then let it sit for a day or three, explaining in talk as you go? It will take longer, but would raise fewer hackles. Probably educate the other editors (such as myself) as well. I didn't do the revert but I can imagine someone reacting strongly to a large edit, especially since this is a contentious article. rewinn 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

According to Novak, the Armitage leak was not just idle gossip. And according to a conservative source who spoke with Robert Parry, Armitage and Rove have a lot closer relationship than it would appear. The source told Parry "Armitage isn’t a gossip, but he is a leaker. There’s a difference." Interesting. I don't know what all this means other than, it ain't over yet.--csloat 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What isn't over yet. Neither Rove nor Armitage will be indicted. The article is based on "A well-placed conservative source," which is just laughable. Why would Armitage conspire to "out" Plame? and obviously Fitzgerald is aware of Novak's account. so why wasn't Armitage then indicted? I just don't understand the fuss over all of this anymore. Anthonymendoza 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information we know about any of this comes from "well placed sources"; why is this one more laughable than any other? I'm not sure why you see indictment as the only thing that would make this worth fussing over. As I've said a few times now, that is one issue but hardly the only important thing going on here.--csloat 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Plame Affair the article ain't over yet. People are still editting Terri Schiavo and Flat Earth. Most substantively, Plame Affair will probably include information about the civil suits which ... I state without fear of contradiction ... will take years to resolve. rewinn 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice whitewash of the Rove section

Wow, I'm amazed. Reading the Rove section, I'm left feeling he was convicted of some crime. You'd never know from this article that after a 3-year investigation (and dealing with non-stop attacks on his character -- even being accused of treason) he was found to do nothing wrong. It's even more amazing if you look at the history of this article. At one point in time this article was one of the largest at Wikipedia and almost 80% of it delt solely with Rove. Bravo, my friends! Bravo! Goebbles would be proud of your abilities to whitewash information. Sadly, Wikipedia's credibility is right in the toilet because of this. --152.163.100.139 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. What specific edits would you suggest?
2. You seem to be praising the effort that has gone into editting this page down to a managable length. On behalf of those who did the work (my part was small) I thank you. rewinn 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. While the editting of the article is noteworthy, I find this entire article a sad joke. It's entire focus changes on a regular basis. Once upon a time it's main focus was on Karl Rove, now its Armitage, tomorrow... who knows? I think there should at least be SOME mention in the Rove section that the man was hounded for three years and was being accused of committing crimes (including treason) yet was eventually found to not have done anything illegal. As the section is now written, it appears he has been found guilty of something that he was never charged with. If someone would like to fix this feel free. I have no intention in getting involved in this article. It's clear it's contolled mostly by a pack of wolves from Daily Kos who continually alter it at the whim of the latest headline or editorial. Ciao! --205.188.116.139 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow... I hadn't been paying attention to the news for a couple days and look what happens. Rove went on trial for treason and was acquitted? When did that happen? Can't seem to find anything on google, but I'm not that good with it. Can you help me out with a link or an article citation? Thanks.--csloat 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting test. Do you have your acquittal for treason in your hand? maybe you could provide a google llink to your acquital? Maybe that's why proving guilt is the standard and not the other way around. --Tbeatty 06:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I really haven't been following the news if I didn't notice that I had been cleared of treason charges! In fact, I didn't even notice being accused of treason! Again, I'm not good with google; can you help me out with some links to the news articles about my role in the Plame affair? (Just to clarify, for the humor-impaired; I was responding to the claim that Rove "was eventually found to not have done anything illegal." We're not arguing presumption of innocence; we're arguing about whether or not Rove "was eventually found" to have or have not done anything.)--csloat 08:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Now someone has removed Armitage from the lead of the story claiming it's POV pushing! LOL! Their edit summary says it's undeniable that there were "previous suspects"! LOL! So let me get this straight: If someone is murdered and 5 people are suspected by police, but after 3 years' investigation it was determined one of the suspects is guilty and the others are not, then it's POV pushing to write an article with the guilty party in the lead! This article is hillarious!! LOL!! --205.188.116.139 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To insist that Plame Affair be about only whether Armitage broke a law is indeed POV-pushing. There is much more to it. If you are sincere in trying to improve this article, get a logon. rewinn 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

the endless back and forth over the intro paragraph

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

The term "Plame Affair" has been used to refer to a political scandal that arose following various media reports and partisan accusations relating to the employment history of Valerie Plame and certain accusations made against the Bush White House by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. Properly speaking, the Plame Affair's inception could resonably be dated to July 14, 2003, though since that time, the focus and scope of this controversy has changed considerably.

How's this for an intro? 149.9.0.56 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"partisan accusations" - pretty vague, and how do we know they're partisan? also "Properly speaking": how so? who says so? sounds to much like original research/opinion. Regarding Antho...'s suggestion: I think he defines the affair too narrowly. As regards what we know now in relation to the intro: I don't think the intro should really change over time; if it has any time-sensitive material in it, well then that doesn't belong in the intro as it's not properly "introductory". I believe the article should read sort of like a narrative - chronologically. That way, skew from reality - which happened chronologically - is minimized, and more information - chronology - is presented in a clear fashion. Kevin Baas^talk 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Chronological sequence is probably the most npov possible.
2. The introduction should not characterize Plame Affair as only a political matter; as previously discussed extensively there are many dimensions including security, criminal, civil/legal, and of course political. Any attempt to limit the scope of Plame Affair in the intro is pov.
3. This is a current event of great sensitivity and frequent twists. Stability is probably difficult, but more to the point, it is unlikely anyone is going to look to wikipedia for a definitive statement. So it is hardly worth the effort to do pov-pushing in the introduction. rewinn 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Plame Affair did begin as a political scandal, though it has grown beyond that over time. 216.32.81.2 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilson allegedly lied

Joseph Wilson, whose wife was outed as a CIA operative, was found to have lied about Iraq being disinterested in Nigerian yellowcake. Why does the article not reflect this? There is a liberal bias that permeates... never mind. Just get this article in the proper shape. As referenced in my sig, there's already one unsolved mystery bungled by authoritarian hacks. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you're wrong. Wilson was quite correct about that (and, in fact, he was only stating what the State Department's intelligence agency already knew).--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

However, Wilson was proven to be a liar in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, regarding the forged documents. See page 45 of the report[4]. Here's the relevant portion: The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article... which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. So Wilson is a known liar; whether he lied about the yellowcake, or merely misrepresented his own report, is not entirely clear. Valtam 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. He has long since acknowledged that he made an error with that comment - it was the State Dept intel who had come to the conclusion that the documents were forged. Calling him a liar on that point - which he has admitted he was wrong about - and then using that to say he was lying about his own report (which has been confirmed by every other investigation into the matter) is a bit hysterical, to say the least.--csloat 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ari Fleischer

as if this affair wasn't bizzare enough, now we learn fitzgerald granted immunity to ari fleischer in a very unconventional way. given what has been revealed so far, it's clear fitzgerald targeted the vice president's office in his investigation. while the press is abuzz over cheney's behind the scenes efforts, there are two interesting bits of info here. according to Cathie Martin, cheney had dictated eight "talking points" for his staffers regarding joe wilson and ordered Martin to "get all the facts out." yet none of the talking points mentioned valerie plame, and according to martin "It didn't seem appropriate or helpful for us to get that out...It gave me some explanation but we didn't need it as a talking point." so much for the conspiracy to out her. another point of interest is that fitzgerald has apparently sided with the senate intelligence committee and is trying to convince jurors plame played a part in planning joe wilson's trip. i can see why since that would bolster his case. one things for sure, libby has a damn good lawyer. he's been able to show the jury that each of fitzgerald's witnesses at one time or another had memory problems with regards to what they told who and when. and while everyone thinks it's a bombshell that rove may testify, he's being called by the defense and his testimony will actually back up libby's claim that he first learned of plame from russert, since rove will testify libby told him such. interesting stuff! [5] [6] Anthonymendoza 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"so much for the conspiracy to out her" - sure, except perhaps the conspiracy wasn't to out her, but to get Joe Wilson. Outing her was then likely a means to an end (or, to be generous to the veep, a side effect of the conspiracy). csloat 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why it doesn't matter

The CIA's assessment that Iraq was conducting a nuclear program was based off of aluminum tube orders and magnet production, not uranium from Africa. Also, does anybody know (or care) that Iraq has natural uranium deposits and intelligence officials believed they could get the bomb within 5 years without any imported uranium? 65.185.190.240 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire case seems so contrived to me. This whole thing is about naming names. Who cares? No one died or was injured. Yes, Libby should be punished but no more than a slap on the wrist. I really don’t see what the big deal is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.200.103 (talk • contribs)

It's certainly a big deal to anyone who works undercover or who considers working undercover doing something dangerous to protect the country; if they can't be sure their own government won't protect their identity, why would they agree to do such work? You may not care, but a lot of current and former intelligence officials certainly do. csloat 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Csloat that plame losing her classified cia status was no trivial matter. but now that a clearer picture is emerging, i don't think this scandal has lived up to any of the hype. and as the LA times put it, in the end it's the CIA who bears much of the responsibilty for plame losing her career.[7] fitzgerald is currently trying to establish a motive for libby lying, and it appears he's going to argue that once libby realized plame's status was classified, he backtracked and tried to cover up. this is all a far cry from the notion that the vice president's office or the white house deliberately outed her. joe wilson was running around telling anyone who would listen that he went to niger at the request of the vice president's office and that he single-handedly proved the white house manipulated the case for war. in the ensuing political battle that emerged, plame's name was tossed around (since, as prosecution witnesses have testified, she played a part in planning his trip) until her name and cia affiliation was published. in my personal opinion, wilson should have known that declaring war on the white house and writing op-eds would lead to press scrutiny, and that private aspects of his life were bound to come out into the open. it's the nature of politics and is an essential part of daily political life in DC. to say he outed her is wrong, put his actions did contribute, as did the actions of the CIA and the white house. i view plame's outing more as a political casualty than a conspiracy. Anthonymendoza 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no question there was a conspiracy to bring Wilson down; you're right though that she was a political casualty of that. Again, the bottom line is that the CIA's going to have a much harder time recruiting new undercover agents when it is clear that their undercover identity can easily be compromised by members of the administration when politically expedient. Sure Wilson played a part in this -- he found information that led him to believe the administration was lying, and he made it a point to make that information public. This is the real story here, that the admin was probably lying (or at least incompetent) and when caught, rather than coming clean, they played politics and (intentionally or no) sacrificed real national security interests in order to score a political point against Wilson. Should Wilson not have done what he did? I suppose his wife would have stayed undercover if he had kept his mouth shut, but it seems to me we should encourage those who find evidence of Presidential misconduct to come out with it rather than to shut up about it. Imagine if someone in the Clinton administration had outed a CIA agent to get back at those who exposed the blue dress... csloat 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[moved from current talk page; see explanation. --NYScholar 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)]

Please clarify [the] why...

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

Debunking the Armitage Myth

This piece is a pretty good read. I hope she's wrong but a pardon in december does make sense from the Bush Administration's perspective.--csloat 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is she debunking, exactly? Also, a pardon wouldn't be Bush's style. He was at 69 last year, and that puts him very, very low according to this list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right! That list is cool; my guess is that most pres pardons occur as they're leaving office, so we'll see how low his number stays, but you're right, according to that it is extremely low. As for the article, she is debunking the claim forwarded by many that the Isikoff/Corn book Armitage revelations mean that there is no "Plame affair." Particularly notable is her point that at the time Armitage revealed the classified info to Novak, he was indeed a vocal proponent of Bush Administration policy toward Iraq, whatever his private doubts might have been at the time. The other notable info is that he appears to be making false claims or playing dumb about when he figured out that he was the source of Novak's article.--csloat 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone clarify how Novak came to the conclusion that Plame was an "operative"? Didn't Armitage claim that no classified information about Plame was included in the memo that was his source? If that is true, then Novak must have received classified information from another source. Anyone have a theory? Constructive 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Novak said he didn't know she was an uncover operative. He said he thought she was an analyst. Wasn't that made clear in the article? 71.212.13.204 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that that the article is clear on Novak's claim, as it is on others, including the Lexis/Nexis analysis of his prior use of the word "operative". If he remained consistent in his use of that word, then it begs the question of how he concluded that it applied to her. Just a thought. Constructive 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From a common sense point of view, if someone told me that someone worked for the CIA, I would automatically assume they were a spy unless they are listed on the CIA website. It's surprising that Armitage got off so lighty because he claims he was a gossip. In the old days he would be gossiping in prison after that. Even if somebody is an CIA analyst I would assume that they don't that publisised that so that they don't have people bothering them. It just seems like a bunch of nonsense. Doug rosenberg 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up in progress

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

Moved the section on "the Air Force One memorandum" to the article entitled disputed article alternate theories regarding the Plame affair; like other parts of that article, it contains several undocumented statements requiring reliable sources for verification W:Reliable sources. Full of speculations and innuendoes, it does not belong in this article, which is supposed to be factual and neutral and not to argue points of view; the section violates standards in W:NOR. --NYScholar 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

People--some posting anonymously--are reinserting material that is already present (including the links to the sources) in the cross-referenced article "Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair". There is no justification for placing such "alternate theories" and hypotheses and opinions from editorials in the "background" section of this article. The material is already clearly accessible and linked in the section about the subject (e.g., criticism of Joseph Wilson) in the alternate theories article (The material has been moved to that article quite some time ago; please consult it). The same editorial ("End of An Affair") is already cited and linked both in that article and in the main article on Joseph C. Wilson, which the opinion concerns. The unsubstantiated claim and pure opinion is not appropriate as "background." Criticism of a living person that is unsubstantiated and pure opinion (and highly questionable to begin with) expressed in an unsigned newspaper editorial is not appropriate in historical "background" section of a recent and still current event. It is absurd to continue to reinsert the link and the "it has been asserted" etc. kind of sentences. Lots of things have been said; whether or not these assertions are facts and worthy of inclusion as "background" is another matter. "Background" is a factual account of the history of the subject ("the Plame affair"). It is not the place for so-called "alternate theories" (opinions) about it.--NYScholar 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For the links, see the section of this article "Other perspectives on the Plame Affair," with its cross-reference to the "alternate theories" article; the section there is called: "Alleging that Wilson contributed to the outing of his own wife". Before editing and reinserting material already placed in related articles and already cross-referenced in this one, people need to consult this talk page.--NYScholar 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy that "Encyclopedic articles must be verifiable"; see W:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and W:Cite. Some editors are adding links to material that is unsourced, refers to sources that are not necessarily reliable, and that is not verifiable. Some statements in this article still need reliable sources and citations (see remaining tags throughout and please help with providing clear citations throughout to reliable and verifiable sources). Thanks. --NYScholar 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Brings a smile to my face

This article always brings a smile to my face when I visit it. I usually drop by every 2 or 3 weeks to see how the investigation is going and, sure enough, each time I do visit the article has taken on a completely new look and angle. It always makes me chuckle. I think this has got to be one of the most unstable and constanly shifting articles on Wikipedia. Very amusing. Whenever this article finally settles down some time in 2010 I think I will print out the final version as well as a version ever 3 months since its creation and wrote a book comparing and contrasting the various incarnations over time. Maybe I'll use this idea for my doctoral thesis! ;) --Jayzel 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because theories and interpretations on current events usually never change, ever. I, too, am shocked and outraged that people are still editing this article. --sigmafactor 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With the trial going on and remarkable new information coming out, I'm kind of surprised the article is currently as stable as it is. csloat 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why does it make you smile and chuckle if a Wikipedia article has problems? Though, I'm not sure that being "unstable" is a huge problem in light of Sloat's point. Derex 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, checking back every month or three and saving the article and its versions is a nice solution. This would help in seeing how the article content was put into a frame and how the article evolved and also many parties. But one thing that has not changed is the article's investigative tone, where it often reads like one of Agatha Christie's best: 10 parties to the play or more and no-one knows exactly whodunnit :>.

With new information cropping up now and then, some things are clearer than before and some things are either obsolete or need little mention. The article has been divided into sub-articles, so people can collect this precious information and then enjoy the read :).

Perhaps the best part is how the article contains so many sources. Some articles are so important that sources to it are most essential and basically form the actual 'soul' of the article. In 2004 or 2005, when I read this, I mean, I think I read the article from beginning to the end (like a short book on something very-very interesting), it was just so sunspenseful; now I only check for changes in events and what has cleared up and what hasn't. CNN occasionally reports the news, but not as some breaking news item or anything Anderson Cooper would normally report on.

I think articles that report on current events should have some important snapshots created every now and then. Not just for comparison, but also for investigation on how events occurred and stuff like that. -Mardus 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page tag

See archived sections posted in January to February 2007: << This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plame affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. >> The past few sections added above by users in January and February 2007 are not appropriate here. This is not a discussion forum about the article's subject. Such comments need to be deleted by their users. There are plenty of other internet fora (forums) where one can discuss such matters. Wikipedia talk pages are not for such speculations and conversations. They are for discussion about specific improvements to articles (writing and editing matters). This subject pertains to biographies of living persons: see WP:BLP as well. Please delete these inappropriate sections and comments in them if one sees them in the future. Thank you. (If they are not deleted by the users who posted them, WP:BLP suggests that others delete them.) [Updated: I've deleted them from this current talk page and [temporarily?] moved them to archive page 7. Some other sections there also are not appropriate for such talk pages, espec. given WP:BLP.) Please stick to discussing only improvements to the article per se.] --NYScholar 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

references section

Do we really need every article written about this in the references section? I would prefer to stick to important and oft-quoted documents and trial documents rather than every opinion piece in Slate, the Nation, and so forth. I trimmed the 20-some Hitchens cites that were recently added, as I did on the Wilson page; apparently the person who added them got upset and stalked me to another page. I invite him to explain here why those cites are all necessary. This shouldn't be a repository of every opinion piece written about the plame affair. We already have footnotes where every article worth quoting in the essay is cited; do we really need all these articles here under references as well? csloat 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a references section at all, as it's completely redundant? If the article is properly cited in the main body, all the references needed should be in the notes section, and the entire References section can be deleted. Of all the actual sources cited, the vast majority are from secondary sources in the press, not trial documents. And I'm not upset, or stalking anyone. If you look at the edit times, you'll see my edits here were a few minutes after the ones in the Wilson article, several hours before you took the axe to them. I included the Hitchens pieces because he's written voluminously on the subject, and quite rightly eviscerated what was left of Wilson's credibility. Nathanm mn 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "stalking" I referred to was that you went to the Clarke page and made the claim that my edits were vandalism without ever having participated in that discussion or having edited the page before -- you did this right after I deleted the Hitchens stuff; perhaps it was just a bizarre coincidence. I agree a lot of the references section should be trimmed down, not just the stuff I deleted. That stuff jumped out because it was a host of articles from a single (and extremely opinionated, not to mention drunk) source, but there is a lot of other cruft that could be removed. Or we could go the other direction - there are at least as many David Corn pieces I could add to the list, or pieces by Larry Johnson, or other pro-Plame sources. This thing will be lengthened without limit. I'd rather not see that and would prefer that editors agree to put only really important or representative articles in that section rather than trying to outdo each other with more articles representing opinions on one side of the issue. csloat 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of stalking also violates your beloved WP:AGF, and not just for mere edits, but an actual crime (in many jurisdictions). Hitchens is definitely opinionated and reputed to be a drunk, but nobody's successfully challenged the veracity of his writing on this subject. Corn tried to challenge Hitchens here, but repeated some now discredited theories, and Hitchens responded here. Again, why don't we just take delete the entire References section? If some of them have further relevant information for the article, cite them as a footnote. Nathanm mn 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion that Hitchens is right but that really isn't the point, is it? I think it's useful to have a references section with government documents, court documents, key articles that have specifically been commented on in the media in a widespread manner (e.g. the Wilson editorial, the Novak editorial, and such; even the Washington Post editorial perhaps), but putting every opinion piece that is relevant here makes this into a ridiculously long references section -- every article by hitchens goes in, then so does every opinion piece by Wilson, Corn, Isikoff, johnson, and so on, etc. ad nauseam. That's my objection to this slippery slope. csloat 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read my comments above? I'm suggesting deleting the entire section, not adding to it. Besides, the references section is already ridiculously long. As it now stands there are 37 references, including not one single court document. And the only government document is the "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence". If these references are already cited in the footnotes, they're redundant. If they're not, how about adding the relevant information from the source to the article, then cite them properly in the footnotes? Nathanm mn 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete it if you like. NY Scholar has presented a good argument not to below. csloat 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Delete it if you like": is not a consensual option. It is not acceptable to delete a whole section of information that is pertinent and sourced in Wikipedia articles. See the guidelines in Wikipedia:Editing. That is a "major edit" not a "minor edit" and affects the meaning of the article in that each source posted is meaningful (full of significant information). --NYScholar 03:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As one who spent a lot of time constructing the References section (to which others occasionally add non-permitted blog site posts and which I have removed), I would strenuously object to deletion of this section. Instead, I counsel vigilance in what is added to it. The additions must adhere to guidelines and policy in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, follow the linked guidelines and policies in the tags re: WP:BLP on this talk page, including format relating to Wikipedia:Cite. The purpose of a references section is to have major and reliable sources that are representative and used in the article accessible in bibliographical (not notes) citation format. It is thus an alphabetized source list. Technically, it is not "too long" as it is; and, technically, every item cited in the article's notes (source citations in notes section) could be converted into bibliographical format and listed alphabetically. This is already a "selected bibliography" list. I will add "Selected" to "References" heading if necessary. But, generally, "References" sections in Wikipedia articles are "selected" references. ("A Selected Bibliography" as opposed to a lists of all the works cited ("List of Works Cited") or of all the works consulted ("List of Works Consulted"); if the latter (within W guidelines pertaining to "Reliable sources," it would be even longer; as it is, it is a relatively-short "selective bibliography" with non-permitted personal blog site posts deleted, following Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

This is a controversial article and it is not the place for editing wars. Only notable reliable sources should be added, avoiding the appearance of POV editing, in order to be in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as well (of course). --NYScholar 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Today the prosecutor gave his post-conviction press conference on cSpan1. A high-level aide was convicted of perjury during the investigation. When a reporter asked about "a cloud over the administration", his response was that the reporter was referring to court testimony. The defense council had accused the prosecutor of creating such a cloud. The prosecutor responded that if there was a cloud, the administration had created it. When asked about any further investigation he said that he would pursue no further action. Are only the media pursuing the leak itself?

As has previously copiously mentioned, a cursory examination of the references reveals that most, (if not all), of them are from the popular press. Would this discussion not have more inherent worth if references were confined to government sources, or at least to those who might be more possibly consistent with our NPOV, than to inherently slanted views of pundits?--W8IMP 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Boondoggle link corrected

User:70.113.220.11 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Mr. Forgot My Account Info and don't feel like creating a new one right now. 2/19/07

Reminder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plame affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. (Scroll up to talkpage header.) --NYScholar 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you on this one. i deleted the above nonsense as i think it would lead to POV edits.Anthonymendoza 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraphs

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

Frontline

i removed this from the article:

Beginning in mid-February 2007, the Public Broadcasting Service television program Frontline presented a special four-part series entitled News War; in Part One: Secrets, Sources, and Spin correspondent Lowell Bergman

“

examines the relationship between the Bush administration and the press, the use of anonymous sources, and the consequences of the Valerie Plame leak investigation.

”

it's already in the external links section and adds nothing to the main article, unless someone who watched it wants to add some quotes from the program. Anthonymendoza 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Allusions to the Plame affair in popular media

i also deleted this section as i think it generally lowers the quality of the main article. it should be in external links section if it must be included:

*The plot of an episode of season 16 of the NBC television series Law & Order entitled "Kingmaker" (episode no. 369), which first aired on May 3, 2006, parallels aspects of the Plame affair. Anthonymendoza 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting info

this is interesting. according to a document entered into evidence at the trial, Cheney was briefed about the Niger issue on Feb. 13, 2002[8]. and according to the Senate report, plame offered up Wilson for the trip in a Feb. 12, 2002 memorandum[9]. this would seem to suggest Plame was pushing for Wilson to go to Niger before the VP request. i'm not sure what this means or if it should be included in the main article. the only news agency to report this comes from the new york post[10]. at a Feb. 19 meeting convened by Plame, Wilson was briefed on the matter. so i guess it's technically correct to say wilson was sent to follow up a request by the VP, but he was being touted to go before as well. any thoughts to the relevance of this??Anthonymendoza 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right article? That Byron York article you linked doesn't mention these documents at all. Also, the memo you link is dated 2/13 and says "The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program." That does not say he was shown the assessment on 2/13; the memo was dated 2/13, which means that sometime before the memo was written, Cheney asked for the CIA's assessment. The claim that Plame "offered up" wilson is, of course, also disputed; the memo says Wilson "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity," but there is no indication that she was the one who made any decision to send him, and the CIA maintained that the person who used the phrase "offered up" was not at the meeting where the decision was made. And a Senior intelligence officer refuted this claim, telling the committee that "she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." Wilson's written response to this claim of the Senate report: "Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst ["second official", below] were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in [Roberts'] 'additional comments.' I urge the committee to re-interview the officer and publicly publish his statement." Wilson was chosen for the mission because he was qualified (as Libby acknowledged), not because his wife sent him. csloat 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, i'm sure i have the right article. the memo regarding cheney states "Briefing Date", meaning he was briefed on the 13th. Wilson's name was being offered up before that. as far as her role, prosecution witnesses bolstered this claim. unless fitzgerald wanted to give the jurors a false impression, i think it's safe to assume she played a large role. or maybe fitzgerald and the witnesses he called are ignorant of the facts on this too, which i find hard to believe. Anthonymendoza 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; and I find it hard to believe that the Wilsons engineered a conspiracy in 2002 to bring down Scooter Libby. It requires them to have had a crystal ball knowing ahead of time how badly the VP's office would mishandle the information that Iraq was not buying yellowcake from Niger. As for the NYPost article, I just don't see anything about the memos in there - am I missing it or was there another point you were making with that? The Briefing date does not tell us a lot - was that the day cheney was briefed about Niger? The day that he asked for the CIA's assessment? "Prosecution witnesses bolstered this claim" -- it's really not clear that that's the case either, and this memo indicates that Wilson didn't even want to go to Niger - he told the CIA he would only go if they thought it made sense, and the INR thought they could do without him in Niger. Of course, we'll never know for sure, but I find the Plame/Wilson conspiracy theory to be a stretch. csloat 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

all i'm pointing out is that this is interesting info, not cause for a conspiracy theory. here is an exchange between chris matthews and kate o'beirne on hardball:

MATTHEWS: OK. It was well established in court by two CIA officials and a State Department official that the reason for the trip to Africa by Joe Wilson was a query put by the vice president. That was the paramount reason for the trip.

O‘BEIRNE: One thing we learned in the jury trial—and you were paying close attention, I know—was his wife recommended...

MATTHEWS: That‘s true. That‘s also true.

O‘BEIRNE: His wife recommended him...

MATTHEWS: That‘s true.

O‘BEIRNE: ... before Dick Cheney had a question about the Niger intelligence, the day before Dick Cheney had that question.

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s a good point, then.

O‘BEIRNE: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: But the fact is that the trip was justified by the query from the VP, who had commanding presence...

O‘BEIRNE: That is not possible...

MATTHEWS: ... in this White House...

O‘BEIRNE: ... given that she recommended he go the day before Dick Cheney asked a CIA briefer was there any more intelligence.[11]

the court document says cheney was briefed on Niger on Feb. 13 and asked the CIA for an assessment on the matter. according to the SSCI, plame produced a memorandum on Feb 12 outlining joe wilson's qualifications. i find this interesting, that's all. does it change anything? i don't know, that's why i brought it up in the talk page.Anthonymendoza 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

overquoting

This article has waaay too many quotes - 37 uses of the purple quotes, and countless other smaller quotes. Dont many of these come from copyrighted sources? --Astrokey44 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Secrecy of employment

How important is the secrecy of someone's CIA employment? Are all CIA's employees secret? Even janitors and secretaries?

All I know about CIA is from reading Tom Clancy novels, which I presume are somewhat fact-based. Characters such as John Clark and Jack Ryan are not like agent 86 and agent 99 fighting KAOS, but against the real-life KGB and so on. But how realistic is Clancy's depiction of things like the Senate Oversight committee, or the chain of command?

More to the point, when the Jack Ryan character began consulting for CIA, his connection to the agency was kept quiet - but would it have been a crime for anyone to reveal this? Or would it have been a crime under British law for him to deny this?

The John Clark character, on the other hand, was a field operative: he went out and spied on people, blew things up, kidnapped suspects or enemies, etc. I assume he was a "covert agent".

So what was Valerie Plame? More an office worker, whose connection was kept quiet for political reasons (rather than for her personal safety)? Or what?

And how "bad" was it for anyone to reveal her connection to CIA? No one charged Novak, and Armitage seems to have gotten a pass.

What is the complaint about "outing" Plame based on? That it's simply against the law?

• The law must be followed, but when (blank) told (blank2) she was with CIA, he violated (blank3).

I'd like the article to clarify the following:

1. Who objected to the "outing"?
   • On legal grounds
   • On political or other grounds
2. Who told whom, and when?
   • And what laws if any did each violate?

For example: A, B & C each told Robert Novak. This was (or was not) a crime. Novak then revealed the info in his column; this was (or was not) a crime.

• Richard Armitage told Robert Novak. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, knew this since (blank) but did not change Armitage.
• Libby told someone. etc.
• Cheney told someone.
• Karl Rove told someone.

Basically, I'd like to separate out the two points of view on this, as well as trying to come up with the objective facts. Events that neither side disputes can be considered facts for the purposes of this article. Events or assessments which are disputed, would then need to be described from each side's viewpoint.

The whole article will need a full rewrite for this, and I wish I had time to do it. --Uncle Ed 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all CIA employees are covert. Valerie Plame was covert; prosecutor Fitzgerald made that abundantly clear. It is a crime for a federal employee to reveal the name of a covert agent if s/he knows that agent is covert. This is why you see people denying they knew of her covert status.

Since, for obvious reasons, the CIA isn't going to tell anyone what the consequences of her exposure were, the public will probably never know what this really cost us. DMorpheus 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fitzgerald made it abundantly clear she was classified, not covert (in the legal sense of the word). the article should continue to maintain that point. Ed Poor, you pretty much summed up the questions we all have with regards to this case.Anthonymendoza 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fitzgerald made it abundantly clear she was classified, yes. He never said she was not covert, and he implied that she was when he said "her cover was blown." A judge examining this said that she likely met the legal definition of covert. The distinction between "classified" and "covert" is one that appears to be made up by bloggers and pundits rather than something actually used by the CIA. Corn and Isikoff make it clear she was covert in the legal sense, and every former member of her CIA class who has spoken on the matter agrees. csloat 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

DMorpheus: The public has learned in some form what the consequences were published in a way earlier version of this article, where there was a published photograph of a CIA book of operatives who have died during service under the CIA. For the year 2003, when Plame's identity was revealed, there was one item (person) marked with a relevant star (that the person had died during service), but the name had not been written into the book, considering how hot this issue still is. -Mardus 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see some confusion in the media over what Plame's status was. Was she "covert" or "classified"? (or both? ;-)

What sources assert that she was a "covert agent"? Does anyone make the following argument?

1. Plame was a covert agent of the CIA.
2. (blank) revealed her connection to the CIA.
3. Revealing a covert agent's connection to the CIA is a federal crime.
4. Therefore, (blank) committed a federal crime.

Or, if they don't fill in the blank with a particular person, does anyone assert that the Bush administration secretly "got someone" to commit this crime? If so, who? I'm assuming it was her husband who made this complaint, but I've also seen it implied, insinuated or hinted at innumerble times. I'd sure like to be able to read the article and see precisely who accused whom, and then compare that to what Fitzgerald and the courts determined. I mean, isn't that the whole point of the article? --Uncle Ed 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has been indicted or tried for revealing that she was covert. There are claims that she was covert and claims that she was not. However there is no proof or statement from the CIA to support either right now. It is simply speculation that she might have been covert. 148.63.236.141 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between:

• covert agent, i.e., spy - revealing their identity can get them and others killed
• confidential employee, i.e., an academic whose connection to CIA is unknown, but it's not a big deal if the public finds out (no one would be killed)

Now we might not know which status Plame had, but it's important to know which status people were saying she had. The whole ruckus started because certain parties alleged that the White House revealed her status

1. to punish her or her husband (put their lives at risk!)
2. to discredit her husband

I think I've seen info about discrediting her husband, like Cheney didn't send Wilson, it was his wife's idea.

We also need to clarify better in the background that the Wilson trip (suggested by Plame?) is related to one of several reasons Bush gave Congress for his proposed invasion of Iraq. It's complicated, I know, but perhaps the flames of contention have died down enough for us to describe it clearly and neutrally now. --Uncle Ed 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction you're making between types of covert agents is WP:OR. It's also incorrect, according to everything I've seen about this topic. csloat 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in conducting original research. Even if I had time for it, I wouldn't be able to put it into a Wikipedia article.

If there is no real distinction between a covert "agent" (spy, kidnapper, killer) and a covert "analyst" (sits in an office, sifting through reports) then our work is done here.

Unless there's a legal distinction. That's all I'm asking. Legions of Tom Clancy fans will come to this article wondering what the big deal is. If we can say that the law makes no distinction between "operatives", i.e., that an analyst who sits in an office has precisely the same legally protected confidential/secret status as an "agent" or "intelligence officer" who goes into the field, then that ought to satisfy them.

Surely there's an article somewhere at Wikipedia you can point me to? I'm not good at searching; I prefer links. --Uncle Ed 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than it sounds. There isn't a legal distinction between these categories, but there is a legal definition of "covert agent" in the IIPA that has some specific requirements. (Plame does appear to meet those requirements, but it is really a non-issue since nobody has been charged with violating the IIPA). But there isn't a legal definition of "classified agent" or "covert analyst" that I am aware of. There are a lot of pundits who make the distinction but it appears to be specious; it is certainly not borne out by any analysis from the CIA itself or from former agents and officials of whom I am aware.

I think the bottom line is, not all CIA work is Tom Clancy glamor stuff. That plame was a covert agent doesn't mean she was an assassin ... her life would potentially be in danger even if all she did was go to meetings in another country posing as a representative of an energy firm (which it appears that she did). We do know that Plame was a NOC -- she had non-official cover, which means that if she was "found out" and was in another country, she could not rely on the US Government to bail her out. Agents with "official cover" have a front at a USG agency and a diplomatic passport to get them out of trouble; Plame didn't have this, which means her job was actually more dangerous than an agent with official cover. In any case, it doesn't really matter how "dangerous" her job was for the purpose of this discussion, I think - there's no commensurate distinction between "covert" and "classified" based on levels of danger. csloat 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Covert vs. non-Covert?

How can a CIA operative be covert when he or she walks into the CIA building everyday in plain sight? Anyone watching who goes in and out can figure out that she works for the CIA and is thus not "covert". Simple, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Lots of people walk into that building. How can a narcotics officer be undercover if he walks into the police station? This is silly. Valerie Plame testified under oath to Congress this morning that she was a covert operative. I think this debate is over. csloat 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Plame's testimony

"I've served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. Today, I can tell this Committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."[12]

Hopefully that puts an end to the nonsense that Valerie Wilson was not covert.csloat 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied anyway. First-person testimony to the U.S. Congress tends to sway me. Gives me goosebumps all over!

The only questions remaining are:

1. Was she outed by "administration officials" (meaning anyone in the Executive Branch Armitage, who didn't know he was providing a leak)?
2. Was she being punished by "White House officials" (meaning Cheney, Rove, etc.) as payback for undermining Bush's "go to war" rationale?

I don't expect a neat answer for these latter questions. But what do you say, Commodore? --Uncle Ed 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes and yes, but you're right, the answer isn't "neat," and there will be plenty of disagreement. I've been involved in this page for long enough to know that the ensuing debate about those issues won't be very productive. :)

I'm currently watching Victoria Toensing at the Congressional hearing, by the way, and she still claims Valerie wasn't covert under the IIPA based on the (specious, IMHO) argument that the CIA did not take affirmative measures to protect her identity. So I guess even the "not covert" argument won't go away even though Plame testified under oath. Rep Waxman is grilling her now and he claims that Gen. Hayden (DCI) told him that Plame was in fact covert. From my perspective, if the CIA says she was covert, she was covert. It's like if my employer - a state university - says I am an "associate professor" then that's what I am. As for the IIPA, the CIA created a front company and cover identity for Plame. Perhaps they weren't diligent enough in protecting her identity, but they did take "affirmative measures" to protect it. I think Toensing is splitting hairs. csloat 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Waxman just quoted Hayden: "At the time, Ms. Plame's status was covert. {her CIA employment} was classified." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Toensing just said in response to questioning by Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) that she stands by her comments that "under the (IIPA) law, Plame was not covert." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a case of the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is one reason I'm not a registered Republican. I simply refuse to associate myself with people of such low intellectual integrity.

There are three possibilities:

1. Her employment status was classified, and they took SUFFICIENT measures to keep it secret - but some irresponsible dope or dirty rat outed her: i.e., she was "covert"
2. Her employment status was classified, and they took SOME measures to keep it secret, but they didn't really try "hard enough"
3. Her employment status was classified, but they hardly made any effort at all to keep the secret: i.e., she wasn't really "covert"

It's that middle category that politicians like to ignore, which I want to bring out. If I leave a bicycle leaning up against a pile of trash near the curb, and you take it, are you stealing? No, I obviously didn't want it any more. If I leave a bicycle chained to a fence (each wheel separately locked, mind you), and you cut those chains, are you stealing. Plainly, yes! But what if I lean my bike against a wall near a store, while I go in, and you take it? Or in a bike rack outside a school?

Sometimes the "defense" will grasp at straws and try to twist the facts. (The "prosecution" does this too. Is there no honesty in this world?) --Uncle Ed 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not sure category 2 is distinguishable from category 1 for any legal purposes. I suppose, were there an indictment under the IIPA, this distinction would be hashed out in court and a jury or judge would make a decision. It is clearly a subjective judgement -- what the CIA considers sufficient and what Victoria Toensing considers sufficient are two different things. For Toensing and others to claim that the answer is obvious seems to me to be intellectually dishonest. csloat 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the question I have: Am I mistaken, or was Plame asked under oath today, y/n at the time of your 'outing' were you covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and didn't she say "no"? If so, that part of this debate must be settled, right? Samdira 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a transcript? I missed her testimony and the Q-A unfortunately, but her testimony is available online. If she said that, it would seem to contradict what she said in her testimony, which seems unlikely. csloat 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched most of Plame's testimony. She indicated that the CIA considered her employment covert, but that she wasn't a lawyer and had no opinion as to whether she was technically covered under the criminal statute (and I think she also said that no one specifically told her that she was covered under the criminal statute). I would also like to add that she appeared to testify that she had worked undercover overseas within the last five years (from today's date). And, as I understand it, Toensing maintains that she has not (how she knows where plame has worked, I don't know). But I think that Toensing's assertion that Plame has not been overseas is a major part of her arguement that Plame wasn't undercover (as defined by criminal statute). R. Baley 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how I understand the situation (views of Toensing, Plame/CIA) as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point Plame and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: While being questioned by Rep. Davis (R) (on 03.16.07), Davis asked Plame "have you ever been told that you were covered by the IIPA?" He also asked her had she been told that after he covert cover was broken by being in the news. That point, he asked this way: "After your name came out and your covert status revealed, did anyone at CIA tell you 'you were covered by IIPA' so those who spoke of you did wrong?" Granted, these are not his exact quotes, but I am sure you can find the video at cspan.org and get the exact words.

My point is that Plame's response (which also included her concession that she had never been told she was covered) included an assertion by Plame that she had served overseas within the prior 5 years in a covert role. Regarding that particular point, revealed as it was during the questioning, I'd be interested to know: Is Plame authorized to declassify that fact? The simple fact (which Plame asserted in the 03.16.07 hearing), if we take her at face value, is that she did serve overseas covertly within 5 years of the "outing". Well that greatly interests me, for as I see it, Plame just "leaked" a classied salient fact regarding her activities while she was "covert". So why is it that Plame can unilaterally reveal classified facts? Is that what she did in the hearing? It seems so to me. Samdira 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That fact had already been "leaked" by several sources prior to Plame's testimony, including Isikoff and Corn's book. It's unlikely she would have "unilaterally revealed classified facts," especially when she made a point to say that much of the story was still classified. csloat 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken on that. Government secrets remain secrets until an official in the know confirms them. Regardless of whether or not the authors you cite have already written "yes, Plame was overseas with 5 years" as you contend (and by the way, unless Plame/Wilson had already leaked that fact to those authors, how did those authors know this?), unless and until the assertions of the authors are confirmed by an official who knows, then whatever they write is unconfirmed blather. If, at the time those authors wrote those assertions about the 5 year period, the authors had definite information which made clear the assertions were true, then someone leaked classified information to them back then. My guess is Plame/Wilson did. On the other hand, those authors may have been lying simply to bolster the contentions of their literary works. In either case, no matter what the authors wrote, the dissemination of that fact "Plame was overseas with 5 years" is not confirmed by the authors, but it is confirmed by Plame (unless she is lying - and certainly CIA agents do lie from time to time) during her testimony at the Waxman hearings. I see irony in this. A formerly secret fact is disseminated publicly and the contention is that this fact was already out there. This is exactly what some have said about the release of Plame's CIA status. It was a formerly secret fact and some contend it was already known. Why should Plame get to mention former government secrets to bolster her case, but White House does not? It seems silly to me. On the face of it, after reading some of the things I've read about Plame, I'd be inclined to count her as a liar. Indeed, there is much public reliable source commentary which says about the same thing [13] [14] and this one zeros right in on the conflict between Grenier and Plame's testimony: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said. That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip. Another illuminating one is by Washington Attorney Clarice Feldman "March 17, 2007 - The Waxman circus" Samdira 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument that Plame leaked classified information that she was not at liberty to leak, and lied to congress, is absurd on its face, no matter how many conservative bloggers you can cite to support it. I really don't see the point of debating it; you're certainly entitled to believe as you wish.csloat 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Absurd on it's face? Why is it absurd to suggest that perhaps Plame is a liar? According to The Associated Press, published, March 16, 2007, Plame's testimony at the 03.16.07 Waxman hearing, "conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip".[15] As I see it, there are only 3 possibilities -

• Both Grenier and Plame are telling the truth, but their memories differ. However, this 'differing memories defense' didn't work for Libby, so that's not valid.
• Grenier is lying. But, he doesn't have any motive to lie, so that's discounted.
• Plame is lying. Ah, but she does have motive to lie. She's got a big book deal to protect and she's got a lawsuit to pursue.

And, among other things, it's important that she keep the attention off herself in the WMD scandal. After all it was Plame's responsibility to provide CIA HQ with accurate WMD information, but as we famously found out, her boss at CIA, George Tenent was dead wrong when he said it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq had WMD.

I could go on, but I'd rather not argue. Let's give it a rest. Instead, please consider the textual change which I want to make to the opening sentence. I have explained it below and would like agreement about that particular point before I make the modification, as I'd rather only make changes that have consensus support. Samdira 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The "differing memories" argument didn't work for Libby (1) because he was lying and (2) because he was tried for the crime of perjury -- that is not the situation here, as is obvious. Grenier, however, has acknowledged his confusion (read the trial transcript, or read this earlier report), and Plame spelled out the issue when questioned by Cummings. A lower level staffer wrote a memo that was misinterpreted. This confusion was also uncovered by Isikoff and Corn. It's a little odd, by the way, that you claim not to believe Plame when she says she was doing WMD work overseas, yet you cite that very work as her motive for lying. Very odd indeed. csloat 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what I am saying is that whatever her job history was, at the point of her name revelation, it did not meet the precise requirements of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This is evidenced by the fact that no official has said that it did. Samdira 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the discussion was about above; the discussion above was about your claim that Plame lied to Congress and leaked classified information. The debate about the technicalities of the IIPA is a separate one. csloat 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's more from 'thinkprogress' on the recent 'Plame lied' talking point [16]. Basically, in her testimony Plame indicated a memo exists - a memo upon whose alleged testimony the Commission wrote its report - that contradicts the conclusions the Commission came to. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Who recommended Wilson for the trip to Africa?

I'd like a section or subsection on the source of the suggestion to send Ambassader Wilson to Africa.

• Some say it was Plame (Wilson's wife)
  • Plame denied this, right?
• Others say it was Cheney.
  • Did Cheney deny this?

It matters (if not historically, than politically) because there's a political and/or legal dispute over how her CIA identity became public knowledge. One theory is that Armitage innocently told Novak, not knowing that (1) she had covert status or (2) that Novak might blow her cover. This raises a question in my mind, which is whether it's only illegal to tell a reporter, but not illegal for the reporter to tell the public?

There's also the theory that SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT Cheney sent Wilson, and the White House wanted to let reporters know the suggestion to send Wilson didn't come from Cheney. (But I'm not sure why it's important whether Cheney sent him.)

The whole thing is confusing, and needs a thorough rewrite. There are different aspects, which are getting messed up.

The easiest aspect to understand is the gotcha factor. Administration opponents wanted to claim that the administration deliberately outed Plame - ostensibly to get revenge on Wilson. (For being a dodo? Or just for discrediting Bush?) Anyway, they seemed to hope they could pin a law violation on someone close to Bush, either for revenge (the pleasure of kicking an enemy in the balls) or to discredit Bush ("see, a White House official broke the law, they're all like that, vote Democrat for integrity!").

Now, an encyclopedia article can't be expected to discover anyone's true motivations so close in time to the events. We'll have to wait decades for people to write their memoirs (posthumously, perhaps). But any pertinent facts (or sworn testimony, or official statements) would definitely be of interest to our readers. --Uncle Ed 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the most widely-understood rationale for the leak of Plame's identity was to discredit Wilson and to delegitimize the trip Wilson took by claiming his wife sent him. What we have learned is that Cheney directed the CIA to determine whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, and CIA sent Wilson. Wilson's report was a direct rebuttal of what was stated in the SOTU and Wilson had to be discredited as a partisan. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I've been reading. What I've read about this is Wilson's false claims that Cheney sent him were what Cheney and his squad were interested to focus on. As I understand it - as the Senate Committee also agreed, Wilson's core claims about the yellowcake (and other op-ed assertions) were false and were harming WH public support. And indeed, to discredit Wilson was an aim of WH - and provided the discrediting was based on truth, the WH expected it would work. As I understand it, Cheney's goal of proving that he did not send Wilson, was to be accomplished by showing who did - Plame @ CIA. I suppose they thought that by showing Wilson to be a liar on that point, it would be easier to discredit his phoney op-ed. Perhaps in a sedate world where the MSM isn't trying to boost their sinking circulation numbers by ginning up controversies, that might be true. But this was a real newsmaker for the media and people who don't take that into account when they measure the direction and emphasis the media went with this story, are missing an important point. Samdira 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilson never claimed he was sent to Niger at Cheney's request, and it was the CIA's Directorate of Operations, Counterproliferation Division (CPD), that authorized the trip, not Plame. That's a fully discredited GOP talking point, a falsehood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wilson claimed Cheney's office sent him on a fact-finding mission that questioned intelligence President Bush later relied on to go to war." [17]

"Martin said Cheney's talking points disputed Wilson's allegation that Cheney had authorized the trip to Niger." [18]

"Today, before talking to Russert, Imus again uttered the Wilson Cheney sent me lie. Imus was corrected by one of his underlings, who read Wilson's actual statement about being sent because the CIA was responding to a query from the VP's office." [19]

"Former CIA Iraq Mission Manager Robert L. Grenier appeared as a government witness in the trial of Libby on charges of obstruction and lying. He testified he told Libby that the idea of sending ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger was the brainchild of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, who worked in the CIA office that sent him in 2002" [20]

"new documents suggest that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip before the vice president made his request." [21]

Samdira 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting a number of editorials and blogs, while my source (mediamatters) actually lists Wilson's words (which is the point here, not misattribution and misquoting). What is 'sweetness-light', anyway? Here's the link to the AP article that blog post references [22] and one detailing the 'evolving' testimony of Grenier [23]. Cheney requested CIA investigate. Plame neither recommended nor suggested Wilson, CIA sent Wilson. Your quotes don't bring any of those facts into question, so far as I can see - they do, however, attempt to confuse 'who ordered the investigation', 'who recommended Wilson' and 'who sent Wilson'... three different questions. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The one by Byron York at National Review 02.07.07, (my 5th link - see above), directly quotes documents which indicate a timeline that disproves the contention that Wilson was selected after Cheney requested information. Rather, as Byron indicates, it seems that CIA/Plame were already getting ready to send Wilson before Cheney asked for information. Personally, I feel that is very potent. If true, it indiates that Plame/Wilson/CIA were indeed in cahoots to discredit Bush policy - in that they already had a trip in mind for Wilson before Cheney asked for anything... "new documents suggest that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip before the vice president made his request." [24] Samdira 06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Plame herself testified today that she neither recommended nor suggested him for the trip.

"11:15 a.m. Democratic Rep. Lynch: We've made 5 or 6 requests over the past four years, this hearing is a long time coming. This goes back to your husband's trip to Niger. The people on the chart attempted to destroy his credibility. Were you involved in sending your husband on the trip? Did you make that decision?

"VPW: I did not recommend or suggest him. I did not have that authority. In February 02 a young junior officer came to me very upset after just getting a call from the Vice President's office. As she was talking to me, another officer walked by. He suggested sending Joe. I was not overjoyed at the idea. We had twin two-year-olds. We went to my supervisor who asked me to ask Joe that night (to come in for a meeting) and he asked me to Email the chief of the counter proliferation division. A portion of that Email out of context is in the Senate Intell Cmtee report.

"Lynch: That report says you made the decision.

"VPW: Not true. And those views were written exclusively by three Republican senators."

Your view that this was a consipiracy, while 'very potent' to you, doesn't strike me as nearly as plausible, it seems like intentional misdirection based in blatant untruth and out-of-context misquoting, yet another in a long series of attempts to avoid accountability for destroying Plame's covert career. Thankfully, WP isn't a platform for such political agitprop, it's an encylopedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it proper under WP:NPOV to credit Plame's testimony as being accurate, while entertaining suggestions that Robert L. Grenier's is not. Until either of them is convicted of perjury (or at least charged), it's pure speculation on our end as to which one is telling the truth. And, while you might have links to suggest that we shouldn't believe Grenier, the fact remains that he did testify under oath in the Libby trial that Plame recommended Wilson. I would say that makes this point an insoluable factual dispute, one on which, if we take sides, we are being biased. And it's not my view that this is a conspiracy. Rather, all I pointed out was, if the timeline is as Byron York thinks it may be, that is potent evidence that Plame/Wilson/CIA had plans ahead of Cheney's request. If they did, they certainly were jointly planning something. Whether that included torpedoing Bush, who can say? Samdira 07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Grenier testimony even rises to the level of notability for the article, it's not POV to state that Grenier's testimony was questioned due to his varying recollections and that it (and the misstatements in the 'Bipartisan Commission' report) was directly contradicted by Plame herself in sworn testimony. Like so much of the other disinformation presented by allies of the administration, it's 'pure speculation' whether that editorialist's claims prove Plame lied on the stand. Without concrete, verifiable proof it's just more wingnuttery, grasping at straws, talking points and lies.

Your entire premise is based on two words - 'if true' - and you would claim it a claim made by an editorialist as valid as the testimony given by Plame. It's not. That claim is not NPOV, it's extreme political POV. Plame's identity was leaked by the administration to discredit her husband... that's the mainstream interpretation, that's what testimony and the evidence supports (including the words of Cheney and Libby) and that's encyclopedic NPOV fact. Unfounded conspiracy theories (designed to distract from the truth of the matter) have no place here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to be accurate, if you go and say that "Grenier's testimony was questioned", you'd have to say by whom, how so, when and in what context. If you mean that he was cross-examined, well that doesn't tell us anything. Any witness in a trial may be cross-examined and it's no slur on the veracity of his/her testimony if they are. Now regarding what any pundits, etc. might say about Grenier and his testimony, if we are to be reasonable, we have to allow that the lack of a perjury charge against Grenier by Fitzpatrick, is a defacto concession that Grenier testified accurately - so who cares what any pundits might say? As it stands, Grenier testified in a court of law and his testimony was accepted by the court without sanction or penalty. As I see it, testimony under oath is the the most truthful of all statements and unless we have official allegations of false testimony, it's not for us to say 'Plame testified truthfully - so we accept hers...' but 'Grenier's is questioned by some, so we don't accept his...'. With that line of reasoning, we'd end up in an arms-race of competing pundits/news comments, each trying to pile on more sources that the other to "prove" that one is true and the other false. This is not my aim and I hope it's not anyone else's either. All I did was point out that (2) distinct facts sets (#1 - Grenier's testimony) and (#2 - differing dates on the documents pointed out by Byron York) can, if looked at in aggregate, cause a reasonable person to think that Plame was somehow involved in the selection of Wilson for the trip, notwithstanding her testimony to the contrary. But as to whether or not we are going to try to work York's observations into this article, it's no big deal to me. And frankly, some of the words you have directed at me ("wingnuttery, grasping at straws, talking points and lies") make me think that I should not expect cordial interaction from you. If that's true, I think it best if we stop talking for now. Samdira 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As it appears you are taking my comments about the claims of various sources personally, I agree we should leave it at this for now. Honestly, have a good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The article's opening paragraph:

The Plame affair concerns allegations that Bush Administration officials illegally revealed classified employment information about Valerie E. Wilson (born Valerie Elise Plame; also known as "Valerie Plame") indicating that she may have been a covert operative of the United States CIA investigating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

should probably be re-written as of today. I watched quite a bit of the Waxman hearings on CSPAN and it seems to me that the public facts as known today do not include anything to substantiate that the Bush White knew Plame was "a covert operative" or that WH knew her employment status was "classified" when her connection to Joe Wilson was communicated to various reporters. Did I misunderstand what I heard on TV about that? Did anyone else watch the hearings? Samdira 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the trial, and not the hearings, that substantiate what Cheney knew. It's not as clear what Bush knew, IMHO. csloat 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An addition - we did learn today from Knodell (the WH Director of Security) that despite administration promises [25] [26] that President Bush wanted to 'get to the bottom' of the question of who leaked Valerie Plame's role within the CIA WMD counter-proliferation division to the press, no such investigation ever took place.

Another addition - according to Murray Waas in the National Journal we do know some of what President Bush knew and communicated to Fitzgerald. He told the prosecutor that he ordered Cheney to 'disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson', but said also 'that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so. ' [27]

In addition, we know that during his trial Libby claimed that Bush had authorized the release of the information in the NIE [28]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am coming late to the dialog on this page, but what I am pointing out is that it now seems clear that there is no longer any official allegation - not by Fitzpatrick and not by Waxman, etc., that the WH people who in fact did the talking to reporters possessed actual knowledge that Plame's status was "covert / classified". Am I wrong in this? Is anyone making that allegation officially? And if not, it seems we are making a partisan WP:OR violation if we infer it. It seems to me that the established facts support the following:

Wilson went overseas

Wilson came back and wrote an op-ed

This op-ed did not sit well with some at White House (WH)

Cheney may or may not have been particularly bothered by the Wilson op-ed.

Various WH people told various reporters about the Plame/Wilson connection

Repubs say that was to highlight the nature of Wilson's selection/trip/op-ed/etc.

Dems say that was to be vindictive to punish Wilson by hurting Plame

The 1st to discuss Plame with reporter was Richard Armitage

Armitage did not know Plame was "covert / classified"

If these points are true, I do not think it's reasonable for us as editors to conclude or infer that perhaps Cheney knew Plame was "covert / classified". Armitage certainly would have been able to find that out also. If we are to give Armitage the benefit of the doubt, we have to also give Cheney the benefit of the doubt. We can't simply leap to the conclusion that Cheney is partisan, but no others are. In fact, subsequent events with Wilson - in that he got on board in an official role with Kerry 2004 [29] Pres campaign could reasonably be interpreted to mean that Wilson had a pre-existing bias.

This, if true, would tend to support the view that the discredited ("A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of [Wilson's NYT Op Ed] claims were false."[30]) op-ed by Wilson was a hatchet job by Wilson intended to raise his standing with Democrats by hurting Bush.

Another point could be this: Who among us can say that Wilson himself doesn't work for the CIA? Personally, I think this is very plausible. And if true, would explain a lot. After all, there were many others at CIA/State Dept. more qualified that Wilson to go overseas and "drink sweet tea" (er, "investigate") than Wilson. There are so many appearant deviations from sound CIA practice with the Wilson trip (risk of nepotism allegations, could risk wife's covert status, no confidentiality agreement, blabbing in NYT instead of confidential report, etc), that Wilson being picked to go seems odd...

And, an interesting point I heard on CSPAN was that the CIA failed in it's affirmative duties regarding Plame. Toensing testified that CIA should have warned those WH officials who inquired about Plame that she was "covert / classified". This seems reasonable to me. If indeed Plame's cover was important enough to complain about when broken, it's certainly enough to protect in advance.

Another point I was thinking about is this: If Plame was a WMD specialist, isn't she partially to Plame for the erroneous WMD assurances that CIA/Tenent gave about Iraqi WMD (ie: "slam dunk" [31])? After all, the MSM gambit and Dem's contention is that Bush was wrong and lied about WMD. Well, what about Tenent and CIA and the "slam dunk"? The CIA was cock-sure that Iraq was a WMD problem. Who got CIA to be so sure? Plame?

Also, after seeing how many witnesses at the Libby trial also had very bad memories, I do not think it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Libby defense of "bad memory" was implausible. And, I am guessing (among other points) that the Judge's refusal to allow a Russert recall for impeachment about Russert's knowledge of Grand Jury procedures will get Libby a re-trial.

And what about Plame today? She testified under oath that she did not recommed, put forth, etc. Wilson for the trip, but the Senate Committee already concluded she did. And more so, some at Libby trial testified that she was responsible. These are mutually incompatible views. Will Plame get charged with perjury? ...

I think we need to be careful about writing articles regarding highly politicized disputes because we can easily slip into WP:NPOV risk areas. My view is that the White House engaged in ham-handed "push-back" against Wilson and his op-ed but it blew up in their face because Plame's true status was unknown to them. However it was unknown to them because CIA failed in it's affirmative duty to protect Plame's status.

Lastly, what about Fitzpatrick? At no time have I ever heard him say what statute he claimed to be investigating a violation of when he was questioning Libby. After all, a responsible investigator would have already determined whether or not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act applied to Plame (it did not). And since Fitz already knew that, in his pre-interview research, shouldn't he already have an idea what law he was looking for a violation of? If not, how would he recognize the violation when if he found it? Personally, I feel that Fitzpatrick's investigation was a fishing trip in the purest sense. At least when Martha Stewart got investigated, the statutes regarding "insider trading" were suspected of being violated. Can anyone point me to what statutes Fitzpatrick was supposedly looking for violations of? I can't find that anywhere. Samdira 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an essay. I don't believe the section you quoted makes any claims as to what various administration officials 'knew' as you put it. It restates the notable facts and allegations that the Plame affair comprises. However, to answer that issue directly... if the administration was investigating whether Plame sent Wilson on a CIA junket in order to use that information to discredit Wilson, and bearing in mind the fact that her CIA WMD role is known to the adminstration, do you think it's plausible or adequate to reason to say that they simply 'didn't know' she was covert? Wouldn't following formal declassification processes be a crucial step of due diligence in order to answer the question of whether naming her as a 'CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction' to a reporter would be a violation of national security, and endanger Plame's network of contacts? Or, if you take the cynical view, would it instead be politically adroit to simply avoid the question and leak the information without proper declassification, in order to simply claim future ignorance of her status? I don't consider it adequate or informative to simply restate that "we don't know what 'xx' knew" in light of the facts we actually do know:

1. Plame was covert (as she testified, and as supported by the current head of CIA Hayden)
2. The administration had a responsibility to protect that covert status and not to endanger national security by identifying her (the most fundamental requirement for anyone with a security clearance)
3. The administration instead publicized that information for political purposes (in order to discredit Wilson with insinuations of nepotism)
4. Libby obstructed justice, committed perjury and made false statements regarding the disclosure of Plame's identity, preventing additional investigation (vis-a-vis Fitzgerald's 'sand in the umpire's face' comment)
5. The Bush administration did not conduct an investigation into the leak of Plame's identity despite public assurances and despite the requirements of Executive Order 12958 as signed in March 2003. (The order requires the White House to "'take appropriate and prompt corrective action' whenever there is a release of classified information," according to a statement by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), before whose committee WH Security Director Knodell testified today). ( -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple other things -- Plame did not perjure herself. Her claim that she did not send Wilson was likely quite accurate. While it may be inconsistent with a comment in the SSCI report, it is incorrect to call that a conclusion, and the Corn/Isikoff book has shown that the comment was incorrect and has been retracted by the person who made it. Second, the claim that Wilson was not the most qualified person to go there is at odds with what both Libby and Cheney thought, according to the trial transcript. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who you think was more qualified than a US ambassador with extensive experience in Africa? I can't think of anyone, and I find the claim that Wilson is working for the CIA to be a bit absurd; are you suggesting that the CIA has a program in place to attack Republicans? Unlikely, at best. csloat 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, two more things. The CIA did take affirmative measures to protect Plame's identity, regardless of Toensing's testimony. The CIA provided her a fake job at a front company. Perhaps that isn't enough for Toensing, but that has no significance in the real world. Second, at the time Armitage made the leak, he was acting as a "partisan gunslinger" for the Iraq war, regardless of what Novak said about him. He privately disagreed with the war but was publicly supporting it at that time - so it's incorrect to portray him as a disinterested third party. Overall, though, the whole lot of it is speculation that isn't really much relevant to the article at hand. csloat 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In the opening sentence which I refer to, I would like to replace the words "indicating that she may have been" with "which impacted her status as". I feel this would make clear that no one is claiming that people at WH knew her status. But rather, it will now say her status was impacted as a result. As to what degree and how severly, know one will ever be able to say, so let's not speculate. Also, I would still like to know, can anyone point me to which statutes Fitzpatrick was supposedly looking for violations of? I've never seen that reported anywhere. Samdira 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

James Knodell's testimony

We should probably add to the article the revelation today that after the Plame leak, despite Bush's statement that he would start an investigation and "heads will roll", no investigation was even attempted or discussed by the Administration. According to Knodell, nobody even mentioned to him the possibility of doing an investigation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-17 06:13Z

I've looked, and looked, and looked, and i can't find a single quote where bush states the white house would conduct an internal investigation on the issue. the article above cited by User:RyanFreisling [32] states that "Senior intelligence officials said yesterday that the CIA filed what they termed a "crime report" with the Justice Department in late July, shortly after syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, citing two unnamed administration sources, identified Wilson's wife by name." so the notion that for three months the white house did nothing even though they promised an investigation is absurd. the justice department had jurisdiction here, and launched a preliminary probe in September after receiving a crimes report in July. Why would the white house launch a separate investigation if the justice department was already looking into the matter? isn't a justice department investigation tantamount to an internal investigation anyway? am i missing something here? please clarify or find quotes where bush states an internal investigation would be conducted.Anthonymendoza 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the congressmen were misleading as well, since I can't find any such quotes either. However, I can't really find any quotes from Bush during that time period, except for him saying that anyone who is found to commit a crime will be fired (duh). Can you find some/all of Bush's quotes during the time period? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-18 16:48Z

Here's an excerpt of a number of the relevant comments from Bush and McClellan on the issue of the disclosure of Plame's identity to reporters. If it violates people's sensibilities to have this much excerpted, feel free to annihilate it and leave the link. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Source: Bush Aide Deflects Questions On Rove

Authors: Mike Allen and Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

"No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States," McClellan said, echoing his two-year-old position on the case. "And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation."

Asked about the matter on nine occasions over the years, Bush has said he welcomed the investigation, called the name disclosure "a very serious matter," and declared that the sooner investigators "find out the truth, the better, as far as I'm concerned."

"I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said that any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum."

At one point, McClellan vowed: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

McClellan demurred yesterday when asked several times whether Bush will stand by his pledge to fire anyone who leaked classified information. "This question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation," he said. "Our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium." [33]

exactly. this shows that the white house let the justice department take the lead in the matter. no where does it say the white house promised an internal investigation. Anthonymendoza 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's important to remember why this is important/controversial/encyclopedic. Regardless of the administration's public comments initially denying any involvement by Rove and others, and the professed desire of the President to 'get to the bottom' of this, and the fact that they did not literally 'promise an investigation' as anthony mentioned, the onus does not end with public 'professions'. The White House had a responsibility, under Executive Order 12958, to investigate the potential leak of classified information and did not do so.

REP. WAXMAN: And in {safeguarding classified information}, you have an executive order, 12958, that implements the regulations for protection of this information. I want to ask you about that and, of course, we're looking at it in the context of Mrs. Wilson's identity being disclosed. Federal regulations require that any person who has knowledge of the loss or compromise of classified information has an obligation to report to the White House security officer. I'm going to read from 5 CFR Section 1312.30, "Any White House employee who has knowledge of the loss or possible compromise of classified information should report the circumstances to the EOP security officer," end quote. Is that accurate, Mr. Knodell?

MR. KNODELL: Yes, it is.

REP. WAXMAN: And do White House officials who know about the disclosure of classified information have an obligation to report what they know to you?

MR. KNODELL: Yes, sir.

REP. CUMMINGS: Let me ask you a few questions, because you -- in answering some of the chairman's questions, you left me shocked. And I want to sure I heard you right. Are you saying, with regard to this case, that is, the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, there is no report?

MR. KNODELL: Not in my office. There is none.

REP. CUMMINGS: And, are you also saying that there was no investigation?

MR. KNODELL: Not by my office.

REP. CUMMINGS: Not by your office. And so you -- I could conclude then that there were no sanctions. Is that correct?

MR. KNODELL: There were --

REP. CUMMINGS: No sanctions within your office. I mean -- is it one of your jobs -- is part of your job to recommend sanctions where you find that there has been a breach?

MR. KNODELL: Correct. But there was already an outside investigation that was taking place, a criminal investigation.

REP. CUMMINGS: So you --

MR. KNODELL: So that's why we took no action.

REP. CUMMINGS: Reclaiming my time, if Mr. Rove, for example, the number one advisor to the president of the United States, received this information, or had anything to do with the disclosing of a covert agent's identity, and let's -- now we have a situation where it appears that the criminal trial is over, do -- would your agency have anything -- I mean, your office have anything to do now, or do you just close the books and say it's over?

MR. KNODELL: I've got no indication from the Department of Justice or any other agency --

REP. CUMMINGS: Would he -- would Mr. Rove have had a duty to report any kind of breach?

MR. KNODELL: Yes.

REP. CUMMINGS: Even today?

MR. KNODELL: At the time of the occurrence.

REP. CUMMINGS: I'm sorry?

MR. KNODELL: At the time of the occurrence, when the violation took place.

REP. CUMMINGS: All right. Thank you.

REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.

Before I recognize the next witness, I just want to clarify this point. The investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald didn't take place for months and months and months after it was well-known that there had been a leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent. Now, as I understand it, there's an obligation for the White House to conduct an immediate investigation to find out whether they needed to suspend security clearances of somebody who had leaked this information, to maybe take disciplinary action against an individual who might have been involved, and thirdly, to find out who divulged it.

And the White House had that obligation, because this was a matter of important, highest-order national security. Am I stating things correctly, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: Mr. Chairman, as you point out, whenever there is suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise, there is an affirmative responsibility to do an inquiry. At the very least to determine -- to implement corrective action. So that -- subsequent and additional and similar violations do not continue to occur, and also to be able to ensure that any potential damage to national security is assessed.

REP. WATSON: Okay. Has there been any investigation by your office into how Mr. Rove would have obtained the information? Apparently, your answer is no.

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

REP. WATSON: It seems to me that there is some dereliction of duty. If you are the Director, and you are to oversee the security from the White House, and you're telling me there was no investigation.

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: So an investigation should be done, right?

MR. KNODELL: Correct.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: But an investigation was not done.

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

This issue is important because the White House took no action - the fact that they did not necessarily promise their own investigation does not make this issue a 'non-issue'. Indeed, as Waxman described it, the White House's disregard of their responsibilities under the Order appears to be 'a breach within a breach'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I've linked to Executive Order 12958 in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-19 15:57Z

ok, i finally found something with regards to this issue. here is a segment of a CNN article dated september 29, 2003:

"The White House will cooperate with the Justice Department in its initial inquiry into who leaked the classified identity of a CIA operative, but will not launch an internal probe and will not ask for an independent investigation, a spokesman said Monday.

The CIA operative in question, Valerie Plame, is the wife of a former U.S. ambassador who had been critical of the Bush administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.

The president believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent by the appropriate agency and the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters.

He said the White House would cooperate with any probe, but said the Justice Department has not made any requests for information."[34]

so this issue was addressed. remember, Knodell didn't start his position until august 2004 and said he knew of the plame affair through press accounts only. if he had been on the job when the leak occurred, he would have been aware the white house decided early to let the justice department take the lead on the issue. i'm adding this cnn article, although i think the entire section on Knodell's testimony should be removed since it appears to be more democratic grandstanding than encyclopedic information.Anthonymendoza 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If Knodell only knew about the Plame affair through press accounts only, how is it that he could make a positive statement on why no internal investigation occurred? He said he had no knowledge of an internal investigation, but then also gave a reason why no investigation occurred, so he must have had knowledge that there was to be no internal investigation (in order to make an affirmative statement about why they didn't launch an internal investigation). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-19 20:00Z

he was asked why no internal investigation was conducted on his watch, and he responded by saying there was an ongoing criminal investigation when he took the post.Anthonymendoza 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say 'was addressed' does not remove any of the controversy, but the quote you posted is indeed helpful to indicate the White House viewpoint that it would not launch a probe - 3 months after the leak, at the outset of the DOJ investigation. As such, your quote corroborates the complaint Waxman and others have made about the lack of a White House investigation in the months directly following the leak. Last, as far as your 'democratic grandstanding' comment, needless to say I disagree. Relevant testimony is relevant testimony. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

but this wasn't a controversy until only a few days ago. do you remember any outrage in 2003 when the white house said no internal probe would be launched? and it's grandstanding because the democrats on the panel expressed there "shock" when Knodell said no internal probe was launched. that was announced, as it turns out, almost four years ago. why the shock? and waxman said at the hearing that he wished he had video of bush calling for a complete probe, but that probably the Daily Show would play it. if that's not grandstanding i don't know what is. since there was no "shock" in 2003 at the announcement of no internal probe, i find the "shock" of the democrats now to be insincere.Anthonymendoza 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there was definitely some grandstanding involved, but that section of the article is about the Congressional investigation, and Knodell's was one of the key testimonies. Whether or not people were shocked in 2003 shouldn't affect whether or not they should be now, since it's clear from the executive order that the White House should've done something, anything, but did nothing. Why? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-19 19:51Z

because they gave the justice department the lead in the matter, which is clearly articulated in the CNN article. the article is written in september, but it doesn't mean the white house decided against an internal probe in september. maybe they made the decision after the cia provided the justice department with a crimes report in july. the point is that the white house has addressed this, and the section should reflect that in a NPOV manner.Anthonymendoza 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the WH 'addresses' an issue is irrelevant - it would be POV to reduce the issue to what the White House says or does related to this issue. The NPOV issue is whether they complied with the requirement to investigate the leak. For example, the reason this is still a controversy is, in part, because we now know that senior WH officials did indeed disclose Plame's identity (despite the fact that the original White House 'address' on the issue of the Plame leak was that the idea of those WH officials being involved was 'ridiculous'). Clearly, a more objective standard than White House addresses applies And on this specific issue of the adequacy of the White House Security response, the transcript clearly states that the time frame is indeed relevant to the issue: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

REP. WAXMAN: And if there was an investigation, what were you referring to? Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation?

MR. KNODELL: Yes. The outside investigation.

REP. WAXMAN: Okay. That didn't take -- that didn't start until months and months later. And that had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated. But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn't there?

MR. KNODELL: If that was the case, yes.

but there was an investigation into "whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately", but it was led by the justice department. it's important to note once again that knodell started in august 2004 and had no knowledge of what occurred in his office or in the white house after the leak. but i'm happy with the current version.Anthonymendoza 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's make an agreement to stick to the facts. A political 'grandstanding' claim is obviously your own opinion, and so it's not really helpful to determining what's encyclopedic for WP. I would hope that whatever the source (Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc.) of information, we would consider the facts and respond clinically and dispassionately. We're not making political cases here against or for any particular party - we're collecting the relevant, notable issues of the controversy and attempting to educate without bias or intentional omission. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Covert, again

Well, we've seen that even the sworn testimony of Valerie Plame and the claim of CIA director General Hayden will not convince those who think Victoria Toensing is a greater authority on CIA matters than the CIA, but the following videos are enlightening: this video of part of Plame's testimony focuses on Rep. Cummings' questions to Plame, which have been taken out of context by others. Here she clearly explains why she was "covert." And, for a smile I highly recomment Larry Johnson's appearance on Countdown. My favorite comment -- "It's time for some drug testing to see what kind of hallucinogens Victoria Toensing has been taking." csloat 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. As established by Hayden's comments into the record at the Waxman hearing, the term "covert" does indeed encompass whatever status Plame actually had when her named was 1st mentioned by Armitage, et al. However, let's not confuse that with the more narrow constructions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I listened to Victoria Toensing's testimony closely and I do not think that we ought to be posting mocking comments about her ("hallucinogens"). Personally, I think that Toensing made some very good points. One of them was her contention that the burden of "affirmative steps" to protect Plame's identity should have prudently included CIA telling White House - 'Whoa Nelly, back off, confidential status' when WH inquired. Certainly at the very least, a high clearance CIA staffer should have called a high clearance White House staffer and made it plain that mentioning Plame was off limits. That they didn't, speaks volumes. As I see it, Plame's cover in 2003 was very thin, virtually non-existant. She defiantely was not covered by IIPA at the point of name revelation. The point at hand is that we need to avoid taking sides and to do that, we need to parse the facts with precision. Plame was (slighty) covert. She was not covered by IIPA. I think this assessment is well borne out by the current public facts. Samdira 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Toensing's opinion is her own regarding what the CIA should have done, but it is notable that she is not someone with experience or expertise in the field of intelligence (other than as a lawyer). The CIA did take "affirmative steps" to protect Plame's identity including the establishment of a front company and identity which Plame used. Could the CIA have done more? Perhaps, but that really isn't what the statute is about (and Toensing should be aware of this). Did Grenier make a mistake when he told Libby about Plame (assuming that is what happened)? Probably (though he has stated that he assumed a high level Bush staffer like Libby would have clearance for classified info and would know better than to reveal it to reporters). Did the CIA tell Novak "whoa nelly back off" as you say? We know for a fact that they did. As you see it, Plame's cover was "thin," that is fine; what is your background in intelligence and covert action? It doesn't really matter what you or I think; what matters is that as far as the CIA was concerned, Plame was covert. Your claim that "she definitely was not covered by the IIPA" is an interesting opinion, but that's all it is. I would posit that all the facts seem to point in the other direction, but my opinion really isn't worth any more than yours, except to me. So if you really want to avoid taking sides and "parse the facts with precision," then you should be saying "Plame was covert. She may have been protected under the IIPA." "Slightly" covert is like " slightly pregnant," as far as the issues here are concerned. And until the IIPA is actually enforced in some official manner in the Plame affair, we have no way of determining for a "fact" whether Plame was covered or not. All we have is a lawyer's opinion -- a lawyer with a well known stake in the matter, at that. csloat 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

look, if all laws were interpreted the same way, we wouldn't have lawyers. Whether plame was covered under the IIPA just because the CIA and Plame herself say she was covert doesn't settle the issue by a long shot. both lawyers who testified before waxman's committee made that clear, so it's not just solely Toensing's opinion. (on a side note, i would also argue that Larry Johnson also has a "well known stake in the matter." let's not forget he lit up the blogosphere when he said his sources told him fitzgerald would indict 22 people[35]). but in the end, this case wasn't about the leak or the IIPA. let's not forget that libby was acquitted of his conversations with cooper and his conversations with miller weren't even part of the indictment. in the end, libby was convicted of lying about how he learned about plame, not who he leaked it too. and with fitzgerald not talking, everything else about this case will forever be left to interpretation. only one person has ever been charged under the IIPA, so the notion that the law has an "exacting" standard is valid, as are questions as to whether plame fit the IIPA definition.Anthonymendoza 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

also, the only successful prosecution under the IIPA involved agents stationed overseas.[36] there is no legal precedence to say that, because plame occasionally traveled overseas to monitor operations while she was stationed in DC, she thus fits the IIPA definition. it's actually quite the opposite. and if anyone had been prosecuted in this case under the IIPA, i'm sure Libby or Rove would have had no problem finding a lawyer who would have argued this point. to what avail, we'll never know. also, while it's true a judge interpreted fitzgerald's affadavit to mean that Plame was covert under the IIPA, it's important to note that fitzgerald was arguing that "[Judith Miller's] testimony is essential to determining whether Libby is guilty of crimes, including perjury, false statements, and the improper disclosure of national defense information." Fitzgerald won the argument, compelled Miller to testify, and still didn't charge anyone with a violation of the IIPA. which means that even if Fitzgerald believed Plame was covert under the IIPA, in the end that statute still didn't apply to this case. Fitzgerald's argument was ambiguous, though, as reflected in the judge's opinion when he stated "Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support."[37][38]Anthonymendoza 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) The quote on the Larry Johnson page you link to says "There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment," not that there will be 22 indictments. And Johnson's credibility really isn't the issue here. (2) The IIPA does not require that an agent be "stationed" overseas; it says only that the agent be "serving" outside the US or "has within the last five years served outside the United States," which we know for a fact Plame was. (3) You are right that the interpretation of the law is at issue here, and that without a conviction under it, we cannot say for certain either way, which is why I said the most correct statement was that she may have been protected by the IIPA. I specifically wrote, "And until the IIPA is actually enforced in some official manner in the Plame affair, we have no way of determining for a "fact" whether Plame was covered or not." My perception is that the evidence overwhelmingly leans in favor of her being covered, since there are simply no credible arguments being made by the other side (the "stationed" point being easily dispensed with), but I acknowledge that is my perception and that I won't be able to convince those who choose to believe otherwise. (4) Speculation about why Fitzgerald chose not to prosecute under IIPA is simply speculation. To say that it was because the IIPA was not violated is not credible; many laws are violated that are not prosecuted. One could easily argue that Fitzgerald didn't think he could get an IIPA conviction because of Libby's obstruction. (5) Speaking of Libby, you point out that he was not convicted of his conversation with Cooper, but fail to acknowledge that he was convicted of "knowingly and corruptly" trying to "influence, obstruct and impede" the administration of justice; or that he was also convicted for lying about his conversation with Tim Russert as well as his conversation with Mr. Cooper. The only charge he was acquitted of was of making false statements to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper; he was convicted of making false statements to the FBI about his conversation with Russert and of lying to the grand jury about both conversations. I'm not sure why you made that point - it doesn't seem to apply here - but as stated it seemed incorrect so I wanted to clarify that. csloat 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, but the question of what the legal definition of "serving" is would be the legal fight. and with only one IIPA conviction in the history of the statute, the current precedence is that the CIA operative has to be stationed overseas. but as usual, i think you and i are arguing the exact same point, and coming to the exact same conclusions, only articulating our arguments from our different points of view :) with regards to libby, the juror (Collins, i believe) who has been speaking to the press has said Russerts testimony is what convicted Libby. the Cooper conversation came down to a he said/he said, and thus provided reasonable doubt. it was also my impression that the conversation with Judith Miller was dropped from the charge[39].Anthonymendoza 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to kick a dead horse, but there is no precedent favoring a particular interpretation of the word "serving" under the IIPA. Just because the one person convicted was stationed there does not mean that the Court interpreted the word "serving" in any particular manner. csloat 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction needs updating

Rather than bicker about our various nuances & opinions, let's see if we can agree on some updates to the article. I think the introduction needs to be updated and clarified. Among other things, I think it should be more past tense as Fitzgerald's investigation is over, and he has stated that he does not expect more charges. Therefore, at this point, if there are any more "allegations", they are only going to be from the media or from various partisans pursuing an agenda. Feedback? Samdira 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

i've been editing this page for quite some time (longer than i'd like to admit), and i can tell you that the introduction has been the subject of many edit wars. reaching a consensus on the intro has been nonexistent. if you want to give it a try, go ahead, but expect your edits to be reverted or challenged.Anthonymendoza 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to re-write the opening paragraph along these lines:

The Plame affair is a political, legal and media controversy which arose as a result of Valerie Plame's CIA employment becoming publicly known. The controversies sprang from various allegations of wrongdoing. In particular, it was alleged that the White House revealed Plame's employment status in such a manner that rules against leaking classified information were transgressed. After a lengthy investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald and a trial, Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. At the conclusion of the Libby trial, Fitzpatrick stated that he did not expect any further prosecutions. It was during the Libby trial that it became clear that several parties had indeed discussed information relating to Plame's CIA employment. However, no charges were brought for the actual Plame employment disclosures themselves. The nature of the Plame/Libby investigation and the controversy surrounding this issue has been the subject of much media reporting and pundit speculation. As of March 16th, 2007, the most recent official process relating to the Plame affair, was a hearing conducted by Congressman Henry Waxman at which Plame herself (and others) we called to be questioned and give their views.

I feel that this re-write will help us start bringing this article into a more encyclopedic format and will help us segue into a more succinctly written article. I think this timeline can be used by us while we re-write, as a nice resource. I like the idea of a more succinct chronological article. And, though that example timeline is too sparsely written and overly parsed for my taste, I think we could benefit by using it as checksum tool to help us focus and tighten up our article.

Samdira 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the feedback. I am deferring any edits to the intro until I have some agreement here. Please post your suggested intro version here and let's see if we can agree on some text. As for my version, yes it needs copyediting, but I feel it's pretty good. I'll watch here for your suggested version. Please post ASAP. Samdira 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush... ASAP is relative on a wiki. Samdira, since you've taken a few comments of mine too personally I hope you will take this one dispassionately - I would describe the existing intro (while wordy) as significantly superior to the one you posted, on a number of grounds (accuracy, lack of grammatic focus, the use of 'weasel-words', general focus, etc.) and so I would generally oppose the introduction of much of what you wrote. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to future efforts! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with csloat, that the intro should be about 4-5 sentences with no mention of armitage, or quotes that appear later in the article. and i agree with Ryan that the current intro is wordy. we should start this debate with a simple debate as to what the plame affair is. i think the plame affair is the allegation that bush administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of a covert cia operative as retaliation against a war critic. is this an acceptable premise? Anthonymendoza 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my request for consensus, below. Samdira 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the comments, but the introduction still needed further updated, correction, and other re-writing, which I did. I tried to make it more formal language and also to avoid multiple uses of passive voices of verbs (which are weak). I tried to focus on the agents of actions. I thought the first sentence was especially vague and tried to make it more specific and significant. --NYScholar 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro sandbox

To showcase various ideas for changing the intro, let's try using a subpage:

• /intro

I used to do this sort of thing when I was an active mediator, and it's often a big help. Contributors aren't under so much pressure this way. --Uncle Ed 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'll support whatever approach a visible consensus strongly and dispassionately indicates, but I generally oppose branching like this. I think editing can occur productively on this article and the failings of the intro are not so egregious as to prevent constructive editing. I just want to go on the record in opposition to the proposal to branch. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan -- I think that's a good approach for sections that are the subject of current edit wars (e.g. the Juan Cole intro, where I took Ed up on his suggestion). I don't think we're at that point with this page. I support the current intro for now. csloat 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. The subpage idea is a safety valve, so that we can blow off steam. If the pressure is well below the safety limit, then the valve need not operate. I'll leave it just in case. --Uncle Ed 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for consensus

In the introduction, I would like to replace the words "indicating that she may have been" with "which impacted her status as" and I ask for group consent. Samdira 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like either one. csloat 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like either as well. --Tbeatty 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stunned to admit that I agree with both Tbeatty and Csloat over the very same issue. :) Cheers all! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After taking various talk page comments into account, I have edited the introduction. Regarding the introduction, I have done my best to respect the concerns voiced by others (above). Please review my changes and discuss as needed on this page. I am available to discuss so we can avoid reverts. Thank you. Samdira 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

You might be right about the 2nd para. Do you recommend we remove it? How about the 1st paragraph as it stands now - are you ok with the changes I made? Samdira 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

NYS, upon initial review your updates look pretty good. Question for you: Why does your sig not have a wiki liink in it? Samdira 05:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposed wikiproject

I created a proposal for a new wikiproject to deal with political scandals and controversies. The idea would be to try to get a group of people involved in making sure that current and past political scandals were accurately stated and sourced on wikipedia. Anybody that is interested can sign up at [40]. Remember 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased implications in introduction

Please see these edits [41], [42], [43] and [44]. Please pay particular attention to the edit sumaries. I am concerned the introduction is wrongly implying that the White House knew Plame was covert. This has not been establshed - not in the media, not in court and not here. There are plenty of CIA employees who are not covert. Also, I do not like the word "because" being used to explain the CIA referral. Don't tell me that "Tommy parked his car because...". The "because..." is opinion, not fact. Just tell me "Tommy parked his car." Don't tell me the CIA did something "because...". We have no public evidence that this was the sole reason CIA made the referral. These two problems aside, I think the intro is pretty good now. Samdira 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that she worked at the CIA was classified. For someone to find out she worked at the CIA means that either something was declassified (not the case), or classified information was leaked (appears to be the case). Thus, some law was broken. Notice how I haven't used the word "covert" at all. Saying that they didn't know she was covert, but then saying that they knew she worked at the CIA, is contradictory. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 17:21Z
• I see no such implication. The text reads 'alleged that members of the George W. Bush administration knowingly revealed his wife's covert identity'. It doesn't assert that they knew she was covert. While a reasonable person can see the obvious contradiction between 'Rove didn't know Plame was covert' and Rove's statement that 'Plame is fair game', the article intro plainly does not assert that. Accordngly, I don't see any validity to your objection. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian, your reasoning is sound, but you must support your conclusion with a citation or else you are committing a WP:OR violation. What you have zeroed in on is indeed the crux of this dispute. Those who rail against Cheney, etc. about Plame certainly are convinced that Cheney was from the beginning knowledgeable about Plame being covert. However, this has not been established as a fact. It is and will forever remain conjecture. And while this may be the reason that Libby was prosecuted (lied to shield Cheney) it's not relevant to our introduction. Our introduction must not take sides in a political dispute beyond the degree that the truth of the sides has been established by citable public facts. And the truth here is that it has not been established (only conjectured) that "something was declassified" or "classified information was leaked". Indeed, even Fitzpatrick did not establish that. Rather he contended it in various filings and alleged it in various arguments, but he did not establish it. Please understand that I am referring to proof of facts. There is no public proof of the alleged facts as you infer them to be. I assure you my research indicates that many, many people have come to the entirely reasonable conclusion that the White House did not know Plame was covert and hence, classified. Indeed at the Waxman hearings, even Plame herself stated that the WH should have "presumed" that her CIA status automatically meant covert/classified. Even so, such presumptions are not reasonable from our perspective. Why? Because at the same Waxman hearing, the point was raised that when the CIA was asked by WH about Plame, the CIA did not alert WH about Plame covert/classified status. So then, how is it that WH even found out that Plame had anything at all to do with CIA? In other words, how did WH even think or know to ask CIA about Plame? The implied answer to that is that WH already knew she was CIA as a consequence of using WH power to snoop, ergo WH must have known she was covert/classified. Ah, this all well and good, but we simply cannot argue facts which are not in evidence and there are no public facts before us regarding this point. Please consider what I am saying here. I am mightily concerned that we are committing a grievous WP:NPOV violation. I ask that you reconsider and restore my most recent edit. Samdira 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

the intro is better, but still wordy and still a bit too long. i disagree with the assertion that "For someone to find out she worked at the CIA means that either something was declassified (not the case), or classified information was leaked (appears to be the case)." Plame testified that she didn't know if white house officials knew she was covert, and also testified that some CIA operatives in her division were not classified. she basically stated that the officials who discussed her should have used precaution because she was a CIA employee who might be covert. but when asked if they knew she was covert, she stated that the prosecutor should answer that. also, Armitage, the first leaker, told the press that in his 30 some years in government, he'd never seen a covert cia operatives name in a state department memo, meaning he didn't know she was classified. so the above premise is not correct, but the allegation that officials knew she was covert and outed her intentionally is/was at the thrust of the controversy.Anthonymendoza 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Revert, please

i'm not sure what i did but could someone revert or tell me how to revert the article to this version[45]. i tried to make a simple edit and somehow screwed things up. thanks!Anthonymendoza 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, hope you gave the right diff though. Arkon 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, thanks!! i still can't figure out what i did :) Anthonymendoza 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Testimony of other reporters

i removed this section:

Testimony of some reporters in trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby

Main article: United States v. Libby

The Associated Press's Michael J. Sniffen reports that on February 12, 2007,

“

Defense attorneys got Woodward, Novak, Pincus, New York Times reporter David Sanger, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas all to say they had talked to Libby about Wilson's allegations during the summer of 2003, but Libby had not disclosed Plame's identity or employment to them.

But Sanger, Kessler and Thomas said they didn't ask Libby about Wilson's wife. Woodward and Novak testified they didn't recall asking about her but said Libby didn't talk about her if they did. Pincus said Libby said he didn't know how the trip was arranged but their conversation occurred before June 12, when Libby now recalls he first learned the information from Cheney.

”

i think it's more appropriate for US v. Libby page, but i can't figure out where to put it there. any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)