Talk:Larry C. Johnson

Anon user POV-pushing

Anonymous user User:65.87.105.2 has been very active on the Plame-related articles pushing a certain POV defending Novak and the Administration. The material he inserted without comment is part of his POV-campaign. It is refuted (or at least put into proper context) here and here, among other places. I just wanted these links available to anyone who wants to deal with this, in case I don't get to it. :)--csloat 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) I want to add that he is a registered Republican and a Bush supporter until recently[1]; this is not just propaganda, as the anon user's edits imply.-csloat 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

POV-pushing by Ombudsman

This has been discussed already; please see above for the cite. The bullshit that Johnson only "claimed" he was a registered republican is a bogus attempt to poison the well.--csloat 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnson said he supported Bush, but there is no evidence that he supported Bush other than his post-election statement. There was no pre-election endorsement for Bush even though Johnson could publish his columns in the NY Times and he appeared on numerous television news shows. Johnson gave no money to Bush, although Bush raised hundreds of millions of dollars from other donors. Johnson didn't volunteer for the Bush campaign, even though the Bush campaign headquarters was within a mile of his DC office. Of course we don't have a photo of him voting in the voting booth. So when Johnson says he previously supported Bush while presently denouncing him, we can only write that "he said he supported Bush." We have no 3rd party authentication for his claim of support, and his motive for lying is high: it gives him more credibility as a critic if he was a former suporter. I will now reinsert that line as previosly written. If you have a source to authenticate his claim, please add your cite. Good day! P.S. Who is ombudsman?--24.55.228.56 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have disputing that he voted for Bush? The article cited above says it quite clearly; it is not just "he says," and you offer no intelligent reason to doubt it. There is nobody on earth that has published anything suggesting that the facts are any different than this; your insertion of this is just to raise doubt where there is no reason for it. Should we say also that George W Bush only says he is a Republican? or a Christian? Come on. The source is right there, I will put it in since you are so anal about this ludicrous point. Happy new year.--csloat 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I want to add that your logic is internally contradictory. You claim that Johnson is lying about voting for Bush in order to enhance his credibility - yet it is clear throughout the article that he thinks Bush is absolutely wrong about the war -- why would he think it would enhance his credibility to admit that he used to support a President whom he thinks is wrong (and in fact, a liar and a traitor)? In any case, the speculation that Johnson might be lying about this is not supported in any published source; it is not up to wikipedia editors to publish such conjecture.--csloat 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. But because kids read these things, I will explain it to you anyway. If Johnson previously supported Bush, then he cannot be dismissed as just another left-wing anti-Bush wacko when he criticizes the Bush administration on the Plame matter. So when he says he was a supporter of Bush while criticizing the Bush administration in the same breath, it sounds suspicious. If Johnson truly supported Bush, where is the paper trail? Why didn't he donate to, volunteer for, or endorse the campaign? Apparently, when you write that Johnson supported Bush, you mean that he voted for Bush. Since Americans vote via secret ballot, it can never be proven how he voted. So that's why this article will say that he said he voted for President Bush in 2000. Good day! --24.55.228.56 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, the third party confirmation that Johnson supported Bush is in the article. But let's follow your logic -- where is Johnson's passport or photocopy of his driver's license? How do we know that is really his name? Shouldn't we change this article to The person who claims to go by the name Larry C. Johnson? You're making ludicrous charges. Lots of people who supported Bush did not contribute money. And your credibility argument is just ludicrous. If "it sounds suspicious" that he changed his impression of Bush after the war started, doesn't that hurt his credibility rather than help it? Again, you are totally contradicting yourself in your crusade to tarnish this person's credibility. Until you cite a source that actually questions his credibility on that issue, your questioning of it is original research.--csloat 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying to smear Johnson?

I have no objection to legitimate criticism of Johnson on this page, but the smears that this anon user keeps posting simply do not belong here. This is not the place to speculate that he might be lying about facts that nobody else contests. There is no reason to add "he claims" to his support of Bush or to other claims that went uncontested during his sworn testimony. There is also no reason to give so much space to the whine that Johnson looked at the world with a pre-911 mindset -- before September 11th. Such claims are thrown in here only to impugn his credibility, and they do not add anything to the encyclopedia. They also don't make any sense - we've established above that there is no logic to the claim that Johnson would lie about formerly supporting Bush, and the whine about his pre-911 mindset is just idiotic, and he answers it clearly. There is no need for so many paragraphs on it at all, but if it's going to be put in here, it must be put in the context that it actually became an issue - that is, the context of a conservative smear campaign.--csloat 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On Hatch - Hatch reads the papers like everyone else. Such a significant claim would not go unnoticed by the conservative media if it were false. Even the Weekly Standard has not published anything challenging this claim. The only reason you keep doing this is because you want people to view Johnson as some kind of liar, yet you can't find a single source to back up your BS. Please knock it off; Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. If you think Johnson is a liar, write an article about it, get it published, and maybe it will get picked up by the mainstream media -- in which case then there might be a reason for someone to include this silliness in wikipedia.--csloat 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is smearing Johnson and I resent the accusation. I am simply trying to maintain NPOV in the article. Your suggestion that too much is being made of his pre-9/11 column downplaying the risk of terrorism is pure POV. He held himself out as an international expert on intelligence and security and yet he was 100% wrong on the threat the US faced. That's pretty significant. csloat, you are a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. Your m.o. is to accuse others of POV pushing while repeatedly reverting their edits.[2] I won't be pushed around by a POV bully.--24.55.228.56 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are smearing Johnson; there is no other reason to add qualifiers to sentences that are not contested by anyone in the world. Actually, when the article is read in context, he is not 100% wrong, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is I am not resisting this information being put in the article at all; I am simply stating that it is not that big a deal -- everyone had a pre-911 mindset before 911, and the few who didn't - like Clarke, Scheuer - were seen as paranoid. The only reason Johnson's pre-911 views have been made an issue is to make a nonsensical smear against him. I am not pushing you around; I am trying to keep the article useful and relevant and free of idiotic statements and right wing propaganda.

As far as his expertise goes, please point to a single source actually questioning his expertise. Something other than innuendo based on something he wrote before 911. There is no need for personal attacks; I am not a "bully." If you are not trying to smear Johnson, why is it you insist on implying that he is a liar by putting qualifiers in every statement, when those statements are not contested by anyone on earth?--csloat 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW - If anyone doubts that you are a POV pusher, they can read your blog remarks on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair here: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 After reading it, no one will be surprised by your repeated POV edits here.--24.55.228.56 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed not to have a POV; but I am not interested in pushing it on Wikipedia. What I write on a blog and what I write in Wikipedia have different goals. I'm sure you are capable of understanding that.--csloat 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, it's just a coincidence that your Blog and your editing here have similar POV (anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-Iraq War, pro-Larry Johnson). LOL! (BTW - I love the Plamegate poll!)[3] If you have strong opinions about an issue or a person, it's probably best if you refrain from editing articles about them. --24.55.228.56 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's advice I see you won't take. Of course, since you are afraid to get an account here and edit under a pseudonym, I can't call you out on your POV by pointing to a blog. But I can point to your edits, which have been relentlessly singleminded. Whereas anyone who looks at my edit history can see that I am not pushing a particular POV but putting in information that I have some knowledge or expertise about. As I said above, the goal of writing on a blog and the goal of editing an encyclopedia are two different ones.--csloat 04:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Csloat reversion

I am reverting recent edits by anon ip because (1) he changed the pre-911 section to eliminate the context of why this became an issue. This is all garbage - part of a right-wing smear campaign led by the Weakly standard. I mean really, this whole point is that Johnson had a pre-9/11 mindset ... before 9/11. But I'm not deleting this section, even though I think it should be deleted; I am simply keeping it in context, which is that Johnson's pre-9/11 column was not a significant issue until he came out against the war and it was then brought up in the weakly standard. (2) I am deleting the added quote because it is totally misleading -- read the rest of the article it is from rather than cherry picking the one sentence that seems to support the opposite side. The very paragraph that your quote is from also says "According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991." He also concludes that any connections between Iraq and transnational terrorists (eg al Qaeda) were attempts to respond to the coming US invasion: "Nonetheless, it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden." And of course the paper concludes that a US invasion will massively increase Iraqi terrorism (a prediction which turned out to be totally accurate). I think it is better to just delete the quote rather than add all this context.--csloat 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat, well known POV warrior and blogger, wants people to believe that Johnson's misguided column in the NYT was first criticized by conservatives in the Weekly Standard years after it was published. In fact, a liberal publication, Slate magazine, criticized the column two weeks after it was published. That reference goes back in. Also, Sloat has added voluminous quotes in the article in an illfated attempt to make Johnson more understandable. The quote I added goes back in and the other quotes will be trimmed back to normal size.--24.55.228.56 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Slate is not a partisan magazine that I know of. Please stop the name-calling and address the arguments; it is getting tedious to have to refute smears from an anonymous user who berates me until he loses the argument and then disappears beneath a stack of Weekly Standards until he can figure out a new way to smear Johnson on an encyclopedia. The Slate column was not notable until after it was revived by right wing pundits, and that is a fact. As far as the quotes go, you are selectively quoting in order to mischaracterize Johnson's views - I would rather delete them completely but since you insist on them, I will insist that they reflect his claims accurately - if that means extending them, that is what we will do. Taking things out of context in order to promote your POV is petty and has no place in an encyclopedia.-csloat 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "name calling" to speak the truth. You are, in fact, a left-wing POV bully and blogger with strong pro-Larry Johnson views on the Plame Affair. People can read your blog here and judge for themselves: here: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 You have attempted to spin, twist, and cherry pick facts in Wikipedia so that it adheres to your POV. Regarding Slate Magazine, it was founded by Michael Kinsley, the liberal side of Crossfire, published by the Washington Post and edited by Jacob Weisberg. That might not be liberal from your POV perspective, but it would be for the rest of America. As for being anonymous, I can find no listing in my phone directory for a "Commodore Sloat." Good day!--24.55.228.56 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is deja vu. I have responded to your name-calling about my blog already; it is just not relevant here. Slate is not a partisan source - it may have been founded by liberals but that is not the same as the Nation or the Weekly Standard which are openly partisan sources - my comment was not about how its founders vote, which is irrelevant. I don't care if you want to be anonymous - I am just getting tired of responding to your name-calling and such. Your edits are openly mendacious -- you take quotes out of context to make it appear as if he is saying something different. I don't mind anyone anonymously editing if they do so with truth as their goal; that does not seem to be the case with your edits. In any case, I see you are granting the rest of my points about these edits, so please stop reverting. I've tried to address your concerns by trimming the quote section and building the information there into the body of the page. Hopefully we can improve the article, not get in little fights about whose territory it is.--csloat 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop the POV Pushing

Larry Johnson is an obscure anti-Iraq War activist known for two things:

1. He wrote a column two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, in which he argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism, titled The Declining Terrorist Threat. Since he holds himself out as a terrorism expert, this column is a significant embarrassment.

2. He attempted to insert himself into the Valerie Plame scandal by asserting that Plame was an "undercover" CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003."[4] However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's CIA status from 1990 to 2003. His assertion calls into question his credibility on other topics.

The attempt here to puff up Johnson as a hero, a victim, or as a someone who accurately predicted terrorist acts is pure POV. I will continue to correct it and revert it when appropriate. --24.55.228.56 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He was never known for #1 until after #2 when he testified to the Senate special committee. Plame's CIA status is obvious because as I said above the CIA is the only entity in a position to tell anyone her status, and the CIA made it clear. Nobody has puffed Johnson into a hero or victim - show me those words on the page please and we can deal with such issues. All I am doing is showing the contexts for the various quotes you pull out of context. You have not responded to my arguments about this above.--csloat 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean he wasn't known for no. 1 until after he testified before the democratic senators in 2005? He was criticized by Slate Magazine, a national news source, just 10 days after 9/11 on September 21, 2001.[5] That was 3 1/2 years before his testimony! This is an example of your attempt to paint Johnson as a victim of a right-wing cabal. It is simply not true. As for the CIA making Plame's status clear, that is an outright lie. Cite that claim. The CIA has never discussed whether Plame was a covert agent when Robert Novak published his column. You are making up facts to suit your POV.--24.55.228.56 05:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So? Should we have a wikipedia article about every article in Slate? Come on. Nobody else talked about that Slate article; this was simply not news - just an example of a former intel analyst that Slate thinks got things wrong. This was not an issue for anyone until 2005; this article was forgotten until then. Again, who cares about all this? Johnson made a reasonable argument in 2000; and as you can see from the rest of the quotes he was clear on the threat from al-Qaeda. Slate quoted only part of the article in order to make him sound completely surprised by 9/11 -- but really, so what if he was? A lot of people were, certainly most of the Bush Administration. Johnson is not a victim of anyone, but it is true that there are some right wing pundits who tried to use this article to smear him. Nothing new in the world of politics. The CIA did claim Plame was covert; see it yourself in my response to your talk page, or just use your brain. Do you expect us to believe Johnson is the one who said her cover was blown? You think the Justice Department will stop in its tracks for a former CIA employee's unfounded allegations? Of course not. They investigated because they got a call from the CIA. I can't believe anyone still holds the position you claim to hold - it makes it difficult to take you seriously.--csloat 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: The following discussion of the Larry C. Johnson article is being moved from my talk page to the Larry C. Johnson discussion page where it belongs.--24.55.228.56 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the nonsense on Larry C. Johnson

Please do not make wholesale changes to the article without responding to discussion in talk. Name-calling and verbal abuse is not enough; you need to actually address the arguments. You are steamrolling reversions with no regard for the WP:3RR and without responding to specific arguments against these reverts. I see you engage in similar behavior on other articles according to what I see on this page. Your actions are destructive of wikipedia goals.--csloat 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My actions are constructive and in defense of wikipedia. I am drawn to articles where an editor with extreme POV on a given topic, such as Commodore Sloat, attempts to repeatedly insert POV into that topic and bully others. I will not be bullied. Larry C. Johnson is an obscure bit player in the Valerie Plame scandal. Johnson attempted to insert himself into the Plame story by asserting that Plame was a covert CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003. However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's status. Commodore Sloat is a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. He writes an anti-Bush blog and has strong views on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 He even has a Plamegate poll![6] Commodore Sloat should not be editing wikipedia articles when he has strong POV views on the subject. I will continue to fight efforts by POV bullies to force their views on others via wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The CIA, not Larry Johnson, asked the DoJ to look into the revealing of the identity of a covert agent. The CIA is the only entity who can tell us whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert, and they have made it clear that she was covert. Johnson never claimed to be revealing information that was not known or unique to him on this matter (and that is not even an issue on the article so it is really irrelevant anyway). I'm glad you are impressed by the Plame poll on my site, but it really has nothing to do with my contributions to wikipedia. I try to evidence every change I make with an edit summary or longer discussion in talk, as per wikipedia policy. The fact that this strategy is up front does not make me a "bully." I do not try to force my views; I show evidence for what I believe to be accurate. I do not make edits to push a POV and I back off when counter-evidence shows that I was wrong about something. In the case of the Johnson page, I made a number of edits that improve readability and explain context; I justified each change with a lengthy discussion on the talk page. You wholesale reverted all these changes without so much as a reasonable edit summary; in talk you just call me names and point to my blog but you don't respond to the substance of any of the issues raised.--csloat 02:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you have only attempted to insert your POV in the article suggesting that Larry Johnson is a hero for taking on the Bush administration. Contrary to your comment above, the CIA has never taken a position on whether Plame was covert. Nor has the independent counsel who is investigating the matter. However, Larry C. Johnson has asserted "For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."[7]. Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003.--24.55.228.56 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the Justice Dept ever investigated the Valerie Wilson affair is because the CIA took a position on whether she was covert. The CIA brought this case to the Justice Department; Larry Johnson didn't. That is a basic fact that none of the right wing speculation about whether she travelled out of the country has ever refuted. That's a nice quote from Johnson but as you well know, you can find almost the exact same quote uttered by Patrick Fitzgerald. I am not sure why you are on a vendetta against Johnson regarding this point when it was a point made by the CIA and the Justice Department, and a point the Bush Administration has not publicly contested. Johnson has not claimed any special knowledge of Plame's post-1989 status; he has simply explained the same point that has been made in the New York Times, by Patrick Fitzgerald, and by the CIA (among others). This really isn't a controversial point outside of the world of right-wing bloggers and the OReilly Factor. --csloat 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"The only reason the Justice Dept ever investigated the Valerie Wilson affair is because the CIA took a position on whether she was covert." This statement is a lie. Cite it. You can't because it never occurred. This is exactly the POV nonsense you have been spewing in the Johnson and Plame articles. When asked whether Plame was covert, Patrick Fitzgerald said, "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward." Fitzgerald has never said Plame was covert. Johnson was the first to make the covert claim on July 13, 2003. Elisabeth Bumiller's NYT article did not come out until Oct 5, 2003, and no source is cited for her outrageous allegation.--24.55.228.56 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the freaking indictment yourself, or just use your brain. Who do you theorize asked the Justice Dept to investigate? Johnson? The Democrats? This is not POV nonsense; these are the facts -- you can read about it yourself in any newspaper account. Fitzgerald was not asked whether Plame was covert before saying that; read the transcript yourself. Fitzgerald said she had a cover that was blown. Johnson was not the first to make the covert claim; the Justice Dept was already investigating the issue by then. Please show me the article by Johnson on July 13 -- I have not seen it. A quick search shows me that this is likely the first mention of her status, and it is pretty clearly confirmed by intelligence officials. Her "allegation" is not "outrageous"; it is the clear conclusion of intelligence officials, likely the CIA. Seriously, what is your theory on who asked the Dept of Justice to investigate this crime? You think they would just do so on Larry Johnson's word if the CIA did not indicate she was covert? It doesn't matter of course since that is not our dispute here - you have taken this far afield of the topic at hand. --csloat 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This thread will be moved to the Larry C. Johnson talk page so please respond there. I don't want to clutter my page with this silliness. Of course, I have read the indictment. [8] It does not say that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate the matter. Nor does it say the CIA took a position on whether Plame was covert. In fact, the DOJ initiated the investigation on its own. The DOJ did not need the CIA, the Democrats, or anyone else to ask it to initiate the investigation. And that's what every news account said.[9] Again, on July 13, 2003, Larry C. Johnson was the first to allege that "For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."[10]. (Click on the footnote preceding this sentence to read his words as he published them.) Never mind that Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003. He is a fraud who purports to know things he cannot know. All other articles that say Plame was undercover either cite Larry C. Johnson or no source at all. Please respond only to the Larry C. Johnson talk page. Thank you!--24.55.228.56 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not make changes to the article based on information on your talk page. I am reverting your changes wholesale as you have not addressed the issues. The fact that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate is in every news account that tells you the history. Look at factcheck.org's timeline or look at the July 22 article I linked in response to this silliness. Your claims about the CIA are ludicrous. Look, the CIA and DOJ are in the same town. They have each others' numbers in their Rolodexes. They make room on each others' calendars for meetings when they need to, and they certainly would have done so before spending who knows how many taxpayer dollars on an investigation that could have been settled with a five minute phone call. If Plame was not covert there would have been no investigation. But that's not the issue at issue on this page at all, which makes this conversation ludicrous. This page is about Larry Johnson. If you have evidence that he is a "fraud," please cite it -- not your own speculation, but show me published verification that someone in their right mind believes your theory. You are simply misinformed about the articles that say she is undercover - there is a Newsday article that I linked you to before that says intelligence officials (not former hacks who haven't worked their in 20 years, which seems to be your view of Johnson) confirmed she was undercover at the time of the outing. Besides, do you really believe the DOJ would initiate an investigation at Larry Johnson's urging?--csloat 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - you seem to think that Johnson's 7/13 TPMCafe article is a big deal because it seems to be the first to identify her as undercover -- but the issue is not who was the first to use the word "undercover" at all. Johnson, obviously, is not under investigation here, and nobody (except you, to my knowledge) has accused Johnson of being the one who "outed" her. If you think he should be, it is simply not wikipedia's job to put something like that on the national agenda. You may wish to send a copy of Johnson's article to Fitzpatrick with a note attached. If you think this article should mention that article, I don't have a problem with it - there is already a quote from it on the page anyway. But I cannot understand what you're suggesting with all this - do you think Johnson was lying when he said Novak outed an undercover agent? Do you think he just misspoke? Then why did intelligence officials confirm that she was undercover a few days later? And do you think that the DOJ investigation started in motion because Johnson used the word "undercover"? Or do you think he is the one who outed her? (as if that could somehow blow her cover further?) This argument is just nonsense, literally. And, finally, it has no relevance to the recent changes whatsoever, so please do not revert everything again based on a snippy response to all this stuff.--csloat 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat wrote: Fitzgerald was not asked whether Plame was covert before saying that; read the transcript yourself.' People can read the transcript here. The following is the question and answer word for word:

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

Contrary to Commodore Sloat's lie, it is clear the covert question was asked and answered by the special prosecutor exactly as I stated. POV warriors are destroying wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Sir, I must ask you to stop the personal attacks. I have never lied about this. Frankly you are the one who is wrong here - read the question again yourself. "Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert" Not "Can you say whether Valerie Wilson's identity was covert" - it is clear, in fact, that the questioner is aware it was covert. Please attempt to employ basic reading comprehension before calling other people liars.--csloat 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

changes to the page

The argument above may be interesting for people interested in trivia about the Plame affair, but it has nothing to do with any of the edits that have been reverted. These edits revert edits by me that were carefully explained one by one. The argument above is not responsive at all to those explanations. Therefore I am reverting.--csloat 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How absurd. You repeatedly attempt to create the impression that the criticism of Johnson's article was a right wing attempt to discredit him. It wasn't. And it is documented on this talk page. Also, as discussed here, the quotes you have added are excessive and will be trimmed back. I will also begin editing those other sections discussed here to restore NPOV.--24.55.228.56 11:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not attempt to create that impression; the pundits who smeared him did. And most of the world is not talking about this - it's a trivial point. Looked at in context, the smears were wrong. He was quoted out of context and the report used against him in an absurd argument that really has no effect on his credibility - so what if he wrote something in 2001 that you consider incorrect? By the way I am reverting your silliness on the Hatch/Republican issue - we put that one to bed weeks ago. You never responded to the arguments, yet you keep coming back to this stupidity. There are exactly no press accounts questioning Johnson's Republican past or his relationship with Hatch. There is no reason to insert stuff like "He believes..." when there is no reason not to believe what is represented. Shall we insert that George Bush "believes he is a Christian"? Come on.--csloat 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked over each of your changes and will be reverting it all back. In every case your version is less readable and more POV. Your changes mostly amounted to a revert to your earlier versions with minor changes. The big issues have all been argued here and you have conceded every relevant argument. A few other specific points:

1. Intro - without explanation, anon erased information that was sourced (e.g. "decorated veteran" and inserted the false claim that Johnson is "known for his controversial claim that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent when her name was released in a column by Robert Novak."[11]. Skeptics contend that he left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003." I am reverting; this is not what he is known for; the claim is not controversial, and there is no skeptics other than this anon editor who contends this.

2. I am reverting the section on Republican ties because its whole purpose is to cast doubt on something that has not been questioned anywhere but wikipedia. If Johnson is lying it is not up to WP to call him on it. We are free to quote from media accounts which call him a liar if that is happening anywhere.

3. I am reverting the stuff on the pre-9/11 column because the version I made is more complete and more readable. The column itself is only part of his pre-9/11 views; there is no reason to select out of context only those views which you want to argue against.

4. Anon erased without explanation the section on the 2003 advice to Bremer, which is certainly more significant to who Johnson is today than anything he wrote in 2001.

5. Anon erased those quotations or parts of quotations that don't support his view of Johnson (which is obviously unfavorable). I prefer to keep quotes and views in context.

6. The hearing was a joint Senate-House meeting of Democrats. We need to find a better way to phrase it but neither of us is correct yet.

Finally: if you have quotations from someone smearing Johnson feel free to insert them. But do not use this as a forum from which to smear him yourself. Hints that he might be lying, that he was the real boogieman in the Plame affair, etc., have no place here if they are not part of the public discourse about this issue. I have not erased your quotes from Slate about this but I will continue to delete random conjecture from anonymous editors.--csloat 13:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

His blogging

Should it be included that he posts his writings on several group blog sites such as Booman Tribune? [12]. Add the Political blogger category. --waffle iron 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

When, exactly was this Written

In an expanded version of this argument, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:

The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals assoicated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.

DTC 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is this is from 2001, that it is a longer presentation that he based his 2001 editorial on.-csloat 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation on that? DTC 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim to have one. I said that was my understanding of it -- I don't recall where I read that, nor do I have any reason to doubt it (read the piece yourself, it's pretty easy to date based on the information in the text), and I'm not here to do research for you. If you doubt something, look it up yourself.--csloat 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot cite it outside of a blog, then it should reflect the unknown nature of the information. Please refresh yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. DTC 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What is unknown about this? The exact date of publication? Feel free to add in the entry that this piece appears to have been written between 2000-2001 based on the dates referenced in the article. Or email Larry Johnson yourself to find out for sure. I have not objected to any such clarification of the exact date of a particular article.--csloat 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats the problem, as stated the article says it was written around the same time as the Op-ed piece, what if it were written well after. DTC 01:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To the anon writer

Stop the nonsense please. Every single one of my changes was carefully argued for above and you conceded every argument; the only point you contested is a trivial one about the Plame affair -- even if you thought you won that argument, it has no effect whatsoever on your proposed changes to the article -- it's simply not relevant. What is relevant are specific changes that I took the time and energy to spell out and justify one by one. You are simply reverting out of spite because you have a different POV, but you can't actually defend it in discussion. This has become a conduct problem rather than a content dispute -- your behavior is incivil and repugnant to wikipedia. Please stop.--csloat 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the NPOV tag until the issues are hammered out and people can come to an agreement. Please listen to each other!--Ombudsperson 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are adding the NPOV tag, can you please specify the NPOV problem you see? I am happy to work with others and support changes that actually improve the article. But I can't accept an article that is rife with original research whose only purpose is to hammer away at a particular POV. As I have said over and over - if there is published criticism of Johnson, let's have it, but random speculation by anonymous editors is not encyclopedic. Please indicate what NPOV problem there is in this version of the article and let's address it. Thank you.--csloat 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one more thing - we cannot come to an agreement when one user refuses to argue and prefers to steamroll his edits instead. I justified every single change; the anonymous user ignored every argument and reverted the page anyway. If there is a specific matter that the NPOV tag is meant to address, let's address it; otherwise, the tag should be removed.--csloat 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you are one of the two parties engaging in an edit war, it may be difficult to see the other side. Without question, NPOV is disputed here (which is all the tag says). Hopefully both parties will respect the tag until agreement can be reached. I will do what I can to mediate. What issues do you think the anon has not addressed? --Ombudsperson 00:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What issues do you think he *has* addressed? I listed six specific reasons for my changes above; they are even numbered; he did not address a single one. Prior to that I argued for my version in the following way (quoting myself directly):

I am reverting recent edits by anon ip because (1) he changed the pre-911 section to eliminate the context of why this became an issue. This is all garbage - part of a right-wing smear campaign led by the Weakly standard. I mean really, this whole point is that Johnson had a pre-9/11 mindset ... before 9/11. But I'm not deleting this section, even though I think it should be deleted; I am simply keeping it in context, which is that Johnson's pre-9/11 column was not a significant issue until he came out against the war and it was then brought up in the weakly standard. (2) I am deleting the added quote because it is totally misleading -- read the rest of the article it is from rather than cherry picking the one sentence that seems to support the opposite side. The very paragraph that your quote is from also says "According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991." He also concludes that any connections between Iraq and transnational terrorists (eg al Qaeda) were attempts to respond to the coming US invasion: "Nonetheless, it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden." And of course the paper concludes that a US invasion will massively increase Iraqi terrorism (a prediction which turned out to be totally accurate). I think it is better to just delete the quote rather than add all this context.--csloat 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, he did not address a single one of these issues. Instead he just called me names. I am bringing up specific points justifying each change. I am happy to debate each point with him, but he refuses to do that. Instead he calls me names and reverts everything. The goal of wikipedia is not to find "agreement" among members when some are determined to disagree no matter what. We will never agree, but if he presents arguments that I either find compelling or simply cannot answer, I back off.

You are the one who brought up the NPOV tag; that is only constructive if you have a specific NPOV issue you would like to see addressed. So far nobody has articulated one. An anobnymous editor accusing me of being a "POV bully" is not a specific issue.--csloat 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another example of arguments he simply ignored --

I am reverting your changes wholesale as you have not addressed the issues. The fact that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate is in every news account that tells you the history. Look at factcheck.org's timeline or look at the July 22 article I linked in response to this silliness. Your claims about the CIA are ludicrous. Look, the CIA and DOJ are in the same town. They have each others' numbers in their Rolodexes. They make room on each others' calendars for meetings when they need to, and they certainly would have done so before spending who knows how many taxpayer dollars on an investigation that could have been settled with a five minute phone call. If Plame was not covert there would have been no investigation. But that's not the issue at issue on this page at all, which makes this conversation ludicrous. This page is about Larry Johnson. If you have evidence that he is a "fraud," please cite it -- not your own speculation, but show me published verification that someone in their right mind believes your theory. You are simply misinformed about the articles that say she is undercover - there is a Newsday article that I linked you to before that says intelligence officials (not former hacks who haven't worked their in 20 years, which seems to be your view of Johnson) confirmed she was undercover at the time of the outing. Besides, do you really believe the DOJ would initiate an investigation at Larry Johnson's urging?--csloat 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - you seem to think that Johnson's 7/13 TPMCafe article is a big deal because it seems to be the first to identify her as undercover -- but the issue is not who was the first to use the word "undercover" at all. Johnson, obviously, is not under investigation here, and nobody (except you, to my knowledge) has accused Johnson of being the one who "outed" her. If you think he should be, it is simply not wikipedia's job to put something like that on the national agenda. You may wish to send a copy of Johnson's article to Fitzpatrick with a note attached. If you think this article should mention that article, I don't have a problem with it - there is already a quote from it on the page anyway. But I cannot understand what you're suggesting with all this - do you think Johnson was lying when he said Novak outed an undercover agent? Do you think he just misspoke? Then why did intelligence officials confirm that she was undercover a few days later? And do you think that the DOJ investigation started in motion because Johnson used the word "undercover"? Or do you think he is the one who outed her? (as if that could somehow blow her cover further?) This argument is just nonsense, literally. And, finally, it has no relevance to the recent changes whatsoever, so please do not revert everything again based on a snippy response to all this stuff.--csloat 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is he wants to put WP:NOR speculation into the article -- insinuate that Johnson must have been lying, when there is no support for such a claim in any published account of these events, for example. --csloat 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Challenge to Anon

I have added the NPOV tag because of your ongoing dispute with csloat. Csloat said that he has attempted to discuss issues with you but you have not addressed 6 points which he has numbered (please see above). It would be appreciated if you would please address each of his 6 points before making any changes to the article.--Ombudsperson 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to mediate. Please add to the six points the other points that I quoted in the section immediately above; the most important ones, I believe, are in the section that begins "I am reverting your changes wholesale." Thanks!--csloat 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think every one of csloat's points has been discussed in detail already, but I will rehash them again to satisfy ombudsperson before I revert the article:

1. It is clear from Johnson's bio that he is not a veteran. Unlike me, he has never served in the military.[13] He was an analyst in the CIA. To call him a veteran is an insult to those who have actually served in the armed services. He said he received "exceptional service awards" while serving as an analyst. I guess he is a "veteran" like csloat is a veteran of wiki edit wars. The suggestion that he is a "decorated veteran" is offensive partisan hyperbole, if not altogether false.

It is an absolute fact that Johnson is primarily "known for his controversial claim that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent when her name was released in a column by Robert Novak. Skeptics contend that he left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003. If he is not known for this, what is he known for? His ridiculous NYT article? His claim that Plame was covert is incredibly controversial, and there are numerous skeptics other than this editor who contend this.[14][15]

2. csloat wrote, "I am reverting the section on Republican ties because its whole purpose is to cast doubt on something that has not been questioned anywhere but wikipedia. If Johnson is lying it is not up to WP to call him on it. We are free to quote from media accounts which call him a liar if that is happening anywhere." No one referred to Johnson as a liar on this issue. However, we need to source material in wiki. When Johnson is himself the source, it should be noted. And yes, others have done the same.[16]

3. csloat wrote, "I am reverting the stuff on the pre-9/11 column because the version I made is more complete and more readable. The column itself is only part of his pre-9/11 views; there is no reason to select out of context only those views which you want to argue against." First, everyone can plainly see that csloat made the article more confusing and less readable. Second, the NYT column "The Declining Terrorist Threat" stands by itself. (The title speaks volumes- LOL!) In true POV fashion, Csloat attempts to defend Johnson by introducing ancillary material that was not in his NYT column. BTW - Johnson had previously downplayed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in a Frontline piece which I will introduce to this article.

4. csloat wrote, "Anon erased without explanation the section on the 2003 advice to Bremer, which is certainly more significant to who Johnson is today than anything he wrote in 2001." There is absolutely nothing of significance in the paper he wrote to Bremer. There is nothing profound and nothing predicted that a H.S. student couldn't have forseen. The only noteworthy thing he has written is where he departed from conventional wisdom by telling America that we have little to fear from Islamic terrorism two months before 9/11 (i.e, the NYT article).

5. csloat wrote, "Anon erased those quotations or parts of quotations that don't support his view of Johnson (which is obviously unfavorable). I prefer to keep quotes and views in context." The quotes in the Johnson article exceed the other text. Not even Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin have that much space dedicated to quotes. Csloat has placed excessively large quotations in the article that are inappropriate. Johnson's brief quotes are often so absurd, csloat tries to bury them in a giant paragraph. The quotes simply need to be trimmed back. I tried to leave part of all quotes by trimming them back to one or two salient sentences. In fact, it is Csloat that has deleted quotes that don't support his view of Johnson (e.g., "There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks."

6. csloat wrote that, "The hearing was a joint Senate-House meeting of Democrats. We need to find a better way to phrase it but neither of us is correct yet." This is first acknowledgement from Csloat that this was a partisan Democratic meeting. And yet he continues to write "U.S. Senate hearing." Why?

Now that those have been answered, I will now revert Csloat's POV edit. I am getting tired so I will address his other unnumbered points later. --24.55.228.56 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)