Talk:Plame affair

Let me ask a quick question: why don't we have a single picture of Valerie Plame in this entire article? User:Ich Ich 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Boilerplate Templates

The Plame affair page is linked from Jurist, an Internet site. Added April 20, 2006

Template:TrollWarning

Archives

• Talk:Plame affair\Archive1
• Talk:Plame affair\Archive2

Additional indictments coming your way

Looks like Fitzgerald will soon be pressing more indictments in the Plame scandal. As expected, it is likely that Rove and/or Hadley will come under the gun in the coming weeks. We're likely to see more perjury and obstruction charges as well as possible conspiracy charges.--csloat 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Or ... perhaps not. Quoting from the very article you linked to: Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them. Brandon39 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. sure, spoil my fun.  ;) --csloat 08:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple question. Is there anywhere else that your bias has made its way into the page? Evensong 04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty uncivil, and seemingly rhetorical question. Please be civil. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a civil question. I Expect a civil answer. Answer the question.Evensong 05:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still uncivil, and getting rude. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RyanFreisling is the rude and uncivil one here. RyanFreisling, please stop attempting to intimidate editors who seek to root out bias and restore NPOV. You have been warned.--Mr j galt 08:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, J galt's back after his post-RfC absence. Good to see you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your were discussing politeness, Ryan.Evensong 10:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer the question.Evensong 08:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How many copies are there?

In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, [sources] said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.[1] Nomen Nescio 16:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rove wasn't indicted. So much for "unnamed sources". June 20, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.51.25 (talk • contribs)

Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them.

this article is just more wishful thinking. if fitzgerald is still only considering additional charges, the argument can be made that he has a weak case. Anthonymendoza 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

More new information on this. According to Leopold, Fitzgerald has known the identity of the leaker for a while now thanks to John Hannah, who has been cooperating with the government on this. "the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.... In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley." Leopold acknowledges that "the situation remains fluid," so the bottom line is, we still don't know what Fitzgerald will do next, but the argument that he has a weak case is still crumbling.--csloat 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to the now weekly post from csloat on how more Plame Affair indictments are coming. I think another perjury indictment is very possible, but based on the Chicago Tribune piece[2] and the reaction to Libby's defense, it does not appear that Fitzgerald has any evidence to support his claim that Plame was covert. If Plame was not covert (as many suspect), I doubt there will be any indictments on the substantive issues. We shall see. --Mr j galt 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The sources said late Monday that it may take more than a month before Fitzgerald presents the paperwork outlining the government's case against one or both of the officials and asks the grand jury to return an indictment, because he is currently juggling quite a few high-profile criminal cases and will need to carve out time to write up the indictment and prepare the evidence.

So if there are no indictments in the next month or so, can we officially end all of this madness!! Anthonymendoza 03:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The special counsel appointed in late December 2003 to investigate the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson found out the identity of the Bush administration official who disclosed her undercover status to syndicated columnist Robert Novak just two months after the probe began.

Soooo .... two years ago Fitzgerald had accomplished the mission for which he was appointed -- i.e., he knew who had leaked. At which point he should have either issued indictments against that person (if Plame was covert), or simply terminated the investigation (if not). Instead he continued on, trying to build a perjury trap to justify his existence -- in direct contravention of DoJ guidelines. Nice. Brandon39 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory. It doesn't have much to do with reality, of course. But while we're all engaged in rampant speculation about what might or might not be coming down the pipe, this article is quite an interesting read.--csloat 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

just don't hold your breath waiting for a rove indictment. [3][4][5][6] Anthonymendoza 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just in:

• A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter."[7]

• Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.[8]-- Nomen Nescio 19:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is quite an unfortunate time to have the article in a destroyed state. Wikipedia is putting its worst foot forward. :( --NightMonkey 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the Vice President in having his name cleared. Though defendant knew that another White House official had spoken to Novak in advance of Novak’s column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson’s wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him.

I found this quite interesting as well in reading the newly released court documents. Anthonymendoza 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming?

Whether the renaming is a good idea? Using Google hits:

• CIA leak scandal 2,320,000 (117,000) deleted from article?
• Plamegate 709,000 (49,900)
• Plame affair 665,000 (344,000) removed name?
• Wilson-Plame Scandal 45,200 (501) new name?
• Wilsongate 949 (949)

The second number is the hits with the name in "". Apparently Google favours Plamegate and the new name is at least less common. Nomen Nescio 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The renaming was a stupid idea by someone who has not even been active on this page. I wrote a note on his talk page and I tried to move the page back but it won't let me. We need an administrator to intervene. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to change the name -- especially after we agreed on a name after a long debate about a year ago -- they should at least mention a reason on talk. The edit summary just calls the old name POV, which is ridiculous -- the new name is far more POV ("scandal"), and the word "scandal" was specifically rejected when discussing this page name a long time ago. I hope someone can fix this; I tried to move it back and was stymied.--csloat 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's just as much evidence now to call this the 'Cheney-Bush-Libby-Novak-Plame Scandal' as the current title (which is quite inferior, imho). I fully support a restoration to 'Plame Affair', so we can get back to work, or at least reach consensus about the title. Changing it without discussion here, as was done my Merecat, seems bad form indeed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The article page is redirected. That's why renaming does not work. Nomen Nescio 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I have put in a request to move this page back. This is ludicrous that someone moved it without any discussion, to an obviously inferior name. The name violates wikipedia policy - at the least, "scandal" should not be capitalized - and it is ridiculously POV compared to the Plame affair title, which obviously has the most google hits above. I do not know why Merecat (talk · contribs) made this ridiculous change, but nobody should make such radical changes in a page name without proposing it in talk first.--csloat 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This name lacks currency. Guettarda 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The name is highly uncommon, return to previous which is more frequently used. Nomen Nescio 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This name is inaccurate. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above.-csloat 20:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps a better name exists for this moving target subject, but the old name is leagues better than the new name. Plus, no Talk (hence no consensus) before the move is very bad form. --NightMonkey 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support No talk or consensus beforehand -- bad form. -- Sholom 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons mentioned above. It was nice of csloat to request the move back rather than immediately reverting the move. (Sorry, I didn't read the previous section about the inability to move the page back).   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kevin Baas^talk 13:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Olessi 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Talk was in order beforehand, yet there was none. Also, there was no talk afterwards. Evensong 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ridiculous change"... that's a super nice comment to maintain decorum! Merecat 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your actions (unilaterally moving a controversial article without discussion) are likely to cause consternation. Shall we focus on the move itself? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is descriptive; it wasn't meant to be "super nice." Any chance we will ever learn of your reasoning behind this move?--csloat 04:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see the change as as POV driven at all. But I also do not see any reason for the change. Why the change? Evensong 06:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would help me to understand why some see this as a POV change. What is in this name if the content remains? Evensong 07:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It was Merecat's edit summary that claimed the change was POV-driven. My best guess is he wants to shift the attention away from the leak scandal and onto some kind of conspiracy allegation that implicates Joe as well as Valerie Wilson in some kind of "scandal." It's a tedious argument that was already dealt with in the article long ago; there is no reason to turn the title into a battleground for that "debate."-csloat 07:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a theory, Csloat. I don't see it. I don't see Merecat's change as POV and I don't see the previous title as POV. So I guess the old adage that the burden to persuade rests with those who would change applies here. Merecat, that burden is currently on you, my friend. Evensong 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Evensong, you seriously don't see how an article's title is also part (an important part) of the article's content, and therefore is subject to WP's policies on NPOV (as well as every other policy)? Why not name it "Baboon Party", then? :) The title of an article should reflect the broadest consensus on how a subject is commonly referred to, in a neutral fashion. In this case, at present, "The Plame Affair" is it, by the best available measures. Cheers! --NightMonkey 07:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that is "what is in a name". Yes, "Baboon Party" would be way out there. But I am really looking for a difference in the actual titles suggested. "Wilson Plame Scandal" versus "Plame Affair". The best objection I have seen is that by using the names Wilson and Plame to precede the term scandal suggests that the two have some ownership over the scandal. But that would also apply to the Plame Affair appelation: Plame would have some ownership over the affair. But yes, Baboon Party, we can agree, is not a good title; at least not yet. Evensong 09:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Evensong, I wouldn't need a "theory" if Merecat would explain himself. And it was he who said the change was for POV reasons; I was just guessing as to what those could possibly be. There was a long and heated debate about what to name this page; as I recall, there was for a long time a note on this talk page suggesting that the name was chosen after a long debate and please don't move this page without talking about it. Perhaps I am misremembering? In any case, it seems to me that "affair" is less obviously POV than "scandal".csloat 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Csloat, you made the comment that Merecat's change was POV driven. You made that comment before your heard an explanation. You therefore do need a theory for your position regardless of Merecat's explanation. Now I agree you and we deserve some sort of explanation, and that a change in title does warrant debate before the change is made, but to help me vote on this issue, I need and deserve to know why the change is allegedly POV driven. Evensong 09:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the edit summary. He says he made the change for POV reasons. I made the comment after the edit summary (the edit summary accompanied the change itself; I am not sure how you can say I commented before hearing this explanation). I was theorizing based on his edit summary, which said it was POV driven. That is still the only information he has given us on this matter.--csloat 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the edit summary. You cited it earilier. That is the reason why I read it. But this is a matter of simple logic. Her claim that the previous title is POV does not mean her edit is POV. It is your claim that the change was made for POV reasons. You have explained why. I don't agree. But Merecat, as I have said, still bears the burden of an explanation. Your explanation, as it stands, will be taken into consideration. Evensong 11:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

let's not debate whatever the reason might be. Fact is that the current name is obscure by Google standards, and the previous one gets the most hits. That in itself warrants reversal of the unexplained change. Nomen Nescio 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not as concerned about google hits as I am about the lack of an explanation. If I don't hear one soon, I am on board with you folks. I'll give her [he] till the end of the day. Evensong 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the move was not previously discussed and has no support (yet), I've moved the page back per WP:SNOW. This does not quite pre-empt the discussion - any moves necessary can be made if the discussion concludes with support for them after 5 days from its beginning. For now, stick with the title the page was stable at for a long time. Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Libby Trial

every few weeks, new court documents are made public, and the trial itself will be rich with information. should a new page be started that deals solely with the court proceedings and upcoming trial? Anthonymendoza 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not expand this page to cover the court proceedings?--csloat 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, but do you think that page would get to be too long? Anthonymendoza 16:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly; I guess it depends what you want to do. I think a simple list of court documents (with links to them) should be somewhere in wikipedia, as well as a brief factual narrative of events; that page is pretty short right now, and such a list could easily be added. But if it becomes an attempt to comb through the documents for juicy revelations that were missed by the mainstream media, it will not only be too long but will become yet another mess of edit wars and conjecture.--csloat 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

there is a section called "court proceedings" on that page. links to court briefings can be put there. i have no desire to comb through the briefs but i see what you are getting at. i'll get it started. Anthonymendoza 02:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

i got it started. please view it and edit how you see fit. thanks. Anthonymendoza 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good ... eventually the name of the article should change too, since it's past the grand jury...--csloat 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Great article

This seems like a great article, with all the right info in it. Now, the only way we can actually get people to read it (if that's the object here) is to cut it down to about half. Before you do that it's gonna be a brilliant article for the people who already know all about the subject. If you actually do it, it will be one of the best articles on Wikipeida... 81.101.139.130 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yellowcake

Things are getting exciting:

• TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.[9]

Nomen Nescio 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The two WaPo pieces of April 9, 2006

The Washington Post had an interesting editorial[10] today that argued that President Bush "was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons." The editorial also argued that Joseph Wilson had twisted the truth and in his Ny Times op-ed piece and that the Bush White House was right to set the record straight. It is nice to see that the liberals at the Washington Post are capable of grasping these issues. RonCram 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the same issue, on Page 1, is an actual news piece (not just an editorial by Mr. Hiatt) called A Concerted Effort to Discredit Bush Critic that states (not just argues):

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq. Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. {...} Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. {...} One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the news story, you quote Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the very man the Post criticized for presenting no evidence of a personal attack against Wilson. None of Fitzgerald's claims refute the fact that Wilson lied in his op-ed. Neither does Fitzgerald seem to understand that the president has the power to declassify documents. The fact they were once classified is of no importance once the president decides to release them. Also, the claim the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share was disproved seems remarkable to me. The Post obviously considers the facts released as relevant and accurate. Just exactly what facts does Fitzgerald think were disproved months before? RonCram 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Fitzgerald addressed that very point. The editorial, and those who now seek in desperation to attack Fitzgerald as a 'last-ditch' effort to deflect the truth, ignores this.

given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to June 14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 — which evidence has been shared with defendant — it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson. [11]

It's not surprising that the administration's spin defense is now shifting to attack Fitzgerald. Took a while, though.

As far as the declassification process, your view of the process may not be the view shared by the originating agency of the information in question (the CIA), hence this investigation. I do find it interesting that in this case, like in the NSA wiretap scandal, we find ourselves talking about blanket assertions of unitary privilege when existing statutes and laws appear violated. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the date proves anything. The point is that Wilson lied and Plame made it possible. Of course, the White House is going to try to set the record straight. If the White House had known she was supposedly a "covert agent," I think they would have handled it differently. But many people knew Plame worked for the CIA who did not know she was supposedly covert. I do not know of a single shred of evidence that the White House knew of the covert claim and without it Fitzgerald simply does not have a case. Regarding the declassification process, I have not heard a single attorney with knowledge of the law in this area say President Bush was not within his rights as president. I have heard some suggest that it was not politically great move given his outspoken opposition to leaks in the past. But there is no question the president has the power to declassify classified information. RonCram 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilson didn't lie. The editorial is flat out wrong and misleading in that respect.

Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove…[T]he Senate panel conclusions didn’t discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn’t solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson’s report didn’t change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue… [12]

Moreover, if Bush and the administration had followed procedure and declassified the information with the involvement of the originating agency (the CIA), they would have avoided outing a covert CIA operative in the first place. Their motive (punishing Wilson and attacking the CIA) was no reason to be declassifying anything, and was in fact in violation of statute. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ryan, you and the Washington Post article took Fiztgerald's words out of context. From your link, here is what Mr. Fitzgerald wrote, in context: [Page 29 in the .pdf].

Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson. Surely, defendant cannot claim that any document on its face that does not reflect a plot is exculpatory.

Clearly, Fiztgerald is quite reasanably addressing the burden of proving a negative. Libby's lawyers are demanding documents showing no white house conspiracy. Fitzgerald responded by argiung that although documents have been provided which may suggest a consiracy, he should not be placed in the burdensome situation of trying to prove the lack of a conspiracy. In short, he's asking "Just how many documents do not a conspiracy make?"

It would have been best to have read the opinion linked before making disparaging accusations of deception. Evensong 10:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read the material, notwithstanding your incivility. And my use of the quote was not at all out of context. As the preceding line states, "given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant". Clearly Fitzgerald is saying that there is no possible evidence able to prove the leak did not occur when there is corroborating evidence from multiple White House sources that it did, and that a document that does not reflect a plot does not constitute evidence against one.

Moreover, I'll, remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating club - so if you had even one edit in the article space, I would be more inclined to a more substantive rebuttal of your accusations. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the discovery request to which Mr. Fitzgerald objects assumes that a leak/discosure occurred, it would be illogical for him to object to the request by arguing that there is no evidence that a leak did not occur.

The burden to which Fitzgerald objects concerns not the burden to prove the absence of a leak, but the burden of showing the absense of a plot to punish Wilson.

Since RonCram's assertion you attempted to refute with the .pdf link to Fitzgerald's brief concerned "evidence of a personal attack against Wilson", and since the title of article being discussed above is "A Concerted Effort to Discredit Bush Critic," it seems like you at one time understood that the gravity of Fitzgerald's objection involved proving the absense of a plot to punish Wilson, not the absense of a leak.

Also, it would appear to me that either this discussion should be had on the CIA leak grand jury investigation page or that a new page discussing Libby's prosecution should be created, if one does not already exist. Evensong 16:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your prevarication has lost me. I -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are lost, then that is probably due to your not understanding Fitz's objection to the discovery request. Read the discovery request, then read the argument underlying the objection. Beacuse as it stands now, you characterization of Fitz's argument is makes no sense in light of the discovery request to which he objects.

As for disparaging my worthiness as an editor due to my lack of edits, I tkae exception. I particpate on the talk page to build consensus in contemplation of future edits. If I do not feel sufficient consensus has been reached, I will not just go ahead and defiantly edit this page. Restraint in an editor is a worthy virtue, particularly on controversial pages such as this one. Evensong 22:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Evensong - you have zero edits. Zero edits. I'm not disparaging you when I say you have not contributed to the article space. I'm not sure what logical basis you have to truly call yourself an editor. 'future edits'? Looking forward to them. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Time to start a Scooter Libby article

I agree with User:Evensong. I really think a new article should be created to cover the Libby indictment. As he has not been criminally charged with outing Plame, his case is more of an offshoot of the Plame Affair and should be treated seperately. There should just be a summary here with a link to the new article. This would also help in shortening this page. And for God's sake this page needs shortening! At over 100k it makes the article on World War II look small! :) --Jayzel 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Libby has been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, by lying to investigators about his disclosure of Plame's identity. I think the Libby case is indeed central to the Plame Affair, but I don't object to a separate article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon user edit war

We've got a new edit war started by 68.39.117.39 (talk · contribs), also using the ip 12.150.11.25 (talk · contribs). This user refuses to explain anything in talk or in the edit summaries but simply makes the changes without discussion. I have already reverted him but he keeps coming back. He is editing like this on several pages -- Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson, and Valerie Plame. I've asked him to stop on the 68.39.117.39 user talk page.--csloat 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Apologies for previous bad behavior, I have now read the rules. Edit - I did not break the 3RR rule, it was csloat who deleted and vandalized all edits on these pages, at least 3 times less than 20 minutes after they were posted, not once did he move any of the factual links, articles, or citations to the talk page, again breaking Wiki rules/spirit about not auto-reverting without discussion w csloat continues to avoid NPOV and put biased POV comments and articles on the above 4 pages. Even his above talk shows his lack of neutrality on this issue, 'Cheney to Fitzgerald: "Want to go quail hunting this weekend?"-csloat 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) '

I attempted to remove the biased POV editorial by the Boston Globe, which is all opinion and no fact. I'm not sure why the belongs on these pages and not the news articles and gov't reports I posted, including but not limited to: The Duelfer Report, The Butler Report, The WaPo, The WaTimes, PBS' 'Capitol Report' show, Senate Intel Committee Reports, The Financial Times, among others.

In addition, all *factual* articles and newslinks I posted, with citation, that show where Joseph Wilson lied, backtracked, retracted earlier comments, or 'mis-spoke,' were deleted. I attempted to add/edit the above sources into the relevant sections of the above 4 pages, but csloat wilfully deleted my changes each time. It is against wiki policy and spirit to remove posts which add factual discussion to the topic at hand and are properly cited. from Wiki NPOV: 'There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people...'

I am happy to repost commentary tomorrow on those pages, without other edits, and leaving the blatant editorializing of the Boston Globe editorial [funny how that works] be for now. That, at a minimum, does not belong and it is a disgrace to remove quotes from the above news sources and leave that be.

csloat---back to you.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kasparoff; why begin your participation here with a series of personal attacks? Whining about my sense of humor is really not the point here, nor does it matter what mine or anyone else's politics are. These pages are edited by people who care about these issues; people who care about these issues tend to have opinions about them. Having an opinion does not make someone incapable of editing in a NPOV manner. As for the specifics, the Boston Globe editorial is clearly marked as an editorial. There is no problem with having such opinions in WP as long as they are marked as such. If you think there is a reason to delete it, state that reason, and it can be discussed. WP is not forbidden from quoting points of view; only from expressing them as the article's POV. The Duelfer, Butler, SSCI reports have already been discussed on these pages; do you have a good reason that these points need to be made 2, 3, or 4 times? The claims that Wilson lied are all over these pages already, as well as the responses to them. You are repeating the claims without their responses elsewhere to make it look like these charges had not been adequately disputed.

This whole process is easier if you post an edit summary with each change you make -- there is a field on the edit page that allows you to do this every time you post. If you look at the "history" page, you can view each edit with the edit summary. Please use that box at least, if you are not willing to use the discussion page to discuss your changes.

Finally, please do not personalize this. This article is not about me; it is about the Plame affair. Please justify your changes without reference to my opinions and associations. Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy that is worth taking the time to read.--csloat 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Funny how you accuse me of personal attacks when I have done nothing of the kind and by merely reposting your words you then turn around and accuse me of 'whining,' which is amazingly ironic.

Firstly, my participation on Wiki did not begin with these pages, I have made dozens of edits on other topics.

Secondly, on most of the pages the Duelfer report is NOT even mentioned, much less 2,3,4 times. On most of these pages, Wilson's constant inaccuracies are not 'adequately disputed,' they are completely absent or given one line while you give several lines to the LaTimes and Boston Globe editorials which do not add to the factual understanding of the topic at hand.

Thirdly, pls do not personalize this. I am attempting to get all the facts out on these relevant pages, if you cannot bear to have the topic, broadened, added to, discussed further, pls do not delete NPOV comments at a minimum. I was raised by an ABC News reporter and have no issue with both sides presenting the publicly available facts and letting the users decide. I can only hope that you feel the same way. All the best, warmest regards, your humble servant, Kasp.

Oh please. Stop making up horseshit like "you cannot bear to have the topic broadened." All I did was delete unexplained anonymous changes. You are the one personalizing this; when pressed to explain your changes, the first thing out of your mouth is an attack on my politics as if that had anything to do with my edits. If you explain your edits you're going to find a warmer reception here.

There is no evidence presented of "Wilson's constant inaccuracies." The smear campaign against Wilson has been adequately responded to by Wilson himself as well as by numerous commentators. Iraq sought uranium from Niger in 1981 and has not done so since. The Duelfer report can be cited in here if you source your claim and if you make it clear; inserting it as if it confirmed a recent purchase is mendacious. The claim that the Butler report concludes otherwise is an obfuscation; there is nobody in their right mind who still believes Iraq sought uranium from Niger. Iraq had two contacts with Niger and neither was over WMD. The comments of Rustmann and others that Plame was not undercover have been dealt with over and over on this talk page and the ones about Plame and Wilson; the FBI and the NYT and the LAT all investigated and found no evidence that anyone was aware that Plame was working for the Company prior to Novak's column -- her neighbors, friends, relatives did not know. Additionally, the nonsense about Wilson being a partisan Democrat is just ludicrous. He was hailed as a hero by George H. W. Bush for his work against Saddam during the 1991 Gulf War. He wore a noose around his neck instead of a tie to tell Saddam to fuck off when he had issued a threat to the embassies. While working for a Republican administration headed by the current President's father. Does this sound like someone willing to commit treason (which is basically what these accusations amount to) in order to bring down a Republican president? As for your changes to this page, you have not justified the inclusion of unsourced information about the revenues of the CIA front company; even if the figure is accurate, it appears in no way relevant to the Plame affair.--csloat 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)The personal attacks and cursing above by csloat is both insulting and unhelpful. It is completely false to say the first thing out of my mouth was anything but an apology, the second false statement is that I ever made a personal attack on your politics. I don't know, or much care, what side of the fence you're on, or independent, or Green, or Communist or Anarchist. What I dispute is the biased, tendentious POV often shown here overcoming the NPOV of the topic. Please stop from inserting biased, unverifiable conclusions in favor of Wilson/Plame and offtopic, rambling screeds by Buchanan and Larry Johnson, whom have no knowledge of what the WH said or did. This is not an Op-Ed page.

User csloat has constantly been uncivil to people who make any edits or suggestions on these pages. Such rudeness and vulgarity is unbecoming of Wiki. This is a serious issue, and one that has been pointed out before by others. Do we need to get dispute resolution in here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

NIE Section

I've added a bit to the NIE leak paragraph; there should probably be a separate section for this. I believe the following should be included as well:

"Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted. The dissenting opinions were included in the declassified NIE released to the press on July 18, 2003. But Libby said nothing about them to Miller when he was leaking to her on July 8.[13]

-csloat 21:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

this is what i meant when i said above that we may need to start a page about the upcoming libby trial. the released documents are a wealth of information. i don't think any of this belongs on this page. i only added the NIE paragraph because another user insisted on inserting it in some way. Anthonymendoza 22:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

here's a big "oops" by Fitzgerald [14]. i think i now understand why i didn't understand Woodentopz edits. Anthonymendoza 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jolly good. i was assuming too much. thanks. --Woodentopz 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NIE *leak*

Can someone explain why a Presidentially-authorized leak of previously classified information is not permitted to be called a "leak"? Can that view actually be backed up by media accounts or scholarly literature on this topic? I hadn't noticed this distinction in the news (and still don't).--csloat 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

the word "leak" by it's very definition implies legal wrongdoing. fitzgerald used the word "disclosure" throughout the brief. no press article i've read has suggested Bush broke any laws. if the word "leak" is used in this article, a reader can come to the false conclusion that Bush broke laws in authorizing libby to discuss the NIE with Judith Miller, which just isn't true. Anthonymendoza 03:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "leak" is "An unauthorized or a deliberate disclosure of confidential information." This falls under "deliberate." I'm not suggesting Bush broke any laws either; only that he leaked information. The press has used the term "leak" over and over. Your attempt to impose a particular notion of the word "leak" and prevent its use here smacks of original research, methinks.--csloat 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

i think you just proved my point. the word leak can be used to imply unauthorized, hence illegal. the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, not report the consensus of the main stream press. a reader sees the word leak and may assume Bush broke a law (i'm not saying "a-ha", but the poll you cite could very well be due to ignorance of the meaning of the word "leak"; the headline in my local paper read "bush authorized CIA leak" and my immediate reaction was to stop in my tracks and read the article only to discover Bush did no such thing. we could discuss media sensationalism as a means to sell papers with regards to this topic as well). look, this is my argument in a nutshell: this page is devoted to a criminal leak of valerie plame's identity. therefore, any use of the word leak on this page implies illegal action. to use "leak" in describing Bush's authorization to libby to discuss the NIE implies illegality. if this still is inadequate to justify my changes, maybe we should debate the word "deliberate" vs. "authorized". Anthonymendoza 13:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no; I proved my point, which is that the word "leak" can also be used to imply deliberate, yet authorized, disclosure of confidential information. The purpose of an encyclopedia is certainly not to make up new rules about how words may be used. To use the word "leak" does not imply illegality; one could easily say "illegal leak" or "unauthorized leak" without being redundant. Please do not invent new ways to use the language and then try to force them on wikipedia. As I said, it smacks of original research.--csloat 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

good grief. i'm not making up "new rules about how words may be used", only pointing out that in this article the word leak is established as meaning an illegal act. Anthonymendoza 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That is false. This article is about the Plame affair, not about the word "leak." The word is not established as having a different meaning in this article than it does in the English language. You are not just "pointing it out"; you are trying to make it so. I hope you can see this.--csloat 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - it's not exactly on point, but I thought you might benefit reading this editorial in the SJMercury News, especially this passage: "The president's defenders are now working overtime to redefine the meaning of 'leak,' saying the president has the right to declassify documents. He may well have that authority. But his appointed leaker, former Cheney adviser I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Jr., peddled the intelligence information to reporters 10 days before Bush declassified it. If that's not a leak of classified information, we don't know what is."

cute editorial. anyway...this line in the article establishes what i'm trying to get across: The Plame affair includes the subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the origin and motives for the leak. Anthonymendoza 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. I'm not sure where the word "leak" is redefined there.--csloat 07:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

one more point to make: this whole story is based solely on libby's testimony. he's been charged with perjury and obstruction, so his testimony is suspect anyway. Anthonymendoza 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the page already makes clear that Libby has been charged with perjury and obstruction. I don't think Wikipedia should be saying things like "his testimony is suspect," although certainly we can quote someone notable to that effect.--csloat 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

i have no intention of adding it to the page. for discussion purpose, i'm simply pointing out the information is not 100% verifiable since it's only based on testimony of someone who is charged with perjury. Anthonymendoza 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me about that; I don't trust Libby as far as I can throw him. But the fact that this particular claim has been admitted by the President gives it a little more credibility, methinks.--csloat 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

the president hasn't admitted to libby's claim. the official stance of the white house has been to not comment on an ongoing investigation. bush has been justifying the declassification of the NIE to the press, not to libby. an important distinction. Anthonymendoza 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, you're quite right about that.--csloat 07:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The laws governing the declassification of intelligence by the executive do not authorize the president, or any other officer of the government, to publicly disclose intelligence that has not gone through the declassification process. Kevin Baas^talk 22:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe. if that's even what happened here [15] Anthonymendoza 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Ordered Declassification, Official Says

By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: April 10, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 9 — A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters. The statement by the official came after the White House had declined to confirm, for three days, Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony that he had been told by Mr. Cheney that Mr. Bush had authorized the disclosure. The official declined to be named, because of an administration policy of not commenting on issues now in court. Confirmation that Mr. Bush ordered the declassification was published late Saturday by The Associated Press, which quoted "an attorney knowledgeable about the case." Once it appeared, the administration official was willing to confirm its details. The official responded briefly via e-mail on Sunday to questions from The New York Times.

From the NYTimes' opinion section, an editorial entitled 'A Bad Leak', in direct response to the notorious WaPo editorial.

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later. [16] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

...if Libby's testimony is to be believed. Anthonymendoza 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

With Bush's admission, the relevant parts of Libby's testimony have been corroborated. Bush authorized the disclosure, more than 10 days before the White House declassified it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gallup Poll

New Gallup poll suggests over 60% of Americans think Bush did something either illegal or unethical in the Plame affair. This figure includes 3 in 10 Republicans. They're right, of course, but the same poll also notes that 36% are not following the issue closely at all (I was surprised to see it that low actually, compared to 64% following it "closely" or "somewhat" closely, though I assume a lot of the "somewhats" mean they watch Fox news and/or the Daily Show. Not sure what to do with these numbers though; should there be a place for public opinion about the plame affair? I hesitate to bring it up given how easy it would be for such a section to become yet another battleground for POV-wrestling. But I think such numbers should be followed somewhere. (Also, before Anthonymendoza says "a-ha!", when I say people think Bush's actions might be illegal, it is not due to ignorance of the meaning of the word "leak.").--csloat 09:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

16 Words

Moved this from main page - 'That direct White House channel amplifies questions about the 16-word reference to the uranium from Africa in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- which remained in the speech despite warnings from the CIA and the State Department that the allegation was not substantiated.'

As noted on these other pages, the SotU claim was based on British intel, nothing to do with Italy or the forged documents, was substantiated and later verified by the Butler Report [that US relied on British intelligence] which the Report also confirmed was correct. It is biased in the extreme to keep falsely asserting that the SOTU address mentioned anything other than the UK Intelligence, later confirmed to be correct by the Brits themselves. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Uhhh, this is nonsense. The point you deleted is crucial -- the CIA and State Department warned Bush that they could not substantiate the information. The claim that the Butler Report relied on some other documents (which, by the way, it never mentioned) is a right-wing talking point that even the Republican party is not on board with. The fact that is relevant is not what the Butler report may have said but rather the fact that the CIA and State Department warned Bush away from the 16 words but he used them anyway. You are obfuscating this point.-csloat 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC) You are running afoul of the Wiki civility rules again, csloat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility

You are confusing the issue, and your editorializing is incorrect. Certain members of the CIA and State Dept [unsourced by you] said they could not substantiate the British claim, NOT that it was not substantiated completely. Your editorializing and biased POV have taken over. Removing that segment to the Talk Page as it is unsourced and your conclusion is false as the claim was substantiated by others. This tendentious POV-pushing you insist on is against Wiki rules and spirit. Continued use of words like 'seemingly' prove your POV is not verifiable. Wiki has to be verifiable. Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability for more details. One-sided polemics like your first sentence below are all unverifiable POV.

Moved from main page - What may be most significant to American observers, however, is La Repubblica's allegation that the Italians sent the bogus intelligence about Niger and Iraq not only through traditional allied channels such as the CIA, but seemingly directly into the White House. That direct White House channel amplifies questions about the 16-word reference to the uranium from Africa in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- which remained in the speech despite warnings from the CIA and the State Department that the allegation was not substantiated.

I have not been uncivil. The requirement of civility does not require one to suspend logical faculties or to treat nonsense as sense. I am not confusing the issue; the issue here is that quite simply the CIA and State Department did not agree with the British intel claim and they did not think it should have been inserted into the SOTU. Surely you must understand this? Stop insisting that my POV has anything to do with this and please stick to the issue. Please look at the WP:V page yourself, as you do not seem to understand the guidelines expressed there. As for the second part here, about the La Republica stuff being removed, you will notice I did not put that piece back in when I edited your changes. I did not write that (your whining about the word "seemingly" above indicates to me that you believe I wrote that sentence). I don't agree with your reasons for removing it, but I will let someone else fight that battle as I have had a full day of trying to correct disinformation here.--csloat 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Duelfer Report

The anon editor 12.150.11.25 keeps inserting the false claim that the Duelfer report "proved" that Saddam bought uranium from Niger. This is a complete fantasy. Can you please point to the line in the Duelfer report you base this bogus claim on? Can you point to a news media analysis of the report that supports this claim? Here is what I see in the report:

Investigation Into Uranium Pursuits and Indigenous Production Capabilities

Foreign Pursuits

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. As part of its investigation, ISG sought information from prominent figures such as Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far—the head of the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.

• According to Ja’far, the Iraqi government did not purchase uranium from abroad following its acquisition of yellowcake from Niger in 1981. However, Iraq also purchased uranium dioxide from Brazil in 1982. Iraq declared neither the Brazilian purchase nor one of the Niger purchases to the IAEA—demonstrating that the Iraqi Regime was willing to pursue uranium illicitly.

Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey—neither of which involved uranium. Ja’far acknowledged that Iraq’s Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to Niamey to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq. He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.

• Ja’far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger’s economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.

• ISG recovered a copy of a crude oil contract dated 26 June 2001 that, although unsigned, appears to support this arrangement.

So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now. Figure 1 is the translation of this document.

Kasparoff 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Complete fantasy? You point the line out yourself, Saddam bought uranium ore from Niger in the 1980s. This is not disputed by anyone. This is a very relevant fact to the discussion of whether or not Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium. Secondly, continuing to insist in the article that Iraq did not buy uranium or yellowcake from Niger in the 1998-2003 period is not the issue at hand, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not Iraq was attempting to buy uranium ore, which was reported by UK, US, and several other intelligence sources and confirmed by the Butler report.

It is not at issue that Saddam bought it in 1981. (uh, you know, when he was supported by the Reagan administration). The report did not "prove" this; this point was already well known. The real question is whether he bought it in 1999 or 2002, which the anon editor falsely claims the report "proved." The rest of the page I quoted above makes clear that the report concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim of any Iraqi attempt since 1981. So stating that the report proved that Iraq sought uranium in the past is both false (because it "proved" no such thing) and misleading (because their conclusion was quite the opposite, for the recent past). Your claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore is false -- it was not "confirmed" by the Butler Review; it was asserted, and the CIA and State Department told the White House the Brits were wrong. Since then it has become clear that the Review relied on incorrect assumptions about Niger and France.--csloat 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More unverifiable reporter's opinions

Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas reported that "Bush once harrumphed that he would fire whoever had outed Plame. No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure."[17]

This is tedious, badly slanted and simply unverifiable opinion. There is no verification that Bush started any 'ball rolling' here about this topic. Thomas' opinion is just that, his opinion. If we want to have an 'opinion war' btw newsweek and the NYPost and the WaPo and the WSJ, we can, but it's all speculation, so let's let Fitzgerald do his job and post the FACTS as they become available. Okay?

Isikoff and Thomas are well known and credible reporters, putting this in an acknowledged news source. There is no indication it is not their opinion, but if you want to add "opined" that is fine. Please see WP:V if you do not understand the meaning of verifiability for the purpose of this encyclopedia and stop deleting verifiable and sourced claims. Thank you.--csloat 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You also deleted this: "Several high ranking CIA officials disputed the claim that Plame was involved in the final decision to send Wilson, and indicated that the operations official who made it was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen." This is established in the SSCI report. Also read Newsday July 22 03: "A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked ‘alongside’ the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. “But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. ‘They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,’ he said. ‘There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,’ he said. ‘I can’t figure out what it could be.’ 'We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly ahat benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there,’ the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses.” (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent’s cover, dated July 22, 2003)."--csloat 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So now we can put newspaper people's opinions into the lead? I was previoulsy told I couldn't put this into the lead of the article:

A Washington Post editorial on April 9, 2006 stated "After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, [Patrick] Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support [Joe] Wilson's charge. [President] Bush did not authorize the leak of [Valerie] Plame's identity. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that [Joe] Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by [Vice President] Cheney. In fact... Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife... [3]

So which is it? Can this go or not? Or is this entire article nothing but a masterbation exercise for rabid leftists? In my opinion, this "article" is a joke. It's poorly organized, is loaded with POV edits, contains hundereds if not thousands of words that have nothing to do with the Plame Affair itself, and runs twice as long as Wikipedia's article on World War II. If the goal of the editors here is to get people to read this thing you have all failed miserably. --Jayzel 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that first para cited, "Several high ranking..." has some POV problems (and I know I'm not going into specifics, I want to tie this together), the WaPo also has problems, such as proving a negative, and neglecting the neccesity for specific focus in a lawsuit/invesitation, and missing the point with irrelevant distraction and non-sequitor. Currently, the investigation is about Libby lying. Once that is addressed, then the truth can be more clear to everyone. As to the editorial (I'm assuming here - educated guess - that its an editorial), whether wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife is not in dispute, that's standard procedure. whether the insuniations logically follow from that - being it standard procedure - as i believe jayzel suggests, there is also insinuation in the quote above that. In any case, Joe Wilson was not dispatched to Niger by his wife. Kevin Baas^talk 09:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And second assessment, the above quote seems more interesting and informative. Kevin Baas^talk 09:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that being put in as long as it is stated tto make it clear that it is an editorial. (It would also be relevant to include specific critiques of that editoral). We cannot sit here and dissect the logic of each editorial statement to decide ad hoc whether it should be included; I think if it makes sense in the context of the section it is put in, that is fine. I don't think there is a place for that particular quote in the lead, but it would be up to the editor who adds it to explain why it belongs where it does. I also don't have a problem with the quotes I defended above being entered in different parts of the page if someone has a good reason to do that. I just don't think this kind of information should be summarily deleted. But yes I do think it could be much better organized; in that sense, this page could be a lot better.--csloat 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

POV in White_House_reactions.2C_Bush_and_Cheney_involvement section

including the (para)phrase "in an even more partisian...". Mind you, it's primarily accurate, it's suffered from a little too much POV. Kevin Baas^talk 09:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive Talk time?

This Talk page, like the article, is getting very long. Since there have been major developments with regard to this article's subject, does some brave editor want to take on making an Archive run through this Talk page, please? Thanks in advance. --NightMonkey 10:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag :(

OK, why was the NPOV tag put on the whole article once again? Please, people, stop pushing the Big Red Button when there are better tags, with more specific remedies, and please use section-specific and other local tags in all but the worse cases, rather than whole-article tags. Abusing the NPOV tag is very frowned upon, especially when it is a "tag-and-run". Thanks. --NightMonkey 10:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, due to lack of any substantial evidence. I'm not saying that sections or sentences don't need work, just that the article in its entirety does not deserve the NPOV tag. Again, please use local tags whenever possible. --NightMonkey 00:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was put on the article for the obvious reason that the article violates NPOV. Removing the tag may lead some readers to believe that Wikipedia endorses the biased viewpoint of the article. This is very damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.31.95 (talk • contribs) .

What is obvious to you is not obvious to me. More helpful local tags are better than NPOV, at this time. --NightMonkey 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you and like-minded editors cannot or will not recognize the extreme bias in this article is of course precisely the problem, and the reason that the NPOV tag is necessary to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. The NPOV tag alerts the reader that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and that the bias evident in the article is not fully endorsed by the Wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.31.95 (talk • contribs) .

The fact that you are making repeated unsigned comments is itself reflective of a dangerous development on Wikipedia, in which the site's recent gains in popularity have led to driveby manipulation of content by people who really have no ongoing interest in improving the content of the site generally, but are engaged simply in self-serving spin on a particular topic. --John Callender 15:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. My comments above contain no "self-serving spin", do not manipulate the content (they're on the talk page), and are motivated by genuine concern over the content of Wikipedia and the damage that biased articles do to the reputation of Wikipedia. Adding the NPOV tag is the very least that can be done to address problems with biased articles, but even that will not be tolerated by editors who are determined to use Wikipedia to promote their political POV. If even the NPOV tag (which simply indicates that the neutrality of the article is disputed) cannot be added without an edit war, what is the likelihood that the substantive issues concerning bias can be productively addressed? Insistence upon removing the NPOV tag, when the neutrality of the article is clearly in dispute, is just further evidence of the biased POV which is the root of the problem. 71.212.31.95 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Name one or two specific passages that you believe are POV, and say why. Then, we can work to neutralize them. An unspecific NPOV tag is worse than useless. Derex 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

More nonsense. Specific NPOV concerns have been raised on this page repeatedly without effect. One doesn't have to scroll up very far to find one. As noted, the NPOV tag, at the very least, serves to alert readers that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and that the bias evident in the article is not fully endorsed by Wikipedia. Of course this will be seen as "worse than useless" by editors who are determined to use Wikipedia to promote their political POV. But it is essential to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. 71.212.31.95 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires an exchange of ideas and information, rather than claims of protectionism and partisanship. Let's fix Wikipedia by using Wikipedia. Pick one of the topics you are thinking of and discuss it in specific. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The specific issue I'm addressing here is the one indicated by the section heading: whether the NPOV tag should be removed even though the neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. I've explained why I believe the NPOV is essential in these circumstances to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Of course, when (if) the substantive neutrality dispute is resolved, the NPOV tag should be removed because it would no longer apply. But until then it should remain. 71.212.31.95 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm asking you what that "substantive neutrality dispute" is. I haven't been editing this page much before today. Further, I don't see any prior remarks on this talk page by you. So, I don't even know what you're on about. Your aspersion about me promoting a POV is ironic, since I don't even know in which direction you think the article is presently biased. Maybe I'll agree with you. The reason that it's "worse than useless" is that there's no way to fix it until you explain what you're concerned about. So, if no explanation is required, anyone can permanently tag any article that she/he dislikes without a reasonable basis.

At the moment, you are the one claiming a continuing neutrality dispute, so it is your responsibility to indicate what that dispute is. Derex 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you honestly don't know in which direction the article is biased, try reading the introductory section. But regardless of whether you are willing or able to recognize the obvious bias, all that is necessary to verify that a substantive NPOV dispute exists is to scroll up a bit on this talk page, where specific concerns are raised without resolution. The harm of an NPOV warning on a neutral article is far less than that of the lack of one on a biased article. For that reason, the presumption must be in favor of leaving the tag in place until the objections are met. 71.212.31.95 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just rewrote the first two paragraphs of the article today, so I know them pretty well. No, I don't see what's biased about those. Help me out. Certainly, the presumption is in favor of leaving on an NPOV tag when there are explicitly stated and reasonable objections. You can't tell me to go look at it and I'll see; that's not a reasonable objection. Since I rewrote the two paragraphs you pointed at just today, the tag couldn't have referred to them anyway. And I did my best to be both concise and neutral with them. So, step up and say exactly where they fall short. Maybe you meant the 3rd paragraph, which I haven't really read, but I shouldn't have to wade through the article trying to figure out what it is you might mean. Be constructive. Derex 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you reasonably assert that there is no NPOV concern if you haven't read the article or reviewed the recent issues raised on the talk page? 71.212.31.95 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you reasonably assert the need for an NPOV tag if you're not willing or able to identify a single specific NPOV concern that you have with the article?--csloat 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, specific NPOV concerns have been raised on this page repeatedly without effect. One doesn't have to scroll up very far to find one. If you're not willing or able to make the least effort to determine if there are NPOV concerns regarding this article, there's no point in wasting time with you. 71.212.31.95 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is begin to border on a troll. Why don't you pick one of these you want me to look at and copy and paste it down here. If it's so simple, then just do it. It's not my job to read through a discussion in which you didn't even participate to guess about what in particular you might be upset. So, this is a complete waste of time. If you want the tag back on, then just name something specific we can fix. The way I've seen this game played in the past is that trolls make such unspecific objection that they can't be intelligently debated. Then, by merely repeating the POV mantra, they keep the tag permanently in place. We're not going to play that game here. If you're not actually a troll, then quit acting like one. Derex 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What I'm concerned about is removing the NPOV tag when there is clearly a serious dispute over the NPOV of the article. As I've explained, because the presence of an NPOV warning on a neutral article is far less harmful than the absence of one on a biased article, the presumption must be in favor of leaving the tag in place when there is any doubt. If you're not willing to read the article or review the recent issues raised on the talk page, you are in no position to assert that there are no genuine NPOV concerns. The mere fact that you feel on the basis of past experience that the NPOV concerns here may not be genuine is clearly insufficient to justify removing the tag. The substantive NPOV concerns about this article have been raised with specificity in previous sections. There is no need to repeat that discussion here. Those issues should be addressed in the sections above. And while they remain unresolved, the NPOV tag should remain in place. 71.212.31.95 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the first sentence in the Usage section of Template:NPOV: "explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article." I will keep this template removed until this condition is explicitly met. That is all. Derex 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex is correct. You need to provide actual details about how this article violates NPOV. What is wrong with the article, what do you think needs to be changed? Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia - we'd be happy if you could help us to improve the article. But simply tagging the article as NPOV isn't helpful. Guettarda 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex is correct. Kevin Baas^talk 01:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have already explained, when an article violates NPOV, tagging the article is useful because it serves to alert readers that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and that any bias evident in the article is not endorsed by Wikipedia as a whole. The absence of the tag in such circumstance is a disservice to readers and is very damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. And because the presence of an NPOV warning on a neutral article is far less harmful than the absence of one on a biased article, the presumption should be in favor of leaving the tag in place when there is any doubt. All of this is true regardless of whether the tag is helpful to editors in correcting the NPOV problems. Of course, actually correcting the NPOV problems is also important. But while the problems are being addressed, it is essential that the tag be included. Keep in mind that the tag does not say that the article definitiely violates NPOV, but only that the NPOV of the article is in dispute. So in general, the fact that an editor disputes the NPOV of the article should be sufficient to validate the inclusion of the NPOV tag. Of course the NPOV problems should be explained on the talk page, as has been done here. But until all NPOV problems have been addressed, the tag should remain in place. This is necessary to protect the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. 71.212.31.95 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To use a phrase that puts it bluntly, put up or shut up. This tail chasing is a waste of time. Either you have specific problems with the article or you don't. I'm sorry if any of that offends you. --waffle iron ^talk 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not offended. But I'm afraid you've missed the point I'm trying to make. Whether I have problems with the article is not important. What's important is whether the article has problems. The purpose of the Wikipedia project is to build an encyclopedia, and NPOV is essential to its success. This is not a contest to see who can succeed in making their own POV prevail. If anyone wins that game, Wikipedia loses. Everyone has a duty to help ensure that articles are written with NPOV, regardless of their own POV. The integrity and reputation of Wikipedia depend on it. Because people often aren't aware of their own biases, it is very important that everyone give deference to NPOV concerns raised by those with a different POV. Unfortunately, some people seem unable to do that. Of course it is possible for reasonable people to disagee whether an article has NPOV or not. But it isn't possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether there is such disagreement. That's why there should be no disputes over including the NPOV tag. People who insist on excluding the NPOV tag, absent clear evidence of bad faith, are acting unreasonably and cannot be expected to allow the substantive NPOV issues to be constructively addressed. That's why I'm unwilling to waste time on further discussion of the substantive NPOV issues (already raised above) until the NPOV tag is restored. 71.212.31.95 06:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And you are certainly missing the point everybody else is making. NightMonkey, Derex, User:RyanFreisling, csloat, Guettarda, and waffle iron, have all asked you to cite specific instances of problems, rather than your continual assertion of your conclusion. If there is an NPOV problem, then explain it, don't just assert it. Give examples. And, frankly, until you do, I would ask all the rest of the folks to simply ignore this complaint, because we're all wasting our time asking the same question ("can you give us examples") and you giving the same answer ("until all NPOV problems have been addressed, the tag should remain in place"). Tell us, with specificity, what the problems are already, or drop it please. -- Sholom 12:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What point is it that you think I'm missing? It's clearly pointless to simply keep asking for specific instances of NPOV problems when I've pointed out that they've already been given and can easily be seen just by scrolling up a few sections. It only takes a couple of clicks. Anyone who is genuinely interested in ensuring NPOV would be willing to do that. I know because that's what I did. I didn't raise the NPOV issue or include the NPOV tag myself. But when the NPOV tag was removed, I was willing to make the trivial effort necessary to determine that, at the very least, the NPOV was seriously disputed here, which justified retaining the NPOV tag. Of course, people who are not really interested in NPOV, and only want to ensure that the article promotes their personal POV, will not be willing to make the slightest effort to determine if there's an NPOV dispute. And if it becomes too obvious that there is a dispute, they'll just claim that it's not a "reasonable" one. No matter how reasonable the concern, they'll debate it endlessly. Then when the debate ends without resolution (because the other side recognizes its futility), they'll claim there's no longer any dispute and remove the NPOV tag. Mission accomplished. This is a very familiar pattern. And the problem is not just that it wastes everyone's time, but that it damages the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. 71.212.31.95 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you will not give us a single sentence that you think is NPOV, despite the fact that seven different editors have asked you to? -- Sholom 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking for a specific instance of an NPOV problem when I've repeatedly answered that one has already been given and can easily be seen just by scrolling up a few sections? 71.212.31.95 19:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, at long last, for the link to your specific objection. I agree that the last sentence of the first section, quoting Isikoff, isn't appropriate for the lead. The factual content of that quotation is fine for that section. Since that writer's opinion is not a fundamental part of the story, it shouldn't be in the lead. What we should do instead is directly quote Bush saying he would fire the perpetrator. See how that works, anon? You got a substantive response when you quit playing your tiresome little game. Derex 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The substantive NPOV issue should be discussed in the appropriate section above. The issue in this section is whether the NPOV tag should be included. Do you now agree that it should be? 71.212.31.95 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, for the reasons given eleven times above. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the usage of the NPOV tag. Please read this. 71.212.31.95 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite familiar. If you can't raise the issues surrounding your objection, the issue ends here. And the wheel goes round and round - all that will stop it is if you get off your duff and start editing the article. You can't demand change - you need to drive the change you think is needed. Right now, you're merely affirming your uselessness. Good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, the article I referred you to says this about the NPOV tag: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article" (emphasis added). I'm well aware that I can't demand the changes necessary to make the article NPOV. That's precisely why the NPOV tag is needed. 71.212.31.95 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're selectively ignoring the instruction to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. You've not done so. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, if you'll read the sentence carefully, you'll see that the instruction to leave a note on the talk page is conditional, needed only if there is no prior discussion of the bias. 71.212.31.95 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well aware. The prior discussion did not substantiate the tag. If there's prior discussion and the tag is ruled erroneous by consensus, there's no longer a reason for the tag. Why is this so unclear to you? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect anon might actually be my ex. It's all so horrifyingly hauntingly familiar ... Derex 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, the NPOV tag is justified if the article's NPOV is disputed, even if the "consensus" view is that the article does not violate NPOV. 71.212.31.95 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy statement about that -- because it makes no sense at all. It means that any one single person, against any number, can force an article to have NPOV. Color me skeptical. -- Sholom 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I used the word "consensus" in quotes, because if there is a dispute whether an article is NPOV, then there obviously isn't a true consensus that it does not violate NPOV. And of course, no one can force an article to have the NPOV tag, anymore than they can force it to have NPOV. 71.212.31.95 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once a dispute does not always a dispute make. There is no dispute. There is a record of a prior discussion, but not an NPOV dispute - nor an unresolved one, which is what the tag is used for. You are now blatantly, openly, and transparently wasting time. WP:POINT. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop feeding the troll? Nomen Nescio 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More NPOV tag :(

I see that Sholom removed the NPOV tag again, without making any effort to respond to the NPOV concerns (see below). Somehow I'm not surprised by this. 71.212.31.95 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to give you one last opportunity to explicitly state every single POV issue you have with this.
Here is format that I would suggest using:

A copy and paste of an exact line from the article that is POV with the offending part bolded.

Commentary on why the line is POV.
Continue as needed.

No more "just scroll up" or any of that; just examples and assertions.--sigmafactor 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Only one issue is required to justify the NPOV tag. There's one indicated below. Please just scroll down. ("NPOV problem" in the section title should give you a clue. Or maybe not...) 71.212.31.95 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should get that when more than five people politely ask you to do something and you don't, they will get extremely frustrated. --sigmafactor 00:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Look. The NPOV problem indicated below had already been indicated above, as I repeatedly pointed out. Don't you suppose it's also frustrating when people keep asking for something that's already there, and won't make even a minimal amount of effort to see it? Can you understand why this might lead one to believe that they aren't really interested in NPOV at all? 71.212.31.95 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Our anon is clinging to the tiniest shred of ambiguity in the NPOV dispute policy. Sadly, I have encountered this position many times before before. Clearly the policy needs to be made so explicit that even the hard of thinking can understand it. I have opened a discussion to that end: Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Mandatory NPOV tag explanation. Derex 01:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

July 7, 2003 State Department Memo Declassified

here's a link to the actual memo [18] Anthonymendoza 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for adding this. Here's a discussion of what the classification on the memo means. I know some people on this page will whine about the source, but he certainly is in a better position to understand these indications than the NY Sun :) -csloat 09:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

while informative, i think Larry Johnson is assuming too much. in the paragraph that identifies Valerie Wilson, two lines are blacked out and the paragraph contains about six sentences of information. to simply assume that the (S//NF) label was applied solely because valerie wilson was mentioned in the paragraph is a bit of a stretch. plus, she's mentioned as a "manager", not an agent. i'm not sure what "manager" implies, but it doesn't sound like a covert label. Anthonymendoza 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, are you still trying to argue the "Plame wasn't undercover" point? I'm pretty sure that's been soundly refuted throughout all these discussions; I don't think the information in this particular memo helps make your case. You may be right about Johnson assuming too much, but his point appears to be that the information in the paragraphs marked S/NF is in fact secret, not to be shared, not even to discredit a former ambassador who has become a thorn in your side. In any case, the bottom line for me is simple - the only authority who can tell us with certainty whether or not Plame was covert is her employers, the CIA, and they have made their case clear when they asked for the investigation. (Further, acting CIA officials continued to make the case in conversations with reporters. I know of no acting CIA official who has been quoted stating otherwise, anonymous or not). But I don't want to reopen that debate here -- it's over and done with. Suffice to say that I am all for keeping a section in the article that indicates that for *some* people Plame's undercover status is disputed.--csloat 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh!! Larry Johnson states: "When a paragraph is labeled S/NF (Secret/No Forn) that means the information is SECRET and not to be shared with foreigners. The mere mention of Valerie Wilson's name required that the paragraph be classified. If she was not undercover, the paragraph could have (and should have) been classified as LOU or FOUO." this is a silly argument. Valerie Wilson was mentioned once in a detailed paragraph containing information that wasn't allowed to be declassified, so how can he say "If she was not undercover, the paragraph could have (and should have) been classified as LOU or FOUO." and i brought up the "manager" description to further the argument that the S/NF label was most likely not applied to the paragraph because valerie wilson was in it. yes it's true the paragraph was marked secret and wasn't to be shared. but that's not larry johnson's point. he specifically argues the mention of valerie wilson was the sole reason the paragraph was marked secret. your not representing his argument correctly. Anthonymendoza 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough; it appears I was attributing my own reasoning to Johnson without re-reading his statement. I just don't see evidence on the question of her covertness either way here. Like I said, there are other reasons for believing she was undercover, first and foremost, the fact that the CIA has said that.-csloat 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing that this partially declassified memo (remember, a number of central sections remain redacted) does show us is that Plame's employment at the CIA and her involvement with WMD was part of the information contained in the memo. It was part of a classified document marked 'secret'. By definition, the assumption is that EVERYTHING in a classified document is to be considered 'secret' unless specifically demonstrated not to be, or declassified according to procedure. Legally, the fact that the information is contained in this secret report places clear burdens upon the disclosers of her identity.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, i agree with everything you both just wrote. i was just responding to the Larry Johnson piece, which i found lacking. Anthonymendoza 00:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction bloat and NPOV problem

IMHO, paragraph 3 of the introduction, while doubtless fine text and a valuable addition to the debate, belongs in the body of the article and not in the introduction. (1) It's way too current-event-y, and hasn't settled. (2) The introduction isn't enough area to dicuss its relevance, if any. In particular, the declassification of the NIE isn't really news - whether the declassification of the NIE meant that Bush authorized Libby to reveal Plame's name is speculation, and if we try to expand the paragraph to explain all that, the introduction's just going to get longer. TheronJ 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop being H, be bold, and go for it. :) The bloat cuts must start somewhere. Also, I think the Legal section(s) are a great source of bloat here. What about just making a reference link to the laws in question, and a short 2-3 sentence blurb on the law's relevance? If people want to know the legal nitty gritty, they should be motivated enough to click until they get to the "real meat" of an article fully dedicated to this or that law or set of laws and precendents.--NightMonkey 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 of the introduction isn't just bloat. It's a huge NPOV problem. 71.212.31.95 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there does need to be some mention of Bush's possible role in the leak. That's been by far the predominant public and media focus in the case recently. It's about honesty more than legality. But, I also agree that the paragraph could use a good trimming. Derex 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there should probably be a whole section concerning allegations of Bush's role in the supposed leak. It would probably include the fact that Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush or anyone else. And that Fitzgerald wrote that "the President was unaware of the role that [Libby] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment." Among other things, of course :-) 71.212.31.95 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the intro. I tried to move it myself but couldn't figure out where it should go -- "timeline" stops in 2003. I don't think it should be cut out though; it is crucial information regarding the current focus on this issue, as Derex points out. I don't see the "huge NPOV problem" that the anon ip does, however, and hjis link to the previous discussion on that section doesn't really tell us why he thinks it's an NPOV issue. --csloat 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As previously noted, the Isikoff quote is "tedious, badly slanted and simply unverifiable opinion". Using it as the conclusion of the introduction is clearly not NPOV. 71.212.31.95 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Derex 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, that's a start. Now the NIE section needs to be relocated and rewritten, then the other NPOV problems in the article can be addressed. In the meantime, the NPOV tag needs to go in. Agreed? 71.212.31.95 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it was "tedious" - can you please identify the tedium in the quote? I also don't believe it was "unverifiable" -- anyone with a copy of newsweek or access to the internet can verify that Isikoff wrote that. "Slanted," certainly; "badly" so is a matter of opinion. And finally, yes, it represents opinion, as was clearly stated in the introduction to the quote. I'm not going to insist on putting the quote back, but let's be clear about it. Another user objected to the quote a while ago, I defended it, and the grounds on which I defended it have not been refuted. Opinions are not disallowed from Wikipedia as long as they are clearly identified as specific opinions, and this one was clearly identified as such. Also, it is an insidious form of POV-pushing to insist only on eliminating quotes that one disagrees with. If you'd like to take the position that quotes from people's opinions do not belong here, fine, but it is extremely POV to insist only on eliminating editorials that you disagree with, while not challenging quotes from your own POV.--csloat 01:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "tedious" may have referred to the NIE section as a whole, or perhaps "tendentious" was meant. I believe "unverifiable" refers to the conclusion expressed in the quote. "Matter of interpretation" might be another way to put it. The quote is of very minor significance to the subject, if any. At best it might be included in a section on media coverage, provided it were balanced with other viewpoints. There isn't really much place for quotes of this kind in an NPOV encyclopedia article. But it certainly can't be used as the conclusion to the introduction. 71.212.31.95 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If "unverifiable" refers to the conclusion of a quote, then it is an irrelevant observation, since WP:V is about being able to verify facts (such as, "Isikoff wrote such-and-such") rather than about being able to verify the truth of someone's opinion. As long as the quote is clearly marked as someone's opinion, it is "verifiable" according to Wikipedia policy on the issue.The notion that the quote is "of very minor significance to the subject" is completely false, since it establishes the reason why the NIE leak is considered relevant to the Plame affair. It is not just evidence of "media coverage"; it explains a connection that has been treated as such by all commentators on the issue. I agree with taking it out of the intro, and I have all along, but your insistence that it should be deleted as POV is rather odd, since it is clearly marked as someone's POV.--csloat 09:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think it's a good quote and belongs in the article. It nicely captures the tenor of the media coverage over the affair. I don't think it plays well in the lead though. Also, the rest of the paragraph is straight facts, so an opinion quote sort of hangs there. I support the don't-feed-the-troll sentiment above. Not naming IP's or anything, but someone is either a troll or has extreme difficulty playing well with others .... Derex 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

One fascinating aspect of this article is that there are sections labeled as criticism of Plame & Wilson & Fitzgerald, but there's no sections labeled for criticism of Rove | Cheney | Bush. I particularly enjoyed the line about Wilson "furiously" backtracking in an otherwise incomprehensible section criticizing his trip. I'd edit that section if I could even understand the point it makes. Derex 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The stuff criticizing Wilson's trip should be consolidated, and the stuff claiming Plame sent him should also have its own section; otherwise people keep adding it all over different places; there are currently repetitive sections on this page and on the Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson pages dealing with the claim that Plame sent Wilson, and it still gets added by someone new every few weeks. I agree there should also be a section critiquing the "pro-treason" wing of the Republican Party if we are going to have all these "criticism" sections. Perhaps it could instead be organized according to major disputes (e.g. "was plame covert?" "did wilson blow her cover at parties?" "did plame send Wilson?" etc.) rather than "criticism of so-and-so". I'm also not sure what to do with the conspiracy theories section -- on the one hand, some of these are too ridiculous to even take seriously (e.g. Plame/Wilson conspiracy), yet on the other hand, the main suspicion about the plame leak - that it was organized by members of the Bush Admin to discredit Wilson - is also a conspiracy theory. It is true that the latter has actual evidence to back it up whereas the former does not. But it is also stuck on the issue of intention, which cannot be established with certainty (which is why Fitzgerald has not pressed IIPA charges on Libby, or at least it's why he says he hasn't).--csloat 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex, you didn't answer my question above. Do you agree that we put the NPOV tag back in while we address the problems with this article? 71.212.31.95 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Just scroll up and look. Derex 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As I thought. You are not to be taken seriously. 71.212.31.95 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just rude. I did plainly answer you. If you're not willing to simply scroll up and read what I wrote before, then how can we possibly have a discussion about this? Derex 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Since you don't object, I'll put the tag back in. 71.212.31.95 03:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This just in: 71.212.31.95 (talk • contribs) has only edited the article twice, and both times were to add the NPOV tag. Are you so afraid to edit the article that you would make more than 30 edits to the talk page instead? Give it a try -- it won't hurt you. --sigmafactor 03:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to try editing the article now that the NPOV tag is in. But past experience teaches that attempts to correct NPOV problems are invariably reverted. That's why I have to insist on the NPOV tag. 71.212.31.95 03:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you register an account and begin contributing in earnest. --waffle iron ^talk 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tried that already. It doesn't work. 71.212.31.95 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This just in: The NPOV tag has been taken out again, without any effort to address the concerns raised here, even though the NPOV of the article is clearly disputed. What's it gonna take? 71.212.31.95 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, either it is going to take you being banned, or you playing nice and not disrupting Talk, not using sockpuppets (which you admit to above) and repeatedly vandalizing this article to prove a point, ignoring consensus.

Is there an Admin in the house? --NightMonkey 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disrupt Talk pages, I don't use sockpuppets, and I don't vandalize articles. Those are serious charges. Don't make them lightly. 71.212.31.95 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't make them lightly. You just admited you "tried" using a registered account, which didn't work for your purpose, and now you are using an anon - sockpuppetry. You've ignored consensus and continued adding the NPOV tag - vandalism. And you continue to try to push the same single point you've made (which others argue against) over and over and over again, including barging into other threads discussing other topics - Talk disruption. And please don't edit my comments again. --NightMonkey 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comment. I inserted a response, clearly identified as mine, at the point that seemed relevant. But I'm happy to refrain from that in the future since you object. With respect to your other charges: I have an account but I seldom bother to login anymore. That's not sockpuppetry. NPOV is not trumped by "consensus". The fact that there's disagreement about NPOV validates the NPOV tag. I was completely justified in adding it, because the article is not NPOV. That isn't vandalism. And I didn't disrupt any other threads. I came to this thread because the issues here are some of the NPOV problems that I'm concerned about. 71.212.31.95 15:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "What's it gonna take?" was a rhetorical question. I don't really expect that the NPOV tag will ever be allowed in, or that the NPOV problems with this article will ever be corrected. The comment from the person who just removed the NPOV tag was: "having editing at the starting of this article, I see much improvment and expansion--and, I see someone playing NPOV tag games... Tag removed... This article does not suffer from lack of nutrality (sic)". How can one argue with that? 71.212.31.95 04:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your deal with the NPOV tag? You raised one entirely minor NPOV issue that turned out not to be an NPOV issue at all, and that is the only issue you've raised. After raising the issue, a dialog ensued, and action resulted that was somewhat satisfactory to all parties - the quote was deleted (or at least will be moved out of the introduction). If you think there may be other NPOV issues please state them. The NPOV tag should not be a page's default state. In fact, it should not be used at all until after the issue is raised and discussed in talk. When it is used, the tagger should state the specific NPOV issues in talk and when those issues are resolved the tag should be removed.--csloat 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained at length, repeatedly, why I believe the NPOV tag is necessary, to the point that I've been accused of "Talk disruption". So I won't do it again. I completely disagree that the issues raised in this section are entirely minor and do not affect NPOV. Removing the Newsweek quote is a good start, but as I've already said, the whole NIE paragraph needs to be relocated and rewritten so it doesn't read like Democrat talking points. And I'm sure there are other problems that will need to be addressed as well. The NPOV tag needs to go in and stay in until there is general agreement that the article is NPOV. The presence of the NPOV shouldn't surprise or offend anyone. It is to be expected that there will be continuing problems with NPOV when the subject of the article is a current political controversy such as this one. 71.212.31.95 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please stop trolling. Either explain what you think is NPOV about the paragraph, or any other, or quit wasting our time. Simply asserting that it sounds like "Democratic talking points" is unhelpful.--csloat 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If Derex will stop playing games, we can start working on this. Perhaps we could start by moving the NIE paragraph to the appropriate section. Is that okay? 71.212.31.95 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's okay, do you want it in a section by itself, or in a new section covering allegations about Bush's involvement in the Plame leak, or somewhere else? 71.212.31.95 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When I said it "read like Democrat talking points", I just meant that it seemed one-sided. It didn't seem to include the Republican point of view. I sure you realize that they have a different viewpoint. Obviously that needs to be included to have NPOV. Among the things that probably need to be included is the fact that Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush or anyone else. And that Fitzgerald wrote that "the President was unaware of the role that [Libby] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment." And I'm sure there's a lot more. 71.212.31.95 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To your penultimate sentence, I wonder if he considered simply asking his staff if they had leaked. You'd think the President might just ask, rather than having a special prosecutor appointed. Maybe he didn't mean it when he said "And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is" [19] Or, maybe his staff just lied to him. At any rate, you're absolutely correct that the article clearly absolve him of any blame, since he just didn't know. Derex 06:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's also Libby's claim that "contemporaneous documents reflect the points that Mr. Libby was to make to reporters and these documents do not include any information about Mr. Wilson’s wife." 71.212.31.95 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the detail in paragraph 3 is too much for the introduction. I'd be comfortable moving sentences 3, 4, & 5 elsewhere. The 1st two sentences might also be merged. Derex 02:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to my suggestion just above, or ideas for improvement? If not, I'll make the change sometime tomorrow afternoon, as there's a reasonable consensus the paragraph needs to be trimmed. Of course, feel free to edit any adjustments I make. Derex 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV TAG - Please Read Before Removing

The NPOV tag indicates to the reader that some editor(s) believe that an article does not conform to NPOV (Neutral Point Of View). An editor can and should include this tag if he definitely believes that the article does not conform to NPOV. Agreement from other editors is not needed. The tag should be removed when there is general agreement (including agreement by those who have indicated their concerns) that the article now conforms to NPOV. Please do not remove the tag until general agreement is reached that the article conforms to NPOV. You are, of course, welcome to join the discussion and assist in revising the article to help achieve NPOV as needed. 71.212.31.95 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved NPOV concerns with this article are currently being discussed in the following sections of this Talk page:

• Introduction bloat and NPOV problem

Some editors may disagree with this request not to remove the NPOV tag without general agreement. If so, their viewpoints will be discussed below. If you remove the NPOV tag without general agreement, please explain your reasons here.

There is no dispute in the section you linked to. TheronJ made a proposal; NightMonkey suggested he proceed with that proposal; I concurred with the overall gist, as did you, as did csloat. We had a civil discussion, which is now proceeding towards a consensus. What's the dispute? The NPOV tag is used anytime an article isn't perfect, none of them are. It's used when there is an on-going, specific, and temporarily intractible disagreement. You fundamentally misunderstand generally accepted use of that tag. All I see in that section is a reasonably polite discussion, lasting one day, which is evolving into a consensus. Derex 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

By "dispute" I mean "to question the validity of". I definitely believe that the current text of the article is not NPOV. So I "dispute" the NPOV of the article. The specific reasons are being discussed on the Talk page (including the section I linked to), and have not yet been resolved to my satisfaction. So the NPOV of the article is still disputed. When there is general agreement that the article is NPOV, the NPOV will no longer be disputed, and the tag can be removed. The primary value of the NPOV tag is to let the reader know that the NPOV of the article is questioned within the Wikipedia community. Otherwise they may assume that the POV of the article has Wikipedia's full endorsement. Readers don't need to know whether there's a heated debate or a civil discussion on the Talk page, or whether there's an impasse or good progress is being made toward an eventual consensus. What they need to know is that the NPOV of the article as currently written (in other words, what they're looking at) has been questioned. 71.212.31.95 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shh! Even before you start. That was a preemptive Shh. Just know I have a whole bag of Shh with your name on it. Dr. Evil 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, you haven't identified what you think is NPOV about the article. You seem just to be trolling.--csloat 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, the whole NIE paragraph needs to be relocated and rewritten so it doesn't read like Democrat talking points. I can give you more detail once the NPOV tag is in. I obviously can't deal with the substantive issues while you're wasting my time over the NPOV tag. 71.212.31.95 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no; that isn't obvious at all. If you have substantive concerns you may state them at any time. Let us deal with the one assertion you are willing to make. You state that the paragraph "reads like Democrat talking points." My response: No, it doesn't. Now that that's out of the way, can we move on to other things? Thanks.--csloat 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks (finally). You think it does. I think it doesn't. That means we have a dispute. So I'll go ahead and put the NPOV tag in and we can go from there. 71.212.31.95 21:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shh! Let me tell you a little story about a man named Shh! Dr. Evil 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex, why does the history page indicate that these childish messages supposedly from Dr. Evil were posted by you? 71.212.31.95 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Knock, knock ... Who's there? ... Shh! Dr. Evil 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex has obviously lost it. I won't be responding to him further. 71.212.31.95 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shh. Shh-Shh. Shh-Shhhhhh-Shh. Shh-shh. It's Morse code. Dr. Evil 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me decipher...it says 'Shhhhh!' Dr. Evil 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott McClellan resigns, Rove relegated to focus on mid-term elections

Some fresh news from the Beeb: As part of a White House staff shakeup, Scott McClellan resigned on April 19, 2006, just after the new White House Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, took office. -- BBC, 19.04.2006., links to a video with statement of Bush and McClellan

Former White House chief policy adviser Karl Rove will concentrate on this year's mid-term elections, which may possibly turn in favour of Democrats (against the looming backdrop of the Iraq war and high oil prices).

White House chief of staff "Scooter" Libby has resigned and was replaced by Joshua Bolten.

Actually, "Scooter" Libby was Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. [-Mardus 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)]

Shakeup lineup:

• Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, announced his resignation on 28.03.2006 and was replaced by Joshua Bolten on 14.04.2006.

What followed:

• White House chief policy adviser Karl Rove gave up his position to concentrate on mid-term elections. Replaced by Joel Kaplan, former deputy White House budget director.
• On Tue, April 18, 2006, Rob Portman was nominated for the post of White House budget director (to the Office of Management and Budget), who is former U.S. trade representative. -- BBC, 18.04.2006., contains image of Portman
• Susan Schwab, deputy to Rob Portman in trade role, is to take over the post of U.S. trade representative (also known as chief trade negotiator).

And great insight commentary on the whole not as-yet-finished shakeup also from the BBC, on 19.04.2006 by James Westhead. -Mardus 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mardus (talk • contribs) .

I have no idea how that is supposed to relate to the Plame affair article. --waffle iron ^talk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

People who left the White House, Rove and McClellan, are players in the Plame Affair article. -Mardus 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I will try to remember to sign my posts in the future. -Mardus 02:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because a number of people were involved in the Plame case doesn't mean that this article should turn into a dumping ground for every one's personal history. Scotty was a glorified mouthpiece and his new status isn't related to the Plame affair unless someone in the administration asked for his resignation specifically because of his actions during it. --sigmafactor 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

NPR was reporting that the Plame affair was a key reason for Scotty's resignation; he didn't like being forced to lie about it. (It's odd, considering how many other things he lied about during his tenure, but that's what I heard on NPR.)--csloat 17:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

of course, because the whole world revolves around the plame investigation. Anthonymendoza 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from; I was just reporting what I heard on NPR.-csloat 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry. that was uncalled for. did NPR give a source, because this is the first i've heard that he stepped down because of the investigation. Anthonymendoza 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's possible they did; I don't remember, nor do I feel like researching it right now... I don't think the claim was that he stepped down because of the the investigation but rather that a key reason he stepped down was that he was upset about having lied about Libby and Rove not being involved in the plame thing when it turned out they were involved. I'm not trying to put this into the article of course; I was just commenting in response to this discussion. Obviously we would need more evidence than "I think I heard it on NPR"...--csloat 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

sigmafactor ("Just because a number of people..."):

• When I first accessed the article, it was locked because of vandalism, so I became used to its being locked like that, which is one reason I posted the news in here. Being used to that, the new information would compell someone to edit the article accordingly, such as change Scott McLellan's status to former White House press secretary.
• The second and less important reason is that instead of posting all this inforation in many places, posting them here in one place would be enough, IMHO, for other editors who go to here to edit their respective articles of interest that the news pertains to.
• And it is exactly the reason that this article should not become the dumping ground of everyone's pesonal history why I wrote the news here in Talk and not on the article.

-Mardus 05:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The entire gist of this article is mis-framed as anti-Bush POV. Wilson is a known Democrat operative. It is widely reported that he has made many misrepresentations. Those misrepresentations contributed to triggering this entire issue. Unless and until more is done to show the other side of this on an even footing, this article is POV. Merecat 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I patently disagree with every sentence you wrote. This article does not warrant a POV tag. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, please see the bottom of the section Introduction bloat and NPOV problem above, where I explain why the article is not NPOV. The tag is clearly justified on that basis. If you disagree with what I said there, please respond in that section. Thanks. 71.212.31.95 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan here. I don't see anything specific mentioned in your comments that suggest possible NPOV problems or changes. Calling Wilson a "known Democratic operative" is ludicrous; those of us old enough to remember might remind you that he made a name for himself through his work in the GHW Bush Administration. Like George Jr., George Sr. was a Republican. Such charges also do not point to any specific passages in the article in which his alleged Democratic, umm, operativity is obscured. The claim that Wilson "made many misrepresentations" is in fact stated several times in the article, and the evidence for (and against) those claims are discussed. The claim you make that there is "another side" that is not shown here is sheer political posturing -- the article relates the facts, and recounts who said what about the facts. There are acknowledged problems with regard to organization and language, but I don't see evidence of significant NPOV problems.--csloat 22:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you haven't respond to me at the bottom of the section Introduction bloat and NPOV problem above, where I explain why the article is not NPOV. Would you please do so? 71.212.31.95 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't really explain anything there. Asserting that an article represents "Democratic talking points" is not helpful; when you tried to be more specific, I didn't see the NPOV problem. You mention a specific quote by Fitzgerald that you don't see included in the article; why not add it instead of a NPOV tag? Why is it part of an NPOV problem? This is not about Democrat vs. Republican, at least not the way I look at it.--csloat 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I think we're at an impasse. We just have a completely different understanding of when the use of the NPOV tag is appropriate. My view is that the NPOV tag is appropriate whenever the text of the article fails to meet Wikipedia standards of NPOV for any reason. Your view is (I think) that the NPOV tag is appropriate only when there is a definite disagreement between two editors over adding or changing some specific part of the text. Thus (if I understand your view of it), if the article contains only the Democrat viewpoint on the NIE disclosure, and omits the Republican viewpoint entirely, the NPOV tag isn't necessarily appropriate just because the coverage of the matter is completely one-sided. In your view (again, if I understand it), the tag is only appropriate if an editor has proposed some specific text that they want to include to represent the Republican viewpoint, and some other editor has not agreed to allow it. Does that fairly summarize your view? If not, please correct me. I don't want to debate whether your view is correct (for now), I just want to be sure I understand it. Can you help me? 71.212.31.95 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on the use of the NPOV tag, so let's just follow that rather than trying to make up our own guidelines. According to the policy, the person who adds the NPOV tag must state why they added it and indicate what should be changed for it to be removed. Then it should be removed as soon as the situation is addressed. The default state of the article should not include such a tag. You should also add the tag to a specific section where it is relevant rather than the whole article whenever possible.--csloat 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we don't disagree so much after all. Let me ask you what I asked Derex below: suppose the article includes material from Fitzgerld's court filing, in which he claims that Libby leaked Plame's identity as part of a White House conspiracy to discredit Wilson, but omits any material from Libby's rebuttal. Would that situation justify including the NPOV tag? 71.212.31.95 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to speak for sloat, but I'm not aware of the article including either viewpoint. It simply discusses the issue without regard to what either party says. This is an encyclopedia article, not a shrine to talking points. Moreover, as I would have thought you were now abundantly clear on, you do misunderstand the generally accepted use of the tag. If you had expended a tenth the effort on improving the article as you have whining about the tag, you probably wouldn't even want the tag now. Derex 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific: Let's say the article includes material from Fitzgerld's court filing, in which he claims that Libby leaked Plame's identity as part of a White House conspiracy to discredit Wilson, but omits any material from Libby's rebuttal. Would that situation justify including the NPOV tag? 71.212.31.95 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends if there's a dispute about it. Normally, if you see something wrong with an article, you just try to fix it instead of tag it, preferably with some prior talk discussion (as TheronJ did above in "bloat"). If someone disagrees with your fix, then you try discussing it on Talk. If that doesn't resolve it, then you've got a dispute on your hands. Then the tag goes up, if you feel strongly about it. However, the tag never stays up indefinitely ... if the present editors can't achieve consensus, it then goes either to mediation or to RFC which resolves it. Again, obviously just speaking for me.

Why don't you just hold off on the tag until we've actually got a dispute on our hands? To this point, I haven't seen any attempts to simply resolve this through the normal process. For example, what do you think of my suggestions at the end of "bloat"? I know you disagree on the use, but thinking that's the way it ought to be does not make it so. Part of the reason for the general acceptance of this standard is that it forces editors to try to resolve issues and improve the article rather than just say it's not good.

You feel that's a disservice to current readers who might get misled that there's some sort of "endorsement". I say caveat lector, anyone who blindly accepts a Wikipedia article is as big a fool as one who blindly believes Fox News :) — it's just one information source of many. However, the general feeling here is that it's more of a disservice to more readers if we resort to argument instead of improvement. Allowing the tag before a good faith dispute arises (which requires actual effort) is a cop out and diminishes both long and short term quality of Wikipedia. If we actually end up having a real good faith dispute, then I don't think anyone will object to a section NPOV tag. Derex 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, just to be clear: If the article includes Fitzgerald's charges against Libby, but omits Libby's rebuttal, that's not a violation of NPOV. Or it is a violation, but that doesn't justify including the NPOV tag until some editor tries to include Libby's rebuttal and can't get agreement. Have I got that right? 71.212.31.95 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So then, when I add the material showing Wilson to be the biased fraud that he is, provided I cite to reliable sources, I'm guessing you'll be ok with that, right? Merecat 23:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I'm not sure exactly what Wilson's veracity has to do with this. The appropriate place for that discussion is the Yellowcake forgery. That is, unless you allege that he's being fraudulent about Plame's outing per se; that would likely be acceptable. I remind you that this article is about a CIA-requested investigation into the disclosure of the identity of an undercover agent. Wilson's only relevance is as the proximate cause for the disclosure through Novak's column.

If we were to go into every instance of lies, bias, or fraud during the careers of other principals such as Libby, Rove, Bush, or Cheney, this would be a very long article indeed. If you wish to dispute Wilson's veracity in other matters, such as his investigation into uranium, please do so in one of the appropriate places such as Joseph C. Wilson or Yellowcake forgery. Derex 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought Wilson was relevant because the White House leaked Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson for proving that Bush lied us into war? 71.212.31.95 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He didn't prove anything. He just wrote an op-ed, which was, through Novak, the proximate cause of the disclosure. That fact is properly included, as are allegations that the disclosure was intended to punish or discredit Wilson (how?). Whether his op-ed was right or wrong is an interesting topic, but there are other articles on that. This is not the right place to be holding a debate on the evidence for or against fairies or WMD's. Nevertheless, as csloat points out, there actually is considerable discussion of that point currently in the article. That situation should be remedied with a merge to the appropriate page. Derex 07:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But he called Bush a liar in the op-Ed, and that's why Bush retaliated by leaking Plame's identity, right? At least that's the allegation, right? 71.212.31.95 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I want to add that the issue of Wilson's veracity is already addressed several times in the article. There is no proof of him being a "fraud" -- the claim is ridiculous -- but there are claims that he misrepresented certain things (in one case he acknowledged that he misspoke), and those claims are already here when they're relevant, as well as in the Wilson article.--csloat 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. By segregating the content into articles the way say, we are advancing the Democrat line that the Plame controversy is seprate that controvery regarding Wilson's credibility. It contend that this Plame affair only started because Wilson wrote an intentionally false OpEd piece. Many notable people contend that his OpEd peice was false. Therefore, we have to re-frame this article to take into account where the problem started. I started when Wilson intentionally created controversy. One consequence of that is that WhiteHouse released information to counter him. What info and precisely to what aim is in dispute, but there is no debating that the OpEd piece started the whole sordid affair. Merecat 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is about a federal investigation requested by the CIA and approved by the Department of Justice. If Fitzgerald indicts Wilson in this matter, we will certainly include it. We are not reporting the "line" of any party; instead we are trying to write a neutral article about the disclosure, investigation, and subsequent controversy. Other lies by other people go in other articles. Derex 00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the article should be called "Plame related criminal investigation" or something like that. Not "Plame affair". Merecat 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Derex 01:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that this article should be renamed. What do you say? Merecat 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine. On a purely personal tangent: What difference would it make if Wilson lied up to his eyeballs in that op-ed? How would revealing his wife's undercover identity help to rebut him? It's the Chewbacca defense, but since we're not here to parrot the party line on either side, it's also irrelevant. Derex 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, you already changed the name of the article, and when pressed by seven different people to justify the change, you refused to say anything about it. You also heard from all those people and more indicating the current name is acceptable. If you would like to propose a new name, please do so, and please offer some kind of reason to support such a change. As far as all the "Wilson is a fraud" stuff, it's just silly. George HW Bush called him an American hero. Wilson may not be fond of the current Bush, but to claim that he "wrote an intentionally false oped piece" to embarrass him strains credulity, and is not supported by any real evidence.--csloat 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First sentence - allegation

The first sentence currently reads:

The Plame affair refers to the controversy surrounding the White House leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative.

I think there might be some good ol' Democrat POV in that.

Shouldn't it read:

The Plame affair refers to the controversy surrounding the alleged White House leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative.

instead?

Anyone? 71.212.31.95 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You might think so. Remember, "It's a FACT!" isn't enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article (see WP:NOR). We cover what is reported elsewhere, not what we might "believe". What are your sources? --NightMonkey 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NightMonkey, all accusations regarding who leaked, until proven in court or admitted to are only alleged. If you do not understand that, you should not be editing controversial articless. the White House denies leaking Plame's ID. The article cannot presume WH is lying, regardless of what the media says - that's POV and BIAS. Merecat 11:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are right, Merecat. The allegation that the White House deliberately leaked Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative is unproven. To imply otherwise, as the first sentence of the article currently does, clearly violates NPOV. 71.212.31.95 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• The WH also said nobody was involved in leaking. Big surprise when, contrary to official statements, Rove, Libby, AND Cheney turned out to be involved in disseminating disinformation, which was not leaking since Bush said abracadabra and parts of the NIE were instantly declassified.. Nomen Nescio 12:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some reputable sources that are saying that this leak didn't come from the White House? What the Fearless Anon is asking about is if it is "alleged" that the leak came from the White House. There's a preponderance of evidence that it did. Who is saying that it did not come from the White House? --NightMonkey 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, your garbled paraphrasing and recitation of the actual events is so inaccurate as to render your assertions here meaningless. What you claim was said and what actually was said are not the same. What you think the President's power to declassify is, and what it actually is, are not the same. Merecat 13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• To deny the President said he knew nothing, and that those guilty would be dealt with is rewriting history at the extreme. Whether he can, instantly and without normal procedures, declassify by invoking higher powers, or not, I do not know. I do know it is odd that he felt the need to declassify already debunked information, while not declassifying correct information that contradicted him. Nomen Nescio 13:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But you do know that as of July 2003 the declassified NIE contained the alternate view of State. You know, the stuff you just said was, well, stuffed. Evensong 05:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, your garbled paraphrasing and recitation of the actual events is so inaccurate as to render your assertions here meaningless. What you claim was said and what actually was said are not the same. Merecat 13:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is correct, Merecat. Please observe polite language and the like. Regarding declassification of intelligence. The president has the power to declassify intelligence, no one is arguing to the contrary, but, according to White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "a declassification process" "takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and run through". Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in "a world according to Kevin". But in the real world, it's at minimum in dispute that Bush did not in fact declassify certain NIE information when he authorized it for release. Merecat 15:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• What did he say then? With reference! Nomen Nescio

Nescio, you are the one claiming Bush made specific statements. The onus to supply citations is on you. Merecat 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You know my assertions are always backed by sources, hence your attempts at discrediting the sources in stead of acknowledging what is widely known.

• MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. 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.[20]
• Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.[21]

Does this prove the President did say he knew nothing and those responsible would be fired? Nomen Nescio 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, the onus to read the article is on you. Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, if you bothered to pay attention, you would know that I am addressing Nescio's attribution of certain phrases to Bush himself. It's all well and good that you quote McCLELLAN's comment in bold, but those words were not spoken by Bush. Still, I recognize that proper attribution has been a challenge to you, so, I am willing to help work with you in understanding this: Attribute comments only to someone who actually spoke the words! Merecat 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Could you state the function of McLellan? Furthermore, did you miss the second quote? Nomen Nescio 15:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The Plame affair refers to the controversy surrounding the White House's allegation that there was a White House leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative.

That way, we address Merecat's concerns about attribution. Kevin Baas^talk 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Wilson made the allegation. The White House denies it. Merecat 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Right again, Merecat. 71.212.31.95 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NIE disclosure material needs work

I removed the following paragraph from the introduction, as it needs to be revised and relocated to avoid NPOV problems. 71.212.31.95 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Court papers released on April 5, 2006, revealed that Libby testified that “he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[22] The information Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson". A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, Condoleezza Rice told reporters that "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available." [23] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq[24]. The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the special counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[25] Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever outed Plame. [26]

how about this version? and what if the paragraph is placed after this one:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller served a civil contempt jail sentence from early July 2005 to 29 September 2005, for refusing to testify to the grand jury. She was released upon reaching an agreement with Fitzgerald to testify at a hearing scheduled on the morning of September 30, 2005.[33][34] Miller had previously indicated that, unlike Cooper's source, hers had not sufficiently waived confidentiality. She issued a statement at a press conference after her release, stating that her source, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, had released her from her promise of confidentiality.

Court papers released on April 5, 2006, revealed that Libby testified that “he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE to Miller."[27] The information Libby was allegedly authorized to disclose "was intended to rebut the allegations" of Joseph Wilson. A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq[28]. The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the special counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[29] Anthonymendoza 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If the NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, what is its relevance to this article? If the disclosure of the NIE was part of a plan to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson", in what way would it have done so? I'm not trying to debate this, just understand the reasoning. 71.212.31.95 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

the information just clarifies what libby and miller discussed, and libby's reasoning for doing so. fitzgerald also states in his filing that Bush was unaware libby discussed plame with miller. this may be relevant to this article because it has been suggested from the beginning that leaking her name was a white house effort. i think in many ways, this "Plame Affair" article has served its purpose and a new article specifically about the pretrial motions and upcoming trial is needed. ohterwise, this article will simply continue to grow. i wrote some of the NIE paragraph only because a different user kept trying to insert a biased interpretation of the released court documents. how about this:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller served a civil contempt jail sentence from early July 2005 to 29 September 2005, for refusing to testify to the grand jury. She was released upon reaching an agreement with Fitzgerald to testify at a hearing scheduled on the morning of September 30, 2005.[33][34] Miller had previously indicated that, unlike Cooper's source, hers had not sufficiently waived confidentiality. She issued a statement at a press conference after her release, stating that her source, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, had released her from her promise of confidentiality.

Court papers released on April 5, 2006, revealed that Libby testified that “he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in order to rebut allegations being made by Joe Wilson. According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE to Miller."[30] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq[31]. The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status. Anthonymendoza 12:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'm not so much concerned about the specific wording. Just trying to understand the relevance. Obviously it's relevant that Fitzgerald says Bush was unaware that Libby mentioned Plame to Miller. I guess the NIE disclosure might be relevant because:

1. it shows Bush authorized a response to Wilson's charges
2. it shows that the discussion in which Plame was mentioned was a substantive reply to Wilson's charges, not simply a revelation about Plame
3. documents show Libby was instructed to disclose NIE, but Plame is not mentioned, so Plame was not part of authorized disclosure
4. it shows Bush authorized leaking about-to-be-unclassified classified info to rebut Wilson's charges
5. it shows Bush authorized a leak to punish Wilson (how?)
6. it shows Bush authorized a leak even though he said he opposed to leaks
7. it shows Bush hasn't fired a leaker even though he said he would
8. it shows Bush was trying to mislead the public by citing discredited intelligence

Have I missed anything? 71.212.31.95 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

as i stated in previous discussions, it's all based on Libby's testimony, and he's charged with perjury and obstruction. a NY Times article i cited above quotes a white house official as disputing Libby's claim. so that said, all your points above are valid if Libby's testimony is truthful. the more i think about it, the more i believe the NIE info shouldn't be in the "Plame Affair", mainly because the documents leave much to be interpreted. if we must include it, i would vote to just include that: 1)libby testified he was authorized to discuss the NIE with Miller 2)Plame identity wasn't in the NIE, but her name did come up in the discussion, and 3)Bush was unaware, according to Fitzgerald, that plame's identity was discussed. Anthonymendoza 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually believe that all those points are valid, even if Libby is testifying truthfully. But if any of them are views held by a significant group, then they need to be included to represent that point of view. Provided of course, that they're relevant to the subject. The problem is deciding which aspects of the NIE are relevant, and which are not. Should there be a a separate article for the NIE? Maybe. Aspects of it should probably should go in several different articles. The question here is what aspects are relevant to this article. 71.212.31.95 17:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Miller never reported what she was told about Plame in a story. Neither did Woodward. I think Woodward said that although it was mentioned to him, it didn't seem like it was particularly significant. This might be considered evidence for the view that the disclosure was incidental, and not intended deliberately. I believe Libby testified that he didn't think it was classified information. 71.212.31.95 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

i think you and i think very much alike on this topic. i don't think the NIE story proves much of anything either. i should have stated that your above points may be valid for arguments sake, even though i personally don't think they are valid. if i remember correctly, miller testified that she doesn't remember how she came to learn of plame's name, but that she didn't think she learned it from libby (i've also read reports that woodward was told by white house officials to not write a story about plame because it was rather insignificant). the only other reference to the NIE i can find is in the Aluminum tubes article, but i don't see how it would be significant there either. unless anyone objects, i say just leave it out Anthonymendoza 19:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do think some aspects of the NIE disclosure are relevant to this subject, according to various POVs. And all POVs need to be represented. Also, I'm pretty sure there are going to be other opinions expressed here. I'd suggest we wait until we get some more feedback/input from other editors. 71.212.31.95 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

the NIE information can be found here: Valerie Plame Anthonymendoza 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran

David Shuster reports that sources have told him how National Security was damaged when Valerie Plame-Wilson's identity was leaked by the White House. His intel sources say that she worked with gathering intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. The outing of her name specifically damaged our national ability to collect intelligence on Iran's nuclear capabilities.[32] Nomen Nescio 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"nice try csloat"

Thanks, anthonymendoza, but I was not "trying" for anything. If you have added material that is factual and verifiable, you have improved the article, whether or not that material supports my POV. This is not a tit-for-tat "I'll debunk your quotes if you debunk mine" kind of game; it's an encyclopedia, and regardless of my personal POV, I am pleased to see more substantive information added to the entries. I also think you're incorrect that the rawstory "is based on" on the damage assessment; the damage assessment is an additional piece of information that was communicated to the rawstory writer.--csloat 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

then don't accuse me of "cherry-picking your favorite sentences, especially when the context suggests opposite conclusions!". i added what i thought was relevant, i stand by it, and if you think more material should be added (which you did) than add it. i got the impression you were trying to debunk the fact that mitchell and woodward both claimed to have been told about a damage assessment report, even though the Raw Story also cited a damage assessment report, which your edits failed to show. i'm not playing games. if you disagree with me, don't start throwing accusations of cherry-picking around. like you, i take this site seriously. Anthonymendoza 23:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

further, i didn't include the quote from the washington post article about a formal damage assessment not having been done because it's already mentioned in the section. i had already included a link to fitzgerald's letter to libby's defense team about this. no need to be redundant. Anthonymendoza 01:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

SOrry, it did appear to me that you had cherrypicked from the Washington Post article to reach the opposite conclusion of the article, but perhaps that was unfair. I will assume good faith more consistently with you in the future as you have been more than reasonable in other edits and interactions. The RawStory piece is months after the Mitchell/Woodward comments, so I don't really see an inconsistency there, but I had not even noticed the damage assessment stuff in that article before. As for Woodward and Mitchell, the WaPo article was the same week as their comments which made the issue seem a lot more relevant. Anyway I apologize for being accusatory.--csloat 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

well, the only reason i saw an inconsistency was because the raw story article said the damage assessment was ordered by James Pavitt, who left the CIA in late 2004, if i remember correctly. therefore it's very likely (to me at least) that raw story, mitchell and woodward's sources were citing the same report, just were told different interpretations by there sources. no need to apologize. i acknowledge that when i first began editing this page, some of my edits were unreasonable and probably left a negative lasting impression. Anthonymendoza 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Current event?

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

there are many different directions this page could proceed in the near future. from what i've been reading, a final decision regarding Rove is expected soon. while that decision could be seen as the end of the "Plame Affair", the upcoming Libby trial would keep this page a current event. plus, with plame's book expected next year, and with Novak also eventually planning a "tell-all" column, much of this page may have to be rewritten, as alot of it is speculation. therefore, i think the current event tag is still needed. Anthonymendoza 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rove: I'll be indicted

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this:

• In a new court filing, the prosecutor in the CIA leak case revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney made handwritten references to CIA officer Valerie Plame — albeit not by name — before her identity was publicly exposed.[33]

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

Jason Leopold

i know very little about Jason Leopold, but it appears his entire credibility as a journalist is now at stake. if Rove is indicted (or has already been indicted) his stature will increase immensely, but if Rove isn't indicted, i don't see him surviving the lynching he'll receive by bloggers. [34][35][36][37]Anthonymendoza 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

hmmm...

this is written in his wikipedia article:

Prior to writing News Junkie, Mr. Leopold had written a book entitled Off the Record. The book's release was permanently cancelled, however, following legal threats from one of the subjects of the book.[38] In that book, Mr. Leopold planned to reveal many secrets of his life as a young republican and paid 'reporter', breaking journalistic rules, and lying to employers about a criminal conviction. [39]Anthonymendoza 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

apparently Truthout has already felt some heat regarding Leopold's reporting [40]Anthonymendoza 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

this is all just too weird. [41][42][43][44][45]Anthonymendoza 01:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These too: [46] [47] Evensong 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Mainstream news organizations say bloggers can say something is going to happen every day for months and then claim to be ahead of the pack when it does -- or forget about it when it doesn't. Bloggers complain that traditional reporters don't credit them for scoops when they are proved right.[48]Anthonymendoza 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blogosphere

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

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

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

WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.' WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House.'[49]

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

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

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

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title. The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it. As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted. Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t [50]Anthonymendoza 02:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Original Research

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

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

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

1. Stephen Hadley
2. Karen Hughes
3. Mary Matalin
4. Colin Powell

If not "yes" to the first part, then this appears to be an article combining a diverse spectrum of speculation into a coherent theory not elsewhere documented, (i.e., original research).

If "yes" to the first part but "not yes" to the second part, then, again, this appears to be an article combining a diverse spectrum of speculation into a coherent theory not elsewhere documented, (i.e., original research).

If "yes" to the first part and "yes" to the second part, then where? Evensong 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed Deletion

I am proposing that we delete the first six paragraphs of the Background section of the article. They have nothing to do with Plame. If there is no objection within seven (7) days, it will be done. Evensong 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it could all synthesized into one or two paragraphs. There is useful background info to the Plame affair there, though not necessarily about Valerie Plame Wilson (this isn't the Valerie Plame article, of course, though Evensong's objection does suggest that "Plame affair" may not be the best title), so it shouldn't be deleted completely.-csloat 19:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

All of it does, though it could be shortened. Yes, I do object to just deleting it, as I stated above ("so it shouldn't be deleted completely"), for the reasons mentioned above.--csloat 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree it should all be condensed, with wiki-links to articles that go into greater detail about the topics. i think the first and second paragraphs could be deleted, with the third paragraph remaining as is. all the other paragraphs could be condensed into a single paragraph. some kind of backdrop is needed to put into perspective why this case is relevant. Anthonymendoza 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Csloat. Perhaps you can explain how each paragraph relates to the Plame Affair. That would give me a better idea of how to trim the section, or the accepted parameters for adding new material" Evensong 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthony has offered some suggestions, why not consider starting with those? Anything done can be un-done, so be bold. I'm not sure there's any value to initiating a debate over each paragraph; my feelings are that this material offers important background to what we're calling the "Plame affair."--csloat 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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

It is not the language; it is the substance. Why don't you look at it yourself? Or take a look at anthony's suggestions above (which I basically agree with)? I feel like you are trying to draw me into a debate about it. I am not interested.--csloat 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Put me down where? Why not just read the above, or read the paragraphs you have questions about? This is very strange.--csloat 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You want a specific objection? I object. I agree with some of the above in that the six paragraphs contain too much info and probably can be cut down to two -- but I think cutting it all is too much cutting. -- Sholom 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

An objection to be specific orinarily contains not only an objection, but the reasons therefore. I see only general, blanket objections. I see no specific reason as to why or how, exactly, any information in the paragraphs in question relates to the Plame Affair. Amendoza's comments do not really address this question. Basically, I have objected to this material as not relevant. Show me some reliable source showing it is relevant. Evensong 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthony wrote "some kind of backdrop is needed to put into perspective why this case is relevant" and suggested paragraphs 1-2 could be deleted, 3 should stay as is, and the rest should be reduced to one paragraph. The reasoning is that it provides the "backdrop" to "put into perspective why this case is relevant." I really don't think the claim is that controversial or difficult to understand and I don't see why anyone needs to unpack each sentence in the talk page. But if you feel it is needed, by all means do so. What I don't get is why you feel that it's OK to demand that others do that for you.--csloat 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the "backdrop" specifically; when you say "this case" what case, specifically, is it that you are referring to; finally, specifically, how does this "backdrop" put into perspective "this case" whatever this increasingly hypothetical "case" may be? From what I can see, this section is written specifically lead the reader into viewing the Plame Affair through a lens which assumes that it is rooted in pre-war intelligence snafus. That is but one perspective. This article appears to present it as the only perspective. But without knowing why this information is here, I can't really present any balance. I am not demanding anything more than a clear statement as to why the information is relevant background. It is a reasonable request, one which will improve the page through debate and consensus. Evensong 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wake-up call

What about this?

Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify in the perjury case against his former chief of staff, a special prosecutor said in a court filing Wednesday.[51]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this affidavit, I describe the investigation at some length even though the specific items not being disclosed to the defense are very few. I have erred on the side of caution in describing the broader investigation in considerable detail because I am concerned that a literal reading of the relief sought by the defense — disclosing all documents or information regarding conversations between officials and reporters in spring 2003 regardless of when the documents were created — would sweep in virtually every grand jury transcript and reports of interview of most witnesses and many irrelevant documents as nearly every discussion or document about the investigation — even documents created in 2005 about conversations in 2005 — refer back to the baseline fact that information was leaked to reporter Robert Novak in July 2003. We are proceeding on the assumption that such a broad scope is not appropriate. However, we set forth at pages 2 through 12 a description of the larger investigation in order to provide the Court the full scope of the materials implicated by the language of that defense request, which, if complied with, would compromise “innocent accuseds” in an investigation where more than (redacted) witnesses have been interviewed and more than (redacted) witnesses have testified before the grand jury or in depositions ancillary to the grand jury. The affidavit then discusses at pages 12 through 15 what information is known to investigators about conversations between reporters and officials prior to July 14, 2003, and what information has and has not been disclosed to Libby. The affidavit then describes at pages 15 through 18 what documents, grand jury transcripts and related materials have been provided and what has not been produced.[52]Anthonymendoza 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is truthout crying wolf again?

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

heheh, right on the tail of this: [53]; I see it's already been added. Curiouser and curiouser.--csloat 12:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure what's excellent about it in any way, but TruthOut always cries wolf. It's what they do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The analysis of what's happening is what's excellent in that piece. Far better than an assertion, IMHO.--csloat 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

i think the definition of Fitzmas may have to be changed. after all is said and done, it's republicans celebrating and democrats scrambling to save face. the firedoglake piece is just more wishful thinking. it's time for bush-haters to let this go. Anthonymendoza 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm sure you mean me; I'll let it go just as soon as Fitzgerald does. As for the piece, you should actually read it -- there's a lot of analysis in there quite apart from anything that might be labeled "wishful thinking." Apart from thoughts about what might happen next, her take on the graymail strategy and her comments about Fitzgerald's professionalism are noteworthy. IMHO, as I said; YMMV. As for Fitzmas, I plan to accept whatever Fitzgerald winds up announcing, indictments or no. It is sad that Karl Rove won't be one of the traitors punished for this, but I am glad to read that he is at least losing his influence at the White House. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he has decided to actually serve his country and help Fitzgerald, but I'm not holding my breath....--csloat 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't punish what wasn't a crime after all...Either way, once "official" word comes from Fitzgerald, a lot of stuff is going to have to be rewritten, especially the huge section in Karl Rove --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there was never a crime, there would not be an investigation. A prosecutor of Fitzgerald's caliber is not going to waste this much of the grand jury's time; that much is obvious. The issue is that you can't convict someone of a crime without a solid case, and such a case may not exist against Rove. Or perhaps he did turn state's -- we still don't know what is in "Sealed vs. Sealed," though it could be nothing. Either way, it's true that a lot of stuff will have to be written when Fitz closes the book on this.--csloat 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The investigation, of course, was to see whether a crime was committed, not simply because a crime was committed. Considering the source of "Sealed v. Sealed," I think we can easily dismiss it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The source of Sealed v. Sealed, as I understand it, is the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. And prosecutors do not waste this much of a grand jury's time and energy just "to see whether a crime was committed" but rather to find out if there is enough evidence to press on with a trial.--csloat 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, i wasn't referring specifically to you. i've been reading left leaning blogs all morning and the sentiment is the same on each page (a "well lets wait and see what this really means" approach to today's news). and i did read the article you linked. this paragraph is noteworthy to me: "And I’ve also said this, and it is worth a reminder: Patrick Fitzgerald and his team are career professionals. You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum. You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it. You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there. It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it. (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)" after five grand jury appearances, fitzgerald couldn't prove anything, yet this analysis wants us to believe fitzgerald determined rove is "scum". very intellectual argument. but libby's trial may have surprises and the debate will continue. Anthonymendoza 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading her, I think. She didn't say Fitz thought that, though she clearly thinks that. But you're missing her argument completely, which is that Fitz is a professional who is not going to jump the gun, and who is not going to convict unless he can make a case stick. She also points out that the investigation is over when he says it is over. You do not keep a grand jury occupied with something like this for this long if there is nothing there. Anyway, we can go on forever on this, but wait and see does seem like the way to go for now.--csloat 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, but here's what makes my head spin with regards to that. fitzgerald has already said the bulk of the investigation is over. and he already explained why he would continue to impanel the grand jury: "Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing." rove's fifth grand jury testimony was a continuation of the first grand jury, not an indication the case is moving in a new direction. where is it being reported that fitzgerald is broadening the case? his affidavit i posted above says that he's given libby pretty much all the evidence he's collected and that it all relates to what he was asked to investigate: the novak article. can you link some articles for me that indicate fitzgerald is expanding the investigation? now granted, some new info may come from libby's trial, but the scope of the trial is such that i doubt anything earthshaking will emerge. Anthonymendoza 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Heh; not closed at all, unless you choose to stop reading after the second or third paragraph. To quote: "In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.... Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.... we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.... Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19." Perhaps it will be closed monday? (Or, to be fair, perhaps they will tell us on monday that they meant a week from monday, hehe... this whole thing is fishy, to be sure.) One last thing - TO claims they will protect the confidentiality of their sources. But if their sources turn out to have been feeding them disinformation (and that seems more and more likely with each passing day), I hope they will recognize that they should out their sources at that point. Me, I'm still waiting to see the letter Luskin refers to, or to hear something definite from Fitzgerald.--csloat 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My god, when is he going to stop? His credibility is in the toilet, yet he needs to grasp on this to have anyone read him again. Sheesh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Khan sentence

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

my understanding is that the New York Times first published his name and quoted Pakistani officials: The release of Mr. Khan's name - it was made public in The New York Times on Aug. 2, citing Pakistani intelligence sources - drew criticism by some politicians, like Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who charged that this leak might have compromised the search in Britain and Pakistan for Mr. Khan's Qaeda partners. (No officials in Britain, Pakistan or the United States have told The Times on the record that identifying Mr. Khan had such an impact).[54] and transcripts of a press background briefing showed Khan's name wasn't used:Earlier on, Reuters had reported, and I had repeated, that the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was given on background to the press by a Bush administration official. The assertion was confirmed by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in an Aug. 8 interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, in which she said that U.S. officials gave the name out on background. Both Reuters and Rice appear to have been wrong in this allegation, and I regret having repeated it. The transcript of the briefing, when released, did not contain Khan's name. However, I am not very embarrassed about being wrong, since Rice misled me. Her office later issued a correction, saying that she had just repeated back to Blitzer his own statement, and had misspoken. This performance by her seems to me bizarre and alarming, but there you have it.[55][56] so how does any of this relate to the plame affair??? Anthonymendoza 20:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Waas article

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

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

public opinion

the public opinion section references polls that are a year old. this section should be updated with new polls or deleted all together. i think it should be deleted. any other thoughts? Anthonymendoza 20:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be updated. It's very useful information in an encyclopedia, especially if someone is researching public opinion about a particular issue. The fact that the mass media covers polls about such events suggests that they are notable. Especially over time, it is a good idea to have an indication of how the public responded to poll questions about a particular event at different moments in time. I think it is particularly relevant here when there is speculation that the event may affect elections.--csloat 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Eeks

Is this what they mean with interesting?:

The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House.[57]

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

Analysis

If true, this could indicate that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA employee prior to Novak's column being published. Some believe that statements by Rove claiming he did not reveal her name would still be strictly accurate if he mentioned her only as 'Wilson's wife', although this distinction would likely have no bearing on the legality of the disclosure. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leaks. Whether Rove's statement to Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in fact violated any laws has not been resolved.

This unsourced bit of analysis looks interesting. Is it based on anything in print? --Uncle Ed 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim was floated around as a Republican talking point immediately after the controversy began in 2003, but it has been pretty much dropped by conservatives after enough ridicule. ("Rove didn't say Valerie was a CIA agent; he said Joe Wilson's wife was -- that could be anybody!") Stephen Colbert brilliantly parodied this when he pointed out Plame at the White House Correspondents' dinner. It quite obviously has no bearing on either the legality or the morality of the leak.--csloat 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "original research" to point out that "Joe Wilson's wife" narrows down the field of women to only a handful of people - only one if Joe had no former wives.

This is a stunningly long article for something that has not been proven in any way. Maybe a couple paragraphs would be enough. Look at the Ted Kennedy/Chappaquidick article for a way to do this in a concise fashion. June 20, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.51.25 (talk • contribs)

I agree. But I think it's long, in part, because we're still in the middle of it. For example, there are a lot of tentative assertions, and counter claims, and balancing going on that can be excised once a number of facts come out at trial. There are other reasons, too . . . but I'm patient, and truly believe that a good amount of excizing can be done once the Libby trial concludes and Fitzgerald is finished. -- Sholom 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What Republican knucklehead said (1) that Rove didn't identify Valerie but only (2) that Rove identified "Joe Wilson's wife"? Even a sometime fan of Republicanism such as myself would like to that in print! --Uncle Ed 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember who said it offhand, and I don't feel like looking for it at the moment, but that's my recollection. I also agree it's not original research -- in fact, I think there were many critics of the argument that we could quote directly if the point is important.--csloat 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Investigation over?

Does this letter imply Fitzgerald is turning to other matters?Anthonymendoza 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PDF won't open for me :( Arkon 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No.--csloat 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, perhaps Fitzgerald continued his other investigations during this entire period. That might explain why it has taken him so long to accomplish so little. As far as I know, Fitzgerald has not dropped his prosecution of Libby. As long as that is moving forward, his office will continue to work. Since Rove has been cleared, I would not be surprised if they are no longer actively investigating any other persons. When asked that question specifically, his office declined to comment. RonCram 07:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i didn't mean to imply libby's prosecution won't go forward, but Novak has now revealed that Fitzgerald has told him the investigation is over, thus enabling him to speak about his role.[58]Anthonymendoza 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Novak writes: "his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded." I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.

From Novack's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Ouch! Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove. Novack's article Scribner 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact that Wilson had a wife is not what this case was about.

Was Fitzgerald duped ?

"If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and that it wasn?t Libby or Rove, why did he later call them to testify before the grand jury? Was it simply to determine whether he could trap them into making perjurious statements, something the law does not permit?" [59]