Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 1

John Dean?

Wasn't John Dean a white house staff member who was indicted for acts while in office? He was convicted of obstruction of justice regarding Watergate.

No. Dean was fired by Nixon before he was charged. Nixon's other aides who got charged quit before their fates. - Hoshie | 08:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Partisan?

"He resigned immediately. The entire incident was caused by the Democrats in their vain effort to meddle with the George W Bush presidency." I question the neutrality of this statement. And I claim that the article does not present both sides of the story equally. Another spin attempt?

Religion

Libby is Jewish. Shouldn't that fact appear in the article?

Nearly irrelevant, but if chosen to be in the article, for completeness sake, it should be only in the personal section at the bottom, rather than first mentioned at the top of the article. There is no support offered anywhere, including any content now within the article, that suggests any relevance or any importance deserving such prominence. Indeed, referenced articles clearly offer that it is not relevant to his history, or to others' perception of his public life.JohnRuskin 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Is he? I didn't know that. I don't know where you'd put it in the article, but you could add him to the list of Category:Jewish Americans.--Max power 21:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

http://canadiancoalition.com/adbusters01/

Yes:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14947

Trivia seems as good a place as any to put it, or it should be woven into his bio.

From JTA.org

"Libby Jewish? Some wonder how neo-con’s faith impacts leak scandal" http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15997&intcategoryid=3

Sadly, antisemites have jumped on this, but it seems to have some relevance to the story Seminumerical 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see as much relevance about his religion as the fact the Bolton isn't Jewish -- which is to say, very little. Sholom 18:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bolton is a comic character: thank God he is gone. Evil man. 24.201.227.244 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

speculation

Is there any source for the statement: Had he not resigned, he may well have been summarily dismissed? I think this is unwarrented speculation. Guettarda 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

sorry, just a lowly anon, but I can respond to this. Bush promised in july to fire anyone who committed a crime in the Plame affair, so if he is convicted, there would be the possibility. It's anyones guess if the threat would be followed up on 206.174.70.154 21:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This lack of sourcing is a real problem for Wikipedia. Even if Bush said what he said, YOU have the responsibility of framing it in that way, so people can come to their own conclusions. As in, for instance, " Had he not resigned, he may well have been summarily dismissed, for in July of 2003 (?) in a speech ___[enter details]_______ Bush stated that " [enter details ] " When you do this, not only are you ruining the reputation, reliability of Wikipedia, but you are also showing a lack of faith in and respect for the public intelligence... (Although, honestly, given recent events, the "public's intelligence" may seem wanting, we still need to act as if we are., Intelligent, that is.) - R --68.45.57.193 21:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

2 years earlier - after the leak story broke - Bush stated publicly that if anyone in his admin. had even LEAKED the information then they would be "dealt with" - which is unlikely to have been anything less than dismissal. Political commentators of both stripes say that no one with 5 pending felony charges could ever stay on the WH payroll. There is now no doubt that Libby was one person who leaked the information. He doesn't deny that. He denies that he lied from whom he got the info. Davidpatrick 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think there ought to be much debate around what Bush said -- as it was quite clear. Bush said anyone connected to this scandal would be dimissed from the administration. If that actually happens or not is a question only time can answer - but Bush said what he said, and that can be quoted factually and fairly.

If he got the info from reporters, it doesn't count as a leak, does it?

It does, when that statement is a lie...

4 White House officials have told the prosecutor that Libby discussed the info with them BEFORE Libby claimed he got the info from any reporters. Then the 3 reporters that Libby testified to having spoken with all testified that they had got the info from HIM and that none of them had given Libby the info. That is 7 people who have sworn under oath that what Libby said in that regard was a lie. And Libby's own handwritten notes from one month earlier show that Libby got the info from Cheney. And in JUNE. 7 people - and Libby's own notes. That's sufficient for this piece. Davidpatrick 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush's "promise" has been a moving target for a long time. There's no reason to take it serously. Guettarda 02:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

For Wiki purposes surely we should take Bush at his word - otherwise we are pre-judging him as a liar. Davidpatrick 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course - but you still need to cite it, write, and source it properly. R

we can quote Bush all we want. To "take Bush at his word" would be biased, and frankly, extremely naive. Bush isn't a liar, of course, he is just struggling to read his cue cards, it is uncertain if he is able to parse the meaning of what he reads in real time, and therefore he cannot be accused of knowingly making false statements. Baad 15:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Joking? Rkevins82 - TALK 16:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

well, yes, I suspect he is relying on something like ex falso quodlibet. Most of his utterances being ungrammatical, they cannot be attributed a meaning in the strict sense, so he can argue that they were not actually statements. What was "it was not [penetrative] sex" for Clinton will be "it wasn't a [grammatical] statement" for Bush. very smart, I must say :)

Okay, you guys aren't biased in this case at all. Assholes.

Ulysses S. Grant

Who in Grant's administration was in Libby's position? This is not mentioned in all the "first in 135 years" hoopla.

Great question. Until it's answered, I pulled that sentence into a separate paragraph and attributed it to NBC, which apparently was the source for the quote. Tempshill 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It was Orville Babcock, who didn't have an article. I restored the line to the intro, and everyone is welcomed to research Mr. Babcock and add to the stubby article. Tempshill 23:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction, he has an article over at Orville E. Babcock; I created a redirect and am fixing the link in this article. Tempshill 23:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gaps in biography

What did he do between 1975 and 2000? CalJW 22:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also interested to know if he is married and if he has children. I think that might play a role in his willingness or unwillingness to go to jail for 30 years (as opposed to a plea baragin that might implicate people to whom he is presumed to be loyal. Anyone know? Evelyn

Well, I'm guessing he'll get a presidential pardon, so he probably won't have to worry. Alex 21:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

im just speculating, but i somehow doubt the president would issue a pardon to someone the public knew was guilty (if he is found guilty) i mean come on hes not clinton!(im allowed to say that im a democrat) -matt

Why not? His father got away with it. --CBDunkerson 13:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As Bush already said, "if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." --JWSchmidt 14:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

References

All the references were poorly labeled and not balanced at all. Some of them didn't exist any more. So I chopped them out. It might could use some more good, properly labeled sources.

Weasel and peacock terms

It is generally accepted that Lewis Libby played a significant role in the outing of Valerie Plame. This has some speculating about the role of Vice President Cheney in the leak.

Aren't these weasel terms? We need to determine:

1. Who accepts it ("generally" is vague)
2. What is significant (needs context)
3. Who is speculating (it can't be the Wikipedia editor)

glocks out 22:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Principal Deputy

Who was Libby's "Principal Deputy" (this is the term used by Fitzgerald) who suggested that, "information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson"?

the first?

"Libby was the first White House staff member in 130 years to be indicted for acts in office" <-- It seems like there are not enough qualifiers in this statement. It seems like you need to make it

• high level staff,
• indicted while still in office,
• indicted for something done while in ofice. --JWSchmidt 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In a related note, the statement Many other officials have been indicted in the interim, but always after they had already stepped down is useful, but begs for an actual figure. Andt would significantly improve the context of the article if someone could (citing sources, of course) say something like "At least one White House official from each administration since that of William Henry Harrison has been indicted for crimes allegedly committed in office," or whatever the actual fact is. Tempshill 02:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What if Cheney revealed Plame's identity?

What if the Vice President of the USA did reveal Plame's identity to Lewis Libby? Could Cheney be impeached for doing so? Mightberight/wrong 22:33, 29 October 2005 (AST).

First... there is no 'what if' here. Cheney DID tell Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA - see text of the Libby indictments for confirmation. That said, whether this could be impeachable or not would depend on WHY Cheney did so. If it were just during the course of normal government operations then they were both cleared for that info and no crime would be involved. However, if Cheney told Libby about her CIA status with the intent of having Libby leak that information to the public... charges for conspiracy, violation of the IIPA, espionage, making false statements, obstruction, et cetera would all be likely (and impeachable offenses). However, proving crimes of intent is always difficult - which is almost certainly why Libby himself hasn't been charged with such yet. --CBDunkerson 01:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no strict definition of what constitutes an "impeachable offense" in that the power reposes in the US House of Representatives to bring a bill of impeachment for whatever it considers "high crimes or misdemeanors." This is a distinct power from that of a grand jury, which can issue indictments for felony crimes (but not misdemeanors, which are lesser offenses that can be brought by a sworn complaint by a US or district attorney). States also have summary charges that can be brought by a police officer or other authorized person.

Impeachments are tried in the US Senate and if a majority vote to convict, the only penalty is removal from office and prohibition from holding future office. Whig 03:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, impeachment and removal is supposed to be for "...treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States". The 'against the United States' part was dropped in the final stylistic revision, but that was specifically intended not to alter the meaning... which was called "maladministration" in other drafts - basically misusing the powers of the office. Of course, some congresses have since redefined 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to mean, 'anything we say it means'. Still, treason and bribery are specifically included... and George H. W. Bush called people who violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, "the most insidious of traitors". Using access to classified information for political revenge to the detriment of our intelligence gathering operations would also precisely fit the ORIGINAL definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. --CBDunkerson 11:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Whig, I believe you meant that it takes a 2/3 majority to convict in an impeachment trial. Unless the Dems increase their number in the Senate from 44-and-a-Vermonter-to-be-named-later to 67 in a hurry, I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking for Cheney's replacement.--RattBoy 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the indictment, at approximately the same point in June 2003, Cheney, Undersecretary of State John Bolton and a "senior officer of the CIA" all talked to Libby about the fact that Plame worked for the CIA. Apparently Cheney testified that at that time he and Libby were aware that Plame was in the Counterproliferation Division, meaning that Plame worked in the secret operations side of the CIA. What is interesting is that when Libby/Cheney wanted to know about a CIA action, they asked Bolton to get the information, rather than go directly to the CIA. It would be interesting to know if the "senior officer of the CIA" was George Tenet. --JWSchmidt 05:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Marc Grossman, not Bolton. john k 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Just wondering what this bit in the trivia section relates to libby:

Bush administration illegal payments to columnists including Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus.

And also, were the payments illegal? I just thought they were improper since there was never any investigation or calls for one.Viper Daimao 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Scooter Libby as author anyone? He wrote a book about bears raping 10yo girls in cages and deerfucking. Thank you NYT!~~

Schizophrenic edit of the day

Trivia - Removed biased material I would personally call trash; Wikipedia is not a forum for airing personal opinions

I agreed with the edit, but the summary was too good not to post. Eliot 01:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is he now?

I'd like to read something about what mischief Libby is currently up to, perhaps in the Trivia Section. And does anyone know if he concurs with the recent admission of Richard Perle about the failure of Rumsfeld’s management of the Iraq war?

Irving or Irve?

The opening paragraph gives the name Irving and the trivia gives him Irve glocks out 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be "Irve". john k 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Brian Williams and Al Franken have both called him Irving in interviews recently. Jacqui ^★ 07:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

location

I feel like this article ought to be at either I. Lewis Libby or Scooter Libby. I have rarely seen him referred to as just "Lewis Libby" (without the initial). john k 23:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Additions by 83.73.149.207

Does anyone else have a problem with his unsourced, truncated quotes and analysis?

Valerie Plame was a CIA agent in 20 years. Blowing her cover could be harmfull for all her contacts in the past as covert agent on WMD's questions. The blowing could make it more difficult for other CIA agents in the future to find trustfull cooperation with persons all over the world.

The Presidents father, not only former president but also former Director of CIA, said once, at a speech, when the CIA headquarter in Langley, Virgina was rededicated, as the George Bush Center for Intelligence, about those, would expose clandestine CIA officers(as Valerie Plame): "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those, who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors....".

Doesnt really seem like this belongs here or anywhere. Viper Daimao 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Noticed user has made same additions to related articles.[1] Viper Daimao 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. More appropriate for Plamegate if anything. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Plame - a covert operative?

Can we please make a concerted effort to sort out the Rove-work on whether or not there was any reason for there to have been an investigation, a special prosecutor, and a series of actions by the Bush White House culminating in obstruction charges over something that wasn't actually a crime?

It's becoming obvious that she was covert. [2] Regarding the (now removed) Fitzgerald quote, the reticence of federal officials to discuss the matter shouldn't surprise, or confuse, anyone at this point.

Can we have a productive discussion here and settle the matter and the language?

Part of the problem is general vs legal definitions of 'covert'. Plame's employment by the CIA was definitely "classified". That has been confirmed by numerous sources and stated by Fitzgerald in the Libby indictments and his press conference. However, there are various requirements for 'covert' status as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, all of which are known to apply to Plame except >possibly< the requirement that the person have worked overseas in an undercover capacity within the prior five years. Since all of Plame's overseas undercover assignments remain classified information we don't know whether this is the case or not. If Plame did have such assignments within the past five years then she was a "covert" operative under the definition of the IIPA... if not then she can reasonably still be described as 'covert' in that her CIA employment was "classified", but the IIPA would not apply.

All that being said, intentionally leaking "classified" information is a crime in its own right. If Libby knew this information was classified when he leaked it then he can be indicted for that as well. Fitzgerald has indicated that the perjury and obstruction so delayed his investigation that he was unable to build a complete case for whether other laws had been broken... hence the new grand jury. --CBDunkerson 16:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's also the additional matter of Brewster Jennings & Associates...

The Rove people have started a meme that Plame was not covert, and it's clearly playing out here as various carriers are attempting to modify language and remove passages of this article to create confusion and obscure the shape of the scandal.

The encyclopedia deals just fine with other issues that are not officially acknowledged but widely known to be true for obvious reasons. I am basically looking for anyone who can make a reasonable argument against simply asserting the obvious - that Plame was almost certainly covert operative, and her exposure was a crime under the IIPA, or there would be no investigation.

Let me state it again, to be completely clear. The CIA does not ask other agencies to find out if someone was under NOC with the CIA. There would be no investigation if Plame had not been covert. Assertions to the contrary are particularly egregious form of political propaganda - and this article seems to have been thoroughly worked over to have exactly this flaw. Option 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So anyone who disagrees with you and says that she might not have been covert is spreading Rovian propaganda? There are legitimate questions as to whether she was covert, and whether she was covert as it was defined to be a crime to reveal in the IIPA. For one, she hadnt been out of the country since 1997, her name had also been listed as Wilson's wife in different sources such as "Who's Who in America". The claim that she likely had her cover blown in 1994 by Aldrich Ames[3]. the fact that Bob Woodward said, "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment."[4]. These raise legitimate question as to her covert status and how covert she was, casting any such questions aside as "propoganda" from Rove's "memes" is simply not in the interest of covering this story. Viper Daimao 21:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

VD, the fact that Valerie Wilson has a name was not a secret. Nor was the fact that she was married to Joseph Wilson. That she worked for the CIA? THAT was a secret... and it couldn't be found in "Who's Who". So can we PLEASE drop that MASSIVE red herring?

As to her not having been out of the country (on an undercover assignment) since 1997... you state this as a fact. Any proof of it, or just assuming? After all, the CIA can't very well say, 'Yeah, we sent her on a covert mission to Saudi Arabia in 2001.'

The CIA >did< have suspicions that Ames might have blown her cover... but that doesn't make it any less of a crime for Libby or others to do so also. Woodward's unsourced allegations might be significant... or just hot air like his claim that there would be no indictments.

However, NONE of that changes the fact that Plame's employment by the CIA was "classified". She was a 'covert' operative in CIA parlance, and possibly as defined by the IIPA as well... but whether IIPA applied or not, knowingly leaking classified information is also a crime. --CBDunkerson 23:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"So anyone who disagrees with you and says that she might not have been covert is spreading Rovian propaganda?" Notice the clever twisting of the words to make it personal. The fact that it's propaganda has nothing to do with me. And yes, it is rather obvious, if not desperate, propaganda that she was not covert.

"For one, she hadnt been out of the country since 1997," An unsourced and unverifiable speculation. Highly dishonest to even put this forth.

"her name had also been listed as Wilson's wife" Oh boy. So you thought it was a secret that she was his wife? You realize we're discussing whether she was under NOC, don't you? This comment is even more dishonest, and prima facie ridiculous.

"The claim that she likely had her cover blown in 1994 by Aldrich Ames" So you have the audacity to suggest that if cover may have been compromised its OK, or legal, for others to compromise it? Or that if the Russians maybe knew something about her it means everyone knew the same thing?

So, no legitimate questions have been raised so far. And we have a good illustration of how this meme works. It's unusually poor work for Bush's people; it's particularly incoherent and trivially dismissed. But unfortunately this isn't a factor in many people's thinking, and it is surprisingly common nonetheless. Frankly, I think this "she's not covert" phenomena is flagrant enough to get an entry of its own... In a way it's almost more significant than the issue itself.

So, are there any _real_ arguments against her being covert/NOC/etc, or her exposure being a crime under the IIPA? Option 16:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not just use "undercover?" All this twisting around and edit warring seems to me to have a simple fix. Just use undercover. Covert seems to have a specified meaning that allows people to nitpick; I don't think undercover does. Obviously her CIA identity was secret in some way or else there'd be no need for this whole affair. Nitpicking and wikilawyering over what exact word to use (complete with exhaustive explanations that are largely irrelevant to this article) isn't the best way to proceed. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

PS, I moved this discussion down to the bottom of the page instead of the top; it's a recently-added discussion and should've been placed here from the start. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How about "non-official cover"? This seems to be a non-controversial way to describe it. john k 01:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that's completely meaningless to the average reader. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Non-official cover," "undercover," and "covert" mean the same thing. We only know that she was classified and a CIA officer. If she was "Non-official cover," "undercover," and "covert," it would be a violation of the law. If it so meaningless, why is it being repeatedly inserted here?--Mr j galt 18:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Galt, what does "classified" mean to you? Thank you. Derex 19:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note:

Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. The Feb 13, 2006 Newsweek.

For more, please see this section of the Talk:Plame affair page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Apprentice

Has anyone else read the stories about this novel, which Libby apparently wrote ten years ago? Somebody should add a section about this truly weird book under trivia. Bestiality with bears? Painting pubic hair? This guy has a strange imagination... 208.27.111.121 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Indictment and resignation

Maybe it's just written weird, but there is a pointed effort to make it clear that Libby isn't indicted on revealing a covert's name, only about lying. This is true, but it's weird to me that this article has to specifically say what Lewis Libby was not indicted for. Might as well add he wasn't indicted for smuggling plumbs across the border. I'm pretty sure it's just how the sentence is phrased though. Maybe the article should be written in such a way as to protend truth without having to tell what isn't truth. I don't know. Thoughts? glocks out 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense the way it is to me. He wasn't being investigated for smuggling plumbs. Option 15:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it should be prefixed as such then. There simply isn't context for it. glocks out 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I originally wrote the paragraph in question, far down in the article in the section on details of the indictment. I thought it was important to point out; the investigation was about the possible crime of revealing the name, and he ended up not charged with that. He might be in the future. My original paragraph was improved immensely, by the way, by whoever added the line about kicking sand in the umpire's face. Tempshill 22:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Fitzgerald umpire statement here originally implied that he thought that Libby's lying prevented him from determining whether a crime was committed in the first place. However, Fitzgerald refused to say whether he could make that determination or not, and it is not clear whether Libby made that determination easier or harder. It is possible that Fitzgerald has determined that there was no original crime, but that he is still justified in prosecuting anyone who lied or interfered with his factfinding.

I also inserted the word "allegedly" before the list of things that Libby supposedly did. The indictment says so, but some of those items are in serious doubt and Libby will surely contest some of them.

I deleted, "He made clear that in this instance he felt he was the equivalent of the umpire - and that Libby had (figuratively) kicked sand in his eyes - making it impossible (so far) for him to determine if there was evidence of such a crime having been committed in the first place." It is not clear to me whether Fitzgerald has made any such determination or not. What he said at the press conference was, "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view." It would be better to put in the Fitzgerald quote than to use the extremely misleading restatement of the quote.

I changed, "He has not publicly commented on the testimony of the four White House officials and three national reporters whose testimony directly contradicts his testimony." We don't know for sure how the others testified to the grand jury, and we don't know whether there are any contradictions. Perhaps someone could detail the alleged contradictions with a NPOV. Schlafly 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

debates about Plame's covert status

I think this has really gotten out of hand here. Most of it either belongs in the Plame article or the Plame affair article. I am referring to all the stuff from Some legal observers, especially conservtive ones, have argued that Libby never should have been indicted for leaking former CIA officer Valerie Plame's name, on the grounds that her ostensible cover company.... until the (now) end of this section Without a leak of covered, secret status there would be no leak crime and possibly no justification for the investigation from which the Libby charges arose. It reads like apologetics. It's way overkill. Perhaps it belongs even in a new article called "Brewster-Jennings" (which would already be longer than many articles of other better known companies). But all this speculation about what undercover firm Plame might have worked for (almost none of which has any sources) is rank speculation, and two degrees removed from Libby. Further, the first sentence I just quoted is misleading, because he wasn't "indicted for leaking....". Further, the last sentence I just quoted "possibly no justification for the investigation" is also misleading, because it leaves out that the CIA itself requested the investigation. And most everything in between is just as flawed -- either by being misleading, unsourced speculation, or tangential. (Who cares that a particular zip codes has a lot of millionaires?) I suggest the entire section be removed (or at least moved to some other article) -- with apologies to whoever put all that work into it. Thoughts? -- Sholom 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Crutches

Perhaps his recent usage of crutches could go in the trivia section? Along with an explination if anyone has it. 24.31.29.171 08:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I added one. Hopefully there weren't any objections. --24.31.29.171 08:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Irve/Irving

From an NPR transcript: MIKE PESCA: So here we have I. Lewis Libby, the most powerful adviser to the second-most powerful man in the world and no one knows his actual name, until now. Libby was born in New Haven, Connecticut, and attended Yale there. I called the New Haven library and talked to a librarian named Brad Bullis. Bullis is a member of the National Guard who spent time fighting in Afghanistan, is not one to shrink from a challenge. Bullis called the librarian at Libby's alma mater.

Mr. BRAD BULLIS (Librarian): And she invited me to come over and take a look at some yearbooks, so I looked at the Yale Banner for 1972 and we found that his name is Irve--I-R-V-E--Lewis Libby Jr.

From the Washington Post: Several aspects of Libby are subject to varied interpretations, or at the very least, casual mystery. Libby is loath to disclose -- even to close friends -- what the "I" stands for in his name. Matalin credits USA Today with "breaking" the story that Libby's first name is "Irv" (though other publications had reported "Irving" and public databases list him as "Irve"). · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason this isn't considered definitive is... it's a yearbook. People sometimes use nicknames in their yearbooks. 'Irve' could be a nickname for 'Irving'. I really don't know, but I don't think that NPR's find definitively settles it. --CBDunkerson 18:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though most sources seem to indicate it's either Irv or Irve as opposed to Irving. Anyway, I think there's enough ambiguity that we shouldn't be listing his first name in the top at all; leave it I and then explain the (somewhat farcical) "controversy" down later. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with using I. only. That seems to be what Libby goes by anyway. glocks out 20:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Irving Lewis Liebowitz

This name comes from Conspiracy Planet. The article doesn't even give a reason for it. It simply states, "Scooter Libby aka Irving Lewis Liebowitz" without offering a reason for this name. This is the first place this name appeared, and has no evidence to support it. Unless evidence does come foward abotu this name, it should not be used. glocks out 20:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Germ Boy

From his days as Defense Secretary during the Gulf War, Cheney was intensely interested in biological warfare. Libby, who worked for Cheney as an under secretary from 1990 to '92, shares his boss's obsession with biowar. Known in the Administration as "germ boy," Libby was obsessed with pre-emptively vaccinating the entire population against smallpox. (The fixation even extended to Libby's 1996 novel, The Apprentice, about a smallpox epidemic.) [5] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

recent new content in investigation section

I removed a lot of content largely due to style and what looks like editorializing and speculation. I think there's valuable information here, though, so I'm posted it here and maybe it can be worked in better: Kevin Baas^talk 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a copy of this material. [6], and therefore a copyyvio unless the author has released the material. -Will Beback 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

remove quote from lead paragraph

what is this pov fluff quote by Mary Matalin doing in the lead paragraph? i'll be removing it to the talk page, from where it can be added back into a more appropriate place (and context) in the article, if required. Doldrums 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Republican strategist Mary Matalin, a former counselor to Cheney and a friend of Libby, describes him as someone who did "for the vice president what the vice president does for the president. He's exceedingly analytical, detailed, strategic, bright; and he's discreet."^[7]

Covert again

Removed the word "covert" in description of Plame since it is not supported. Fitzgerald has only stated "classified" (he made the distinction between classified and covert in news conference). And in Plame's civil suit the term "covert" is not used, only "classified." Thus, only "classified" not "covert" is justified here.

"I." - what's his name?

Why hasn't anyone decrypted his first name beginning with an I? Shandris^{the azylean} 12:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion of it under "Trivia". -Will Beback 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangled sentence removed

I removed this because it no longer makes any sense. If someone familiar with the details can twist it into shape then feel free to re-add.

In July of 2005, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper revealed that Libby and Karl Rove were the first to disclose (Joseph C. Wilson's wife had 'offered up' Wilson's name for the mission to Niger and that she was a CIA officer without mentioning her name).

Tempshill 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)