Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Amicus Brief and Prior Leaks

More information is coming out that should be reflected here, but I'm not sure how to place it given the major revamping this article has gone through. The National Review links to an amicus brief by the media organizations asserting that Plame's name was outed by the CIA twice before the Novak article. How do we add this information? --Badlydrawnjeff 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The amicus brief simply references the unsourced claims in the following Washington Times article. [1]. If you want to include that I'd go with the original. The 'anonymous sources' claimed a year ago that Plame's cover had already been blown before Novak, but there hasn't been anything else on it. Another anonymous source has claimed that Plame's identity was deliberately leaked "purely for revenge". Generally I'd prefer not to include these things which essentially amount to 'completely unsubstantiated rumors', but if you must I'd think they'd go in the 'reaction' section. --CBD 23:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:CIA leak scandal Vote for Deletion

There is a proposal to delete Category:CIA leak scandal, which lists several articles related to this evolving story. I think the category is helpful and deserves to be kept. People can express their opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 July 2005

Why is there an NPOV tag on this article?

Could the person who added it please note their specific objections so that we may sort out any issues? I will leave this for 24 hours, then remove the tag if nothing is said. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Bush's consistent stance

I can't find anyone but the more vocal partisans who seriously contend that there has been no change in the President's position -- with that in mind, I altered what an anon had written, but I think it's still a little vague. The statements (as accurately quoted -- the anon had exercised some creative summarizing) seem to me to be clearly distinct -- that is, Bush was very clear in his recent remarks about crime because he was aware that his earlier remarks were very broad. I didn't add Scott McClellan's remark on Sept. 29 at a press briefing that "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [2] Do you think it would be fair to add it, or would it seem too biased? I don't want to slant this. Also, can we get any kind of attribution, especially of people who claim that all of these remarks are consistent? It would comfort me...and somebody look over what I wrote to be sure I'm being fair. I'm doing my best. Jwrosenzweig 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh... oops. I'd just updated with various quotations before coming here. I think the only way to address this is to allow people to see exactly what was said and make their own decisions. I left in the 'some people believe' merry-go-round, though I don't think it particularly valid. All of the 'no change' arguments I have seen arrive at that conclusion by leaving out 75% of the quotes and 'paraphrasing' (aka 'falsifying') the rest. --CBD 11:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Duplication of effort

This article and Plame affair mostly DUPLICATE each other's efforts. 4.250.132.38 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely true... and there is alot of stuff in Karl Rove, Bob Novak, Joseph Wilson, et cetera which could really be centralized. However, what is needed is agreement that this has grown to the point that it should have its own page and leave 'Valerie Plame' just for background on the woman herself. Opinions? --CBD 13:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and that should happen in the other articles as well. I think we should merge all the good information into Plame affair. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks as if its happening, and theres still enough room for Plame affair article to grow, as its currently ("only") 48k. We have talk pages that go on for over 200k. -St|eve 05:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Verification

Was she born on April 19, the IP address 67.67.89.25 has been vandalizing many pagess but a few are edits where it is indeterminant if they are vandalism or not. --ShaunMacPherson 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Republican Talking Points

OK, Larry, we get it. Rove has not yet been charged with a crime. The problem is this claim is inserted both here and in the Plame Affair article as a means of dismissing everything else. Where is the information about the threat to national security raised by Rove's actions? Whether or not he technically broke the law, many say what Rove did was a huge blow to national security. Take a look at the [rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter072205_identity.rm Senate Hearing] on the issue and listen to former CIA officers testify to the Senate. This really is not a Democrat/Republican issue at all, and it is just the Bushies trying to cover Rove's ass who are making it one. Rove (and Libby) may not have been charged with crimes (yet), but there is no question that what they did undermined American national security and was absolutely unacceptable insofar as they did it out of some twisted sense of political vengeance. Dwelling on the technicalities of the actions -- e.g. Rove didn't mention Plame by name (as if "Joseph Wilson's wife" could have been somebody else) -- is an obvious diversion from the real issues at stake here. That may fly in the media but it shouldn't be the position of Wikipedia. --csloat 21:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Political donations?

Why is this section relevant? I think it should be deleted or contextualized -- what does this information lend to the discussion that makes it encyclopedic? Should we include such information on all biographies? --csloat 22:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't you see? If Valerie Plame donated to Al Gore, it must mean that she's just a partisan operative who caused this whole Rovegate thing to happen! She probably leaked her own identity to Novak just to get Rove. Am I right, fellow conservatives? --kizzle 23:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Come on--this should be removed. $372?? Completely irrelevant. Tchoupitoulas 00:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Its not irrelevant, if it deals with the premise for outing her under the claim that she was politically motivated or opposed to the Bush admin--in addition to Wilson's public opposition. Sinreg St|eve 05:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. $1,372 in total donations is not notable in any way. This was not a move against her for supporting a democrat - certainly there were other Democrats in the CIA who didn't get attacked like this - but rather for being married to Joe Wilson, who had publicly called Bush out as a liar, essentially. I think this information being included here just [[Poisoning the well|poisons the well].--csloat 06:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, politically motivated to do what, exactly? Leak her own identity? Make Karl Rove talk to Matt Cooper? --kizzle 06:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other. I just moved the info here from the Joseph Wilson article as part of efforts to start untangling these pages. I suspect that it will reappear in one form or another. In recent days conservatives HAVE started going after Plame for her $372 donation to the 'anti-Bush hate group', America Coming Together. They 'reason' that this proves she just hates Bush and was out to get him all along... though the donation was made a year AFTER the Bush administration betrayed her. --CBDunkerson 11:16:41, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

The campaign against her is surreal. "anti-Bush hate group"??? She was out to get Bush all along? And how exactly was she going to do that? They "got" her, remember? *sigh*. --csloat 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not include it? Donations do indicate a particular leaning which goes directly to any motive. And donating to ACT is much different than donating to the DNC or a candidate. I think it belongs as part of the record.Cultofpj 12:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, what exactly was she politically motivated to do? Lets say she was Al Gore and Kerry's campaign manager/speechwriter and had professed her undying hatred for the Bush Administration. Like I said, did she leak her own name? Did she make Karl Rove talk to Matt Cooper? Force Robert Novak to out herself? --kizzle 15:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think. what the Bush and Rove apologists are trying to suggest is that it was, somehow, okay to "out" her, because she wasn't doing her duty as a loyal CIA officer. What I think they are trying to suggest is that her relatively small donations demonstrate that all her actions are motivated solely by political partisanship. Come on, have some sympathy for poor Karl! Since all of his actions are motivated solely by political partisanship, he can't understand civil servants who put loyalty to their nation above loyalty to their political boss. -- Geo Swan 15:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"demonstrate that all her actions are motivated solely by political partisanship" -- what actions? I realize you don;'t actually agree with this position, but you're right it's in the Republican talking points and it is ludicrous. Rove is the one who acted against her.--csloat 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Political donations are irrelevant. I doubt I'd be allowed to list the soft-money that President Bush, or any politician, has recieved from corporations. "Political motivation," is an ad-hominem and it is not encyclopedic of us to list the political stance of famous people not involved with politics (being that this is not a strictly political encyclopedia). I'm sure we could track Wilson's, and the other individuals involved have had donations to political parties. But it's irrelevant. The majority, thus far, agree. The mention about donations to Gore were removed. 69.138.24.96 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think contributions to a given candidate from corporations is more relevant than this here. But even there I would just want to see overall percentages or figures (e.g. "70% of his campaign contributions came from oil companies") but not every $372.--csloat 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, she donated to Bush's 2000campaign as well as Gore's. As for her Kerry Donations, that's irrelevent, because that was after the leak and she would obviously support the party that didn't destroy her life. Pardon the POV. (69.140.166.42 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

who authorized the trip?

Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was ... [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.) [3]

Wilson and Plame denied that Plame authorized the trip, which was ordered by her CIA superiors.[4] (or State Department? (Same difference?)

Valerie Plame wasn't in a position to make such an authorization, and it was higher authorities in the CIA that were looking for an envoy to make that snooping-around trip...[5]

Wilson, in his book "The Politics of Truth" P17, says that the trip was approved by Walter H. Kansteiner, III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 August 2005

No reference

This paragraph has no references:

It has also been widely rumored that Plame's loose relationship as an analyst/operative for the CIA was well known to many people in Washington , including journalists, long before she was "outed". The initial reports, by her husband and certain reporters, that somehow she was endangered by this "leak" seem now to be erroneous, as the nature of her work for the CIA has shown to not be such that she would be in any danger of retaliation from anyone that she had dealings with professionally.

If it is "widely rumored" it should be possible to find a published reference that describes the nature of these rumors.

In this paragraph (above), wikipedia is describing Plame's relationship with the CIA as a "loose relationship". This seems like the POV of those who have attempted to justify public disclosure of her identity as a CIA opperative. I doubt if anyone in the CIA would characterize a NOC operative's relationship with the CIA as "loose". Why should wikipedia?

The paragraph (above) refers to "initial reports" .... "that .... she was endangered", but provides no references. Please provide a reference for such "reports". What I have seen, is the statement that there may have been other people outside of the U.S. at the time of the leak of Plame's identity who could have been put at risk because they were known associates of Plame. --JWSchmidt 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knew she was out paragraph

I moved the following para from the article to here for discussion. --Zippy 04:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

65.122.109.178 contribs in this edit on 17:03, 19 October 2005 wrote:
It has also been widely rumored that Plame's loose relationship as an analyst/operative for the CIA was well known to many people in Washington , including journalists, long before she was "outed". The initial reports, by her husband and certain reporters, that somehow she was endangered by this "leak" seem now to be erroneous, as the nature of her work for the CIA has shown to not be such that she would be in any danger of retaliation from anyone that she had dealings with professionally.

This fails the NPOV test, in my book, or at the least needs sources attached to the claims. Can anyone provide these? --Zippy 04:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, the quoted passage missed the point that outing her put all her past contacts at risk. Everyone she knew, in her overseas posts, was now at risk. -- Geo Swan 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but it is simply false as well. Investigations by the FBI and by journalists turned up none of her friends and neighbors who had any idea she was an operative. The only people claiming to have actually known about Plame Wilson beforehand are, frankly, well-known right-wing hacks who are pretty obvious about their agenda to discredit the Wilsons. In addition, it has been reported that Plame received death threats linked to al Qaeda as a result of the leak, and was told that she would not receive any special protection.

But an even bigger harm is not just the exposure of her contacts but the future of the Agency. Why would anyone want to become a NOC, knowing that their cover could be blown for cheap political gain? Why would anyone want to even join the Agency? If I were a NOC right now I would be looking for a way to retire quietly. I imagine quite a few of them are doing just that right now.--csloat 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the para doesn't meet the NPOV test. It clearly is down-playing the importance of the leak. It is possible that it was written immediately after the story broke when many media outlets were making such claims. Denis Diderot II 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A Desperate Housewife?

Does she have a George W. Bush nickname? A Desperate Housewife, I guess. -- Toytoy 02:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is she now?!

I don't mean to sound ignorant (I'm Australian) but where is she now? And is she going to jail? --220.238.2.146 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

For what? She has not been accused of any crime.-csloat 09:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I did not realise that, I just assumed she has because of the term "Plame affair".--220.238.30.231 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of making poorly grounded assumptions, consider reading the article. 68.6.40.203 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, she can't talk to the media because the CIA would have to clear it. The CIA has yet to start their own investigation of the fallout from the leak because they're waiting for Fitzgerald to get done. Effectively she is in limbo, so that's why you always see her husband talking on her behalf. --waffle iron 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I was just wondering why the rest of the world should even care?--220.238.2.146 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Different people have different things they care about, for different reasons. The scope of such interests is downright, uh, encyclopedic. 68.6.40.203 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody in the southern hemisphere cares, or even the eastern hemisphere, when they do you should include it in the "in the news" section, but right now we do not.--220.238.2.146 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

(See American exceptionalism)--220.238.2.146 05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. No one in the Southern or Eastern hemispheres cares about the Iraq war, the actions of the Bush administration, or American politics in general. Good to know... explains John Howard anyway. --CBDunkerson 08:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

John Howard!? It's funny because its true!--220.238.29.159 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an australian, but nearby... NZer. And likewise this entire mess is a little confusing and information overload. Even though I've been reading several related wikipedia pages on this affair, am at least starting to get a grasp on things. Still, can't help but wonder... if there is a short and simple summary of this somewhere? Mathmo ^Talk 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

problems above the table of contents

"the October 2005 investigation" <-- this is meaningless

"Some predict" <-- speculations should not be in the introduction

"The Plame affair is connected mostly to a political war between the White House staff and leaders and a war critic, former ambassador Joe Wilson" <-- the "political war" can be described below the table of contents. The basic facts can be told in the introduction: The Plame affair is connected mostly to Joe Wilson's questioning of President 2003 Bush's State of the Union claim that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

--JWSchmidt 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous POV-pushing

This article has enough POV-problems; no need to add more. The characterization of the question to Fitz is accurate. There is no need to add that he "refused" to take a position on something; that is not what he said. There is also no need to put in irrelevant links to articles by Johnson just so you can implicitly discredit him. Please don't revert this stuff. Thanks. --csloat 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Anonymous IP editor -- cut it the hell out. If you think Fitz was asked something other than is represented here, read the damn article and see for yourself. Just because the accurate representation is inconvenient for your worldview does not mean you are justified in putting in an inaccurate version and calling the accurate one "POV-pushing". Fitz did not say he "refused" to take a position; what he said speaks for itself as is. You are trying to take his words out of context. I have left your edits to the Larry Johnson quote as reasonable but please do not revert the question to Fitz again without discussion (and kindly stop calling me names in your edit summaries).--csloat 19:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Commodore, you are the POV pusher, not me. You take the political position that Plame was a "covert agent" when even Fitzerald has not asserted that. Plame commuted each day to the Langley headquarters outside DC since the birth of her twins. How could someone be covert when they drive up the GW parkway to the CIA garage each day? When you write "Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly" you are implying that she was covert. (This is akin to asking someone, "When did you stop beating your wife.") There is NO evidence that she was covert, which explains why no one was charged with blowing the cover of a covert agent. Fitzgerald went out of his way to make clear that he does take the position that she is covert.--65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey covert person -- thank you for finally explaining your edits. That is why we have this section. You are clearly the one pushing POV by trying to hammer on right-wing talking points that are too silly for even the Whhite House to get behind. Fitzgerald said Plame's cover was blown, which is to say she had a cover. Your interpretation of Fitz's statement is unnecessary POV -- it speaks for itself, and he never says "I refuse" anything. He is avoiding (for now) the sticky question of whether VPW was "covert" in terms of a particular statute -- he is not claiming that she was not covert in the sense of being under a cover that had been exposed. My change here is to keep the entire quote from Fitz in but to step back from the POV (and misleading) assertion that Fitz "refused to take a position" on a question he was not even asked. If you want to put the word "covert" in quotation marks there to emphasize your (ludicrous) point that there is a slight possibility that her status was not "covert" under a particular statute it is fine but the rest of what you're doing there is POV mind-reading of the questioner. As for VPW going to work - as several former CIA officers and agents have pointed out, people who make this claim have no idea how the CIA operates. None of her friends and neighbors knew she was an agent and there are many non-agents with legitimate business in those buildings. Anyway if Fitz "went out of his way" to make something clear, then there is no need for your additional interpretation.--csloat 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "political position" that Plame was covert, it's the claim of the CIA and the basis of the appointment of a special prosecutor in the first place. The notion that she was not covert is something pushed by the right wing for political purposes; it has no basis in fact. -- 68.6.40.203 10:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The following section is made-up nonsense without any sources:

Subsequent information refines this, indicating that she was employed in the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations (DO/CPD) and had been a career clandestine intelligence officer in the DO for approximately twenty years. Some reports suggest that she was attached to the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control center (WINPAC). This appears to be incorrect, as WINPAC is an inter-agency organization administratively located in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence and most of its employees are not under permanent cover.

The whole section implies Plame was a covert agent, which has not been substantiated. I am deleting it. If you find a credible source, than reinsert the section and cite it.--65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write that, though it is consistent with everything I've heard on this issue. I agree though such statements need to be sourced.--csloat 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Larry Johnson is not a credible source. He is a partisan kook who alleges "Bush lied" etc., etc. You want him potrayed as a neutral source when he is not. "Controversial" is a kind and euphemistic term for him. --65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I am "anonymous" because I am covert.--65.87.105.2 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One need not be neutral to be credible. And saying "Bush lied" doesn't make one a partisan -- that view is extremely kooky. Some people actually have the moral caliber to acknowledge that people of their own political party have lied.-- 68.6.40.203 10:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Larry Johnson voted for Bush so it's hard to see him as a "partisan kook." Talk about not having sources for claims - can you provide any evidence of Johnson's "kookiness", other than the fact that he is outspoken about what he believes? --csloat 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My God! You entered the polling booth with Larry Johnson? How silly! How on earth would you know for whom Larry Johnson really voted? --65.87.105.2 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Cute, but irrelevant. What makes you think he lied about that?-csloat 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He does not want to be categorically dismissed an anti-Bush partisan. It is an attempt to gain credibility. There is no evidence to suggest he actually supported or voted for Bush in the 2000 election other than own his words after-the-fact. His anti-Bush rhetoric is that of an extremist.--65.87.105.2 01:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The extremists are those who claim that anyone critical of Bush is an extremist. The way they claim it's extremist to accuse Tom DeLay of corruption. -- 68.6.40.203 10:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense intended, but that's moronic -- he thinks Bush is totally wrong yet he thinks it will benefit his credibility to say he voted for him? His own words have not been shown to be wrong; have you listened to the reasons he supported Bush? He is quite credible, but you can believe whatever you like. I don't care if you change your mind, but if you're going to call someone "controversial" in an encyclopedia, provide evidence for such a claim. Johnson isn't nearly as demonstrably "controversial" as, say, Novak, Rove, or Bush himself.--csloat 01:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Title of Article

The title of this article should be Valerie Plame Wilson, and Valerie Plame should redirect here. Anyone object to such a change?--csloat 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding has been that she just uses 'Valerie Wilson' rather than having the 'Plame' in there at all. --CBDunkerson 21:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

True - either one is more accurate than "Valerie Plame," even though that is most common in the media. I think the Plame should stay just b/c that's what is most often used but the Wilson should be in too for accuracy.-csloat 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)