Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Legal Issue

The assertion that revealing "open secrets" does not violate the law is incorrect. Properly classified information remains classified even after it has been improperly revealed, and publishing it remains subject to legal penalties.

Moreover, it is now clear that Plame was not merely undercover, but acting under "non-official cover," which is the most tightly held form of covert status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.217.122 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 December 2003

Clear from what sources? References with dates, please. For some and perhaps all of the relevant time window, she was working out of the CIA's Langley headquarters as an analyst. As noted below, her covert work stopped some time earlier, for reasons that are apparently not publically documented but freely speculated upon. There are rumors -- probably undocumentable, like most private vocal conversations -- that both her husband's identity and her employer were common knowledge on the DC cocktail party circuit. Their marriage is public record and was publicized in her husband's bio. As cited in the article itself, the CIA confirmed her employment, which undermines the claim of non-official cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.232.116 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 July 2005

[1] is a statement from a former (Republican) CIA agent that asserts Plame was a NOC. --Vile Requiem 01:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the content in this section regarding whether various legal tests have been met is speculative at best and probably inappropriate. Perhaps the article would better serve the public interest and more closely conform to the spirit of Wiki if the discussion in this section were limited to an exposition of the law. Judgement regarding whether or not the law was broken and by whom should be left to the courts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertrat (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2005

Plame has held a desk job at the CIA in Virginia since 1994. She is said to have been outed by Aldrich Ames and also by Joseph Wilson, when they were dating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.79.106 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 July 2005

Got a cite for those last claims -- outed by Ames, outed by Wilson? The second is contradicted by the news reports of her neighbors and relatives having no clue about her CIA connection --Zippy 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverse Chronology

IMO, the reverse chronology is an unnatural and confusing mechanism justified only by readers being able to follow developments without moving away from the top of the chronology. That makes sense on news sites (of which there are plenty), but WP is not a news site: our articles are to be designed for coherancy, and forward chronology is part of that. In fact, i question whether such a detailed chronology should be part of this article: it is not necessary for thoro coverage; it probably could be a separate article, but its presence in the Valerie Plame article suggests to me that raw source material (which might belong on this talk page) is being dumped in the article instead of, and to the detriment of, trying to keep a well-crafted article up to date by, e.g., rewriting old stuff in the light of info that supercedes it.

Holding fire rather than massively editing, against the possibility of previous authors cleaning up their act, or at least responding, i am --Jerzy(t) 22:15, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

I agree; the reverse chronology is difficult to read, and should be reordered into normal chronological order. --Arteitle 03:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Recent developments

The president's got a new personal attorney, Jim Sharp, possibly hired because the White House Council isn't bound by attorney-client privilege and must spill any beans they know about Federal crimes.

Jim Sharp is said to have defended Watergate co-conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder, Richard Secord during Iran-Contra and, more recently, Enron's Ken Lay.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040624_1071.html

"The president was interviewed for 70 minutes by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the head of the Justice Department investigation, and by members of his team. The only other person in the room was Jim Sharp, a private trial lawyer and former federal prosecutor hired by Bush, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan."

John Dean (of Watergate fame) says of Bush's hiring of Sharp, "This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

...and from the tinfoil-hat department: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.155.31 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 June 2004

Karl Rove?

"The probable source of the information given to Robert Novak and other conservative Republican columnists is Karl Rove."

This is based solely on Joseph Wilson's allegations and since he's a proven liar, is it fair to say that Karl Rove is "the probable source" of this leak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNJBOND (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 September 2004

Hold on: while it's fair to insist that Wilson be cited as the only person making these allegations, it's also fair to insist that you cite proof that Wilson is a liar (if you are going to make that assertion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 November 2004

New Info: Joseph Wilson is no longer the only source of such allegations. On July 1, 2005, Lawrence O'Donnell, an MSNBC analyst, revealed on the Huffington Post blog that Karl Rove was indeed one source of the leak

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/its-rove_3556.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.220.153 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 July 2005

Possibly even more telling: In early July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer (Robert Luskin) confirmed that his client had turned up as a source in Matthew Cooper's documents, which Time turned over to the special prosecutor ... although they do give Rove a possible "out" by saying "that did not mean that he was the key source in question". However, on July 4, 2005, "top White House adviser Karl Rove refused to answer questions about the development".

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000974740

And ... Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link, wrote on the Huffington Post blog (on July 4, 2005), that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000972931

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.226.54 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2005

The Washington Post has a comprehensive write-up of the situation as it stands on Friday, July 8th, 2005 at this URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702215.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangloss (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 July 2005

Proof -- The Senate Intelligence Report sited Wilson was not telling the truth.

The key to this is who is Miller protecting and has now been sent to jail for?

Two possibilities are herself for making up a source or she is protecting Joe Wilson.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.199.14 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 July 2005

It should be noted that both reporters Novak and Cooper called Rove and brought up the Wilson issue. If the white house was out to attack Wilson, having Rove sitting around waiting for reporters to call him and then bring up the issue doesnt seem like the way to do it.

Actually this is a claim from Rove's lawyer. Cooper states that Rove raised the issue of Plame, not him. Novak's story has changed over time.

At this point Rove has admitted talking about Plame having previously made statements intended to give the impression that he didn't.

Scandal

The article currently says that this became a political scandal after Air Force One telephone records were subpoenaed, but the Valerie Plam disclosure was actually a scandal as early as September 2003, when news broke that the CIA had requested that the Justice Department conduct a criminal investigation. What's the reasoning for noting the Air Force One subpoena specifically resulting in a scandal? - Walkiped 23:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Plame outed LONG before Novak

The CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames ratted Plame out to the Russians no later than 1994, along with a number of other covert spies. Indeed, the CIA pulled Plame from the field as a direct result of this.

In any event, she had not served overseas in a covert CIA role since then and thus no law was violated regardless, at least as far as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 goes.

But really, if any spy agency out there didn't already know who and what Plame was as a result of the 1994 affair, they almost certainly aren't seriously trying to spy against the USA and thus aren't a threat to the USA. This was not truly an "outing" in any meaningful sense of the word, since everybody who actually cared already knew a DECADE ago about Plame.

So really, what possible story is there to this today, except as a desparate plot to try and attack Bush?

So sad.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.173.34 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 February 2005

Well the CIA believed that a crime had been committed, which is why they requested that the Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation. The issue here is not so much Plame's outing as the violation of a federal statue. Even Bush has expressed interest in getting to the bottom of the case. Regardless, there's a story to be told, and wikipedia is attempting to tell it, in a neutral manner as possible. - Walkiped 00:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first and main person to accuse the Bush administration of retribution for leaking the name is Plame's husband, Wilson. However, since you mention politics, it is quite apparent that this investigation is being held more for the perception that the Bush administration is concerned about security leaks (but from Novak's comments, it appears any leak was accidental and assumed of minor security risk). Remember, it is the Bush administration that is coordinating this investigation- not by critics. It is also interesting that as of today (July 6, 2005) the only people being prosecuted in this mess are Mark Cooper and Judith Miller who wrote about Novak's story/leak. Novak for all his trouble-making, not to mention the actual senior Bush officials that gave Novak this information, have been untouched. Novak's intention in even bringing up Plame's name as a CIA operative was an attack that the Bush administration was (in Novak's own words) "notoriously liberal laden". He even admits he was told by officials not to disclose the name, but did it anyways- [pardon my non-Wiki POV, but what a hypocritical pr!ck]. This guy doesn't have an ounce of ethics himself yet attacks others for not holding to it. -- Acefox 6 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

The possiblity that Plame was known to the Russians is not relevant. Her role was reportedly tracking the spread of weapons of mass destruction and her cover may have been perfectly adaquate for that. The CIA evidently thought so. The Russians have been working with us on WMDs and for all we know she could have had official contacts with Russian intelligence. Acquisition of WMDs by terrorists is widely thought to be the gravest threat to the U.S. and its allies. By blowing whatever network Ms. Plame had been able to create, the leak may have done serious damage to the United States. --agr 10:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Plame's employment status with CIA

If I'm not mistaken, Plame was an analyst (like the Jack Ryan character) and not an "operative". Can anyone confirm or deny that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox137 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 April 2005

Plame was operating under "non-official cover" and the CIA was reportedly furious when she was outed. As others have pointed out, the special prosecutor would not have wasted a year and a half investigating this leak if her identity was not protected under the law in the first place. --agr 21:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What kind of cover is it when someone drives back and forth from their home to the CIA HQ every day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.79.106 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 July 2005

Probably good enough to fool uranium merchants in Niger. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act only requires knowledge that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." It doesn't say the measures have to be effective. Note that Novak claims his source asked him not to publish her name. That person - we don't yet know who it is - apparently knew her identity was sensitive. Rove's lawyer is now saying Cooper "burned" Rove by disclosing Plame's name after Rove had told Cooper on "double super secret background" that Wilson's wife was CIA. If Rove thought Plame's identity was not sensitive, why the double super secrecy? Why not say publicly for attribution that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and got him the job? Why lie about having done it for two years? --agr 02:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The immediate above statement makes it appear that Plame was under "non-official cover" at the time of the outing. This very article states: "...indicated that she was at one time a NOC (nonofficial cover) covert operative." So Plame was AT ONE TIME covert. Furious or not the CIA cannot extend the reach of the statute. As for the efforts of a special prosecutor, isn't that what Democrats said of Kenneth Starr's efforts? This incident was referred to the Justice Department as part of a weekly referal of incidents that is routine. The CIA referred it, not because the CIA knew that a violation of law had occurred but because there was an incident. All such incidents are referred and it is up to the Justice Department to investigate to see if charges are warranted. When the Justice Department referred this to a special prosecutor this was not because there was certainty that a violation had occurred but because to investigate it would be a conflict of interest so a referal to a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor investigates and so far that is all that this special prosecutor has done. Until the special prosecutor files charges there has been no violation. Now in the course of the investigation if someone violates the law in some other way, for example, the media jailing, then that too occurs, but that does not mean that any violation of the law occurred. Martha did not violate the underlying law, she violated the law during the investigation of incident. So all we have here at present is an incident and it does not become a violation until a charge is filed and that still does not mean that anyone is guilty of anything unless convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.142.249 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 July 2005

The CIA apparently thought Plame's identity was covered under the the law, otherwise there would have been no incident to report The special prosecuter has been investigating it for a year and a half. I think it is fair to presume that they both can read the act as well as we can and are fully informed as to Plame's work status. There is more to this story than illegality, however. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leak, not merely that he was the primary source. By his own admission Rove confirmed the story to Novak and spread it further to Cooper. So either Rove lied to the White House or the White House was not truthful when it reported his denials. And even in the latter case, Rove did nothing to correct the false denials for two years. --agr 18:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Sanford the First Amendment attorney who is the real author of the 1982 act which defines agents covered under the act appeared on FOX NEWS July 15, 2005 during a segment of Britt Hume's show with Jim Angle sitting in and Sanford stated that Plame is not covered by the 1982 act and he further stated that the act is being misapplied in this instance. Sanford stated that there are so many restrictions, on purpose, that there is no way this law can be applied to Karl Rove. Where there is no illegality, there is no story. You cannot assume illegality simply because an incident has been referred for investigation, and simply because there is an investigation does not mean there is any illegality, and even if charges are filed that does not mean that conviction is certain. As Dick Morris stated on FOX NEWS's, this is nothing more than politics by those who lost an election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.142.249 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 July 2005

Plame's former supervisor, Fred Rustmann, appeared on FOX NEWS July 15th on Hannity & Colmes and said that she was at CIA headquarters for several years prior to the outing and that she did not fall under the 1982 law. Further he stated that there were no negative consequences for the outing and that her work even when covert was not significant (and in fact this has been discussed elsewhere as a failure). Moreover he stated that many people knew who she was particularly since her marriage to a high profile diplomat. In fact even her neighbors knew who she was as she told them. Additionally The New York Times and The Washington Post reported today, July 15, 2005 that Karl Rove learned of Plame from journalists and all that he stated when told was to state that he had heard that too. This entire thing is beginning to appear to be a political hitpiece to embarrass the Bush Administration by sending Wilson a known Bush detractor to investigate a subject he was not qualified in the least to investigate. Fred Rustmann staed on FOX that sending Wilson was an absolute plunder and stupid--you don't send a diplomat known to everyone to investigate things that a covert agent should investigate. Wilson's attack on Bush confirms that and his continued attacks further proves it. Eleanor Cliff (hardly a Bush supporter) of Newsweek agreed on FOX that Rove is not the primary source for for Novak, which makes the allegations against Rove baseless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.142.249 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 July 2005

Tone ...

The article talks about her in past tense, while apparently she hasn't deceased after all. Rather than adding a sentence somewhere spelling even as much in clear words, I suggest a more proper approach of correcting the tense of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.199.14 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 May 2005

What happened to her?

OK, this is a silly question, but I can't seem to find out what actually happened to her, rather than the chronology of publications that is the bulk of this article. Shouldn't this article be more about her, and not mostly a page of links to external articles? Heck, I thought that she was dead from the tone of other sources. --NightMonkey July 3, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

Twins' age

Does anyone know when the twins were born? They won't be 3 years old forever. Adking80 4 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

According to Wilson's memoir The Politics of Truth (p. 277 in the paperback version), the twins were born in January 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.0.14 (talk • contribs) July 14, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Image

AN image of Plame is available @ [2] [3] --DuKot 7 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Neither of those links work. -Fsotrain09 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Note that I just created a stub at Intelligence Identities Protection Act which needs expanding (although the actual text of the Act should be placed at Wikisource if it's not there already). - dcljr (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Dishonest article

This article's coverage of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame scandel is entirely biased.

Matthew Cooper's notes indicate that Rove told him, off the record, that Wison was recommended for the Niger mission by his CIA wife, and not by the Vice President's office as Wilson had claimed. There is no indication that Rove outed Plame as an undercover agent or even knew that she was an undercover agent.

Rove broke no law; he only told the truth.

This article is heavy on irrelevant details and slippery about the central issue.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.141.67 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 July 2005

When the truth is classified and you are a government official with a Top Secret-SCI clearance, disclosing that truth can be a crime and a breach of the public trust. President Bush himself said "Leaks of classified information are bad things." The central issue is the credibility of the White House that insisted the any connection between Rove and the leaks was "ridiculous" and that any one who was involved with the leak would be fired. --agr 21:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is a well defined if still "in process" article. It's not dishonest by any stretch, and you might try getting her name right next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.243.16 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 July 2005

To anonomious poster (12.1.232.116) who claims this is a dishonest article, Wilson never made the claim that the Vice President's office either sent him, or recommended him to be sent to Niger. The CIA sent him to Niger to get mor einfomration so they could follow up on questions that the VP had to his CIA briefer about ongoing suspicions that Iraq had been trying to purchase uranium from Niger. Suspicions which later were proven to be unfounded. Stop vomiting GOP-Damage-Control-Spin and talking points that Wilson claimed he was recommend or sent by the VP's office directly. Lestatdelc 12:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The claim that Rove broke no law is at best an opinion, one that the prosecutor does not appear to share, he has told Rove's lawyer that Rove is a subject of the investigation. Rove and his lawyer have both made statements that are at best intentionally misleading. Moreover Rove's lawyer has admitted accepting his fees from drug dealers he has represented in the form of gold bullion. If Rove was as honest as his GOP appologists make out one might think that he would be able to find a lawyer with a less sleasy reputation to represent hm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.35.185 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 July 2005

why don't the Bush-at-any-price people give their tags? Who, in the wiki-world, are you? Oldshonen

Separate Article

The whole Plame affair needs to be a separate article that can be referenced from other articles, such as the Robert Novak Article and the Karl Rove article. Right now there are several version/timelines of this in these various articles and it needs to be consolidated into one NPOV article.--Gangster Octopus 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The Valerie Plame article might be the best starting point since she is notable only in connection with this incident. --agr 21:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this normal behaviour for bio articles? There is far more posted about the evidence and op-eds re: the trial than there is about the woman. Perhaps a clean sheet of paper linking to the scandal?

quaddriver 152.216.7.5 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspect Timeline Entry

The following entry, aside from bad wiki mark-up, is erroneously in the 2002 timeframe, is un-sourced and is a generalized non-specifc claim on a specific date. Will gladly re-work this and put back in, if sourced and specified to a verifiable event and date:

July 11: pundits cast doubt on Wilson's claims of doubt. The discrepancy is between Wilson's reports to CIA/White House/British intelligence, and later editorial (and book) accounts that he was ignored.

Lestatdelc 07:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proof Wilson is a liar

Odd that the only part of this page that doesn't have an edit button is the one that challenges someone to prove Wilson is a liar. So I'll have to put a bit of proof down here. Senate Intelligence Committee report: Documents indicate Wilson's name was put forward for trip to Niger by his wife, Valerie Plame. See link below. But there's loads more. Wilson said he saw an intel report 8 months before he saw it. Wilson has tried to pass himself off as not being movtivated by politics. Wilson was an advisor to the Kerry 2004 presidential campaign. Wilson in 2003 said he wanted to see "Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs wearing an orange jumpsuit", good old, non-partisan Joe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.79.106 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 July 2005

Wilson Interview

We should not be removing the Wilson interview just because it doesn't fit in with the POV of certain authors. I'm more than willing - and, in fact, encourage - contrary opinions on the nature of it, but to deny its existence as well as outright claim that it's taken out of context is not right, fair, and runs a POV risk. --Badlydrawnjeff 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I added the following paragraph:

The day following the CNN interview, Wilson clarified his statement, saying that what he had meant to say was, that, as a result of Novak's column, Plame was effectively no longer a clandestine officer. He stood by his assertion that it was Novak's disclosure which made her job thenceforth untenable. Although the Associated Press had initially reported the interpretation that Wilson was claiming that his wife was not an operative at the time of the Novak column, they eventually retracted that report.

Wilson has reworded his answer, and AP has retracted their intial report, which Matt Drudge apparently linked to. John Barleycorn 21:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. I will say, however, that the link goes straight to the transcript, not any AP source. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right... we should be removing it because it isn't true. In the interview Blitzer asked Wilson if his wife speaking to Vanity Fair didn't blow her cover. Wilson responded with the quoted bit about 'the day Novak identified her' and went on to explain that was the day she STOPPED being covert. The claim that he had indicated she wasn't covert BEFORE that is false - which is why it has been retracted... and thus there is no reason to include this passage at all.

To quote the transcript,

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.
She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared.

Note, Wilson's original remark says only "the day". Not BEFORE the day as has been claimed. Blitzer then specifically ASKS if she had stopped being cover t "before" that and Wilson says he can't talk about it except to say that the CIA felt she was... he then clarifies that he was saying Plame was not covert at the time of Blitzer's original question about whether a clandestine officer should have a photo shoot. In short... all Wilson was saying here is 'she was not clandestine after Novak'.

CBDunkerson 22:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I have no issue with the information being added. Right now, you've got a superflouos paragraph. If you want to add the link in the paragraph above it in the corresponding area, go ahead, but your most recent addition duplicates information. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not me. And... whatever. I think this is a ridiculous claim, but whatever floats your boat. --CBD 22:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Retraction paragraph deleted

Another user deleted my paragraph about the AP retraction, apparently assuming I made it up. It would have been polite of him/her to ask prior to deleting it, but I have re-added it with a source -- http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003. My original information came from the radio news, but I was able to track down the information at the link above. Is it general Wikipedia policy to delete information before getting proof? I have only been here a brief time, but in cases where I questioned sources (I think two, now), I have waited for the original posters to respond before deleting their edits. This, to me, seems only polite. John Barleycorn 22:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is a little crazy with the rapid fire changes right now. I >think< what happened was that the entire section got rewritten, including some information from your passage, and then you re-inserted your paragraph... which created the redundancy jeff accuses ME of above. You should work your paragraph / link into the other text. --CBD 22:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Cultofpj wrote in his/her edit summary, "(→Questions Concerning Allegations of Possible Illegality - RM - I can't find the AP retraction. If you can source it, let's include your original wording.)". I was surprised to see the paragraph missing, and that's what I found in the history. I apologize if somehow I caused duplicate information, I don't understand the workings of Wikipedia well enough yet to figure out how something like that might have happened. John Barleycorn 23:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think mediamatters is a legitimate source for citing a retraction. If the AP retracted the story, then there should be an AP article on the wires or somewhere else that documents the retraction. Can anyone point to an actual AP article? Cultofpj 01:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed now that in the edit war surrounding the media matters stuff (and I'm still not a fan of media matters being used as a major source, but that's a different discussion), the actual transcript of the interview I linked to when originally discussing the Wilson interview has gone by the wayside, even after a discussion where I got the impression that it would stick around with the corresponding interpretations. I think the best way to deal with the words of Wilson is to quote him directly: Get the link from the nonpartisan transcript, get the nonpartisan news report where he corrects himself, and link those as opposed to the partisan Media Matters link. The little things will go a long way in fixing the POV issues of this article. Thoughts? --Badlydrawnjeff 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts? I think that anyone who can convince themselves that Joseph Wilson really meant to say the opposite of what he has been claiming for two years now isn't going to find NPOV any time soon. There are two possible interpretations of what he said. One of them makes sense in a historical context. One of them makes sense in the context of the conversation he was having. One of them matches his subsequent explanation of what he meant. The other interpretation does NOT. So why are we pretending he might have meant to say something which makes no sense? Just because an interpretation is THEORETICALLY possible based solely on the words used, that doesn't make it NPOV to suggest it was the intent when ALL available evidence argues otherwise. --CBD 11:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Campaign Contributions

While I question the need to include Wilson's campaign contributions in the first place, they should at least be accurate. It is not possible for Wilson to have "donated over $2000 to John Kerry in 2003" because $2000 is the maximum individual donation. Your numbers are wrong. I also did an opensecrets search for the Gore contributions and got $1000... not the $3000 or $2000 you have put up. CBDunkerson 22:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Wilson did contribute more than the legal limit to the Kerry campaign, but they refunded the difference. John Barleycorn 22:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The $2000 for Kerry is correct, the list I linked to was compiled before the second $1000 payment had been tabulated, but the Gore donation was only $1000 as confirmed by opensecrets... there is a $2000 contribution listed TWICE there for the same date and then a -$1000. When you remove the duplicate it comes out to $1000 total. --CBD 22:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to talk about compaign contributions, it is worth noting that she also donated to Bush's 2000 campaign. (69.140.166.42 04:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Jeff Gannon

What is the connection between the Plame/Wilson story and Jeff Gannon? Did he ask a question at a press conference which indicated he had some inside information? I read the information about it in the Jeff Gannon article, but it isn't very clear. John Barleycorn 22:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Brewster Jennings

I read the following conversation on Slashdot. If true, it provides insight.

Anything listing her job would have had her working at the CIA front, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Completely unrelated to the government. Which also means she was DISAVOWED if she got caught, not sent home with a stern note and public complaints like those with diplomatic immunity pretending to work for the state department. Many times spouses of NOCs don't even know who they really work for. Although presumably hers did, considering who he worked for. OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

and

Actually, that's the real problem with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries. Now it is useless as a front for US intelligence. What's the problem with this? Well, there's been a lot of talk of oil production having reached its peak and begun its decline. Financial Times recently reported that the Saudis had admitted that OPEC oil production won't be able to meet world demand within 20 years. I don't know whether petroleum production has yet reached its peak and started to decline, and I don't know when OPEC will not be able to meet world demand. Wouldn't it be nice if at this time of uncertainty, the USA had some kind of asset capable of investigating these things from up close? Too bad a political vendetta destroyed major intelligence assets that could have helped with just that.

4.250.168.141 01:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with the claim in the known background that "Later the CIA acknowledged that Brewster-Jennings & Assoc is a front company." I searched the CIA's website for press releases that would have included "Plame" "Wilson" "Brewster" "Jennings" ... I did find that Dun and Bradstreet had a listing for the company and that in 1999 that Valerie Wilson, CEO BJ&A gave $1000 to Al Gore's primary election campaign Kgrr 04:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt they issued a press release; in this context "acknowledged" probably means "nodded when a reporter asked if this was true." The Agency is not known for making a big deal out of its leaks or acknowledgments; it leaves that up to the media. A press release would be totally out of character. I also seriously doubt you saw anything that identified her as "CEO" of the front company. The Gore document I saw said "President" next to Al Gore, not her name. --csloat 21:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Maiden or married name?

Most of the major news sources, including the NYTimes and the Washington Post, refer to her as Valerie Wilson. People only started calling her Valerie Plame because that's what Novak called her in his original article. Google searches for "Valerie Wilson" reveal nearly twice as many pages as for "Valerie Plame". Also note this Daily Kos story, which shows that Wilson is clearly and unambigiously the name she has gone by ever since marriage, and also implies that the insistance by some to call her by her maiden name, Plame, is to give us the impression that saying "Mr Wilson's wife" was not the same as giving her name.

Whatever the case about the last point, it seems certain that her legal name, the name she goes by, and the name used by most major media outlets these days is Valerie Wilson. I propose moving this article to Valerie Wilson (and keeping a redirect from here, of course). — Asbestos | Talk 09:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, most major news sources still use "Valerie Plame". And my Google searches (both web and news) indicate far more hits for "Valerie Plame" than "Valerie Wilson". The name "Valerie Plame" is common usage because it is the name used in the original Novak column that created the political controversy which is the primary subject of the article. It also has the practical advantage of clearly distinguishing references by last name to husband and wife. The article title itself doesn't really matter much, given appropriate redirects, but one suspects that the insistance to call her by her married name, Wilson, is to give the impression that saying "Mr Wilson's wife" is the same as giving her name. Anonip 15:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In a radio interview with Joeseph Wilson, he clearly states that she has used her married name both at work and in her personal life since their 1998 marriage. This is substantiated in many places such as this NY Times article [4] Kgrr 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Joe Wilson was a particpant in the EPIC Iraq Forum 2003 [5] and his bio says "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children." This forum took place on June 14, 2003. One month before the Novak article.

Accusations

Even though large news sources are reporting that Rove was the source of the leak, he is still innocent before found guilty by court. Please mark which organization marked Rove as the leak source, otherwise this article deserves a NPOV on many of its sections. --Mrmiscellanious 16:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rove's own lawyer has confirmed that he was a source. --CBD 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit war?

At about 0400 on July 17, a series of edits were made by 149.142.112.3. The result of these edits was to remove a large amount of text from this article. The common thread to the removed text was that it did not support the theories of the case promoted by conservatives.

The history of some of the removed text is that statements with a strong conservative point of view were balanced by showing contrary evidence. Removing the discussion entirely leaves us open to have the same conservative point of view inserted again. We can prevent an edit war by keeping the links to that evidence.

For example, the article at one time claimed,

The media and many in the Democratic party often repeat the statement "The White House also said at that time it would fire anyone involved in leaking classified information". George Bush actually said "If anybody broke the law, they will be dealt with", which is quite a bit different.

The opinion that this quote is "quite a bit different" was balanced by providing quotes that showed the White House (both McClellan and Bush) repeatedly did indicate that such a person would be fired.

Similarly, conservatives have commonly tried to discredit Ambassador Wilson by noting that he supported Kerry and gave money to Democrats. That accusation in this article was properly balanced by later additions that noted that Wilson also contributed to GWB and Republican Ed Royce and was first appointed by GHWB. 149.142.112.3's comment on removing this section says this article is not supposed to be about Wilson, but there is not doubt that this whole affair was started by Novak writing about Wilson's motives. Wilson's motives cannot be separated from this article.

The previous comment above (with subject "Accusations") notes that it is important to say where the accusations against Rove originate. User:149.142.112.3 made this worse by removing the extract of the Cooper e-mail that is the key piece of evidence.

I believe all of the removed text should be restored, but I won't continue an edit war by restoring it myself. I do agree that the text can be tightened up (e.g., directly using fewer quotes in the case cited above and using footnotes to link to all of the quotes), but we should start by restoring the evidence that has been lost from the article.

RichardMathews 09:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
BUSH: That's up to --
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

[6]

.....

McCLELLAN: 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 [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.
[...]
Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q: At a minimum?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

[7]

[8] --kizzle 18:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

In the first question, the reporter is referencing a previous pledge by Bush, and Bush was standing by that previous pledge. So why are we quoting the press playing "word games" with Bush, and not quoting what he first said?

From Sept 30, 2003

Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn’t a special counsel be better?
BUSH: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And 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.[9]

He was asked if he stood by this specific pledge to fire anyone found to have violated the law.

Notes and references are now done

Could I ask others to use {{ref}} and {{note}} from now on? I so wish we had a better way to footnote, but until then, this is the best method. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Known Background

I know that a lot of edits have been made to this article lately, but could someone please take a look at the end of this section as it makes very little sense. Specifically the line:

In the context of a political fight between mostly Bush administration supporters, a number of claims about both Wilson and Plame have asserted either that Plame was not actually undercover.

I do not know anything about this case, it having been overlooked by the British press, but it seems something is missing from this sentence, or maybe it is just very poorly written, as it makes little sense. Enlightener 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)