That Plame was a NOC has been confirmed. Both NYT and Time magazine reported on 10/5/03 that Plame was a NOC and this has never been disputed. The only people who claim she was not covert make silly claims, such as that she had a desk job at the CIA. It is true that when covert agents are not out doing covert things, they sometimes have paperwork to do. Such claims betray a complete ignorance of how the CIA works. She was identified as a NOC to the NYT by Kenneth M. Pollack, "a former agency officer who is now director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution." Larry Johnson, former agency officer, knew she was a NOC because they entered the program together in 1985. Time magazine pointed out "In Plame's case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative's real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an noc also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity." Of all the people that claim she was not covert, there is not a single one who disputes (or even seems to understand) her status as a NOC. How about we change this to "status under which Plame is said to have operated by every single source who addresses the issue directly"?
Of course, this is all part of Mr galt's little jihad against Valerie Wilson that he has spread over several pages, including Plame affair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Valerie Plame ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Larry C. Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please refer to the talk pages on those pages for further evidence that Mrs. Wilson was indeed both a NOC and "covert."-- csloat 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Other articles concluding she was a NOC include the following:
The Kristof article is especially interesting for Mr galt to take a look at, since he berates the Democrats for blowing the scandal out of proportion, yet he still concludes she was a NOC (his theory is that she was moving away from NOC status by 2003, which may have been true, but he acknowledges that she was still a NOC and that she is known to have "lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots."-- csloat 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You have outright distorted these sources, using your usual trick -- pull a sentence out of context that seems to say one thing and then ignore everything else in the article that confirms your interpretation is incorrect. This looks like bad faith to me, I am sorry; I have been doing my best to assume good faith but it is impossible when you will lie and stretch the truth like this. And, of course, you nitpick these three sources that I added as backup -- you totally ignore the two main sources on this issue, NYT via Kevin Pollack and Time magazine. Typical.-- csloat 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That Plame was a NOC has been confirmed. Both NYT and Time magazine reported on 10/5/03 that Plame was a NOC and this has never been disputed. The only people who claim she was not covert make silly claims, such as that she had a desk job at the CIA. It is true that when covert agents are not out doing covert things, they sometimes have paperwork to do. Such claims betray a complete ignorance of how the CIA works. She was identified as a NOC to the NYT by Kenneth M. Pollack, "a former agency officer who is now director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution." Larry Johnson, former agency officer, knew she was a NOC because they entered the program together in 1985. Time magazine pointed out "In Plame's case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative's real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an noc also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity." Of all the people that claim she was not covert, there is not a single one who disputes (or even seems to understand) her status as a NOC. How about we change this to "status under which Plame is said to have operated by every single source who addresses the issue directly"?
Of course, this is all part of Mr galt's little jihad against Valerie Wilson that he has spread over several pages, including Plame affair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Valerie Plame ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Larry C. Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please refer to the talk pages on those pages for further evidence that Mrs. Wilson was indeed both a NOC and "covert."-- csloat 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Other articles concluding she was a NOC include the following:
The Kristof article is especially interesting for Mr galt to take a look at, since he berates the Democrats for blowing the scandal out of proportion, yet he still concludes she was a NOC (his theory is that she was moving away from NOC status by 2003, which may have been true, but he acknowledges that she was still a NOC and that she is known to have "lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots."-- csloat 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You have outright distorted these sources, using your usual trick -- pull a sentence out of context that seems to say one thing and then ignore everything else in the article that confirms your interpretation is incorrect. This looks like bad faith to me, I am sorry; I have been doing my best to assume good faith but it is impossible when you will lie and stretch the truth like this. And, of course, you nitpick these three sources that I added as backup -- you totally ignore the two main sources on this issue, NYT via Kevin Pollack and Time magazine. Typical.-- csloat 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)