Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV

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.

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

I would say the article, including this specific coverage, is not so much biased as it is poorly composed. A lot of the material is presented in "shorthand," that is, instead of Sentence A leading to Sentence B leading to Sentence C, etc.; we have Sentence A, then Sentences C and D, then Sentence G, then Sentences J, K and L, then Sentence Q. We're missing the stuff that supports the claims made in the sentences that do appear.

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 Plume as a covert agent or even knew that she was a covert agent.

Whatever Matthew Cooper's notes say, this is a weak argument. Even the slowest journalists are not so thick that they could not quickly figure out, or find out, the identity of "Ambassador X's wife, who apparently works for the CIA" - and find out she was a covert operative. And if the journalists can figure that out, so could have Karl Rove.

Rove broke no law; he only told the truth.

The article does not claim Rove broke the law, nor does it claim he did not tell the truth. Otherwise, we do not yet know whether Rove did or did not break the law or whether he did or did not tell the truth. We do know that he has spoken falsely to the public before, so his innocence cannot here be presume. The point below is out of place here.

-- I would add that Rove spoke to at least two reporters, assuming we can refer to Robert Novak as a "reporter" with a straight face (the lead article of the NYT today (July 15, 2005) reports that Rove also spoke with Novak), on the record (but not for attribution) and identified a covert CIA agent before her cover had been blown. It's true that it has yet to be demonstrated that Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent when he identified her, which is one element of the crime being investigated. For an administration that is in the midst of working to improve our intelligence services in a time of war, this, presently uncontroverted, disclosure by a senior official is unforgivable. -- [user:malignant]

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

I would not say it's slippery, and I don't think there's a lot of irrelevant material. But there is some material that might better be sectioned off as separate articles - such as the Plame issue - so that this article focuses on Karl Rove himself.

Where is information about his family and personal life? He is supposed to have been married twice and has one child: When did the marriages happen? To whom? Is the child a boy or girl? Since this article is about Karl Rove generally, these facts should be researched and included.

I disagree, this NPOV charge is nonsense. By disclosing Valerie Wilson's relationship to the CIA, Rove was passing classified information to a reporter. It doesn't matter if he mentioned her by name. The identity of an NOC- an officer working under "nonofficial cover," like Plame was- is classified information. Knowingly providing classified information to an individual lacking proper national security clearance is a crime- simply by admitting Rove said Wilson's wife was with the CIA and revealed her identity (consdiering that "Wilson's wife" is enough of a clue to be able to determine her name), you're admitting he quite possibly committed a crime. Though nobody has stated whether or not Rove knew whether Plame was undercover or not, both he and his lawyer have refused to say anything on the matter besides that they refuse to say anything on the matter. This strongly implies that he had some sort of knowledge she was undercover. Though it's obviously not certain, if he did not know she was undercover, why do he and his lawyer presently refuse to make that assertion? My point is, we cannot prove he broke the law, nor can we prove he is innocent at this time. An article that is not POV would acknowledge the fact that there is a possibility he committed a crime, since that is true, but it has not been proven one way or another, which is also true. This article is not supposed to defend or attack Rove, it is supposed to simply tell the truth as it's been reported. If you want an article defending Karl Rove, look elsewhere. --69.112.163.191 02:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your overall premise and POV, unfortunately your assertion that 'it doesn't matter if he knew she was a covert agent' is not true (again, the rest I agree with). Both the Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act and, to a more vague degree, the Espionage Act stipulate that one must know the information one is disclosing is classified in order to be guilty.
(IIPA) Whoever {...} discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States {...}
(Espionage Act) (d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
-- RyanFreisling @ 02:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________


Wow. What an in-depth, intelligent, unbiased write-up of public enemy number one. Gratz to all you misologistic leftists. (FYI: you forgot to mention that Rove farted in 1993. He was holding several thousand shares of Gas-X at the time.)

This article is incomplete without mention of Machiavelli, as Rove is invariably characterized as being "Machiavellian", and is well-known to hold Machiavelli's writings in high regard; "the Prince" is on his recommended reading list.

First things firstly, facts cannot be copyrighted. We have a right to use facts wherever we find them.

Second things secondly, this is [WikiPedia.Org] not [WikInfo.Org]. Our articles are not suppose to be sympathetic. The article about George Walker Bush lists some not nice things about him and have both pro- and anti-Bush-links. Since Rove stole stationary from Dixon and printed fliers, we should state that. ?alabio 00:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The text added by User:?alabio is not only poorly worded, and heavily biased, much of it is copied directly from the text and timeline at rotten.com (hardly an authoritative source), which constitues a copyright violation. While I personally am no fan of Mr. Rove's actions and beliefs, these unsubstantiated claims are wholly innapropriate to this forum. I do encourage you to integrate into this article well written, verified accounts of Mr. Rove's actions. I am reverting this article once again. JMD 00:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One cannot copyright facts. As for rotten.com, it is interestingly enough, fairly accurate. Rotten.Com has an advantage over most other sites in that it is not afraid to print controversial information. ¿Why do not you put in all of the proRove stuff you want and let me balance it? That is what happen in such articles like Electoral College.
One of the things that I would like to include is that Joseph Wilson accuses Rove of treason. It is true. you can run a search at [GoogleNews] if you do not believe me. Of course Rove is just the fallguy so that Bush will not Face charges of treason -- Bush is a fascist.
About Linking, if you go to the article about George Walker Bush, you will see both pro- and anti-Bush-links. I do not see why I cannot add antiRove links while you add proRove links.
It is not like I redirected Karl Rove to Turdblossum -- [[George Walker Bush calls Karl Rove Turdblossum. ?alabio 02:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Facts can't be copyrighted, but text can. In the U.S., all writing is automatically copyrighted by the author. If someone else writes something, you cannot lawfully copy that and post it on this site, regardless of whether it is true or not.
You can of course state the facts in your own words.
Second -- not everything posted on the Web is true. I don't doubt that rotten.com did hours of Googling in good faith to come up with this timeline, but I doubt they rigorously vetted every detail. I mean, it's not exactly the New York Times, is it?
Er, okay, let me try again... Look at it from my point of view. I'm American, but politically neutral, and frankly I don't know much about Karl Rove (other than his mug shot looks like the mathematical ideal of a Republican). So I search WP and I read that Karl Rove sneaked into an opponent's office, stole stuff, then faked up a bunch of fliers bribing homeless people with free beer to vote for the opponent.
Now that's a pretty extraordinary claim. I have no idea if it's true or not. As the reader I now have to decide whether to believe this statement. Well, here's how it looks to me:
  • I already think politicians are pretty sleazy, and political strategists doubly so.
  • But I also know that such a tactic would be a huge scandal, not to mention a crime, so if this really happened, why doesn't the article talk about the consequences for Rove?
  • The claim as it appears on WP isn't supported by a primary source or any source at all.
  • And by the way, any jerk with a computer can edit the page (not calling you a jerk -- just saying that the page is wide open).
  • Plus, the words "sleazy" and "cutthroat" tend to indicate a bias on the part of the author. No offense.
Given all these details, I have to assume that it's false and somebody's pulling my chain. I mean, come on.
So then the question is: if it's true, how can we help readers to believe it?
I'm open to suggestions. I think it would be best to add references (to web sites or print articles), as that would lend credibility.
I am going to delete all POV (like "sleazy") from this article as much as I can; maybe that will help a little too.
--non-fascist-ically yours, Jorend 17:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, how do we go about resolving this NPOV dispute and get rid of the NPOV notice? This article will surely soon be placed on the front page of WP, and needs to be made presentable? Let's discuss. --NightMonkey 09:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
At the very least, we need to make the article stop looking like Rove is the leaker until it is proven that he is and that a crime was committed. That involves making sure we balance our sources and not treat obviously partisan ones as objective. Also, it means not ignoring otherwise damning information that could exonerate Rove, specifically a transcript of Joe Wilson admitting that Plame wasn't covert, and leaked testimony that Rove learned of Plame's role via Novak. I don't know how to include this in an article that already appears to have come to a conclusion, so we need to help eachother on this. --Badlydrawnjeff 12:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Rove, through his attorney, has admitted that he was at least one of the leakers. Whether a crime was comitted is a separate question. The White House repeatedly and in the most emphatic terms denied Rove had anything to do with the leak. Rove was certainly aware of those denials and could easily have corrected them. That makes leaking per se a notable story. --agr 13:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, not exactly. We still have no evidence that Rove had anything to do with the leak - a leak that began with Novak, and a leak in which Novak holds the smoking gun. We cannot jump to conclusions any more than this article already does. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That's not the case.
Disclosing
  • Rove's lawyer admitted that "his client had spoken to Cooper around the time Novak's column appeared in July 2003" [1],
  • Cooper's notes to the Times stated "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation" {...} "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." {...} "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]", which is clearly disclosure of the identity of a covert agent. [2]
  • Cooper then testified before a grand jury that "White House aide Karl Rove was a source for {the} story" [3]
Confirming
  • This latest 'leak' in today's NYTimes paper states that "After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too.". This second-hand account of Rove's own testimony is clearly confirmation of the identity of a covert agent. [4]
The issue is not whether by leaking this information Karl Rove violated the IIPA, Espionage Act or both. It's already been demonstrated that he is the leaker. In so doing, Rove has already demonstrated he is not fit for high Government office or security clearance. The real issue is: "Did the President know that Rove leaked AND confirmed Plame's identity as a CIA operative and when did he know it?"
-- RyanFreisling @ 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not what this demonstrates at all. Rove cannot be the leaker if a) he is not the one to initially leak the information (currently unknown), and b) if there's nothing to leak (which, judging by Wilson's words on Blitzer's show, may be true). Nothing is "clearly indicated" anywhere, and that's why this article remains NPOV - we're assuming, based on a lack of evidence, that Rove is the guilty party without the necessary evidence. When Novak speaks up, then we can start pinning the guilty party with the role here. But, as it stands, the person doing the leaking has no been identified. Period. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That's simply not the case. Period. Now, we disagree. Let's watch and see. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
No, it is the case. You're jumping the gun, which is your right, but don't pass it off as if it's fact when there's not enough indication to prove it. Also, since you felt the need to revert my source without checking it, I will be adding it back based on Wilson's quote in the text of the transcript:
BLITZER: 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.
I'll be adding that back now. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That is not required - she was not a clandestine officer when the leak was made by Novak, not to Novak. It is the link by Rove to Novak that is at issue here. It is that question that Wilson does not answer. It does not prove what you allege. Your erroneous conclusion stays out.
That's simply not the case. Period. Now, we disagree.
a) There is clear evidence that he was the first to leak her identity to Cooper.
b) "there's nothing to leak (which, judging by Wilson's words on Blitzer's show, may be true)" I assume is meant to imply that Plame had no 'covert status'. However, that article you cited says that the former CIA agent and Plame had the exact same 'unofficial cover' (NOC) status, and that his objection was that 'everyone knew' she was CIA. That's not the same thing as alleging she was not a covert agent.

Let's watch and see. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you reading the links, or just the ones that correspond with your POV? We have two links in the article that dispute that Plame was covert at the time of the supposed leak. We have Wilson saying in the transcript that she was not covert at the time, and a former CIA agent saying she was not covert since 1997, in fact using the word 'overt. You must explain why you continue to revert it, because, as you say, "facts are facts." What is your reasoning for reverting it, because I don't care to get into a continued revert war with someone who's disputing facts. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I have already read (and have re-read) the links. The agent, described as covert, does not doubt her formal 'unofficial cover (NOC)' status (the same as his) - he simply states that it was widespread knowledge that she was CIA (in his view). That does not qualify as her not being a 'covert' agent, it's merely questioning the integrity of her cover. Therefore, it does not rise to the level you suggest - that she was not covert 'unofficial cover (NOC)'. The second link (Wilson's testimony that she was not a clandestine officer at the time of Novak's column) does NOT establish that she was not a clandestine (covert) agent at the time of the leak, which predated the column. And it's that very question Wilson refuses to answer, due to the ongoing investigation. That's my point. It's a point of fact, and it's adequate, accurate, factual justification for my edits. You will notice I did not delete the links, because I am not interested in censoring sources that 'do not correspond with my POV'. Accordingly, I hope you will accept my edits are in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I have assumed your edits were in good faith until you pulled the "facts are facts" line while editing out facts. The agent, described BY NAME, is no longer covert, and says that she has not been NOC since 1997. If you are reading the articles like you claim you are, you would have no justification for making the edits. Now, I'm willing to try to find a middle ground here, because a description of WHY the transcript is linked is important. Since you don't like the fact of Wilson stating that she was not covert at the time, what would be a worthwhile edit that would please you? The FACTS are that we have two people stating Plame was not covert, so, to keep a NPOV article, we MUST include that information. What's your idea? --Badlydrawnjeff 15:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That's a mischaracterization, and it's not fair to withhold an assumption of good faith. You are welcome to add any NPOV, factually accurate information you like - it's not about my opinion. My idea is to keep the article status quo, and if one CIA agent's opinion of Plame's cover status is informative, include it. If Wilson's comment about the timing of her classified status is informative, include it. But don't make incorrect assumptions about what those sources supposedly prove (like what I removed). -- RyanFreisling @ 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added factually accurate, NPOV information to the article that you have reverted in direct opposition to the actual facts at hand. Obviously, the statement I replaced it with, which, in my mind, says the same thing, was okay, so I do question your rationale. Furthermore, I'd like to understand your justification for the statement afterwards. Blitzer never questions whether Plame was covert at the time of the leak, thus Wilson cannot "refuse to answer" it. Blitzer DOES ask whether Plame was ever covert, and Wilson refuses to answer, but Wilson does make it explicitly clear that Plame was not covert at the time of the leak. I request you, in good faith, revert the inaccurate statement you added. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
You keep saying 'the leak', to refer to two entirely different occasions. The justification I have already made - the leak by Novak is not at issue, and your conclusion is erroneous. Blitzer asks if she was clandestine "earlier" (and how much), with the inference of the question being 'whether her status was clandestine at the time Novak discussed the information with Rove (6 days prior, as confirmed by Rove's testimony)'. My addition clarifies this important factual counter to your erroneous conclusion that she was 'not clandestine' at the time of the leak (Rove's leak). I did not enter an innaccurate statement,it is factual and clarifies the nature of the information your source contains, to prevent inaccurate conclusions like yours from propagating. In all good faith, it informs, it's truthful, and it should not be reverted. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The leak by Novak is the main issue of this. Without the Novak leak, this doesn't become a problem. Now, Blitzer does the following:
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.
It is clear, by the FACTS OF THE STATEMENTS, that Wilson said that Plame was not covert at the time of the leak. Your edit gives the appearance of such things being stated otherwise, and it is erroneous to state that Wilson does NOT claim that Plame was covert at the time of the leak, or that he avoided any Novak question. That is not truthful, and you should change your statement to reflect the FACTS that you claim to care about so much. Your edit is misinformative, not truthful, and must be changed --Badlydrawnjeff 16:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, you use the phrase 'the leak' inaccurately, and it disclaims your point completely. The statements say NO SUCH THING. Plame's status at the time of the leak is indeterminate - it is her status at the time of Novak's column (NOT THE LEAK) which Wilson discusses. I do not represent the facts I posted as a quotation but as a context for the information. It's correct, it's factual, nd it's informative. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to know how you can read Wilson's statement and then say that your statement is accurate. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
My statement is entirely consistent with Wilson's comments, and based in fact, not a desire to exonerate Rove before the legal process is complete. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Our desires appear to be the same. I have adjusted the statement to better reflect what has been said. Input? --Badlydrawnjeff 16:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
There is less context now, and it is thus less informative, but to demonstrate my good faith (again) I'll leave it as is. -- 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that the entire context has been blown out the water at this point, but I appreciate your cooperation. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As seems all too common in this discussion, key parts of Wilsons remarks were not included above. What he said was:

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.

Whether Plame's status covers her under the IIPA is not for Wilson to say. The CIA apparently thought the leak may have violated the law and 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. In any case, 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 17:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that the statement by Wilson can be (and has been) interpreted to mean that Novak's outing ender her clandestine career, NOT that she was no longer clandestine BEFORE the outing. I have modified the listing accordingly (still in good faith). -- RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Note: CNN removed two paragraphs from today's story relating to this point:
"In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."
"But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said."
It's quite possible that the assertion made in (and subsequently deleted from) the CNN article above, still visible in the original AP article by John Solomon [5] (and by some folks here) was incorrect, in that it falsely summarized Wilson's comment. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Looks fairly speculative and NPOV to me to be trying to point an otherwise factual statement further toward wrongdoing by either party. Wilson's comment continues to be clear, and the middle ground we reached is a compromise to let you have your say in the matter. Can we refrain from messing with it further? Perhaps, since you're claiming there was a deletion in another, non-CNN-transcript source, you can add that to the list and put your POV speculating there? --Badlydrawnjeff 20:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not speculative - it is the opposite of speculative (in other words, more than one interpretation can be drawn, and in fact caused the CNN article to be redacted. This is not speculation, and your reversion (your third) is uncalled for. Your interpretation is no more welcome than anyone else's... so either quote Wilson, or lose the source - but don't summarize using your POV. Also, Please observe the 3RR. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's why I fixed it, again. The CNN TRANSCRIPT was linked, not an article. Now, I have reverted that portion that you added after you and I came to agreement once, not three times. If you're going to toss policy around, fine, but you have reverted that area that many times yourself. If you don't want it reverted, either quit touching it or keep a NPOV intact. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not tossing anything around. The current edit is factual, and so I'm okay with it. Shame you had to revert it before considering the point I was making - as I've already responded, the article was modified in good faith. As you have come to realize, Wilson's statement saying his wife was not clandestine the day Novak's column came out does not state she was not clandestine AS OF that event, PRIOR TO that event, nor BECAUSE of Novak's column. The meaning is indeterminate, and my edit (again, in good faith) was to make that factual (not interpretive) point. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Right, and my edit better reflects BOTH points of view without getting into any more pissing contests with you. I'll note as well that the McCain edit I alluded to had to do with a rather nasty, unsourced screed about push polling, not about our recent POV battles. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Please try to use less vulgar language when speaking to me - despite your challenge of my good faith, I've not used such language about you. This is not a 'pissing contest', this is editing, in good faith (when it's talked out prior to blanket reverts). Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Rotten.Com and Wikipedia

I've been tempted many times to add (reworded) comments to wiki articles from the Rotten.com library, as their facts are generally straight, and their political bias matches my own (meaning I don't see any bias at all ;). However, their opining doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. With that in mind I'm adding a neutrally-worded link to the External Links section. That should be a fair compromise between no mention of Rotten material and the out-and-out plagiarisms of previous [[Karl Rove]] contribs.

Looking over the revision history I see the argument that if links to sites critical of Rove are added, so too should links to sites supportive of him be. The lack of Karl Rove fan sites to link to aside, this call for the simulation of neutrality is disingenuous on three counts:

  • There has never been, nor will there ever be a single written word that does not express some bias. The appearance of neutrality in articles only means that the broadest of cultural norms have not been challenged. Those norms are still a POV.
  • Wikipedia is not a closed, journalistic enterprise. Anyone with positive links for Karl is free to add them at any time.
  • Balance in external links isn't a Wikipedia standard, or at least not a uniform one. I don't see any links favorable to Pol Pot in his article, for example.

I'm not going to try to justify my opinion of Rotten.com here. Suffice it to say, an argument can be made for their credibility equal in strength to an argument for the USA Today. --Clarknova 12:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm as suspicious of Rove's underhand tactics as any sane person, but why is there a link to Rotten.com here? (anon-user)

I hastily removed the rotten.com link as I didn't (and still don't) think it belongs here. My removal was quickly reverted and I now see that the link even has its own section here on the talk page. I should have read this section first.
Anyway, I think the link hurt this article. It adds an extreme POV flair to the reference section that I believe we could be without. People will read the article and then see what we are referring to and get the impression that the article is written by Rove-opponents. That it's not a neutral article.
The external link section is meant for readers wanting to learn more about a subject. And choosing what we link to is not something we should treat lightly. If an article links to references putting the subject in a purely negative light, then we should be very careful about using it without mentioning that it indeed is an article with an extreme POV. And a bio comparing Karl Rove with Heinrich Himmler is extreme POV. I don't agree with Clarknova saying (basically) that it's ok to add POV links since everyone is free to add links with the opposite view. This is a form of "I'll do the rebuttal edits, you supporters of him do the other view if you can" editing that I don't find honest. You know that your additions are one-sided and POV but find it ok since everyone else can add rebuttals. You are not editing with a Wikipedia:NPOV in mind if you do that.
Oh, well. That's my opinion. I have now voiced it and I'll leave it at that. And for the record, I'm not a Bush or Rove fan at all (not that it should matter). I just find the inclusion of that link hurting the overall seriousity (hmm, that's not a word) of the article. Shanes 18:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have been working to settle on a description of the link with Gamaliel. It has been rough going since the standard for inclusion or accurate description seems to fluctuate from topic to topic. As for the rotten.com link,
"Portly, balding, malicious, simpering, he looks like a cross between Sesame Street's Mr. Hooper and the Third Reich's Heinrich Himmler. And he acts like a cross between Heinrich Himmler and Henry Kissinger. Whom he also looks like. And not in a good way. Oh yeah, he's a man who compromised national security, putting lives of American agents in danger. Wait, I forgot a word there. What was it? Oh, I remember! Allegedly."
This can in no way be looked upon as a simple biography, and 'critical biography' lends it some sort of factual validity that it does not adhere to. It is an editorial and I use that term liberally. plain_regular_ham 19:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
from Gamaliel..."a timeline and account of his life makes it a biography".
So, what can I say. Far be it from me to question the neutrality of admin. I will have to carry on with the standard spelled out by Gamaliel. If I can find a website that includes some semblance of Hillary Clinton's life (along with porn links), while calling her a dirty skank among other unnecessary insults, it will be entitled a biography. Gamaliel will certainly back me up. plain_regular_ham 00:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I've just added a link to Hullary Clinton's rotten.com bio to her article. I look forward to your apology and a retraction of your comments. Gamaliel 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hey, does anybody know if Rove has a family? jengod 21:29, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

according to this 2003 New Yorker magazine article [6], Rove has been married twice and has one child. Which hasn't stopped the rumors that he is also gay [7].

"The historical duplicity of the Swedes"

Is there any documentation for this bit in the Trivia section?

Karl Rove is a Norwegian-American. It has been suggested seriously that the White House's contempt for the (now vindicated) Swedish UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was increased by Mr. Rove's assertions about the historical duplicity of the Swedes.

tregoweth 16:43, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I added that bit of trivia. I've heard it from several places, but an impeccable source for it is the book "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. Go to http://slate.msn.com/id/2099277 and scroll down past the first ad, read the paragraph that starts with "page 250" (it's only two sentences long). BSveen 16:53, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Please add your sources to the article or something. 'Some say' (-- Fox) is not an authentic source. Thank you.
I re-worded that bit of trivia and added a source; I hope this pleases everyone . BSveen 04:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

On an Unseen Rove.

In the Time magazine issue Sept. 11 2002, pg.42-43: there is a shot of Rove in, for us, an entirely uncharacteristic pose.

Usually, the "master-planner", here, utterly engrossed in the ghastly spectacle, that he is also partaking of, at least until the President's day outstrips him, leaving him in the dust, as is the experience for so many advisors at this level.

This entirely appropriate human response gives us a rare glimpse of, for some, the top predator in DC., nearly lost.

--Scroll1 02:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a Quick Question

The beginning of this article states that after Karl dropped out of college, he joined the College Republicans. Is this accurate? Or was he in the CR while he was in college? If so, then the wording should be "Before" Karl dropped out of college, he began his blah blah blah. Can anyone assist? Thanks! Stanselmdoc 15:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rove, Jeff Gannon, and the Republican Gay Mafia

The article is lacking discussion of the allegations that Rove is gay and was having an affair with Jeff Gannon and providing Gannon with access and feeding him stories. Other allegations that Bush has gay tendencies such as a fetish for rubbing heads, and the allegations that RNC chairman Ken Mehlman is gay, have led to speculation of the Republican gay mafia, unfortunately too interesting a subject to be allowed into a Wikipedia article.

Why is ti that everytime heterosexuals want to describe someone as detestable they call them gay? I mean, have you given any thought at all as to what that says about your opinions of gay people? Perhaps if you were to refer to them as an ethnic or rligious minority's name, you would begin to realise precisely how bigoted you sound.

If there is evidence that Rove is gay (and that his being gay is relevant to this article), present it. As far as the 'Republican Gay Mafia' is concerned, you're gonna have a tough time substantiating the existence of such a group with facts... Until then, such allegations without fact nor context have little relevance here. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Necessary to include "dropout"?

I'm neutral as far as including it, but does the mention of Rove dropping out of college constitute a negative POV? It seems someone not knowing him would see that and infer he is something less than a statesman of the stature he has gained...

How other people misconstrue a fact is not a problem of the POV of the source. Semiconscious 2 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
From Dictionary.com: dropout (n) 1: someone who quits school before graduation 2: someone who withdraws from a social group or environment

From the 'Turd Blossom' vandalizer

Hi. I'm the joker that has been switching the 'Karl Rove' page to 'Turd Blossom.' Admittedly, some of the humor I gained is from the surrealistic nickname, and also due to my utter NPOV detesting of the man, but I've decided that these are most definitely not mitigating factors for vandalism. Under a real account name I do contribute to Wikipedia for good. I'm going to knock off the malicious edits, but wanted to leave a quick note here (feel free to delete it if you prefer) to offer an honest apology for it.

yawn, yeah right. — 63.202.173.218

'Valerie Plame Scandal'

I just tried to NPOV-edit some of this section. It needs more work. I know this section is highly controversial, covers a current event, and the facts are just being sorted out, so this will be a tough section to police for fairness. All I can ask is that people be rigorous in their fact-checking, judicious in their referenced sources, and kind to other editors in the coming weeks :). --NightMonkey July 3, 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Has there been any evidence that any of Plame's contacts have been put at risk?--ArminTamzarian 3 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Again, has there?--ArminTamzarian 4 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

Current and past CIA officials have said that Novak's article put contacts at risk, but there has not been any disclosure of actual individuals who might have been impacted... for reasons that seem self evident. They can't very well say, 'This could cause 'Bob Smith' to be exposed as a covert operative.' --CBDunkerson 10 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Ashcroft-Rove past relationship is not why Ashcroft appointed an independent investigator.

Well, why then? (see "One Reporter" section, below). Sandover 4 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

How many times are we going to mention the Valerie Plame stuff in this article? We have the rather large section in the bottom, does it need to be covered in the opening section in the top, too? I don't understand reverting back to the duplication. --Badlydrawnjeff 6 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

There has been no evidence that the Identity Protection law has been broken. First, Rove didn't mention Plame's name to Cooper. Second, it has not been proven that she was undercover anyway. Third, Rove didn't contact Cooper, it was the other way around.

'New Yorker Profile'

This link in the references: New Yorker magazine profile - there doesn't appear to be any reference to a release from the New Yorker to allow republishing of this article. I'm not sure about Wikipedia's policy on linking to copyright-infringed articles, but this looks suspicious to me. I want to delete it, pending some resolution between the hosting site and the New Yorker. I'm not against linking to the article, per se, but against linking to a copy of the article that is unauthorized. If no one substantively objects, I'll delete this in 24 hours. Comments? --NightMonkey July 3, 2005 02:52 (UTC)

Please don't delete the link. Linking to dubious material seems to be standard operating procedure, as all the Wikipedia links to Brian Deer and Quackwatch are largely left alone. In any case, providing content for non-commercial purposes is generally tolerable, especially by libertarian standards. If this sort of link is unilaterally deleted, without more tangible justification, what kind of precedent would that set? Ombudsman 4 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
The precedent of honoring copyrights. And that's a tangible justification, I should think. But, I'll do a bit more digging into Wikipedia policies covering such matters before I move. --NightMonkey July 4, 2005 09:40 (UTC)
Found it [8]. Deleting link. Not against linking to an authorized copy. Sorry. --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:06 (UTC)
Doh! Looks like someone else already deleted it. Thanks. --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Incorrect source reference?

This paragraph:

On July 2, 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, conceded that his client spoke to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's undercover identity was first revealed in print by conservative commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in Time, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Furthermore, Luskin said that that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper. ( sourced to http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2869&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 )

This has as a primary referenced to the "Peace, Earth and Justice News". Isn't the content of this paragraph actually sourced from, primarily, the Newsweek article sourced in the paragraph above? The pej.org link isn't really a source for the content here... --NightMonkey July 3, 2005 04:15 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. Regardless, I don't think it's too much to ask that a purported encyclopedia try not to use highly-partisan blogs as its preferred sources. I say use Newsweek as the source and edit accordingly.--ArminTamzarian 3 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

ArminTamzarian and NightMonkey, neither of you are reading the edit records correctly. The edit record shows that Newsweek was always the footnoted source for this paragraph — indeed, there was an additional paragraph yesterday drawn from and footnoted to "Peace, Earth, and Justice News", but it was quickly deleted.
I do have a question for you, Armin -- why did you delete the line reading "Disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982"? Is that not correct? Is that not relevant, as the law which prompted Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation? I have restored the line in the present version. Sandover 3 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
I deleted it because it's highly unlikely the law applies to Rove.statute We don't even know who Fitzgerald is after, or for exactly what crime. You're right, though, that there should be some mention of the alleged criminal activity. The problem with the original line is that it's inaccurate and misleading, but I was also reluctant to throw in a conclusion of law, however obvious it is. I'll try, "Under certain circumstances, disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute makes it highly unlikely that Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies."--ArminTamzarian 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

CBS/National Guard forged memos

There's no reason to include every unsubstantiated allegation against Rove. This article would be 5,000 words long if we did.--ArminTamzarian 4 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

This sounds like a weasely rationalization by someone with a POV agenda. Removal of long-standing information is not kosher. The allegations of congressman Maurice Hinchey [9] were an important news item that deserves inclusion in the Rove article.
Okay, should we put in the Hillary Clinton article that she's been accused of murdering Vince Foster? Should we put in the U.S. Army article that it's been accused of murdering journalists in Iraq? I have no more POV agenda than you do, the difference is that I don't consider any manner of unsubstantiated allegation against a political figure worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article, since as I said, there's really no end to them.--ArminTamzarian 5 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)
I believe it would be accurate to state in the Hillary Clinton article that a certain author has stated in his/her book that Hillary Clinton has been accused of murdering someone. A fact is a fact. An accusation with a reference is a factual event.

17:30, 4 July 2005 63.202.173.218

Or, perhaps the news of the allegations are more appropriate to the Maurice Hinchey article, and not in the Karl Rove article? --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:13 (UTC)

One Reporter?

The accusation that Rove was the source of the Plame information is currently one reporter not closely involved in the case. Saying "proof of his crimes" has not yet been revealed is highly NPOV.

One example of stealing campaign letterhead and printing fake fliers does not establish a basis for "being know for flagrantly illegal acticity."

contributed by ArminTamzarian 4 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

Armin, I respect your edits, which were largely directed at work contributed by others. When you refer to "one reporter," I am wondering which one ... are you referring to Michael Isikoff? Is it really fair — or is it just wishful thinking — to pretend that all the accusations now swarming around Rove in relation to the Valerie Plame scandal stem from just one reporter?
It seems to me that a lot of reporters have contributed important facts to this scandal as it developed (I almost wrote blossomed). If we were to wind the clock back, we would find Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, for one, breaking the story on May 6, 2003 of Wilson's mission and findings (without naming Wilson, though identifying him as a former U.S. ambassador to an African nation).[10] After Condoleezza Rice denounced Kristof's column and Wilson's findings as "not credible" on "Meet the Press" (again, without naming Wilson), on June 13, 2003 Kristof published a second column repeating his accusations and elaborating on Wilson's mission (still without naming him).[11] This public slap from Rice arguably prompted Wilson to write and publish his own piece the following month, appearing Sunday, July 6, 2003.
New York Times reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Lichtblau were perhaps the first mainstream journalists to link Rove to the Plame leak in an article published October 2, 2003. The Rove-Ashcroft conflict of interest led to the appointment of independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. But for some reason, you deleted this reference from the article.
Your edits have improved the article. But please, in deference to my efforts to develop an accurate entry, with a timeline relevant to Rove and has (possible) actions, I ask that you read over both Wilson's original piece (July 6, 2003) and Novak's column outing Plame (July 14, 2003), in order to gain a perspective on what was originally said (and unsaid) by those two parties. On re-reading the two original articles carefully, I no longer find Novak in any way credible when he insists that the reason Plame's name was put in the article was to give some context or justification for Wilson's trip to Niger. Nor do I believe that he was unaware of the damage that would be done by naming her. There are numerous reports (again, do I have to single out reporters?) which indicate that Novak was apprised and warned by the CIA of the consequences of this disclosure.
You asked about the damage done by the Plame leak. Thanks to Elisabeth Bumiller's piece in The New York Times of October 5, 2003, we learned the following, which has not been subsequently contradicted:
"But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had 'nonofficial cover,' and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs."
" 'Nocs are the holiest of holies,' said 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. 'This is real James Bond stuff. You're going overseas posing as a businessman, and if the other government finds out about you, they're probably going to shoot you. The United States has basically no way to protect you.' "
FYI, there are reports on the web that Plame represented herself as an oil industry expert, working for a private company called Brewster Jennings & Associates, and that her outing ended the usefulness of this particular CIA front.[12]
But let's leave that aside for now — I'm just trying to report the timeline and report it accurately. By all means correct my errors, so long as they are errors. Agreed?

Sandover 4 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

Isikoff's Newsweek item looks more like reporting to me, at least as much reporting as Isikoff ever does. Besides, it only stated Rove's acknowledgement that he spoke to Cooper, and, in response to speculation, his denial that he was the source of the Plame information. I think that's quite different from Lawrence O'Donnell's statement, which is an accusation that Rove was the source of the leak. If there are other examples of people accusing Rove of leaking the information based on personal knowledge, not just idle speculation, please mention them.
I don't see how you can read Novak's column as anything but an attempt to explain the who, what, and why of the Wilson affair. I also recall that Novak said his sources only weakly asked him not to name Plame, and did not say that it would damage operations, or that she was covert. Frankly, given Novak's outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and his general disapproval of the administration's foreign policy, I find it incredible that anyone would use him to get revenge, or that he would consent to do so. Fortunately, we don't have to resolve this in an encyclopedia article. Simply state that one side thinks the motive was revenge, and the other thinks it was to reveal relevant information. Make the sides "Democrats" and "Republicans," or "supporters" and "critics" of the administration.
Can you access a copy of Bumiller's article? See, after seeing in here accusations of "90 contacts killed" after Plame's name was revealed, based solely on some left-wing blog, there are some credibility problems. Bumiller's articles are often more like Beltway gossip columns than hard reporting; do you have an alternate source if you can't get her article? I don't consider DailyKos links sufficient, any more than I would FreeRepublic links.
The real problem is that this is a highly-politicized topic involving a highly-politicized man in which innuendo and accusations heavily outweigh the publicly available facts. Having proper primary sources is key.--ArminTamzarian 4 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
Though I have a different view of Novak, whom I believe was trying to minimize Wilson's report because it contradicted White House assertions of ignorance (particularly those offered by Condoleezza Rice, who repeatedly told journalists she had no knowledge of such a report or other information contradicting the African uranium sales), I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement. Indeed, this topic is highly politicized, not to mention complex, and the entry should be grounded in established facts and with a minimum of innuendo. I appreciate your assistance with this. As for the October 5, 2003 New York Times/Elisabeth Bumiller article revealing Plame to be an NOC, I didn't find it online but pulled it up myself from the New York Times archives. Here's the link to the abstract. Hope that helps! Sandover 4 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
I checked the abstract, and I still can't tell if it's news analysis, Beltway gossip, or actual reporting; Bumiller does all three. This whole section seems to be getting too big for a "Karl Rove" article, especially since the story is current and so little is known of the investigation. Ideally, the bits that relate to Rove should be summarized, and the rest should be ported to the Valerie Plame article, which as of yesterday wasn't in great shape.
I removed the "knowingly" legal analysis, which just seems to be some Wikipedian's personal opinion.--ArminTamzarian 5 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)
Armin, just because Bumiller has published frothy pieces elsewhere does not mean that this article from 2003 is incorrect. And just because the Plame NOC paragraphs are not referenced in the abstract doesn't mean they aren't in Bumiller's article, exactly as quoted above. (Nothing keeps you from subscribing to the New York Times clip service.) Your problem, it seems to me, is that you don't want to accept that Plame's outing caused any real harm — but it surely did. If you want a clip published today repeating the NOC details and with even more information about Plame's covert role in the CIA, read the New York Times today for free.[13] If you want, I could also add published references to the Plame outing from former CIA agents who called it "treachery." The reason there's a special investigation, in fact, has to do with the damage to the CIA, and the CIA's initial request to the Justice Department for an investigation of the White House role in the leak.
I definitely don't want to bloat Rove's entry with a long, elaborate timeline of the entire Plame affair, but I think this is right (for now). Rove is now a central figure in the scandal — and it wasn't so much O'Donnell's comments on Friday as much as Rove's lawyers remarks to Newsweek and The Los Angeles Times the day after which brought him into the spotlight. As for Wikipedia, Rove's (emerging) role in this scandal merits a White House- and investigation-centered context, something different from what I think is appropriate on Valerie Plame's Wikipedia page. Sandover 5 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Dirty Tricks Reputation Censored

Whoever censored/sanitized this article to remove the references to Rove's reputation for political dirty tricks is doing a disservice to the Wikipedia readers. To deny that Rove has such a reputation, or to fail to mention it, is to pretend to ignore the elephant in the living room.

17:17, 4 July 2005 63.202.173.218

How does one properly go about definitively saying someone's "reputation" is this or that? How can one tease out the bias of non-Republicans towards the Republicans from the anti-Roves towards the pro-Roves (and visa-versa)? Let's stick to the well-grounded facts as much as possible. The facts will come out over time - it does a disservice to Wikipedia to add bias, sloppy language and gossip to its articles. Remember - this is not a blog, it is an encyclopedia, and its article should reflect high standards and attention to Wikipedia's goals. You should check out goal #2 on Wikipedia Key Policies. (Oh, your opinions might carry more weight if you were registered) --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:27 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag from Talk

That tag should be on the main page, I believe, if anywhere. It was annoying to see that at the top of the Talk page, so I removed it. Besides, a Talk page doesn't have to show a NPOV ;). --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Political labeling (Novak)

See, I originally removed the "conservative" label from Novak not only because people are only labeled "conservative" - nobody's ever labeled a "liberal" - but also because here it's no less relevant than that Wilson is a liberal, or that O'Donnell is too. Furthermore, it's misleading, implying that Novak was shilling for the White House, when in fact his disagreement with the President on many issues, especially the Iraq war, is well known. You need to put in labels wherever they're relevant, which means at least Wilson and O'Donnell, or just drop them.--ArminTamzarian 5 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Agreed. But better to argue it out here than to make a puerile edit on the main page, particularly as this scandal gains momentum and the edits (and vandalism) begin to fly. Sandover 5 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

has Rove commited treason?

Has Rove commited treason?

My understanding is that to release the name of a CIA agent who's in field is treason.

Wasn't Joe's wife in field?

  • Y'got proof at the moment? --Badlydrawnjeff 6 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
fwiw Ted Rall apparently thinks so [14], assuming Rove hasn't set someone else up to take the fall for the outing.
Yikes, Ted Rall as a source? Who woulda guessed he would be against Rove. Gotta be careful with sources on either extreme. --Lord Voldemort 7 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Trivia section - How is a Turd Blossom ref POV ????

It is mindboggling the depths of anality which some self-appointed NPOV Nazis have sunk to, in removing the Turd Blossom nickname that GW Bush HIMSELF uses for Rove. Good God, can't we even say the sky is blue anymore?

    • I reverted it for two reasons: 1) you are not logged in, but behind an IP address. This is a clue that vandalism might be going on. 2) It seems inflammatory and POV. However, according to the linked article, it appears to be true. My suggestion for putting it in the main article would be to clarify that it is used only in a negative sense. I still think it is inflammatory, but it is interesting trivia. If it gets put up again, I won't revert, but someone else might.

Still, you might do yourself a favor and get an account and log in. That way you (probably) won't get dismissed as a vandal. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 21:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Ignorance of the subject matter is no excuse for mindless knee-jerk reverts.
  • I have added a few words explaining what Turd Blossom means, and an additional reference for the term. Pburka 23:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

fall guy?

I added "fall guy" in the first paragraph, but it was swiftly removed. Who else thinks this should be a part of this article?

I removed it, because it is so extremely POV. Joyous (talk) 22:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Senator Durbin

I deleted the following lines because they are currently unsourced, undated, and do not reflect NPOV standards. If this is a real controversy, rather than anti-Rove Wikipedists merely venting anger and editorializing, they should be restored (with footnotes):

At about this same time, Rove made a similarly controversial statement: "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was “simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism.”
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman added, “I think what Karl Rove said is accurate and reflects a big difference between the two parties.” Critics pointed to Mehlman's statement, and his use of the word "parties," as evidence of a growing belief that when Rove said "liberals," he was equating liberals and/or Democrats.

Sandover 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Intelligence Identities and Protection Act (50 U.S. Code Sec. 421)

Here's an excerpt of the the code... the subsequent sections detailing defenses, exceptions, etc. are there. [16]

   * United States Code
         o TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
               + CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY
                     # SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents,
informants, and sources

   (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
       access to classified information that identifies covert agent
     Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
   information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
   any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
   authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
   information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
   United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
   agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
   fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
   both.
   (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
       covert agents as result of having access to classified
       information
     Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
   information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
   intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
   agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
   information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
   such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
   measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
   to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
   not more than five years, or both.
   (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
       activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
     Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
   identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
   such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
   activities of the United States, discloses any information that
   identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
   authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
   information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
   United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
   individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
   States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
   three years, or both.
   (d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
     A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
   consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Note that each of the three different kinds of disclosure violations bear their own penalties - they are not requisites for a single charge. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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) 21:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong year?

In the chapter "spreading the leak", the 12 July 2005 is mentioned in the beginning. Shouldn't that be 12 July 2003? --Hppl 08:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Rove fired by Bush Sr. for leak in 1992

Why isn't this represented here?

Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source.

Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher."

Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated "I still believe he did it."

(Sources: "Karl and Bob: a leaky history," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7, 2003, ; "Genius," Texas Monthly, March 2003, p. 82; "Why Are These Men Laughing," Esquire, January 2003)

Note: above comment was by User:RyanFreisling. - dcljr (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Sorry - forgot to sign! Thanks Dcljr. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good addition to add, with appropriate attention to the fact that it is "alleged" and makes good mention of the denails by Novak and Rove. Now, just because it was "alleged" doesn't merit inclusion per se, but that it was covered by major press outlets certainly does. So, Be Bold! --NightMonkey 10:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Boldness engaged. By the way - until I find the official URL, editors can find the text of the impeachment letter here. Opinions? -- RyanFreisling @ 23:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

need more information

I would like this entry to have more information about Rove in the 80s and early 90s.


Do not add discussion to this page. Use the main talk page instead.