Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 6

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

Clean Slate

Everyone can breathe a breath of fresh air now, BigDaddy is outta here. If there is anyone who feels that his points were valid, please bring it up now so that at the very least, the small bit of rationality he posessed will be addressed, as once again, this was not an attempt to silence him. I'm all for including a quote from a conservative group in the 9/11 savagery quote section as per BD. I look forward to getting back to civily discussing changes to this article and bringing about balance. On a side note, Halle-frickin-lulljah. :) --kizzle 04:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL Yeah as I said all along, his views didn't bother me. His methods did. I have no problem with adding a conservative quote or two in the savagery section. What was so frustrating with BD is that if he behaved, I know he could get done alot of what he wanted to get done. --Woohookitty 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That's not the point. You're missing the point of core of most current Bushism; emotional illness. If people have even the germ of the ability to look rationally at a situation without activating the primitive reptilian threat-defense system, they will have given up on the Bushies by now. Look at the news; even their stalwarts are questioning the administration.Gzuckier 18:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think attacks on supporters of the Bush administration are really necessary. I could add a petty partisan comment of my own here but I'll refrain. The vast majority of Republicans still support President Bush.--Hbutterfly 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Anywho

I never was involved in the editing of this article...it was more trying to stop BD. So I'll watch from now on, but if anyone needs my assistance, let me know. --Woohookitty 23:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Warning

So far, I've blocked 3 of BD's sockpuppets. This last one was a IP addy beginning with 68. He had used an IP starting with that before. --Woohookitty 09:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It's over dude, you got banned. Go read a book or go out and socialize, or find a hobby. --kizzle 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again with the evacuation plan...

I suspect that User:John Henry, who is currently working on this article, is a sockpuppet for disruptive user User:JimmyCrackedCorn, who is probably also using the account User:DEastman. Just a heads-up for users on this page. You can see some of his more infamous tactics (particularly regarding trying to insert the "evacuation plan" everywhere) on Talk:Ray Nagin. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

nuisance

Kizzle et al: Validity is not determined by emotive processes. It makes no difference how anyone "feels" about the points he raised, since validity is based on truth, fact and logic, which BD presented, and which you (sorry) haven't. Since you haven't cleared up your confusion about the fundamental differences between reason and emotion, you, at least, had better stay away from determining the validity of one thing or the other. As far as I can tell, BD was shouted down. You've knocked Piggy off the cliff. Three cheers for you lot.

"The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up."

151.205.139.149 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)thorn_in_your_flesh

Indeed, but I never was arguing against the validity of BD's edits. See the intro to the RfC again. I felt that he had the ability to positively contribute valid edits based upon truth, fact and logic, it was just hard to see it through the barrage of personal attacks he waged against us. That is also why the very first post I made on this page was a call for anyone who felt similar along the lines of BD to voice their opinion so that the rationales BD brought up on this talk page would not be forgotten along with his tirades. You are more than welcome to bring up any points he made. And for the continued interest of volunteer editors here, which is the very lifeblood of Wikipedia and the key to its long term survival, it requires a congenial atmosphere that is conducive to rational and civil debate free from ad hominem attacks, so I do think that there are aspects of significance besides the sheer logical coherence of one's arguments. --kizzle 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
BD777 did plenty of shouting on his own -- much more than anybody else around here. Shall we discuss content now? · Katefan0(scribble) 22:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Amen to that. --kizzle 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Just did a major reversion

Let's not make changes like John Henry made without discussion. --Woohookitty 08:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I like either [1] or [2]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Can we please remove the article-wide NPOV tag and replace it with section NPOV tags, if there are any current NPOV allegations.

Also, could anyone who feels that a particular section suffers from a POV problem please start a discussion on that section below? Please list with some specificity your concerns: particular sentences, details, turns of phrase, content ... whatever. That way, we can address and resolve them in an orderly fashion. Thank you. Derex @ 18:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I should add that if NPOV tags are not accompanied by a resolvable complaint, those tags may be removed. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

(insert one line description of passage here)

Passage: Karl Rove is my hero

Discussion:

That is the most NPOV thing I've ever heard. --kizzle 19:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Rove and alleged homosexuality

I'm going to keep reverting the removal of that comment about Rove's divorce being caused by his homosexuality. Need to hear arguments for its removal. Maybe we could find a better source for that information?? The source we use is a bit biased. --Woohookitty 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Homosexual link highly questionable

This story sounds like something out of The Onion. Outrageous and dubious. Laughable and damaging to wikipedia's credibility.

I removed the link just because I read the story and it does not mention a link between his alleged homosexuality and his divorce. If someone else can find it, great. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in there. I see people mentioning his possible homosexuality but not tied to his divorce. --Woohookitty 07:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the strange way The Onion stories have been coming true? 74.70.206.55 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Comment about Wilson

In the article, after Joseph Wilson's name, it says "(Kerry supporter)" - which while it may be true, I fail to see how it relates to the outing of his wife. It said "(who donated $1,000 to Al Gore's campaign)" or something similar that might be a little better. Honestly, I don't even know if it belongs there at all, but my suggestion above - I think - sounds like a good idea if one is to mention his political leanings. Although, in the interest of fairness, wouldn't it be necessary to mention that he actually met Saddam Hussein personally in the early '90s and that former President George H.W. Bush commended him. Just my two cents.

-- Garden Stater 22:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Article

This entire article reads like nothing but a collection of lunatic LW Blog conspiracy theories. Is that really what the editors are going for here? I've deleted a few then realized this might be some kind of farce so I'll hol off till later on others. Is this some kind of parody site of syumbled upon? --Wisen Thal 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything I've read here seems to be supported by credible sources. The only thing I had a problem with was the numerous "stop signs" challenging the neutrality of some sections, yet like you the person who challenged the neutrality failed to point out any specific problem they had. People have a choice, they can either complain about what they see, or they can collaborate with other people to come up with an accurate page. And please people, try to put objectivity above politics. -- Garden Stater

hol off till later on others. Is this some kind of parody site of syumbled upon? ... Yes, we make smartass comments while butchering the language, you get today's gold star. I don't see anything in the disputed portions that is not well documented elsewhere. -- Battaile Fauber

Since the person who challenged the neutrality of 2.3 1992 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign, 2.4 2004 George W. Bush presidential campaign, and 3 Consulting business and work in politics in 1990-2000 did not provide a suggestion to what will make it more neutral, and did not edit the three sections him or herslef, I've deleted the stop signs. If anyone else would like to replace them or - even more brilliantly - make edits themselves, then by all means go ahead. Perhaps in the areas that mention shadow campaign "phenomenons" - let's say - perhaps it should be mentioned that no evidence has surfaced that connects Karl Rove to these occurances. Maybe right next to where it's mentioned that he's denied involvement.

Rove fired in 1980?

When watching the movie Bush's Brain, they claim that Karl Rove was fired from the Reagan-Bush campaign for leaking information to Robert Novak. Does anyone know about this, or did the directors just make a mistake with regard to date and campaign? -- Garden Stater

Hi Garden Stater, welcome to Wikipedia. To answer your question, here is a verbatim quote from a NY Times piece by Elisabeth Bumiller, dated Aug. 6 of this year, entitled "Rove and Novak, a 20-Year Friendship Born in Texas": Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary. Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit.
So, it seems clear that Rove was indeed fired from the campaign. Whether it was over a leak or not seems in some dispute. The former campaign manager says yes, and apparently Rove and Novak have denied. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Is this actually mentioned in the article? (I can't recall off the top of my head). If so these nuances should be clarified. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this a biographical article?

There used to be a section about where and when he was born, his schooling, the College Republicans, etc. Seems like the politics has eclipsed the biography...kind of embarrassing. Kaisershatner 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious?

"There used to be a section about where and when he was born, his schooling" -- It is still there.

"Seems like the politics has eclipsed the biography...kind of embarrassing." -- He is a white house insider and career political operative since about, oh, highschool? What do you think is going to show up in his biography? Are you equally embarrassed that Dan Marino's page talks about football?Battaile Fauber

It's there because I restored it (you can check the edit history if you like), but thanks for the feedback. Kaisershatner 14:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

SBVT comments

I moved these citations here. They don't really have anything to do with Rove, they're about the SBVT ads, which have their own wikipedia article. Also, they don't really substantiate any connection between Rove and SBVT - the third one, a Boston Globe (editorial) critical of Rove, mentions the allegation of his connection, but none of these links actually support the statement "He had professional ties." There is probably a better reference for that claim (I'm not disputing the validity, just the sourcing). [3] [4] [5] Also cut this: "Another ad from SBVT accused Kerry of lying to win his Vietnam combat medals." Is that necessary in a Rove bio? Kaisershatner 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll replace reference 4 - the NY times chart actually does show the alleged connection. Kaisershatner 15:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Conyers and Ashcroft

I moved this here from the article. Isn't it really about Conyers' view of Ashcroft's conduct & the suggestion that Ashcroft should have recused himself earlier? Not really about Rove's biography, is it? Kaisershatner 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


John Ashcroft / Karl Rove Conflict Of Interest Allegation

When Karl Rove was being questioned over the leak by the FBI, Attorney General John Ashcroft was being personally briefed about the investigation. U.S. Representative John Conyers described this at the time as a "stunning ethical breach that cries out for an immediate investigation."[6][7]

Rep. Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has sent a letter asking for a formal investigation of the time between the start of Rove's investigation and John Ashcroft's recusal:

There has long been the appearance of impropriety in Ashcroft's handling of this investigation. The former attorney general had well documented conflicts of interest in this matter, particularly with regard to his personal relationship with Karl Rove. Among other things, Rove was employed by Ashcroft throughout his political career, and Rove reportedly had fiercely advocated for Ashcroft's appointment as attorney general. Pursuant to standard rules of legal ethics, and explicit rules on conflict of interest, those facts alone should have dictated his immediate recusal.
The new information, that Ashcroft had not only refused to recuse himself over a period of months, but also was insisting on being personally briefed about a matter implicating his friend, Karl Rove, represents a stunning ethical breach that cries out for an immediate investigation by the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General.[8][9]

Last Trivia Item

Somehow I doubt the veracity of the trivia section item that claims that 'Karl Rove was beaten up by a girl democrat.' While this is 'sourced' to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, I find that using a game show (no matter how intellectual it may be) as a source is highly dubious at best. Best to remain within the ol' NPOV, so I commented it out. JustinStroud 20:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it was from the part of the show where a contestant has to choose which is the true story from among several made-up stories. --206.79.158.100 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal opinions

Rove's White House security clearance, governed by Executive Order 12958, apparently required both a criminal background check as well as training in the protection of classified information. To receive security clearance, Rove agreed, in writing (SF-312 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), not to divulge or confirm classified information to individuals (including reporters) not authorized to have it. According to Rove's attorney's public statements, Rove has admitted to violating his SF-312 agreement.

Isnt any official who leaks info to the press in violation of this rule? This happens regularly and is the basis of many many news stories. Technically the same could be said of Joe Wilson leaked information to Nicholas Kristof of the NYTimes in his May 6th, 2003 column? And couldnt the same be said of who ever the people that were providing all the leaks about the Fitzgerald investigation? I think it behooves us to mention that leaking info to reporters happens all the time, and if not, then remove the paragraph. -Viper Daimao 21:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's ludicrous, and not coincidentally, a recent (and failed) Republican talking point. This is not the 'criminalization of politics', it's a crime. The episode should remain, and would belong on the page of any other senior government official who had been proven (to say nothing of admitting) to have violated that regulation. And when he's indicted, we'll add that too.
If he does something truly noteworthy (like violate his security agreement by leaking a CIA agent's identity to the press in an attempt to stifle dissent on the rationale for war), it belongs. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
sorry, I didnt get the talking point memo :). Im just saying that just about any time you see a news story with information refering to an "administration official" or "CIA official" or the like, it is also a violation of this statute. I dont think we have to take it out, I just think we need to add some prespective that this is violated all the time. And that it was never discussed as a reason to indict him. As it stand, it seems like a pov technical gotchaism.Viper Daimao 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. It's not 'violated all the time'. To include such a disclaimer would serve only to balance, minimize or neutralize the nature of the incident with a "pro-Rove" POV.
A violation of a security clearance is not a routine act for a senior government official to commit, to be investigated for, to testify before a grand jury to, and/or to admit to committing.
It's wrong to suggest that. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Talking confidentially to a reporter is not always "leaking." And when it is, not all "leaks" are created equal. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Official 'A'

Get ready for a new section. Rove is 'Official A' in the Libby indictments.

From the indictment:

On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

From the AP article:

Friday's indictment says "Official A" is a "senior official in the White House who advised Libby on July 10 or 11 of 2003" about a chat with Novak about his upcoming column in which Plame would be identified as a CIA employee.
Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.

From the AP article:

"Prosecutors identified Rove in the Libby indictment only as "Official A," recounting a conversation he had with Libby about Plame and Wilson in the days just before the CIA operative's identity was revealed. The mention could make Rove a witness at any Libby trial.

And the Guardian article:

Another mystery is the person described in the indictment as ``a senior official in the White House. This person, identified as ``Official A, also talked with Novak about Plame's job and identity a few days before his column appeared.
It's possible this person is White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, who has acknowledged talking to reporters about Plame. He was not indicted but remains under investigation.

Somebody's been hitting refresh at DailyKos ;) --kizzle 01:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Many are watching the wire... -- RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Forgot to wish you a merry Fitzanukah, Fitzmas, or Fwanza, whichever you celebrate :) --kizzle 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's not really my thing. The kind of damage to national security that this leak represents makes me less than celebratory. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, I agree -- but as a lawyer, I find something to celebrate in that there's at least a possibility that the legal system can bring high-placed miscreants to justice. To me, that's the true spirit of Fitzmas. JamesMLane 05:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Anytime the rare occurance happens of justice being served, it deserves to be celebrated. --kizzle 16:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Not to beat a dying horse, but this sort of stuff should by rights be in the Plame affair article, and have minimal coverage here. --NightMonkey 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Also of interest/relevance is this CNN piece on Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)'s comments.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate minority leader said Sunday that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney owe the country an explanation of "what's going on" in the administration and called for White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to be fired.
The Nevada Democrat referred to past comments from the president that anyone found to have been involved in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media would be fired.
Bush later amended his comments to say that anyone guilty of a criminal act would be fired.
"Everyone knows Karl Rove is involved", Reid said. "If the president is a man of his word, Rove should be history."
Rove is widely believed to have been named as "official A" in the five-count indictment handed up Friday against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.''
Seems to be getting relevant-er. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
We'll see if there's an actual indictment though, I'm starting to think Cheney is more likely to be indicted than Rove:
In any case, Fitzgerald made another visit early Friday morning—shortly before the grand jury voted to indict Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby—to the office of James Sharp, President George W. Bush's own lawyer in the case, to tell him the president's closest aide would not be charged. Rove remains in some jeopardy, but the consensus view of lawyers close to the case is that he has probably dodged the bullet. - [10]
--kizzle 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Bush confirmed that Rove is still under investigation today, in today's press briefing:
QUESTION: "Are there discussions in the White House about whether or not Karl Rove will remain in his job?"
BUSH: "Elizabeth, the investigation on Karl as you know is not complete and therefore I will not comment on him and/or the investigation. I understand the anxiety and angst by the press corps to talk about this. On the other hand, It’s a serious investigation, and we take it seriously."

No college degree

Does "he has no college degree" really belong in the first paragraph? Is it really that important? As far as I know it doesn't reflect in any way on his official capacity. Georgeslegloupier 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

corrected to dropout


It should go back to the first paragraph, this is a biographical piece and that bit of information reveals much about this mans character and ideals. Not to mention the fact that no one will ever read the entire article.

If you don't put it in the first paragraph, Then make a sub section for education and mention it there.

Rove and Republican Gay Mafia Connection Jeff Gannon Ken Mehlmann et al

Why no discussion of Rove's connection to Jeff Gannon and the stories of the Republican gay mafia? Rove apparently was having homosexual trysts with Gannon in the White House, yet no mention is made of that here.

'Apparently' doesn't mean fact. Show us a pair of assless chaps with a DNA stain on it and Bob's your uncle. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Rove's twisted facts so much, "apparently" is good enough for me in his case.--Timcopeland1 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CPB Scandal

Should there be a paragraph or section on the seizure of Kenneth Tomlinson's emails to Karl Rove and the investigation into the Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting? SargeAbernathy 18:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm-hmmm. So many allegations of impropriety, so little time... :) -- RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Source for 'list of 10000 enemies'

Though it sounds like little more than insider bluster and innuendo/rumor to me, I added a source to this section, an article written and published by the editor of Capitol Hill Blue, an obviously pro-Democratic web site. I personally do not interpret NPOV policy to mean that the POV of a source in and of itelf invalidates the information involved, but in practice, the use of such a source means that the burden of independent proof for the allegation should be simply that much higher. As such, I consider this '10000 enemies' item to be unsubstantiated and so is likely to be removed until some other source is found. And, unlike most modern reporting, another crucial requirement - one source cannot cite the other as proof :)

The article states:
Spurred by paranoia and aided by the USA Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies and uses those files to wage war on those who disagree with its policies.
The “enemies list” dates back to Bush’s days as governor of Texas and can be accessed by senior administration officials in an instant for use in campaigns to discredit those who speak out against administration policies or acts of the President.
Rove started the list while Bush served as governor of Texas, compiling information on various political enemies in the state and leaking damaging information on opponents to friends in the press. The list grew during Bush’s first run for President in 2000 but the names multiplied rapidly after the terrorist attacks of 2001 and passage of the USA Patriot Act. Using the powers under the act, Rove expanded the list to more than 10,000 names, utilizing the FBI’s “national security letters” to gather private and intimate details on American citizens. [11]

Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove's business ranking

I was wondering how high up on the demonic chain of command is Karl Rove, does he serve the dark lord directly or is merely a relatively unknown underling? Anyone have any biblical or hindu texts that might give us some insight as too how Karl's career is going?--M4bwav 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite / Clarification needed

This paragraph in the article seems to be unsourced. The snopes link doesn't seem pertinent to the section or karl rove in any way.

In August 2005, Rove was assigned by the President to oversee the administration's political 'damage control' effort following Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. After Rove's appointment, the administration was criticized for attempting to shift blame away from the federal government for the failures by claiming that state and local officials had not declared a state of emergency at the time

Arkon 02:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


From the New York Times, Sept. 5.
White House Enacts a Plan to Ease Political Damage
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and ANNE E. KORNBLUT Published: September 5, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 - Under the command of President Bush's two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.
It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush planned for Monday, directed administration officials not to respond to attacks from Democrats on the relief efforts, and sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan.
The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his communications director, Dan Bartlett. It began late last week after Congressional Republicans called White House officials to register alarm about what they saw as a feeble response by Mr. Bush to the hurricane, according to Republican Congressional aides. [12]
Seems to substantiate the section. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps that link should be placed at the end of that paragraph, the one that is there now is lacking. Also it should probably be noted, or reworded to include that Rove is not alone in his 'overseeing'. Come to think of it, it might even be best to note that such and such is saying that rove and bartlett are overseeing this. Unless of course it has been said outright. Arkon 02:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush's Brain (was: Another deletion without cause)

Just cause it's not cited doesn't mean delete it. If one is interested in verifiability (and not in fact selective character portrayals), one can try to make an effort to find corroboration before removing items one doesn't like. For example, 'Bush's Brain' is a well-known nickname of Rove. Citation added. One should really make an effort to do so before deleting things one finds unflattering - at least to avoid the appearance of POV-pushing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Does a derogatory nickname really belong in the first paragraph of an article about a person? Bill Clinton was often called "Slick Willy", but it doesn't merit a mention in his article until thousands of words in (on my computer it's on the 20th screenful of text).
The nickname is trivia at best—unless the idea is that "Bush's brain" is particularly helpful to the reader, as an insightful characterization of who Rove is and what he does. (In which case I'd have to say that's POV-pushing.) Jorend 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Childhood PTSD Reaction Manifesting in Adult Psychopathology?

Rove's apparent psychopathic hatred of liberals might be explained by the story recounted in the article, wherein he is traumatized at age 9 by a vicious beating from a girl, resulting in possible latent PTSD symptoms, which would nicely explain much of his deviant adult personality and homosexual fetish for Jeff Gannon type prostitutes. However, the story is unsourced and sounds like a forgery to me:

In 1960, at the age of 9 years old, Rove decided to support Richard Nixon. According to Rove, "There was a little girl across the street who was Catholic and found out I was for Nixon, and she was avidly for Kennedy. She put me down on the pavement and whaled on me and gave me a bloody nose. I lost my first political battle."
I added the story (as part of a lot of other posting about Rove's early life). The source is cited in a different part of the section where the story appears, but (at the risk of duplication) I've added it immediately after the story as well.
I find it helpful, before questioning something unusual, to do a google query. In this case, using the text "There was a little girl across the street who was Catholic", the third result is to this Deseret News article. Deseret News is a major Mormon-owned paper in Salt Lake City, and this article is my source.
I also don't think that speculation about PTSD is useful - I hope you'll keep it out of the main article, now that the source of the story has been identified. John Broughton 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we explain your psychopathic hatred of Rove. Or DU.com's? That place is full of hate of everyone. You havent met him, you arent going to meet him. He has no effect on your life. Under these circumstance, the gnashing hatred of Rove shows a bizzare pathology.

Or at least no more effect on my life than George Bush and his administration and the Republican House and Senate do. No more than that. Gzuckier 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call hatred of Rove phycopathic. He is one of the most vile men in politics. Yes, I know how pov that is, but it neededd to be said. Still, while you could make arguments he is a phycopath, I wouldn't say because of hatred of liberals. In all honesty, he really isn't that much of a conservative par se, he just is hired by conservatives. I don't think he honestly feels one way or another about gays, for example. But I could be wrong. Still, Identifying him as a phycopath is something that should be done on a political forum, not here. There are tons of conservatives, and even a few liberals, that I believe to display at least a few phycopathic tendencies. (Wikifan999 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Guckert, Rove and the love that dare not speak its name

Sorry, anon. This is getting into Morgenthalerism. I reprint the edit here, and attempt to dissect it into provable fact.

He is rumored to be homosexual.
Prove it.
Jeff Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, is a well-known homosexual with his own web site declaring such.
Yep, Gannon/Guckert's affiliation with USMCPT.com and militarystud.com other gay escort services (including his nude pictures, etc.) are a fact. You got this one.
Gannon/Guckert was also the same individual "hired" by Rove to lob soft questions at Scott McClellan and Bush during press conferences.
Prove it. There's little record of Gannon's authorization to be in the Press pool. Do you have proof of who hired him, and why he was hired? Enquiring minds want to know.
Update! Found this: White House press secretary Scott McClellan originally told reporters that Guckert was properly allowed into press briefings because he worked for an outlet that "published regularly." [13]. In stating that Gannon's approval was a routine matter, one could then surmise that the White House is thus claiming Rove was not involved with the passes given daily (for two years) to Gannon/Guckert. However, that's just a hypothesis and not fact. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For this, Gannon/Guckert was given a a highly coveted White House press pass, despite his having no journalistic credentials whatsoever.
Appears to be true, but the administration has claimed he simply bore a 'daily pass' day in and day out. Again, some proof would be great.
White House records show that Gannon/Guckert made a number of late-night visits to the White House with no given reason.
Proof, please.
Update! I did a little followup and found the Secret Service records for Guckert's visits to the White House, obtained via FOIA by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). In the 'reason' column nothing looked absent, nor unusual. Please point these particular visits out, to help validate this claim. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
White House sources state that he was visiting Rove, and that the two were/are in a relationship.
Says who? Again, prove this one and I will bear your anon love child.

So, we've got two provable assertions (Gannon was in the press pool, and was a former male escort for men), neither of which ties Gannon to Rove. On that sole basis of fact, it doesn't belong in this article. Can you provide more? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Update! It appears that Guckert denied knowing Rove, but CBS ain't totally buying it:
Gannon says that he met Rove only once, at a White House Christmas party, and Gannon is kind of small potatoes for Rove at this point in his career.
But Rove's dominance of White House and Republican politics, Gannon's aggressively partisan work and the ease with which he got day passes for the White House press room the past two years make it hard to believe that he wasn't at least implicitly sanctioned by the "boy genius." Rove, who rarely gave on-the-record interviews to the MSM (mainstream media), had time to talk to GOPUSA, which owns Talon. [14]
When asked if anyone in the White House staff or leadership planted, offered, or suggested questions to ask, Guckert said "absolutely not." He said, "I only met Karl Rove once, at the media Christmas party at the White House in 2003. I was waiting in line for my 'grip and grin' {photo} with the president and he passed by. I introduced myself to him, he said hello, and he moved on." Editor and Publisher (paid)
Oooh. Moore scoopage.
Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove Attended the Same "School"; Or, "The Best Theory Yet for How Gannon Got Hired By GOPUSA and Karl Rove Got In Touch With Him" [15]
Karl Rove is a graduate of Morton C. Blackwell's Leadership Institute.
So is Jeff Gannon.
Rove went to the Institute's "Youth Leadership School," graduating from that grist-mill of conservative quackery in 1979.
Gannon went to the Institute's "Broadcast Journalism School," graduating (to the extent $50 in cash enabled that "achievement") in 2003.
Both "schools" cost substantially less than a bargain-basement television set, and provide approximately the same degree of instruction in critical thinking. [16].
The Leadership Institute Gannon (and Rove) graduated from has an Employment Placement Service/Intern Program which, according to the Institute's solicitation to prospective "students," "open[s] doors for you which would otherwise remain shut." [17]
<laugh> I just ... don't know what else to say to this thread. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 00:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I love this stuff... :) Just trying not to appear as if I reverted an edit that might have elements of relevant fact. However, there doesn't appear to be much of that left over for the article from this process. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Rove's Religion?

I am pretty sure Rove's middle name isn't Christian because he's Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossadian (talk • contribs) .

No, he isn't. And yes, it is "Christian". JackO'Lantern 06:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Source needed for his religion, pretty sure its Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossadian (talk • contribs) .

According to NNDB he is "Anglican/Episcopalian". Why do you think he is not? --StuffOfInterest 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Mossadian, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes so we know who said what. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  wow i am pretty sure he wasn't  check another source Mossadian 07:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope you got it wrong, he is Karl Christian Rove, and I've never heard he is jewish, though I would admit that it is unusual since most neo-cons are jewish, though they have fundie christian counterparts--M4bwav 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
He's not Jewish. A lot of antisemite types like to smear Bushites/neo-con types as Jews or 'Crypto-Jews', which is completely false. It's also false that 'most neo-cons are jewish', because a quick look at the reveals that only about 35% of them are Jews, with the rest coming from diverse backgrounds [Catholics, evangelicals, even some Muslims]. If one were to conduct a poll of who supports Neo-con principles among the general public, you'd likely get fewer positive responses amongst Jews [percentage-wise] than amongst those other groups. --Baltech22 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I heard a guy on the radio, who wrote books about Karl Rove, that says he is an agnostic. I was very surprised when I heard this, since most neo-conservatives are usually Christian or Jewish. Rshu 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Tricks section needed

There is only one mention of Dirty tricks in the trivia section, whereas in Rove's case it deserves an entire article let alone a single sentence. e.g. How about Rove's involvement in duping Rather with the Rathergate memos? I suspect regular sanitizing of the dirty tricks section in this article by some Rove lackey like Jeff Gannon.

Sorry anonymous person, wikipedia is not a place to list all your outlandish conspiracy theories. --Viper Daimao 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The last part about Jeff Gannon deleting wiki parts is a bit off, but I wouldn't call them conspiracy theories. And the fact that he is a dirty trickster is common knowledge to liberals, but as such is not NPOV so shouldn't be in wikipedia. It is okay to add mention of his dirty tricks, but don'tcall them dirty tricks. Call them "political strategies." (Wikifan999 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Seperate Sections

Am I the only one who finds this article a little too confusing and think all would benefit by making it smaller(linking to larger articles)

Bush's crap spinner

Is this the guy that spins facts up so that W Bush looks good?

You're thinking of Bill O'Reilly. This is all covered in the article though. Ashibaka tock 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Old... But, is an absolutely false ad hominem necessary? Going by the textbook definition (as in, the definition given in a textbook), O'Reilly is "moderate" (some conservative views, some liberal views, generally in between) I could go on and on about that. Anyway, I don't think that there's any "guy that spins facts up so that W Bush looks good". If that were true, he wouldn't have such a low approval rating. I just think that it's wonderfully funny how people concieved to be even the slightest bit off of one group's views are automatically labeled, hated and insulted. For instance, the way O'Reilly is labeled "conservative" and regularly slandered and libeled on a regular basis. Let's take a look at what other people have to say... Ann Coulter, in her book Slander, referred to O'Reilly as a "'moderate' conservative", which, according to my Coulterese-English phrasebook, means "dirty liberal". Anyone who isn't in the Democratic Party line seems to automatically be called "neo-con"; likewise, people like Ann Coulter call people "liberal" for the horrid crime of daring to question them.


Whoa, O'Reilly is no moderate. He has literally 2 liberal positions. He is against the death penalty, and he thinks gays should be allowed to have relations.... in the privacy of their bedroom. On the gay issue, he still conservative for most of it. The culture wars? come one, that is completely right wing. He spends all his time beating up the ACLU, secularist, proggressives, "secular progressives," and Al Franken. He does sometimes attack the right, but rarely. I agree with your asessment of Coulter, but O'Reilly isn't slandered. It is usually the other way around.

All of that is off topic. Yes, he spins the facts, or at least directs how to. He usually doesn't do the speaaking. Also, his strategies seem to be failing. But the label you gave him would better be suited for Tony Snow, or Fox News.(Wikifan999 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

TOC

It's the single ugliest thing I've ever seen. Do we really need sub-headings under "Early life", and could the political campaigns section just be ordered chronoligoically under the one heading? If someone is able to take up this labourous task, I thank you greatly in advance. Harro5 08:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just don't have the stamina to deal with the atrocious mess that has been made of this article.Oldkinderhook 21:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a complex article because Rove is a controversy magnet

Karl Rove indicted on perjury, lying to investigators

-- Merry christmas 68.215.134.103 01:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The following edit, which appears to have been done before the news broke, is pretty interesting: [18]. Out of curiosity I checked the IP and could find an ISP in Pennsylvania but no other information.--csloat 02:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think too much of it - Leopold's article was out late on the night of the 11th, if I recall correctly. I imagine the poster picked it up on the left-wing blogs. Note that I'm still maintaining a bit of skepticism since it hasn't been picked up by the MSM yet - but it's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Way to spoil a good conspiracy theory ;) --csloat 08:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's not true, Leopold's article is dated Friday 12 May 2006 -- see [19] unless that change was done by leopold himself prior to publishing the article. 68.215.134.103 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No - Leopold's story was indeed circling the blogosphere the night of the 11th. As I'm sure you know, dating a story for the next publishing day is a common practice in journalism.. Leopold wrote two articles, I confused them. I agree with the poster above regarding the 2nd article, published May 12. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. It hit Wikipedia too! that's fast! After more than 8 years surfing the net, I'm still amaze at how fast information spread on the internet. __earth (Talk)

The story is false, although truthout claim they had two independant witnesses saying it was true. [20] --Archeus 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The story is probably false, but it hasn't gone past reasonable doubt yet, so it's not yet appropriate to categorically state that it's false. -- Jibal 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Freelance reporter Jason Leopold has a history of retracted stories, and has recently published a book (News Junkie) describing his own history of criminal behavior, drug addiction, and mental illness, leading to the loss of jobs with mainstream media outlets. While Leopold's story of Rove's indictment received widespread attention on the Internet, it was criticized by many familiar with Leopold's track record. It is unfair to characterize Leopold's reporting as typical of the liberal press; for that reason, I restored the reference to Leopold's history of retracted stories. Sandover 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of Rove getting a pass from Fitzgerald, I'd like to see the anecdote about Rove planting a bug in his own office added, along with some reference to W's nickname for him. The guy is going to go down as a legend. How about inserting the Paul Simon campaign stolen stationery gimmic? Surely that typifies Rovian politics as much as anything else.

Question

I'd like to correct the accuracy of a sentence from this article, how best to try that? Here is the sentence:

According to Rove's attorney's public statements, Rove has admitted to violating his SF-312 agreement.[21]

As I read the source, it's only alleged that Rove has "admitted to violating" anything. Am I missing something here?

Wombdpsw 17:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that sentence needs clarifying. Arkon 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would rewrite it like this:

According to Congressman Henry Waxman's report from July 15th, 2005, some of Rove's attorney's public statements should be construed as an admission that Rove did indeed violate his SF-312 agreement. [22]

What do you think?

Wombdpsw 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that one, and all but one of your other changes. Sandover 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wombdpsw 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some "leaks" (unauthorized releases of information) are a violation of federal law.
It may be inelegant, but it satisfies NPOV and I'm OK with it. The transitional revision[23] bothered me only because it implied that Rove could only have committed a crime if he had disclosed Plame's name. That's a misconception. Remember, the crime was not in saying that Joseph Wilson had a wife, nor that her maiden name was Valerie Plame. The fact that Joe Wilson had a wife was not a secret. The crime was in saying that she worked for the CIA. Sandover 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a purported crime only. And more to the point, Fitzgerald is not actually asserting against Libby that there was any criminal release of information about her, so that means the "said was CIA" aspect of the case is not actually being alleged as a crime. Not officially by Fitzgerald at least. Therefore, if information was released by Libby, it must mean that Plame's former covert status was no longer covered by the narrow statutues that deal with overseas covert agents. I'd have to think this is the same with anything Rove may have said. Now as to whether or not there was pejury, we'll have to wait and see. Wombdpsw 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Busted Links Needing Fixing

I suggest removing when busted link is fixed

  • better a mirror that works than a link that don't. I doubt anyone will sue ;-) rewinn 00:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dean statement on the leak

Howard Dean said it was "a sin" (?) to "reveal a CIA agent's name to the public, in a time of war" (paraphrasing from memory). Was this meant to refer to the reporters and editors who published Plame's name - or only to whoever gave the name to the reporters? --Uncle Ed 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • “Karl Rove and his high priced lawyers might disagree, but the truth is Rove betrayed the identity of an undercover officer fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. These actions are particularly egregious in a time of war,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. [24]
  • DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC's 'TODAY': 'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. [25]

So what is a "leak"? Does it occur when a gov't official gives info to a member of the press? Or when the member of the press makes the info public?

And what about "deep background" and "off the record"? --Uncle Ed 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider both of those to be leaks. But telling reporters is probably worse, since it is the job of reporters not to keep secrets. And whats all this about revealing an agent's name during war? It is always wrong to leak a CIA name, even in peace. That agent is still spying, and still has contacts that could be endangered. In fact, Karl Rove isn't supposed to know. The only people who should know the identity of CIA agents are the agent, their spouse(but not their children or anyone else in their family), the CIA, and sometimes the president. The president can know, but usually doesn't. He isn't supposed to tell his cabinet. (Wikifan999 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Deleted most "Plame" info

As this page is running way to long and we now know Rove did nothing he was accused of, I re-wrote the "plame" section as a two paragraph sub-story with a link to Plame Affair. This is supposed to be a personal bio, not an information dump --Jayzel 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Good stuff. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rove and the White House denied any involvement in the leak for nearly two years. This was shown to be false in July 2005, when the media revealed Rove's role in leaking to Matt Cooper. Whether or not Rove is formally charged, to delete all the quotes and references to these previous denials is partisan. This is historical material, and there ought to be a longer summary here. Sandover 17:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The man was accused of violating the law (and even treason by some people) for illegaly outing a covert agent. After a three-year investigation, prosecutor's determined he did nothing illegal. To have anything more than a two-paragraph summary in what is supposed to be a personal biography smacks of partisianship. As an comparison, I invite you to look at Bill Clinton's bio page. Clinton's impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice is covered in only two paragraphs. Historically, he was one of only two presidents in the history of the United States to be impeached. To say a criminal investigation about a White house aid that turned up nothing against him deserves more than a brief summary is silly. --Jayzel 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing was political. The sides were, "let's fight Saddam" and "No need to invade". Both of these viewpoints need to be in the 'pedia.
The "no need" side alleges that Bush had Rove out Plame to punish her. That idea is in the Plame article, isn't it? We need only include that despite a 3-year investigation no proof of this allegation found, and Fitzgerald decided not to bring charges.
This is roughly parallel to the allegation that Clinton gave false testimony in the sexual harassment case. After much pomp and circumstance, it was put to a vote and the Congress declined to remove him.
A section with a paragraph or two in each bio is fine with me. We can use the {{main}} template to refer the user to the related article which goes into each scandal at great length.
The point is not to smear (or clear) the man you like, but to serve the inquiring minds of our readers. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you're refering to me when you said "the man you like". I gave no opinion about the man (and we should not be giving opinions about people here). To your comment "A section with a paragraph or two in each bio is fine with me. We can use the {{main}} template", I agree. That is what I thought I did. Details belong on the Plame affair page. This page is to explain the life of the man, not get into a discussion about "'let's fight Saddam' and 'No need to invade'" --Jayzel 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Was not referring to you, merely stating a general principle of NPOV writing. Obviously not a reminder that you need, Jayzel. You're doing just fine. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Any involvement in the leak has, it appears, turned out to be insubstantial at best, and Ed's quotes below only expand on it. Include them in Plame affair if you must, but it's more POV to have a massive summary about a situation Rove is ultimately tangentically related to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First: Who is Matt Cooper? And did he pass on the leaked info to anyone else? Has he been investigated?

  • Answering my own question: Matthew Cooper said, So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No.

Second: I agree that the quotes and references shouldn't be deleted, but maybe the Karl Rove article isn't the place for them. Aren't they all duplicated in the Plame Affair article? --Uncle Ed 17:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is still the question of the White house statements that Rove had personally given assurances that he had no involvement in the leak. --agr 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, shouldn't both denials be in the article, then? Rove said he was not involved, and so did Cooper. But we should probably say something like this:

  • Despite this, diehard Bush opponents still consider Rove guilty. (But this will need a source like a Democratic Party statement or a survey of voters.) --Uncle Ed 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, including the fact that both Rove and the White House denied Rove's involvement in the leak for nearly two years. President Bush denied knowing the identity of the leaker(s) and made a promise to dismiss anyone "involved" in the leak. In July 2005, however, the public was informed that Rove leaked Valerie Wilson's CIA identity and role to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper three days before Robert Novak published his July 14, 2003 column naming Plame as a CIA employee. Cooper nearly went to jail in 2005 before getting an explicit release from Karl Rove to testify about their "double super secret" conversation two years before.
These facts, in addition to Rove's five appearances before the grand jury, are relevant and necessary. The fact of Rove's non-indictment should not imply that Rove is uninvolved in the Plame matter. Rove's own lawyer says his client has cooperated fully with Fitzgerald in an ongoing investigation. Sandover 20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a fact that Rove was involved in any "leak." In fact, at the moment, there doesn't appear to be much evidence of a "leak" to begin with. Should Rove's visits to the grand jury be noted? Absolutely. Should we be projecting his involvement in something that doesn't exactly exist yet? I certainly hope not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Novak's revelation

It appears, according to Novak, that Rove at the least confirmed Plame's ID as a CIA agent. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html which makes Rove an involved party. Classified information is still classified even if someone else has leaked it. The correct behavior when asked about classified information is to say "No comment". rewinn 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Did nothing illegal? that complete bull. He hasn't been indicted yet, that doesn't mean it won't happen. And certainly doesn't mean he did nothing illegal. OJ got off, but that doesn't mean he did nothing illegal. The Plame scandal is not behind us, And Karl Rove may be prosecuted. We will see, but leave that section alone.(Wikifan999 02:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Katrina blame

Cut from article:

After Rove's appointment, the administration was criticized for attempting to shift blame away from the federal government for the failures by claiming that state and local officials had not declared a state of emergency at the time [26].

Who criticized the administration for blame-shifting? And why?

And why say "claiming that state and local officials had not declared a state of emergency"? Is there a dispute over whether they had?

I'd like to see this as:

  • Senator Hyam P. Iztatyu (D, Minn.) criticized the Bush administration for attempting to shift blame onto state and local government over Katrina aid. Istatya said, "It doesn't matter what the governor said or when she said it. Bush should have given New Orleans the help it needed, posse comitatus be damned!"

Note that I made up this quote. We need to find a real spokesman for this widely-held criticism, which should be easy to google up. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Novack's article

From Novack's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Ouch! Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove. Novack's article Scribner 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wilson had a wife, and that her maiden name was Valerie Plame, was not classified. What was classified was Plame's employment at the CIA, notably in the counterproliferation division — which Novak revealed in print on July 14th, 2003 (despite CIA's officer Harlow's attempts to dissuade him). Novak has confirmed Rove as a source for his original article, but has not yet told us whether Rove confirmed or conveyed classified information about Plame's CIA employment. Novak, as you will remember, identified Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative."
Karl Rove was also shown (in July 2005) to have been the original leaker to Matt Cooper, the Time magazine reporter whose refusal to testify was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Why is the fact that Rove leaked to two reporters, despite early and categorical White House denials of his involvement (and Bush's pledge to fire individuals involved), left completely out of the Wikipedia article? Sandover 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The significance of the affair goes far beyond the ending of the career of one CIA spy. Outing Plame's status as a CIA NOC also outed her WMD-hunting front org, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Hunting WMDs is perhaps the most important single intel activity there is; Rove's effort to cripple Brewster Jennings is a noteworthy achievement. rewinn 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
From the Novack article, "That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Keyword, "may." We'll let the process work. Novack's article. Scribner 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Brewster Jennings & Associates was destroyed as a WMD-hunting asset. You suggest that was a perfectly legal thing to do; maybe so. It was still wrong, unpatriotic, and possibly deadly. That makes it noteworthy. rewinn 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't tell me what I suggest, pal. I quoted Novack. What I said was, "We'll let the process work." Take your speculation to a blog. Scribner 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to re-write history, pal.
  • You started this thread by speculating that Wilson libelled Rove (which Novack doesn't even suggest. Go study the law of libel).
  • Sandover responded by pointing out Rove had done plenty, and asking why Rove's leak should be left out of an article about him.
  • I amplified Sandover's response by pointing out the extreme significance of Rove's action, which lead to Novack's article outing and therefore destroying the Brewster Jennings & Associates WMD-hunting organization
  • You replied by quoting Novack that Rove may not have violated the law
  • The only possible inference from your reply is that you suggest what Rove did is legal. What other inference is possible?
  • If you didn't mean that ... if you really meant that destroying one of our nation's WMD-hunting assets would NOT be legal ... then fine, just say so. I repeat the facts: "Brewster Jennings & Associates was destroyed as a WMD-hunting asset.... It was still wrong, unpatriotic, and possibly deadly. That makes it noteworthy." Tell me pal what is not factual about that?
Fitzmas was a bummer, I know. Put a Brewster Jennings & Associates section in. If you've got the facts and cites, by all means. In fact, what are you waiting for? Post your encyclopedic knowledge...I can't wait to read the section. Scribner 06:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it! Brewster Jennings & Associates already has its own page of course. Meanwhile, may I assume that you agree that destroying one of our nation's WMD-hunting assets would be illegal? or, if you're not willing to go that far: surely you would agree it would be a BAD thing, right? or, if you are not willing to go even THAT far: it's a SIGNIFICANT thing, right? It's not a trick question: destroying a WMD-hunting asset like Brewster Jennings & Associates by confirming to a reporter that its owner of record is a CIA asset ... when the duty of the holder of security clearance is NEVER to confirm nor deny confidential information .... is something very few people have accomplished, and therefore encyclopediaworthy. Can you not agree to that minimal bit of patriotism? rewinn 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
More than illegal, treasonous. Write it up. I don't own stock in Rove. I'd like to read the section Scribner 06:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can find. For some reason, it's hard work finding out exactly what that CIA front business was doing and whether it's still doing it, and how the CIA recruits spies and the extent to which spy recruitment is mad harder when operations are outed. Why would the CIA want to keep such information secret? ;-) rewinn 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited 'Leaves College' section

I am a George McGovern fan, but in the section regarding Rove's departure for college and work for the National Young Republicans on behalf of Nixon, it notes that he helped paint opponent George McGovern, "a WWII B-24 pilot and hero," as a left-wing peacenik. This is probably true; however, which it is a fact that McGovern was Nixon's opponent and a B-24 pilot, and while common agreement can probably be found that part of the campaign was to paint McGovern as a "left-wing peacenik" (I believe the campaign, and Nixon himself, repeatedly used that phrase), whether or not McGovern was a "hero" is not for us to say. I have thus removed it. Wally 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Tricks mention deleted

This article has been sanitized again, and any reference to political dirty tricks has been removed by the repugnican sanitizers.

Rove's grandfather a Nazi?

I take exception to the link stating that Rove's grandfather may have been a Nazi. The link is NOT a credible source, the allegation is potentially libelous and therefore does not adhere to the biography of living persons policy. Not only is it poorly sourced but it is contradicted by the fact that Wikipedia's list of Gauleiters mentions neither Karl Heinz Roeverer nor a Gauleiter of Oldenburg. That is why I am deleting it.

I would add that, in addition, the political associations, or even crimes, of grandparents are almost never notable. rewinn 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? An awful lot of people think it's highly noteworthy that our alleged president's grandfather Prescott Bush was Hitler's banker!

Yes it DOES matter if your grandfather was a big Nazi - especially if you just happen to be a big fascist politician yourself!

And isn't it a bit contradictory to assert that the Nazi link is both libelous and not notable at the same time? If it's a minor point, then how can it be damaging? JPLeonard 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WHile i agree Rove himself is a fascist, that is irrelevant to his grandfather. My grandparents are republicans. Stick to Rove.(Wikifan999 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Plame investigation

i rewrote the plame investigation section. most of it was merged from the plame affair page as that page is too long and in the process of being edited. i will fix the references to this section at the end of the day when i have time, unless someone else would care to. some of the links may be dead. thanks!Anthonymendoza 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i finished it. Anthonymendoza 20:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

Unless there are objections, I'd like to do a serious copyedit on this article. I found it tonight while doing dab repair and I can't believe what an unbelievable mess it is. I started the copyedit while in the same edit window but it needs more – much more. I promise I won't make the facts or the tenor any worse or better than it already is, except that it will hopefully be a useful encyclopedia article when I'm done. I'll watch the page for responses. BaseballBaby 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

High School Student Council

Saying "he used unorthodox tactics" sounds extremely POV to me, implying he cheated. To cite a noteworthy tactic or a credible source would be one thing, but unsupported bias is not necessary. Looking for citations of this claim, the first reliable source I found claims the opposite. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5481603 says "In high school, Rove was a skilled debater and was elected president of the Student Council." I will remove the reference to "unorthodox tactics." ~Kruck 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft

If he wasn't actually drafted is that section actually relevant? Is there something I am missing?

The lack of personal integrity evidenced by evading service, and the hypocritical aspect of pushing for the war in Iraq with his evasion ( and apparently, his child, who is 21, and not in uniform also shares his moral cowardice ) 74.70.206.55 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request Protection

This article's been atracting a lot of vandalism lately. Does anyone think we should request semi-protection?

Biological Father

Does anyone know the name/whereabouts of Rove's real father?

[27] Gzuckier 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion and homosexuality; Marital status

References to Rove's religion as agnostic and the speculation about his homosexual father that cite 365gay.com should be removed. 365gay.com obviously has a political axe to grind here. Rove's religion is listed as Episcopalian at http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/karlrove.htm and speculation by homosexual activists that Karl Rove's mother killed herself because her husband was gay is pure conjecture and perhaps a bit of wishful thinking. Joel79 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read elsewhere that, as of 2007, Rove is single. In this entry, there's reference to his second marriage, but nothing mentioned regarding divorce or separation. It's possible that I'm missing it, as the article is dense.


here is an article with details of Karl's Gay adoptive father http://bmezine.com/news/guest/20070818.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.188.150 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even in the article? Is it noteworthy? Do we go into other folk's parents sexual orientation in other bios? I agree with the original note above. Anyways, --Tom 15:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

2006 aftermath

I'm all for full disclosure. I despise the man. But I think that the wane of his influence following his hubris in 2006 is verifiable, encyclopedic, and can be written up in an NPOV way. I've tried to do that, but I'm sure my bias creeps through. If anyone feels I've fallen short, feel free to improve upon my work, but I ask that you not summarily delete the "2006 election and beyond" material without due discussion and consensus here. At any rate, I pretty emphatically believe that some post-'06 election material is essential, since that election has done so much to change how Rove is perceived these days. Cheers, PhilipR 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)