Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 3

message: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.cooper.html
(Scroll down to the very bottom first.)
http://www.google.com/search?hs=0CT&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=matthew+cooper+Mandy+Grunwald&btnG=Search
"Mandy Grunwald, a friend and advisor of Defendant Clinton... helped to conjure up the "right wing conspiracy" defense to all of the Clinton scandals"
Hmmm...I like their 'double secret probation' story better.
Big Daddy 13:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove anything you add that makes the article less informative or sends it off on an irrelevent tangent, like calling Time's Washington chief, who sidelines as a Comic a Stand Up Comic, or mentioning the wife of someone tangentially involved. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jumping to Conclusions from the testimony of a Stand Up Comic married to a Hard Core Clintonista

message: I have to say, the use of the phrase "dropped out" and especially the link to "dropout" is highly POV! Personally, I could not dislike Karl Rove more. I would love to see him frogmarched out of the White House and into Federal Prison. But I also support and strongly believe in the concept and practice of objectivity and neutrality in reporting. And highlighting a personal failure in the first paragraph and then linking it to a disparaging term (dropout) is definitely POV. As soon as many people see that (and where it links), they will judge Wikipedia as pushing a left-wing POV. -asx- 05:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article dropout is just a little too negative. I don't really have a problem having it in this article (he did drop out, that doesn't make him bad or stupid). The article on dropout doesn't really explain that there are very valid reasons for dropping out. And the list on dropout could be seen as slightly slanted, but if you think so then fix it. What do you suggest? Would you like to totally delete the fact that he dropped out? Some people who like Karl Rove may see it as a sign of greatness, that someone could overcome the lack of formal education to be in a position of power as Rove has done. Oh well...  --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that when I think dropout, it conjures up visions of the high school type who couldn't cut it.  The Bill Gates article prefers dropout, and there's nothing in the talk page to indicate it ever being controversial.  I can see asx's issue, especially in an article that already has some serious POV issues, and perhaps "left school" could be replaced without harming any sort of integrity, but I don't really see dropout as having major issues to begin with.  Just my two cents... --Badlydrawnjeff 15:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there's any term more appropriate to describe 'left voluntarily without a degree' than 'dropped out'. As to the reasons why Rove in particular dropped out, if they're relevant I don't see why we can't explain his dropping out with a few tightly-edited facts, but we should be careful not to motivate our edits on a desire to 'mitigate' his dropping out so as not to be overly 'critical' of Rove. That motivation, in and of itself, is POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with saying "drop out," but linking to the Wikipedia article is unnecessary and could be interpreted wrongly.  When clicking on it, I originally believed it would take me to an article with more information on why Rove dropped out at all.  Instead, it was just a definition - something I already knew.  My point is that the arguments for keeping it as a link are not as good as removing it - not only for a NPOV thing, but because it's a fairly useless link anyways. Ryan 20:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropout? 

message: Just a thought here - there is a story about Cheney's no. 2 man telling reporters too that they didn't give her name, so who did?  Me thinks a closer look at Rove's wife. . .
:Please sign your comments, thanks Calicocat 02:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Leak - Rove's wife 

message: What ****gate is the Karl Rove scandal being referred to?
Rovegate, Plamegate, ....?
This scandal is so big, it remains (so far) ungated.  (Who let the dogs out? as the saying goes, and I don't think it will be just Rove who goes barking.) Let's not use Wikipedia to coin a phrase to sum the whole question up.  The Wikipedia entry was the first use of the descriptive phrase "Valerie Plame Scandal", and that seems to be sticking.  Let's stay with that for now.  68.227.184.37 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard some progressive talkers refer to it as "Rovegate", but I'm not willing to put that into the article until it becomes common usage. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John Tierney officially put into writing what the right-wing blogosphere has been calling it for about a week now - Nadagate.  I think that, if we ever get to the point where we call this by a gated name, that it's explicitly mentioned as opposed to included with the link, but it's hardly worth the POV interest to put it anywhere else at this point, IMO. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. No need for any mention of a named scandal. Perhaps if anything ever actually happens, then it might deserve a mention. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The left-wing blogosphere is referring to it as 'Rovegate' or 'Treasongate'. In Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Barney Frank's latest set of letters, they refer to the scandal as 'Rovegate'. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So things only become "gates" when media (like super-POV Fox News) call them "gates"?
I'm using Plame affair, no "gates" here. Calicocat 05:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ****gate? 

message: I corrected the Poll (under 'White House') language, but I think it's heavyhanded, rife with POV interpretations and should be deleted. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:214.13.4.151: please stop placing erroneous conclusions in the poll. Let the numbers stand as they are, and don't try to mitigate them with 'majority/minority' groupings. They are incorrect in each instance you've used them - please move on and let this stand without POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I'm suggesting that the word "exposure" (or similar) and not outing be used, the latter being a slang term in this context. Calicocat 17:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; "exposure" or something equivalent would be more professional. --Bletch 02:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure not "outing" 

message: Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.  Calicocat 12:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plame idenity marked as secret 

message: I see you didn't even bother to read my response before deleting this content (for at least the 5th time). You are not acting in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU claim it is fact, but since this important artice eis not online we have to take your word for it. Sorry, Charlie. Please be so kind as to post the content of the article that puts it all in context(ad if you can't do so, then we can't trust the valdidity of the source or whether the context supports the conclusions you draw), and then explain why the NPR banter show by the certified liberals who hate Rove EITHER contradicts your non-linked source OR indicates a 3rd Rove leak to Novak. (I am sure you would enjoy proving there was a third leak.  Right now the sources we have do not make it clear what happened, and this section needs to be cleaned up before it can remain posted in the article.   214.13.4.151 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your qualifications of the evidence are incorrect, your standards are not wiki standards, and lies are not fact. Moreover, there is no '3rd leak' alleged here. I apologize if there is a misunderstanding, and I hope we can discuss this constructively when your 24-hour block expires. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted again

message: Well, surprise surprise.
Concerning the IP 214.13.4.151....it's Department of Defense:
route: 214.0.0.0/8
descr: DOD Network Information Center
7990 Science Applications Court
MS CV-50
Vienna, VA 22183-7000
Attempting to do a little Psy-Ops on your spare time, hmm?
:Why am I not surprised... although it doesn't disqualify the author, it explains the lightspeed talking points, lack of explanation/collaboration and relentlessness. 
:Glad I have prepared my lengthy edits in advance... this could get dicey. 
:Oh - by the way - the next talking point barfed up will be 'not TOP secret, just 'secret' (a lot like Novak's 'the FBI didn't ask 'strongly' enough' excuse). -- RyanFreisling @ 00:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon editor 214.13.4.151 = DOD 

message: Ryan and some Anon seem to be in a revert war, 
and protection seems to be a good idea FTM. -SV|t 17:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected for disputes - possible [[WP:3RR]] case 

message: ... this week concluding that the coordinated strategy to discredit Ms. Wilson "reveals an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover." pdf
Important point indeed, and the letter makes for good reading. Four of the ex-operatives who participated in the drafting of the statement are participating in tomorrow's hearing with Rep. Henry Waxman. pdf -- RyanFreisling @ 23:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 former CIA Agents send open statement to Congress

message: It was later claimed that Rove had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage. 
::Became
Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats, but no proof was provided.   Critics speculate that it was a publicity stunt, however they provide no proof for this allegation.
::My objection: There is no need for these modifiers, it could have been modified better by editing it to read something similar to:
::It was later claimed by critics that Rove had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage. 
::Thus is the point made without shifting POV blatantly and poorly.
:::Sorry, but an article found in the discredited radical left wing rag 'Counterpunch' entitled "Exposing Karl Rove" and beginning with the opening line "He's America's Joseph Goebbels..." is NOT an Impartial source!
This whole section must be removed unless someone can back it up with a legit impartial source. It's probably gonna go anyway since it appears to be yet another in this endless litany of UNPROVEN, unsubstantiated allegations by Rove's enemies that mysteriously find their way here. I know...I know... the urban legend of Rove bugging his own office is  high mythology amongst the Rove critics, but this is Wikipedia not snopes.com.
Remember, it's VERIFIABLE we're looking for. Not 'I want it to be so."
Big Daddy 14:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive POV, in the name of 'balance'

message: . Families of September 11, a nonprofit organization founded in October 2001 by families of those who died in the September 11 terrorist attacks, issued a statement requesting Rove "resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others."
::Became
An activist group of victims calling themselves "Families of September 11" issued a statement requesting Rove "stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others." This statement itself is considered by some as likewise political in nature. 
::My objection: There is no need to describe this group in this way, except to attempt to 'marginalize' the group with language. Calling a group 'activists' rather than a 'non-profit' educates less, and the last sentence added is blatant POV, with the repulsive 'considered by some' used as an excuse to minimize a factual point as 'political'. In an open encyclopedia, every point does not require a corresponding talking point from the government.
::: My objection to your objection, if calling a group 'activist' is marginalizing them and 'considered by some' is repulsive, then you ought to go to the Ann Coulter site and lecture them! lol! The fact is this so called 'families of 911' is  a group with MANY well known left wing activists on it's board. That WILL be included. Sorry, but your every point does not require a corresponding talking point from michael moore.
Big Daddy 09:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I eagerly welcome all editors who want to work constructavely with the community to improve the encyclopedia. I think you've come close to an insertion that would work - but each time there was a fatal flaw. The first time, you called group A "liberal," and group B "non-partisan." In this case, the correct comment would have been "non-partisan" and "non-partisan," as neither group is allied with a political party. In the most recent iteration, you used "left-leaning," which I would shortly demand a source for but not contest, and "Other 911 family groups have been supportive of Rove." You need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability - this is exactly the statement addressed in the "When adding information" section. I believe the first removal was with the comment "NPOV", which is more than enough comment when "liberal" is contrasted with "non-partisan." I would also caution you against placing too much stock in demanding source impartiality - specifically, the old article that it comes from is not wikipedia policy cannon. Policy cannon is currently Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive POV

message: NEW:
Others saw it as masterful baiting, with the Democrats falling into Rove's trap.
::My objection: Aside from the 'masterful baiting' wordplay, this commentary using weak language to describe the source as 'others', is POV. Little exists in the article that describes the 'trap', Rove's motives for such a 'trap', nor makes a similar swipe at the Democrats, and this sentence should be radically improved if included.
:::IMHO, the monolithic clumping of all Democrats or all liberals or all critics into one position is POV and this reference provides a good example from an influential voice that differs.  But the "masterful baiting" wordplay should certainly have been quoted. --Arnoldlover 02:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive POV

message: NEW:
'Political opponents allege' was added to a number of article headings, without justification. This change was successfully reverted prior to the application of page protection.
::My objection: before you plaster every negative point in an article with POV qualifiers, have proof, and discuss your concerns on 'talk'. This kind of thing easily goes unnoticed.
To sum up - this kind of dialogue should be taking place between the edits, not after the fact in response to one user's edits. It's important to Be bold, but it's equally important to Assume good faith.
Equally, it's important that edits be factual and informative - POV couched in 'some say' and 'some have maintained', etc. is not acceptable or informative. Noteworthy allegations will have noteworthy sources.
I am hopeful that upon the lifting of the page's protection, and upon the return of User:214.13.4.151, these and other edits can be constructively discussed before the article is again subject to this kind of concerted destructive editing.
Thanks, RyanFreisling @ 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, I think all these observations are spot on target and furthermore I think that this user, who is apparently useing DoD equipment to carry this out, should be brought to the attention of administrators. There is, as you know, one RfC on User:214.13.4.151 and I think there might need to be another one based on this user's "editing" on this article. Calicocat 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the page is unprot, I've made the above edits and a few more. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive POV

message: At 10:00am EDT 22 July, there will be a hearing entiled 'Public Hearing: Public Disclosure of Covert Agents, Senate Democratic Policy Committee' schedule
-- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: C-SPAN to cover hearing

message: Important news to enter, once the page protection is lifted.
::July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.
::Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.
::White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor. 
::These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation.  
Bloomberg link to come. 
:Here you go: 
 Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters, Bloomberg, 7/22/2005.
:Oh, and who are you? Please sign your comments. Thanks. --NightMonkey 09:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
::I'm Ryan. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloomberg Article: Rove/Libby May Be Subject to Perjury

message: A just-released NYTimes article  reports 'previously unreported' information that Rove/Libby were working on the administration response to the Niger controversy at the exact time Plame's identity was leaked, opening the possibility for conspiracy charges.
At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative's identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa.
They had exchanged e-mail correspondence and drafts of a proposed statement by George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to explain how the disputed wording had gotten into the address. Mr. Rove, the president's political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, coordinated their efforts with Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, who was in turn consulting with Mr. Tenet. At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush's speech.
The effort was particularly striking because to an unusual degree, the circle of administration officials involved included those from the White House's political and national security operations, which are often separately run. Both arms were drawn into the effort to defend the administration during the period.
::-- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NYTimes article - "For Two Aides in Leak Case, 2nd Issue Arises"... possible conspiracy?

message: This image (:Image:Karl.jpg) is definitely a mockery. It's not meant to be serious, and thus has no place in Wikipedia. Must be deleted! --Mb1000 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BD2412; what's wrong with it? It reveals a lot more about the man's personality than a stiff portrait. -asx- 03:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The image has nothing whatsoever to do with Rove's early life and is a potential source of POV disputes, so I've removed it. Perhaps there's room for it in another section where it can be seen with some relevant context, but it certainly does not belong where it was placed. Images are considered finishing touches to an article. Calicocat 17:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Karl.jpg 

message: In reading thru the article, I came across the paragraph (emphasis mine):
Newsmax and Fox News counter by picking only quotes that seem to imply that conviction for violation of the law was the criterion all along, such as a statement was that he would "take care of" any person "who has violated [the] law," [88] and a Q&A session in which Mr Bush was asked "And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" to which Bush responded, "Yes." [89]
On it's face, it would seem that this is POV, since it's implying that Newsmax and Fox News Channel (and not other media outlets) cherry-picked facts and quotes to support an editorial POV.  I don't think this paragraph is appropriate since the article is not about alleged media biases, but about Karl Rove -- his biographical particulars, and his career up to and including the current allegations against him.  Debating the ideological leanings of a news organization is not appropriate within a Wikipedia article itself.
Edit: Forgot my signature...  --Hex 16 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments, thanks Calicocat 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsmax & FoxNews 

message: I noticed where several editors have praised the use of quotes from promenent Americans regarding Karl Rove's involvement. Here are some more I included in this section. I think it's important, if we are to have a nPOV piece, that both sides be heard. (Or do we just want to know what Karl Rove's enemies think?)
Other Republicans have been more public on what they consider an unfair smearing of Karl Rove. “My Democratic Friends Would Be Doing The Nation A Great Service If They Spent Half As Much Time Getting Legislation Passed That Will Benefit The Country As They Do In Attacking Karl Rove.” (Sen. Norm Coleman, Press Release, 7/13/05)
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I Think We See Too Many Efforts Now Where People Quickly Rush To Judgment, Rush To Call For The Most Bizarre Solutions To Problems That Are Problems That Are Often Just Created In Their Own Minds.” (Rep. Roy Blunt, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 7/13/05)
NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds: “Democrats Are Bitter About Losing In 2004. And They Will Stop At Nothing To Accomplish Through Character Assassination What They Could Not Accomplish At The Ballot Box.” (National Republican Congressional Committee, Statement On Karl Rove, Democrat Partisan Attacks,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
Big Daddy 10:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: White House/Republican Reaction

message: The following were moved to Talk:Karl_Rove/Archive2 on 02:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several sections archived (Archive2) 

message: I've created a /temp version of the article so editing may continue and not go stale while disputes to main article Karl Rove can be resolved via discussion here.  The temp article is atKarl_Rove/temp. Calicocat 03:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created temp article to help dispute resolution 

message: I wonder could somebody from wiki (pref) explain the process
by which the karl Rove piece got frozen and unfrozen, what the 
steps on the way and the nature of any investigation might have
been. Such an explanation of the process could be very instructive 
for future conflict resolution.
[83.70.46.117] 17:16, 25 July, 2005
:See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Calicocat 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what happened? 

message: In various Plame affair related articles I've seen much confusion as to who appointed Fitzgerald. Please get the facts straight and stick to the facts. In one article someone wrote that the special prosecutor was appointed by the president (that one gave me a good laugh), however, several other articles still say that Ashcroft appointed him -- impossible!, Ashcorft had recused himself from the case. 
*Reference:
:Ashcroft recused from leak investigation
:Published 12/30/2003 2:24 PM
:WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from a probe into the leak of a CIA officer's name, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
:James Comey, deputy attorney general, said at a Washington news conference that he would now be the "acting attorney general for this case."
:Comey said Ashcroft had suggested the appointment of a special counsel for the case. To fill that position, Comey choose U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald. (emphasis added).
Article can be found here.
Please correct this in any other Plame affair related articles you find. Calicocat 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deputy AG appointed Fitzgerald 

message: This White House appears to be little more than a massive, ongoing criminal enterprise. I sure hope Mr. Fitzgerald has a'plenty'o indictments to hand out come October.
Here's the latest wrinkle for the Gangsters on Pennsylvania Avenue:
:*Gonzales Raises Questions for Andy Card to Answer
::---asx- 05:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Criminal Enterprise 

message: don't you get the feeling that gary is looking over these pages...
83.70.46.117 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a Nixon/Haldeman/Ehrlichman reference? :)  -asx- 02:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole scandal is increasingly a Nixon/Haldeman/Ehrlichman reference - but I think the poster was referring to Trudeau's recent Roveathon in 'Doonesbury'. CNN -- RyanFreisling @ 13:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I gotcha. I haven't seen the strip in a while, but know Trudeau raised republican ire by cartooning about the Watergate scandal 30 years ago. It should tell us something that so many members of the current criminal enterprise are former members of the Nixon Crime Family. -asx- 00:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Gary Trudeau, howzit going? 

message: Hey there - you said 'link had no relevance to the group in question, but the link points to the group's home page. I don't understand. And, excellent reference re: Pelosi! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dittoman / FOS11

message: From The Washington Monthly Blog
:KARL ROVE'S CALL LOG....Mark Kleiman suggests that last Friday's testimony by two of Karl Rove's aides contained a buried smoking gun. It turns out that not only did Karl Rove speak to Time reporter Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame back in 2003, but he mysteriously didn't log the call. Says Mark:
::Obviously, call logs aren't of any value unless all calls are logged: the whole point is to allow someone to say, months later, "No, I know I didn't talk to X on that date; I've checked my call logs." This reads to me like strong evidence that Rove and his crew knew at the time they were doing something they didn't want to get caught doing.
::In prosecutorese, that's called "evidence of consciousness of guilt," and it's extremely helpful in proving intent. We already know that Rove disclosed classified information to Cooper. The only remaining legally relevant question is whether he did so with the requisite criminal intent. The omission of the call from the log — if the "transferred call" explanation can be shown to be false — would be a powerful help to a prosecutor.
:Mark may have a point. After all, we know that in his initial testimony Rove lied and said he hadn't spoken to Cooper at all. We know that when he later recanted that testimony, he continued to lie by claiming the call was actually about welfare reform and that Plame only came up incidentally. And now we know that he failed to log his call with Cooper. Since call logging is standard procedure, this could only happen if Rove specifically asked one of his aides not to log the call.
:"Evidence of consciousness of guilt"? Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
:—Kevin Drum
We need to document as much of this corruption as we can before the Senate or House grant Rove et al., immunity from  prosecution for their crimes in Plamegate. Remember that Senate Republicans used their power to grant immunity to immuniize the Reagan Administration from the Iran Contra scandal in the 1980s. That was the template for all that will follow. They will certainly do the same to kill the Plame scandal, or any other scandal that surfaces. In effect, they have found the key to decriminalize their own corruption. 
If Americans haven't figured it out, this mutual protection of the Executive with the power of the pardon, and the Legislative branch with its power to grant immunity from prosecution, will allow Republicans to literally get away with anything. So far, they have proven themselves fully willing and capable of doing anything, including the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, to further their own narrow, selfish agenda. So don't be surprised by whatever they come up with next. Be ready for it. -asx- 03:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The deliberate murder of tens of thousands of people?"  Please tell me you're kidding about this.  You mean to tell me your hatred for Dubya is so blinding that you think that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are deliberate?  To what end?  And don't you think that more people would have denounced us by now if that were truly the case?  Where is your proof that this is true?  Furthermore, you're dishonoring Coalition soliders by accusing them of complicity in this "deliberate murder."  It's one thing to oppose the war.  That's your right as an American.  But you've libelled the President, and -- more importantly -- those who have sacrificed themselves in this war in an attempt (whether you think it'll work or not) to protect the American people from terrorism in the long run, and free Iraq and Afghanistan.  --Hex 16 00:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Karl Rove's Call Log

message: On re-reading the current Karl Rove entry, it seems that heavy editing has now given an imbalance to the piece in favour of seeing Rove's activities in the Valerie Plame affair as entirely honourable. Suggestions as to the effects of, and the motivations behind this leak (which surely must be part of the entry on Rove's life and career) have been taken into the Plame Affair section. More postive (from Rove's point of view) interpretation, however, have tended to remain in the original article. I do not know if POV editing has caused this or not, but it seems valid to correct in any case.
Moving this type of information into the Plame Affair section is not, of course, the same as removing it althogether, but it does have the effect of lowering its apparent significance for casual readers who come to the Wikipedia for information on Rove. If the info is not considered as worthy of inclusion in the Karl Rove entry, a reasonable person might assume that it is less central to his activities. This would, on the whole, be a false impression. 
It seems that in the interest of balance, some of that material relating to the motivations and effects of the leak need to be moved back into the main Rove section. I will do this presently.
--83.70.215.137 18:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-reading Karl Rove 

message: On http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html there's a picture of Rove together with Novak. Rove has a button attached to his suit that says "I am a source, not a target!". Not a photoshopped image!
80.217.225.208 01:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Suggestion 

message: The Atwater article cites Rove as Atwater's protege, but this article has the reverse.  Which is it?  Rove is 1 yr older than Atwater, but I have read in other sources that Atwater was the political mentor of Rove.  Hence I made the change to this article.67.124.118.246
:Thanks for making that change to "mentor", which I think is probably right — though I can't quite completely make up my mind, and I confess to having NPOV concerns about it.  Something about the early days of Rove's political biography seem weedy and murky to me in this Wikipedia article.  Given the lack of concrete detail about Rove's early political life, I think we need absolutely to avoid any unnecessary innuendo. 
:How to put it? I think that the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove relationship needs either more — or less — light shed on it.  Talking about this "mentor" and "protégé" relationship with Atwater, and using those two words in particular, sounds like a potential smear against Rove, a smear-by-association, given that Atwater came out late in life against his own political practices and was relatively candid and contrite about them, so we know more about them (Atwater was famed for smearing Dukakis in 1988 with the Willie Horton ad).  
:So what's our source about Rove and Atwater in all this?  If the two really were friends — and I'm not convinced of that, or at least of our right to characterize their relationship as intimate — should we allow, to be fair to the older Rove, that he gave Atwater some life lessons in return?  Both men were autodidacts.  So who exactly was the "mentor", and who the "protégé" here?  Does it matter, given the obvious brilliance of both men?  Without overdramatizing their relationship, wouldn't it be easier to simply refer to these two men as "early" or "young contemporaries," "political contemporaries," and leave it as that?  Without any documentary evidence, is it fair to even posit that the two were close or co-strategists in any political context?  The mentor-protégé language is loaded, perhaps hopelessly so.  
:Innuendo and wishful facts should never be permitted in the main Wikipedia page. If we can't find a reliable source on any of this Atwater stuff, it smells too much like a smear.  And that would be a shame, because everything else in the Rove entry is so very carefully documented and footnoted. Shariputra 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rove Atwater Mentor or Protégé? 

message: According to Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, August 10 2003, Karl Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group, formed in August 2002, which one of its participants described as a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Saddam Hussein, to guide the public's perception of the upcoming war at different stages, and to coordinate different parts of the government in disseminating a single message.  The White House Iraq Group included Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James R. Wilkinson, Nicholas E. Calio, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
This is not tinfoil hat crazy stuff — WHIG was real.  I'm surprised it's not already a part of the Rove article, since Rove was presumably such an important part of all that pre-war message-crafting business, all the relentless attempts to link Iraq to 9/11, Cheney with his bomb talk and Rice with the invocation of the "mushroom cloud", etc.  From other sources online, it's very clear that Judith Miller was leaked material about Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes from someone in WHIG. 
I suggest someone please read the Post article and figure out how Rove's article should briefly accomodate WHIG, in a line or two. 24.130.115.172 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  White House Iraq Group 

message: Is the entry "Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob" under Further reading NPOV? I don't believe it is. Normally I would just remove it, but do to the nature of this article, I thought I would post here to see if there is any objection. — Linnwood 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: Seeing the edit war here, it is clear that some editors of this article are disputing its neutrality.  While this dispute continues, the "disputed article" notice is clearly warranted, so I have added it.  Please respect this, so that readers are drawn to this page.
The notice need not be viewed as a negative.  It is what it is -- a note that editors do not agree, and that this page will give more information about the dispute.   paul klenk 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disputed Article" notice added 

message: I have noticed no commments from BigDaddy on this page.  Can someone explain why?   Thank you.   paul klenk 04:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see plenty - I removed one , consisting of blatant personal attacks and little else - and for doing so, he has begun deleting mine... but I see plenty more of his attacks above - don't you? -- RyanFreisling @ 04:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see -- I was searching his handle -- BigDaddy.  His signature splits it into two words, so it didn't come up on a search.    paul klenk 04:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Where are BigDaddy's comments? 

message: Right on this page. She also appears to be reverting sections of the article without discussion.
However, I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism although I have a feeling Ryan is somewhat of a copycat in this regard.
Big Daddy 04:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RyanFreisling has committed a 7RR violation

message: I am trying to add data to the marriage/family section of the article.  Perhaps someone else has noticed this, but the Internet contains many conflicting dates about the beginning and end of his marriage.  If you have something authoritative on this (complete dates would be nice), I would appreciate it.    paul klenk 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage dates inconsistent 

message: If you don't know how to do this, look for the tiny "edit" links on the right margin, next to the section headings.  People are talking past each other on this page.... time to slow down.   paul klenk 04:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid edit conflicts -- edit "sections", not the whole page 

message: #Leading the article with the Plame controversy in paragraph 2 could easily be misconstrued as weighting the article to the negative.  Bad idea.
#A goal of any good opening section: it could easily stand alone as a small but comprehensive encyclopedia article, giving the reader most of what they need to know.  Right now, this is clearly not the case.
I will try to work on point two of this at the moment.  I would appreciate cooperation from everyone editing the piece.    paul klenk 04:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two problems with this article that are easy to fix 

message: Ryan, I noticed your revert of my recent edit.  May I please ask, how many reverts have you made to this article in the past 24 hours?   I will do an independent count; would you also do one of your own, and report back here?  Thanks.    paul klenk 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by Ryan 

message: Using Microsoft Word, I have performed a rough word count of the body of this article.  I deleted the table of contents and the end notes, but included the section headings that appear within the body.
By my rough count:
*8344 words comprise the full article
*5839 words comprise the Plame affair
*2505 words comprise the rest of Rove's life and career
In other words, Wikipedia editors have devoted approx. seventy percent of Karl Rove's article to the Plame affair.
I am asking past editors to please weigh in on this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, answering the questions I have posed.
Thank you.    paul klenk 08:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please weigh in on [[Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey|this survey]] 

message: Kizzle has offered the following:
:"There has been several discussions to merge all the plame material in here and on Valerie Plame to a separate plame affair article with the exception of a summary on each page, and in most of these discussions, everyone agreed that it had to be done, just no one wanted to. Its not even a question of bias or POV, but of improper weight given to something that should be a daughter article. So I think you're going to find a lot of support here to offload most of the plame info to a daughter article with the exception of a short summary." (from the survey page)
I'm going to give the survey a few days, then make a specific proposal for an offload of the Plame data.  I will now start preparing a couple of solid summary paragraphs, as fair as I can be, that can be left on the Rove page.  If the survey results are a surprise -- and most people feel the weight given is appriopriate -- we can discuss it at that time.
Kizzle, thanks for your thoughts and your willingness to work with a team spirit.  Always a pleasure.    paul klenk 18:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob, buddy. Keep us updated. --kizzle 19:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Plame  

message: I took out this last line of the piece about Karl Rove's office being bugged:
 "Critics alleged that Rove had bugged his own office to garner sympathy votes in the close governor's race."
It was removed for the violating the same pattern of unsubstantiated rumor mongering found in the McCain push poll incident.
There is no proof and the sources are NOT impartial.
Again, if you have IMPARTIAL sources saying they saw Karl plant the bug or Karl admitted to planting the bug or whatever, that's another story. But not rumor mill talking points.
In fact, if you look at the sources that prop up this piece (they're still up there, check them out for yourself), you'll find one is from a film REVIEW of Bush's Brain that, in it's review says: "The main point the filmmakers are trying to make is what a bad guy Rove is because of the dirty tricks he is alleged to have used." LOL!!
 This is SO wrong on so many levels...
Big Daddy 20:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will revert your changes. You need to read the relevent content policies on Wikipedia. Sources do not need to be impartial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Like above, your rationale for removal of this section is unfactual, and was reverted. Again, removing content because you don't like it is not valid. The issue of Rove's involvement in the bugging case is noteworthy, a matter of public record, and a reader of this article is better informed as to the nature of the incident by it's inclusion. Once again, your vandalism of material you don't agree with, without basis in fact, is unacceptable. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A few points for you to consider - CNN does not set Wikipedia policy. Sources do not have to be impartial, or quoting the Bush campaign, etc., would be similarly excluded. If a source is demonstrably partial, that is relevant and should be mentioned - but only using 'impartial' sources is an untenable suggestion for nearly any political article. It bears mention, however, that Wikipedia does rely on notable sources - and so, a blogger's posts (even a well-known blogger) are likely not to 'make the cut'. Despite your protestations, the instances you are focusing on, and revert warring on, ARE valid, and should remain as they did before you arrived on the scene. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: BD777, you need to read the wikipedia policies that detail sourcing. Untill you do so, I will not continue to engage in this discussion with you. I will, however, revert all of your changes based on a misunderstanding of our sourcing policies to the main article. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette, verify that you will adhere to them, and we can continue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: BigDaddy, you need to read the article you posted again.  Wales doesn't say it, the writer does.  I think we can trust explicitly stated Wikipedia policies over the interpretations of someone who does not edit on Wikipedia.  Even if info comes from www.bushissatan.com, if it's accompanied by verifiable info, copies of paper trails, court documents, etc., it shouldn't be excluded simply because of its partisan focus. --kizzle 20:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: BigDaddy, you need to read the article you posted again.  Wales doesn't say it, the writer does.  I think we can trust explicitly stated Wikipedia policies over the interpretations of someone who does not edit on Wikipedia.--kizzle 21:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your revisionism does not work. And again, I made no personal attack. Your behavior, as Kate and others have told you repeatedly, is vandalism when it is unsupported deletion of content. You have succeeded in driving this article single-handedly into an 'NPOV' tag and now, page protection - in short, you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... another no-no. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clement and 'the bug