Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calicocat (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 21 July 2005 (→Plame idenity marked as secret: sign comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Rove, Bush's top strategist, to speak here on Thursday". Helenair.com Independent Record. March 30, 2005.

Previous discussion moved to Archive #1 (through around July 15, 2005).

Post a new comment

Plame Affair As Separate Article

Although it is generlly well written, I don't think this detail belongs here. In fact, if you go to the Valerie Plame page there is another discussion very similar to this one. And on the Robert Novak page there is yet another discussion. I would recommend taking the long section out of this article and creating a separate independent article (unless there already is one I have not seen, in which case it should be linked). In this Rove article there should only be a paragraph or so as to how it directly affects or os affected by Karl Rove. --Gangster Octopus 16:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Gangster Octopus - the story will continue to grow until it has certainly outgrown all three of those pages. -- BDAbramson 16:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree as well. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• yes, there ought to be an article titled something like 'valerie plame affair'. then all 3 articles can point to it for a unified discussion of the events. of course, plame issues directly involving rove should be discussed here (such as his pending frogmarch). Derex 05:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• As I proposed there, we should just use the Valerie Plame article. She is notable only because of this incident (for a precedent, see Monica Lewinsky). Indeed we should probably split off the timeline as a separate article, since the main article is already 48K. --agr 09:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that this developing story deserves its own article. Just because the Valerie Plame article is filled with stuff that belongs in a seperate article doesn't mean that that article should be the proper place for information regarding the criminal investigation into who leaked her name to the press. Same for this article, as well. So much *doesn't* belong in either of these articles, such as the jailing of reporters, the impact on the Presidency, Supreme Court decisions, congressional inquiries, impact on the Press, etc. If the Valiere Plane article should be redacted to only list her as "Was a CIA covert agent in charge of investigating Weapons of Mass Destriction proliferation in the 3rd world, until her cover was blown in an article by Robert Novak (see 2005 Covert CIA Agent Leak Scandal)" or some such similar text, then that's all that should be there. Just my 2 cents. --NightMonkey 10:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Create split article on Plame Affair. Obviously Rove is a central figure in the Plame Affair and so some mention and background on it is necessary in this article about him, however, articles on Wilson, Plame, Novack, Judith Miller, Cooper, all touch on the Plame Affair, as do Yellowcake forgery and Downing Street memo. Calicocat 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Created Plame affair and included all "Plame affair" material from this article there as starting place. Calicocat 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

From "Think Progress" (Claims Vs. Fact)

Used with permission, see license at bottom

CLAIM: White House Can’t Comment While Investigation Is Ongoing McClellan - “While that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.”

FACT: White House Has Repeatedly Commented During the Ongoing Investigation McClellan had previously cited that same investigation and then gone on to answer the questions as they pertained to Rove. For example, on October 1, 2003, he said, “There’s an investigation going on … you brought up Karl’s name. Let’s be very clear. I thought — I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it’s simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and — nor, did he condone that kind of activity.” Similarly, on October 10, 2003, McClellan said, “I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is an ongoing investigation.” But he then added with regard to a question about Rove’s involvement, “I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.”

CLAIM: Rove Didn’t Leak The Name So He’s Not Guilty Rove: “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Rove attorney Robert Luskin said “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”

FACT: National Security Law Says Identifying Covert Agent Is Illegal at the very least identified Plame as “Wilson’s wife.” Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “any information identifying covert agent” is illegal.

CLAIM: White House Didn’t Push The Story Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin claims Cooper manipulated what Rove said to him “in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to report negative information about Plame.”

FACT: There Was An Organized Campaign To Push Leak Info. First, Robert Novak admitted -- “I didn’t dig it out , it was given to me…. They (the White House) thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame’s identity was “fair game.” Third, Time magazine reported the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions.”

CLAIM: Conversation Was About Welfare Reform, So Rove Didn’t Do Anything Wrong National Review’s Byron York -- “According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform.”

FACT: What They Spoke About Was Irrelevant The original purpose of the conversation between Rove and Cooper is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the fact that Rove did identify a covert agent during that conversation.

CLAIM: Plame Wasn’t An Undercover Agent Ed Rogers, former official under Reagan/Bush: “I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don’t think there’s any meaningful investigation about that.”

FACT: Former CIA Officer Who Worked With Plame Verified She Was Undercover Larry Johnson, former CIA officer: “Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover.”

CLAIM: Rove Was Trying To Correct A False Story Rove attorney Luskin added, “What Karl was trying to do … was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false.”

FACT: Wilson Was Right, Bush Was Wrong Bloomberg recently reported, “Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.”

CLAIM: Wilson Lied About His Trip To Niger Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman: “What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger.”

FACT: Wilson Never Said Cheney Personally Sent Him To Niger Bloomberg reported, “Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. ‘The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office,’ Wilson wrote.”

• Source -- thinkprogress.org Think Progress is a project of the American Progress Action Fund.

A. License You may copy, reprint, publish, reproduce, or otherwise display materials (excluding AP photos and cartoons) from the American Progress Action Fund on the condition that you attribute those materials to the American Progress Action Fund and provide a link to the website of the American Progress Action Fund. Specifically, any article or materials that you reprint or otherwise reproduce must be displayed with its by-line, if applicable, under one of the following headings:

"This material ["How To Talk To A Conservative About Karl Rove (If You Must)" was created by the American Progress Action Fund" (online)

rove blames it on reporters

heard on Air America this morning that AP is reporting an anonymous legal source says that Rove learned Valerie Plame's name from a reporter. Yeah fuckin right. --kizzle 14:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was from a grand jury testimony leak. Might be worth noting in the article, even if you don't believe it. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

as long as its noted that Rove's lawyer already admitted he told Cooper. --kizzle 15:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Q. Was Plame covert agent? A. Yes.

All that means is that she was not on a covert mission at the moment Robert Novak outed her. She still had a secret identity, and was still considered a covert operative, n'est pas? --kizzle 15:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

As Wilson said, "the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department." -- RyanFreisling @ 15:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. As we're seeing, it is apparent that no crime was committed based on the applicable laws and statements from people who would know. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That is, of course, unsubstantiated POV, and while you're welcome to your opinion, the facts and the article do not support that conclusion. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Statements from people who would know = Karl Rove said he didn't do it? Might as well call it case closed. --kizzle 15:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

And that's why we can't say in the article that Rove committed a crime. The facts and the article cannot currently support that conclusion. I'm glad we agree --Badlydrawnjeff 15:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The article does not say he committed a crime, and in fact, that has yet to be decided. However, we are indeed sure he disclosed and confirmed the identity of an unofficial cover (NOC) agent. That's not the same as committing a crime (a legal distinction), but it's still inexcusable behavior on the part of any government official. So, we agree. On everything else, we are sstatus quo. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent statements by Wilson and former CIA agents dispute the NOC claim. So, no, we are not sure. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As I already stated above, their statements do not dispute any 'NOC' claim. Her status was clear and a matter of record. The statements you mention do not cast any doubt on her status, they only clarify that she was not clandestine at the time of Novak's column, and that another CIA agent was aware of her cover and disputes its' effectiveness. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue. THose statements do not dispute the NOC claim in any way. Her NOC status was a matter of record. The statements are that she was not 'clandestine' when Novak published her identity, and that another CIA agent questions the efficiency of her cover. Different, entirely. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now, we have people stating that the NOC may not be a case. From a source already in the article:

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."

"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."

We cannot ignore these details for the sake of what one may believe. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

We're not ignoring anything. However, the assertions made above are the words of one CIA agent, and are not evidence, nor testimony. Most importantly in response to your post, 'extremely light cover' is not an exception to the IIPA. This cannot be equivocated. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nor am I attempting to claim otherwise. I'm saying that we cannot ignore what's been stated. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC

Oh, I agree. Here's what's been said by non-GOP "talking points" sources.

Robert Novak's original column, July 14: Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

David Corn in the Nation, July 16: ....a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material....a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.

Newsday, July 21: Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

....A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

Washington Post, September 29: She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

MSNBC, September 30: CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak."

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30: I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst on NewsHour, September 30: I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades....she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised.... she's a woman of great integrity....This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

CNN, October 1: Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer. "If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

(An earlier version of this story quoted CNN reporter David Ensor saying, "This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.")

Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst, Washington Post online Q&A, October 1: ....I've worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA...and I know Ambassador Wilson....and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let's face it....this was targetted information as part of a political vendetta....a pure act of revenge.

Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer, LA Times, Ocotber 1: The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover — apparently by a senior administration official, is nothing less than a despicable act for which someone should be held accountable. This case is especially upsetting to me because she was my agency classmate as well as my friend.

New York Times, October 2: Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

New York Daily News, October 2: Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service.

Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief.

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

I'm not at all disputing that these things were said. Again: We have new information that disputes these things, and they should be included, included accurately, and not watered down by any POV one way or the other. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. But the 'new information' does not dispute these things - the ex-CIA agent's stated opinion alleges only that her cover was not effective. And, as the 'Monthly put it, "Four separate ex-CIA employees are now on the record saying Plame was undercover and ran a network of informants, and a fifth who knew Wilson and had 24 years at the Agency says he didn't know Plame worked there — which means her status was hardly common knowledge.". Likewise, Wilson's statement does not contradict the above statements. So conclusions like 'doubt cast on her NOC status at the time of the leak' are erroneous and factually incorrect, based on the facts of the statements you offered, as I already detailed. I do not object to the facts, but the erroneous conclusions have no place. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that we're reading the same things extremely differently. I have no clue how you're coming to these conclusions, but we've reached some sort of middle ground, and that's good enough for me until more info is released. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious to me also that we draw conclusions at different points along the story. I am trying not to draw any conclusions of guilt, nor ascribe any unrealistic status to sources, whether they are served up by the GOP or not. Right now, there are facts that spin cannot dissolve - and they point to egregious abuse of power and participation in disclosure and confirmation of a covert agent's identity - and thus, this story goes on. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive needed

This talk page needs to be archived, but as I've not been editing on it, I'm not sure which sections are more active, and which might be placed in an archive. Would someone do some housekeeping please? Thanks Calicocat 19:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How the heck did the contents of this talk page get dupe-edited?

Pretty serious copy-repaste dupe going on. Everything between #Rotten.com and Misplaced Pages and #valerie was not covert at the time seems to have been duped. Was this intentional, or silly page-lengthening vandalism?

Or accidental? (Forgot to consider that. Also forgot to sign it.) -- Gnoitall 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, no comment. I'm gonna consider it page-doubling and just clean it up. -- Gnoitall 20:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

AAAAAARGH! I can't hold the whole article in my head and do the necessary diffs between duped sections which have been edited by others after the dupe. I guess it'll have to stay screwed up. -- Gnoitall 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was intentional - User:Badlydrawnjeff duped the article's contents , but I'm sure it was an honest mistake. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there was any mistake involved; there's a bug in MediaWiki somewhere which will sometimes cause a complete copy of the page being edited to be inserted at some place in the page being edited. So far as I know, the cause isn't known yet, but there's no indications that I know of that these users are making any "mistake" in particular which they should have known would cause the doubling-bug to happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It's now fixed. - dcljr (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

Would it not be easier to indicate in the main article that Rove, for whatever reason, has been demonized by elements on the left, and provokes a knee-jerk reaction, much as the equally demonized Sen. Clinton provokes knee-jerk responses on the right?.

And yes, the current Valerie Palme story should be broken off into its own article (along with duplicated material at the Palme article itself).

And yes, this talk page needs to be broken up and portions archived.--FourthAve 23:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Rove e-mail - what it says

The source (AP) clearly states "I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.

The e-mail itself reads "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

There is no evidence that 'the bait' meant Plame's identity. That is erroneous. Amicuspublilius, I don't want to revert war - please revert or correct as you see fit. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Swift Boat

Best I can tell, there is no mention either in the entry or in the discussion about the allegations Rove was behind the Swift Boat attack on John Kerry, and before that the 2000 primary attacks on John McCain. Several people have made such claims in print. They may or may not be true, as far as I know no one knows for sure either way, but they should be mentioned for two reasons: 1. the allegations are part of Rove's public persona and history, true or not, and 2. these allegations directly influence the level of receptiveness people have to the allegations in the Plame case, which is still unfolding and could potentially have serious legal implications.

As long as its not "some people think...". Why don't you post links to the talk page here of notable opinions on this and we'll discuss? --kizzle 05:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, good point. Here are a couple of relevant links:

From the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50914FE3D5A0C738EDDA10894DC404482, full article here: http://www.stopgwbush.us/sbvftdebunked.html -- I know this last site is clearly biased, but in this case what they are doing is giving the full text verbatim, so I include it, since NYT doesn't give free access to full archived articles.

Also:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/28/moore_rove_swift_boat/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843033/site/newsweek/ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200411/green http://mediamatters.org/items/200409010009

There are more out there, but that's a start.

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? Maybe a closer look and Rove and his wife. . .

Fixed

Okay, I've fixed this Talk page by removing the duplicated content. The way I did this was to start with the last "clean" version before the edit that caused the duplication (thanks, Ryan, for finding that) and step through every diff thereafter, inserting the new content in the appropriate places. Other than that, the only things I've changed are:

1. restored an original post (in the section NPOV) that had been split up and responded to in a weird way;
2. altered the flow of a quote-response (to the aforementioned post) in a way that's easier to follow;
3. removed a comment about "deleting the original posting" made by anonymous user whose post (see #1) is now preserved intact;
4. removed my own notices about fixing the page and, of course, added this section.

In addition, because of the cut-and-paste method I employed the number of newlines and spaces will differ in certain places, but none of these changes should affect the appearance of the discussion in any significant way. Finally, note that this page is still too long (96K) and needs to be archived. I might do this soon. - dcljr (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. That's much better. Good work. -- Gnoitall 18:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Article development, todo list

I've taken the liberty of adding a todo list to this article. My hope is that the article's editors might make use of it as a focus point for helping to improve this article. Calicocat 07:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Watergate

It would be interesting to add info about Rove & the Watergate era. For a teaser, see this John Dean interview: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index1.html

"He (Rove) is way beyond anything Nixon had at his disposal. He is closer to a behind-the-scenes Nixon operator named Murray Chotiner, who could cut off an opponent at the knees so quickly the person did not immediately realize he had been crippled. As I note in the book, the first time I heard the name Karl Rove was when I was asked if I knew anything about him by one of the Watergate special prosecutors who was investigating campaign dirty tricks. I didn't have any knowledge. But I recalled that question when working on this book, and located a memorandum in the files of the Watergate prosecutor's office that indicates they were asking others as well about Rove. Based on my review of the files, it appears the Watergate prosecutors were interested in Rove's activities in 1972, but because they had bigger fish to fry they did not aggressively investigate him." Jebba 02:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from anon user

An answer (plus my person views on the article). Forgive me if some have already been answered, as i skimmed the criticism/discussion page.

There has been some dispute over the intention of Wilson's comment, "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." This either means that: a) she was not, at that time, an undercover agent; or b) she was not an undercover agent THAT DAY (and forward), BECAUSE Novak blew her identity. I have been unable to find any clarification from Wilson, so please correct me if this has been setled.

As for the question as to whether or not noting that Karl Rove was a "dropout" constitutes bias, no it does not. It is relevent information about his past. For example, noting that there has been dispute over Geroge Bush's National Guard record (or John Kerry's war record) does not constitute bias, insofar as it is presented in a factual, objective manner.

The "turd blossom" moniker, however utterly stupid, does not constitute an non-objective note, as the nickname itself is actually quite endearing.

If someone could post a link to an audio clip of Wilson's comment, I think it should be obvious from his tone of voice which interpretation is the correct one. - dcljr (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is video of Wilson making the comment. It is obvious that his words are deliberaly being misconstrued by his political opponents, who are earning a real repuation for dishonesty!

Joseph Wilson video -asx- 05:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It's not quite as "obvious" as I thought it might be, but there's definitely a difference in the way he says "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day Bob Novak blew her identity" (his emphasis on the words shown) and the way he says "She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that, uh, that article in Vanity Fair appeared" (his voice rises on the word "appeared" as if he is going to continue on to make another point, but the clip ends there). His slight emphasis on the word "day" in the first remark (not to mention the word "blew"!) would seem to indicate that he meant exactly what he soon after said he meant: namely, that Novak's column made her no longer clandestine. It is funny, though, how Wolf's statement, "having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA," seems almost to imply that she was "a clandestine officer" at the time of the VF photo shoot. This, of course, would mean that she was also clandestine when Novak's column appeared! But it seems to be precisely the former implication — that she was clandestine at the time of the VF photo shoot — that Wilson is responding to with both of his comments. - dcljr (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, since all the excerpts from the Wolf Blitzer interview have been 1 to 3 lines long, here's a more complete version from Media Matters (the link -asx- provided above). I've removed the editor's note "" right after the words "photo shoot with your wife":

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that. What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department. She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a long discussion as two other users have already done above, so I'll take my leave on this issue... - dcljr (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Formatting improvments

Some opinions & explanations

I made some improvements to the formatting of this article, as follows:

1—Removed (current) template It is unecessary to include the {current} template on this page. By default, any figure in the Administration is involved in current news. It's a given that news about Karl Rove is current. The current template is redundant to what everyone knows, and distracts the user from the meat of the page, the actual content, which is what they came for.

2—Floated the Table of Contents to Right The TOC is large and has a width of only 50% of the page. Using the default alignment (left) leaves a vast gap of unattractive and poorly utilized white space at the top of the page, a major violation of aesthetics and good design.

3—Moved portrait to the left side of the page Since the menu is on the right, the portrait goes on the left. Unlike the menu, text flows around the photo, giving the page a more professionally laid out appearance and improving the look of Misplaced Pages to the rest of the world coming to read about this front-page story.

The page is now more pleasing to the eye.

-asx- 03:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the formatting again. I believe the {{current}} tag does serve a purpose, warning readers of the volatility of the content; and besides, it places the article in the corresponding category. By a similar "everyone knows" argument you could justify removing the tag from almost every article it's on. The picture looks a little strange on the left, since Rove is turned slightly to the left in the photo. And it looks doubly strange placed below the first section header. I've made a kind of "compromise" layout in which the pic is still floated to the right at the top, but the TOC is placed immediately to the right of the first section. Compare: original layout, version by -asx- and my compromise. - dcljr (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. My responses to your responses:

1—Okay, that's a good point about putting it in the corresponding category. I didn't realize that. I agree it should be put back.

2—Well, you have a point about it looking "a little" strange because he's facing left, slightly. It would be ideal if we could just ask him to turn his chin slightly. ;) But given a choice between the original and the new version with portrait on the left, I prefer the latter.

3—Thanks for trying the compromise. I don't like the compromise either, just because the top of the TOC butts up against the line of text above it, which doesn't look too good.

I've given my input, you make some good points. I'll leave it in your hands, whatever you decide is appropriate will have my support. -asx- 04:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To the aforementioned three versions (see my previous comment above), I add this possibility, in which the pic is on the left at the top and the TOC is floated to the right of the first section (notice in the wikicode that margins can be set "manually" in a <div> to prevent the TOC from abutting text). Note that almost any layout will have some problems when viewed at certain resolutions and font sizes, but there should be a "best" choice. I'll leave it to others to comment on these different layouts and which ones they prefer. (Try to ignore the presence/absence of the "current event" box.) - dcljr (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Option 4 Very nicely done. It looks great! I think it's the best of the four. Nice coding, too! This has my vote. -asx- 05:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I did briefly try the same general idea using a <span>, but that didn't work and I assumed a <div> would not work either. Glad you pointed it out. -asx- 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dropout?

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 Misplaced Pages as pushing a left-wing POV. -asx- 05:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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 15:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't see a problem with saying "drop out," but linking to the Misplaced Pages 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)

Last night I attended a screening of the Elia Kazan movie, "A Face in the Crowd" at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. The lead role resembled Mr. Rove so much I just couldn't let the fact pass without comment. The name was even similair- "Lonesome" Larry Rhodes. Anyway, this doesn't mean anything, but I just thought I'd mention it.

The Leak - Rove's wife

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. . .

****gate?

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 Misplaced Pages to coin a phrase to sum the whole question up. The Misplaced Pages 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)

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 14:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 14:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm using Plame affair, no "gates" here. Calicocat 05:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Peak Oil" issue and NPOV concerns

While I certainly think this theory deserves a link from the bottom of the Misplaced Pages page, after having read the source (and about its author), I am not sure this paragraph quite merits inclusion in the article. However, I do think it should be assigned reading for the close followers of the scandal and the various theories behind it. It seems to me that the question of what damage the leak actually did is something that the press, in particular, should pay more attention to... But I'm not sure the following passes the smell test:

=== Actual damage caused ===

While the breaking of Valerie Plame's cover as a NOC operative of the CIA may be regarded as serious in and of itself, there has been some speculation that the damage caused by the leak may extend in very specific directions related to Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates. While the majority of commentators felt that her husband was the target for the smear, a body of evidence points to another motive for the leak. The leak may have been instigated as a move to end Plame's work spying on the Saudi royal family, and more specifically the question of whether the Saudi oilfields had passed their peak of productiviy (see peak oil). In this view (found for example in Michael Ruppert's From The Wilderness news service, ) the leak was an attempt to silence and/or discredit Plame's findings on the state of the world's oil supply, thereby impairing the functioning of the CIA's ability to inform the administation, in turn reducing its ability to act usefully.

We live in a world of forgeries and innuendo. Let's not make Misplaced Pages a vector for them. The medium is far more powerful when it is accurate. 68.227.184.37 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As there is no evidence to contradict what is said in this entry, it seems entirely unreasonably to label it "inaccurate speculation". (I will address my misgiving about that term in a moment). Nobody has formed any challenge to this description of the operations of Brewster Jennings & Associates; nor any challenge to the substance of the original article.

The note is also representative on a widespread interpretation of the facts. On a point of language, speculation would not be speculation if it were possible to say that it were accurate, it would be merely a fact. The term "inaccurate speculation" is meaningless, and therefore can hardly be cited as a reason to censor this contribution. I will now instate the portion that you deleted, though with a slight sub-edit to make one sentence clearer. 83.70.46.11711:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I may have lost that edit war, but I think the section would be stronger (at the least) for some reinforcements and interpretations from the mainstream media, not from the website currently cited. Anyone who might be able to bolster the passage from findings published in the mainstream media is welcome to try their hand. I still think the passage is dubious. I will do my best, for now, with some new information from The Economist of July 18, 2005, which does add insight about Plame's role in the CIA and the damage from outing her. Also, information should be added to the Misplaced Pages entry on Rove derived from Cooper's most recent Time interview, in which he spoke about what he told the grand jury.

It is because I feel the article is otherwise strongly written, quite accurate, and responsibly footnoted, that I have a problem with this particular passage above. In any case, the article will be improved by the incorporation of several new facts reported over the weekend in The New York Times., including Bush's revised statements about firing a staff member who had "committed a crime."

I'll do my best with this. I don't have a Misplaced Pages handle. I sign and stand by all my comments with my IP address. 68.227.184.37 06:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do hope it is not a war, but quite the opposite, a debate in which the winner is the end user of the wikipedia. That sounds twee, but im rather taken with the possibilities of this enterprise. I can't see any reason for the removal of the Economist article reference post. Anyone? 83.70.46.11711:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I deleted that Ruppert paragraph again. I like the footnote, and I do think the report is required reading. But I have seen too many reports about Rove and the Vice President's office which suggest the leak was a spontaneous spinning reflex at work, not a conspiracy to undermine the CIA or to put a White House spin on the peak oil controversy. In the context of an otherwise sober entry, I don't think this diversion is encyclopedia material just yet. Sorry. 68.227.184.37 15:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added a version of that para again. In the piece it is made clear that "a majority of commentators felt that her husband was the target for the smear," but it is missing out a part of the narrative not to mention that there is a body of writing which offers other intepretation of the significance of these events. I don't think that it does anything but improve the piece to have those dissenting opinions find some space alongside the majority. 83.70.46.11722:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mind if I have a nip-and-tuck at it? I think it can be shorter in any case. And as I've said, I think the more immediate knee-jerk response from the White House in terms of attacking Wilson is more believable than a big conspiracy behind all this... I might pose that knee-jerk thesis beside this one, since it has been aired in the media in the last few days. 68.227.184.37 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Liberal lies.

...west of Wichita. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

care to enlighten us as to what specifically is untrue? --kizzle 17:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's all there was, just a section heading that said "Liberal lies" with no text underneath (thanx to 129.61.46.16). I thought I'd finish it with something less inflammatory. (Read the whole thing together.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk archiving

Sorry, Calicocat, but that's not the best way to archive a talk page. You shouldn't effectively "blank out" the entire page. Disucssions that are ongoing should be left in place, with perhaps only the early stages archived to a separate page. Only discsussions that are not apparently ongoing should be moved. This is my opinion, but I think I could find justification for these ideas in policy or semi-policy elsewhere. In any case, I'm going to try to archive this in the way I'm talking about. Please Stand By... - dcljr (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As it says in the archive, any on going discussion can be simply copied back to the main talk page. In the archive I created, I noted, per guidelines, "This archive page covers approximately the dates between start of article and July 19, 2005. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.)Calicocat 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that page says, "It is therefore customary on Misplaced Pages to periodically archive older discussions on pages that have become large", and "When archiving old discussions, it is customary to leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing Talk page" (emphasis added in both cases). It's kind of rude to remove an ongoing discussion from the talk page and ask people to go cut and paste if they want to reply to something... - dcljr (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished my version of the archiving process. Turns out, it's actually the same as your (Calicocat's) original version of 13:44, 19 July 2005, although I've used the simpler name Talk:Karl Rove/Archive1. I think we should keep things like this until discussion dies down on the earlier sections... - dcljr (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good and sorry if I sounded a bit short. Did you put the other archive up for speedy delete? I usually like archive files (pages) that have to/from dates, but however it works is fine. There are many active threads which is why I used the "buzz cut" method, but if you think this is better I have no objections. And now, back to our regularly schedule program, already in progress... My best, Calicocat 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I put the other archive up for speedy deletion. Calicocat 22:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll

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)

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)

Exposure not "outing"

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)

I agree; "exposure" or something equivalent would be more professional. --Bletch 02:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Plame idenity marked as secret

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)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists