Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 2

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. -- BD2412 talk 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)

How the heck did the contents of this talk page get dupe-edited?
Pretty serious copy-repaste dupe going on. Everything between and  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)

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: 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)

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 How to archive a talk page.)Calicocat 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that page says, "It is therefore customary on Wikipedia 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)

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 [a] 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 [Plame’s identity], 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.” [CNN, 7/12/05]

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)