BigDaddy777 RfC Response

A well-meaning, partially successful, but extremely flawed RfC

This RfC, brought by well-meaning and intelligent people, has succeeded in documenting the behavior of a fellow editor which is sometimes annoying or offensive, and usually passionate and colorful. Bigdaddy777 is changing his behavior, but he is still colorful. He has shown progress. His fundamental temperament will not change, but he is clearly able to edit, respond to editors, argue his case, and stick to the topic (even when others troll the talk pages rallying editors to his RfC).

This RfC would never have been brought but for this: BigDaddy777 has openly and unabashedly accused many editors of allowing their liberal biases to creep into articles, and of using AGF as a smokescreen to hide their intellectual dishonesty and their own refusal to cooperate with editors with whom their disagree about disputed topics and passages.

What has been lost on BigDaddy is that this phenomenon happens on both sides of the political spectrum. It can happen with an article on John Kerry as easily as on one of Karl Rove What has been lost on the editors of his "target" articles is, BigDaddy777 has correctly identified a leftward slant on many articles, and he makes valid, well-supported and well-argued points. Some editors of these articles are desperate to protect them from anyone bringing neutrality to them. The dismiss or ignore comments by those who disagree with them, and revert disputed passages over and over, oftentimes causing edit wars.

A simple solution

BigDaddy777 needs to:

Keep improving
Not accuse everything that moves of being liberal
Keep editing articles and arguing his case when the neutrality of a passage is in dispute
Challenging those who are uncooperative

The editors who have brought this RfC and endorsed it should

Admit their failure to write neutral articles about people they obviously hate
Thank BigDaddy for bringing this to their attention and stop pretending there was nothing wrong before he showed up
Stop being so thin-skinned and blowing every statement he makes out of proportion, sometimes as a means of retaliation
Stop reverting everything that threatens "their" pages
Give more weight to the opinions of those who disagree with them
Continue to work with BigDaddy and help him improve
Stop treating him like an enemy or a boogeyman

A note to possible future arbitrators

Below I have discussed what I believe are flaws in this RfC. I hope you will read them and decide if they have value. I believe in the RfC process, and believe good behavior is a must in the community. Some have told me "Paul, you don't understand what an RfC is supposed to do." But I have witnessed ugliness on both sides. One side, BigDaddy777, has behavior that is obvious, deliberately unveiled. The other side often engages in behavior that does not shout out from the page -- it's not "quotable" -- but is passive-aggressive, uncooperative, thin-skinned, histrionic, and patently unsuitable for collaborating with peope who disagree with them.

What this RfC is asking you to do, essentially, is:

Judge isolated comments presented to you out of context.
Take people at their word that they made real efforts to resolve disputes, without seeing how they did that.
Assume that those who have disputes with BigDaddy777 were not to blame, and were not engaging in the slanted editing style he has accused them of.

This is not a "defense" of BigDaddy or an "attack" on those bringing the RfC. I will not be made to foolishly take a side here, or dismiss every argument from one party in order to validate the arguments of another.

The Failures of the RfC

The RfC fails in many other respects, in my opinion. I will first describe how it fails, and then address BigDaddy's behavior, and show examples that show improved behavior.

I have been involved in some of the threads in question. I have often taken BigDaddy's side of the arguments about content; I have sometimes criticised him ; I have sometimes criticized his critics about their behavior as well.

My expectations of what RfCs can or should do may not square with those of most Wikipedians. This is due to my exerience

Disputes with BigDaddy are purported to have failed. These disputes have not been well enough outlined in this RfC for me to analyze them. Instead, they have been characterized or summarized, instead of laid out in a plot. A lot of warnings seem to have been thrown around, like, "You should change your behavior or we'll have to ask for arbitration." Without seeing the line of events and statements in the "attempt to settle a dispute" laid out, I am being asked to do the work or take someone's word for it that they
A lot of energy and expectations have been invested in getting BigDaddy to respond to this RfC. The signatories seem to place a great deal of importance that BD give an answer.

I have been criticized, perhaps rightly, that BigDaddy and his behavior is the focus of the RfC, not other editors. I hvae been criticized, perhaps rightly, that I don't seem to understan what an RfC is supposed to do, and how people are "supposed" to . However

Flaws in the RfC

Too strident, taking some aspects too seriously, inability to lighten up and not be so sensitive.
Heavy reliance on quotes taken out of context. This requires anyone wanting to see the context to do all the work themselves to find it. No serious or fairminded editor should give a verdict on any comment unless he sees all comments in the conversation, who was speaking to whom, what was being discussed, and why BigDaddy777 was using the kind of speech he was using. When I have looked at the context, I usually see several things:
Relying on "glutting" of quote examples, piling muchness upon muchess. Sure, they're many, but again, they are out of context. Volume doesn't equal weight. The signatories and endorsees are asking outsiders to do all the work themselves to dig throught the many threads. This is asking too much to outsiders trying to be fair to BigDaddy.
Heavy reliance on characterizations of quotes and behavior, rather than letting readers make their own characterizations -- sometimes not even "quoted" at all, but described by someone, with claims about what was said.

Flaws in expectations by both side

BigDaddy777 is flawed:

In his thinking he can participate in a community without consenus or collaboration
In his socially backward behavior
In is thinking that it's "him" against Wikipedia
In this thinkint that WP is "run" by liberals
In his refusal admit his mistakes and answer the RfC -- that his refusal "proves" something

The RfC signatories and respondees are flawed:

In their unreasonable thin-skinned-ness with respect to the topics involved (Controversial political figures, and American politics in general)
In their overly indignant, overblown offense at BigDaddy's refusal to "answer them"
In their thinking that any reasonable editor will judge a person based on long, long lists of statements taken out of context
In their willingness to characterize colorful speaking as "attacks"
In their failure to recognize how slanted any political piece will appear to
In their failure to agree with BigDaddy more often, for he is often right

ANALYSIS OF RFC DISPUTE RESOLUTION SECTION

BD is accused of "racking up" quite a page of test warnings, seemingly indicating warnings of vandalism. The warnings are documented, the behavior leading to the warning is not. After the RfC was filed, BD was often falsely or mistakenly accused of vandalism. How are we to know that the same thing didn't happen before? What were his edits that he is warned about?
"He's rebuked". However, this does not link to a rebuke, but to a response by BD. Although BD complains about an unnamed "'church-lady' type editor" who "erased all my entries", he responds very civilly. He asks for an apology, but committs to moving forward without one. He also says that this person "used up all my AGF." This is a reasonable remark, if indeed the person did what BD suggests. No context is provided for anyone to know.
"Tries again." This is an out-of-context apology by Hipocrite. It does nothing to establish that an effort was made to resolve a dispute, and failed.
User Hipocrite "tries the same approach": This link does not establish anything. Hipocrite says, "The correct response to a bad article is to fix the article, not make it worse." Hipocrite does not here say, nor does the RfC document, what BD allegedly did in this instance to make the article worse. We are depending on an out-of-context statement on the part of the accuser to establish something the accuser is saying happened, but doesn't explain. This comment: "If you go through and start attacking other editors in the main body of the article, you will be blocked" does not, in fact, document an attack, but is merely an accusation, followed by a threat. It is not an attempt to "resolve a dispute."

EXAMPLES OF WELL-ARGUED POINTS BY BIGDADDY, AT LEAST IN PAUL'S OPINION

Emphasis added by Klenk

[1] "Good. I think we have it about right. Support for McVeigh? Nonesense. Support for Joseph McCarthy? Absolutely. In fact, I propose we eliminate the word 'allege' to "unwavering" support for McCarthy. Ann Coulter is an admitted (and apparently quite proud) Joseph McCarthy apologist. Much of her book Treason is an attempt at resurrecting his image. I don't know if she actually supports Nixon."
[2] "Well, if you go to the Franken article, you'll see a nice, rather pleasant photo of him. And if you go to the talk section, you'll find someone rejoicing that he found an 'awesome' photo to use. And no one minded one whit, which I think is great. I hope we will extend that same goodwill to conservative commentators at Wikipedia and I'm happy to say it looks like we are."
[3] For the record I had an email conversation with this editor right after it happened. I was curious how he knew the letter writing complainers were republicans. He said he didn't know but only that they said they were. It stands to reason we don't know for sure where the letters emanated from either. So to infer that this Arizona editor was claiming they came from all over because he didn't specifically say they were from Arizona is faulty logic. It's a moot point anyway. The context was a local Arizona paper. It's not just a stretch to START her article with the implication that readers around the world wrote the Arizona Republic. It's flat out dishonest. NOTE: To those reasonable people who are wondering why I even have to make these obvious points in here...don't ask. lol!"

GENERAL ANALYSIS ABOUT THREADS INVOLVING BIGDADDY

- Some people are dishing out at BigDaddy what he is dishing back (sometimes not)
- Many people are not focusing on the substance of his comments, but how they are worded
- BigDaddy is making very good arguments about content and sources, and is winning the arguments
- He is using his colorful language, to illustrate his point
- His attacks are often at the material he doesn't like; when directed at people, mostly his attacks amount to charges of being liberal.
- He is passionate in his arguments about his material; this annoys some people.
- He is passionate about defending himself; this also annoys some people.
- He is often juggling comments from several people at once, and keeping up with all of them.
- In fairness to this RfC, he is, of course, usually annoying everyone with his constant statements that everyone must be a liberal, Wikipedia is a cabal, "Who's in charge?", etc.
- In fairness, he often assumes bad faith.

SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF A THREAD INVOLVING BIGDADDY

Conversants: BD/KIZZLE Page: ROVE TALK Time period: 9 SEPT - 10 SEPT."

In this thread, BD (I believe his first clearly explains his rationale for his edits and his objections to specific passages. He makes many reasonable or justifiable objections, in general about WP peices on conservatives of being slanted, negative, with biased sources, based on rumor, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. He says he is being passionate about content, and hostile not to people but to material. Offers defenese of his behavior.
UNJUSTIFIABLE: Assumes everyone at WP is a liberal; calls editors of this article liberal. Heavy use of polemic.
KIZZLE tries to get BD from using so much inflammatory speech. Does not spend much time addressing content of BD's concerns.

A level of sensitivity on the part of complainants that is unsuited for editing the most disputed topics. One
RfC fails to take into account the controversial and sensational nature of the topics being edited, the difficulty in finding impartial material, the huge mistake in allwoing a sensation-driven media to provide the srouces, the hatred and opposition against these topics that are driving the media and providing the sources,
All political figures

and the special pitfalls, requirements, and considerations that must be taken into acount when editing such topics.

When analyzed in context, BD shows

His worst behavior, in my mind, is constantly ranting on about "liberals," and accusing large groups of epopl. He shouldn't do it. It is annoying. He is colorful. He relies on hyperbole. Sometimes it is rhetoric or polemical, but it always goes to his argument; he uses it to support what he is saying. His best behavior: He gives very thorough, thoughtfully written reasons for why he objects to passages. He could focus more on making the passages better, and less on berating them and the editors who hvae included them. He can dish out and he can take it. He can defend himself. He can spot flaws, but doesn't always point them out respectfully.

BD could have averted the RfC BD could have answered the RfC Many of the points are valid Most of what happened was brought on by BD

Social problem Rightful analysis of bias; wrongful analysis of reasons and solutions

Characteriations: A big flaw Throwing around words like attack, vandalism, etc. Mistaking rhetoric, hyperbole and polemics for hostility Other user's choice of response d not cause BD;s offense, but they steer the conversation, evolve it into what it is.

Klenk has identified five conversations mentioned in the original RfC. He read the entire threads of these conversations; made a point-by-point analysis of each comment (elements that were good, and those that were not); and summarizes his thoughts about those conversations below, followed by an opinion of 1] whether they were accurately described in the RfC, and 2] whether they warranted such attention by the signatories.

List of conversations -- picking pages mentioned in the RfC, choosing the first conversation I could find in which BD was a participant (under his log-in name):

Rove
Coulter Talk /
Sheehan
Robertson

COULTER: BD is much less rhetorical here.

BD enters the conversation ("encyclopedia, not huffington post"); suggests a comparison between the franken article and the coulter article, contrasting their styles (Franken, not negative -- no cheap shots, Coulter, negative -- cheap shots). Suggests a massive clean up. States objective to Time cover of Ann. This was eventually challenged by other editors; the cover is not the first photo on the page anymore. Says people's hatred of Coulter is like a religion to them. Makes a gentle dig, "Ps She is a beautiful woman. Bummer, huh?" Suggests a negative motive for the selection of the other photo(s). Says the photo is a slam, and that it is "inexplicable" it is included.
Object's to inclusion of a paragraph, saying it's like David Brock's blog. Says "you" liberals blow every negative thing about Ann by a factor of 100 percent. Ojbects to a passage about Bush, calls the person who included it a wacko and implies motive of that person. Removes a comment about Ann being a beautiful woman.
- Klenk agrees with BD about removal of a passage, based on BD's reasons of being insulting, and a third-hand reference. Klenk suggests that "real editors and writers" work on the peice, not people who hate Ann and just cut and paste every negative thing they can find.
BD directs a comment at no one in particular that those "spewing hatred" towards Ann should go to "democraticunderground."
BD thanks Klenk, says the similar things are happening at Bill O'Reilly, says the articles seem to be written by liberals. Says he can't wait to see Mel Gibson's page.
- Klenk asks BD to use paragraphs, not single lines, in his text. Klenk tells BD not to worry about liberals, says there's no cabal. Tells BD not to protect the subject, just to write about it accurately.
- Klenk asks people to be thoughtful in edits, and not focus on negative quotes. Telss people to write in such a way that neither said can criticise you. Says good writing is hard, pasting quotes is easy.
- Klenk posts a message to liberals, asking them to understand Coulter's style vis-a-vis the points she is trying to make
- Klenk posts a message to conservatives, asking them to stop being threatened by negative items, stop complaining about a liberal cabal, and get to work writing.
- Klenk challenges a a lead quote in the Coulter peice, that she "deliberately distorts the facts" advises editors to focus on substance of negative quotes, and whether they are valid, before including them.
- Khaosworks says he has little interest in the article, asks them to check spinsanity.org as a source for quotes that Coulter has taken out of context.
- SaltyPig responds to Khaos
- SaltyPig defends a passage about Maher's and Coulter's sexual life.
- Klenk starts a very long and involved dispute about removing reference to ann as a constitutional lawyer. He eventually prevails later in the week. Tells Pig his bias is showing.
- Klenk re Coulter sex vs. Kerry sex.
- Khaos cites FindLaw, says sentence is ambiguous.
- Klenk on CA
- Khaos on CA
- Pig re Klenk suspicion of bias
- Klenk on CA
- KLenk on FindLaw
- Khaos on CA
- Geuttarda
- Khaos on CA
- Gator1 on CA
- Patton1138
BD:Going to Salon to learn about Coulter is like going to Hitchens on M.T.
BD stands up for Klenk re an argument with someone
BD on liberals: Church lady liberals.
- Klenk on Pig's five hours
- Pig defends himself
- Klenk to Pig -- bias against Coulter
- Pig on the Bible
- SaltyPig on edit war types
- Hipocrite: must be in practive as CA
BD: More about liberals

The RfC relies on 1] listing as much "colorful" quotes as possible, out of context, deeming them negative (in fairness, many of them ; 2] characterizing those comments in as negative a way as possible; 3] excessive digs like "worthless comments" etc.

As someone evaluating the RfC, I would have appreciate more links in the long lists of personal attacks he has made (they are not in quotes, most are characterizations instead)

Just because BD has racked up a bunch of warnings, doesn't mean they are all warranted.

All editors have chosen to wokr on extremely politlca pieces. This RfC does not address the reality in such topics that tons and tons of political sentiment is attached to all soures, all material, all players involved. Discussoin of the articles MUST keep this in mind and expect a much higher level of rhetoric and much higher level of dispute than a normal article. Considering the topics (Sheehan, Rove, etc.) and the sensationalistic

I believe the editors brought this RfC in good faith, and that they have many valid reaons for doing so. I believe they have identified someof BD's behaviors that need correcting, and BD should take their advice. I believe they have exercised very poor judgement in bringing this RfC in that 1] the articles in question were all slanted, controversial, and involved highly inflammatory current-event-driven topics, the articles rely on the many sensationalistic, poltically driven topics, and sources with axes to grind, and editors should expect this material to be attacked; 2] the subjects of these articles are absolutely hated by their enemies (just as Clinton was), and this fuels the kinds of stories about them in the press, and who is driving the stories and "making up" the news. The media will report on any sensational thing about sucha figure. Does that make it valdi encyclopedic content? No. 2] thick-skinned editors are required for these topics, and the editors involved, however smart and skilled they are, do not have skins quite thick enough for these particular articles; 3] Articles about political figures, on every side, are typically negative because they attract people passionate about the topics. Articles on Kerry and Clinton get dumped on by conservatives as much as articles like Rove and Coulter get dumped on. It is a fact at WP. Getting negative material out of an article is much harder than putting new material in, but BD has chosen the former, more difficult task.

Further BD states he was getting accused of vandalism, and threats from anonymous IPs

BD needs to stop the flaming, listen to advice offered and take it; leave out the snide comments; stop calling everyone liberals. But he should not be faulted for being colorful, for using rhetoric, and for recognizing and challenging the bias of pieces, or fore being passionate about his views on the material. He should be given much more credit for stating his reasons and offering reaosoned challenges to views and material he disagrees with.

necessity in

COULTER:

Rove talk: Examples of conversations BD/KIZZLE / ROVE TALK / 9 SEPT - 10 SEPT.

JUSTIFIABLE: BD clearly explains his rationale for his edits and his objections to specific passages. He makes many justifiable objections to WP peices on conservatives of being slanted, negative, with biased sources, based on rumor, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. He says he is being passionate about content, and hostile not to people but to material. Offers defenese of his behavior.
UNJUSTIFIABLE: Assuming everyone at WP is a liberal; making accusations of "liberal" at editors of piece. Use of polemic.
KIZZLE tries to get BD from using so much inflammatory speech. Does not spend much time addressing content of BD's concerns.

First comment as BD: Correctly identified the liberal bias in the piece; made many reasonable comments about the facts, bias of sources, ; Used hyperbole, accused editors of hating Rove (whether true or not, it wasn't helpful).
Correctly questions whether data has been substantiated; accuses bad faith, "WackiWiki Liberals" comment; characterizes all Wikis as liberals.
- Kizzle answers with evidence and a source. Doesn't address BD's assertion of bias in the piece. No attacks or rhetoric.
Discusses and cites how he removed POV from a passage; announces it is the first of many rewrites needed to bcome NPOV; Opens with, "Hell no""! NPOV my ass."
Describes POV text he removes, and gives his reasons. Then makes a dig at John Kerry and accuses editors of being sore about the election.
- Kizzle warns him about toning down hostility; pleads with him to stop attacks; warns BD that further such attacks will result in dispute resolution. No attacks or rhetoric.
Describes removal of a passage, with reasons for doing do; Describes the passage as POV POS (an abbr. for "peice of s**t."); clls the article a left-wing slime peice; accuses of left-wing paranoid delusional fantasies.
- Kizzle provides the source BD requested, and adds it and the original passage back into the article.
BD calls all fifteen editors of the article liberals, with sarcastic remark.
Says he speaks with passion; says if he is hostile, that hostility is directed at the lies. Tells Kizzle not to lecture or threaten him. Says he wants WP to be the best 'pedia it can be. Says he doesn't attack people, but ideas. Says a snide comment towards a conservative as ignored, says he is being stalked from another article to this one, where he put Kizzle in his place.
- Kizzle describes how the system works and how BD is not following it; suggests he tones down the rhetoric. Asks him to stop assuming bad faith.
- Kizzle asks when he was put in his place.
Again asks Kizzle to not stalk him. Says he will report it. Gives reason for objecting to a source. Gives a reason he believes an a reversion to his work was not valid. Accuses Kizzle of inability to be NPOV on the piece and asks Kizzle to stand down from the article, and edit one he is neutral about. Says Kizzle is in a hurry to trash Rove.
- Kizzle implies that he is editing articles on his watchlist. Suggests that BD file an RfC.
BD says Kizzle is overlooking the rule of NPOV and making him the issue instead. Says he is deriding the article, not people. Ask Kizzle to "play past "his colorful conversation. Says he has a track record of getting along with other liberals.
BD discusses what a source in an article was and was not saying. No rhetoric.
- Kizzle asks BD to follow guidelines on civility; says his lack thereof is the reason focus is on him.
- Kizzle says BD has never once defended his actions, but is whining instead.
Talks about the ambiguity of Wilson's statement, and how it could easily be construed to mean something else.
Again says someone must want to slime Rove. Says it is nuts to leave material in an encyclopedia just because it is not disproven. Says this is not a weblog.
- Kizzle compliments BD on his changes to a passage, then tweaks it a bit.
Explains why he is objecting to a passage.

Examples of others' comments which, had they been made by BD, would have been used as evidence against him in this RfC

Plame Summary

Rove has been embroiled in a controversy involving Valerie Plame, . The incident is discussed at length in a companion article, "Plame affair." Following is a summary of the main points in that article:

I am trying to identify the many components of the complex Plame affair. Below, broken into bullet points, are my best efforts to do so.

Would you please me help by adding any missing components, commenting, etc.?

One day I would like to use these components to write a dense and thoughtful summary of this affair. Don't mistake theses points for the summary itself -- they are simply raw, hard "bits." The question is, are there other bits?

The Rove/Plame controversy has several complex and hotly disputed components. Allegations are plentiful and hard evidence is not easy to come by. Many of these components seem to hinge on each other, and lead to greater underlying controversies, all the way up to Bush's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq:

It is alleged that Karl Rove illegally leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, which resulted in breaking the identity of her cover company, said to employ other C.I.A. operatives.
Rove's alleged motive for the leak: to discredit Wilson in the Yellowcake report.
Wilson's motive in the yellowcake affair -- alleged to be to discredit it as one of Bush's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.
The alleged leak spread throughout the media, creating another set of controversies between reporters, their employers, and their sources.
The allegations resulted in a current DOJ investigating whether Rove broke the law.
The affair has been fueled denial by Rove and the White House, and an apparent "backing-off" of that denial by the White House.
The media have moved from the role of observer to the role of a player in this affair:

1. The jailing of Judith Miller and Nokak's alleged deal with the prosecutor;
2. The greater media takes an unusual move of filing "friend of the court."

Players: C.I.A., White House, Media, DOJ.

Veracity of the evidence offered by both sides of the Plame affair is hotly disputed.

Joseph C. Wilson IV former Ambassador to Gabon, alleged that Karl Rove illegally leaked the identify of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a C.I.A. operative.

Wilson had reported about Yellowcake. Robert Novak wrote about it dismissively, and in his article, made the first public mention about the identity of Wilson's wife. A year later, Senate said Plame had put Wilson up for the trip.

The story about Plame's identity began to spread throughout the Press, under the idea that the alleged leak was an act of retaliation

Novak

Plame Affair

Main article Plame affair covers Karl Rove's role as the reported source of published information as to the identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, as a CIA NOC agent to Robert Novak after Wilson contradicted the George W. Bush administration's statements regarding the Yellowcake forgery.

Origins

On 29 August 2003, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a career diplomat who had worked under Democratic and Republican administrations, alleged that Rove leaked the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative (timeline[4]). The leak is a potential violation of federal law.

Wilson, who in February 2002 investigated claims of attempted 1990s uranium ore purchases by Iraq from Niger, wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times, published 6 July 2003,[5] suggesting that the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence findings to justify war against Iraq. Wilson said that his African diplomatic experience led to his selection for the mission: He is the former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital.[6] Wilson, who was open about the CIA's sponsorship of his trip (which he called "discreet but not secret"), wrote that he had been "informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report" relating to the sale of uranium yellowcake from Niger (see also Yellowcake Forgery). Of his trip to Niger Wilson wrote, "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction [purchase of uranium ore] had ever taken place." Wilson also noted that U.S. Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick "knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington."

Wilson's Op-Ed piece appeared three and a half months after the US-led 2003 Invasion of Iraq, at a time when search teams in occupied Iraq were raising questions about whether weapons of mass destruction would ever be found. On 11 July 2003, five days following the publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece, the CIA issued a statement discrediting what he called "highly dubious" accounts of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger.[7] In the press release, CIA Director George Tenet said it should "never" have permitted the "16 words" relating to alleged Iraqi uranium purchases to be used in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, and called it a "mistake" that the CIA allowed such a reference in the speech Bush used to take the United States to war.

Publication of the leak

Eight days after publication of Wilson's article, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote an article dismissing the importance of Wilson's trip to Niger. Novak wrote that the choice to use Wilson "was made routinely at a low level without [CIA] Director George Tenet's knowledge." Novak went on to identify Plame as Wilson's wife: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."[8] Although Wilson wrote that he was certain his findings were circulated within the CIA and conveyed (at least orally) to the office of the Vice President, and George Tenet himself had written not only of his familiarity with the report but that it "was given a normal and wide distribution" in intelligence circles,[9] Novak questioned the accuracy of Wilson's report and added that "it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it."

Although the Novak article called her a CIA "operative," it did not necessarily identify Valerie Plame as an "undercover" (or NOC agent). However, the publication of her name and a brief account of her duties was enough to abruptly end her "undercover" status, as well as that of her cover firm and other agents using its cover (as well as their contacts).

Nearly a year after Wilson's editorial was published (12 July 2004), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments on Iraq stated that Plame "offered up [Wilson's] name" for the trip. Several high ranking CIA officials disputed this claim, however, and indicated that the person who made the claim was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. "In an interview with Time, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. 'That is bullshit. That is absolutely not the case,' Wilson told Time. 'I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job.'" [10][11]

Spreading the leak

Walter Pincus, a Washington Post columnist, has written that he was told in confidence by an (unnamed) Bush administration official on 12 July 2003, two days before Novak's column appeared, that "the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."[12] Because he did not believe it to be true, Pincus did not report the story.

Days after Novak's initial column appeared, several other journalists, notably Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, published Plame's name citing "some" unnamed government officials as sources. In his article, titled "A War on Wilson?", Cooper, with no proof, speculated that the White House had "declared war" on Wilson for speaking out against the Bush Administration.[13]

In the October 13 Newsweek, Wilson is reported to have received a call from Chris Matthews, of MSNBC's "Hardball," who told him, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."[14]

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell also has been mentioned in the press as having early knowledge of the Plame leak, although her and Matthews' conversations may have taken place after Novak's article was published.[15] Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic reporter for the Washington Post, have both offered testimony in an ongoing investigation.[16]

Two Newsday reporters who also confirmed and expanded upon Novak's account, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, were mentioned in October 2003 in connection to an ongoing judicial inquiry.[17]

CIA seeks special prosecutor from Department of Justice

Wilson and both current and former CIA officials claimed the leak not only damaged his wife's career, but arguably endangered and ruined the ability to operate of many other CIA agents who worked abroad like Plame under nonofficial cover (as "NOCs"), passing as private citizens. Plame, who worked undercover for the CIA for nearly 20 years,[18] was identified as an NOC and confirmed as a "specialist in nonconventional weapons" by New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller on 5 October 2003.[19]

In an unsuccessful attempt to dim the controversy, Robert Novak wrote a second column on 1 October 2003, minimizing the importance of the leak,[20] and further suggesting that Plame's relationship to Wilson could be assumed by reading his entry in Who's Who In America. The following day on CNN, Novak announced that Plame's nominal employer was Brewster Jennings & Associates.[21] "There is no such firm, I'm convinced," Novak said, noting that "Ms. Valerie E. Wilson" had donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign in 1999 and had listed Brewster Jennings & Associates as her employer.[22] "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."[23] In fact, Brewster Jennings & Associates did exist, and proved to be an elaborately crafted CIA enterprise likely to have provided cover not only to Plame/Wilson but to other covert CIA operatives and contacts working abroad: subsequent articles in many publications [24][25][26][27] suggest that BJA, nominally an oil exploration firm, was in fact a CIA front company (now defunct) spying on Saudi and other interests across the Middle East.

Under certain circumstances, disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute raises the issue of whether Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies.[28]

In September 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the matter.[29] Rove was identified by the New York Times in connection to the Plame leak on 2 October 2003, in an article that both highlighted Attorney General John Ashcroft's employment of Rove in three previous political campaigns and which pointed to Ashcroft's potential conflict of interest in investigating Rove. In recusing himself from the case two months later, Ashcroft named Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to be "acting attorney general" for the case; on 30 December 2003, Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, (Comey appoints Fitzgerald) to pursue an investigation into the leak, working initially from White House telephone records turned over to the FBI in October 2003.[30]

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, although neither under oath. Colleagues of Rove who have testified before the grand jury (quietly convened in Washington, D.C. by January 2004) include current White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.[31] On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses.[32] Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.[33]

Supreme Court decision, testimony of journalists

New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who (according to a subpoena) met with an unnamed White House official on July 8 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Wilson/Plame matter,[34] but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On 27 June 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the reporters' request for appeal, [35] Time magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the independent counsel's investigations.[36] Columnist Robert Novak, who later admitted that the CIA attempted to dissuade him from revealing Plame's name in print, "appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor" (according to Newsweek).[37]

Miller was jailed on 7 July 2005, and is expected to remain there until October 2005. She is being held in Alexandria, VA in the same facility as Zacarias Moussaoui.

Allegations of illegal activities

On 1 July 2005 Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, on the McLaughlin Group stated: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time Magazine's going to do with the grand jury." The document dump has since occurred.[38]

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to Time reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in Time, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If Rove were aware that this was classified information at the time then both disclaimers by his lawyer would be untrue. Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 [39] in addition to two interviews by the FBI) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. Luskin stated that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper. [40] [41] [42][43] [44]

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" an indication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph). [45]

Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. The 'dramatic change' which allowed Cooper to testify was later revealed to be a phone conversation between lawyers for Cooper and his source confirming that the waiver signed two years earlier included conversations with Cooper. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question,[46] a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer.[47] According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified in August 2004 before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.[48][49]

Attorney and Watergate whistleblower John W. Dean observed that even if Rove didn't technically break the specific law barring the exposure of a covert agent, the administration has almost certainly run afoul of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641[50].

Rove's White House security clearance, governed by Executive Order 12958, apparently required both a criminal background check as well as training in the protection of classified information. To receive security clearance, Rove agreed, in writing (SF-312 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), not to divulge or confirm classified information to individuals (including reporters) not authorized to have it. According to Rove's attorney's public statements, Rove has admitted to violating SF-312 agreement.[51]

Rove's role as Time leaker revealed

On September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, regarding any suggested involvement of Rove with the leak, that "[t]he President knows" that it was not true.

And I said it is simply not true [that Rove was involved]. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove ... He [President Bush]'s aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.[52]

During the 2004 Republican National Convention, Rove told CNN:

I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name. This is at the Justice Department. I'm confident that the U.S. Attorney, the prosecutor who's involved in looking at this is going to do a very thorough job of doing a very substantial and conclusive investigation.[53]

On 10 July 2005, Newsweek posted a story from its forthcoming July 18 print edition which quoted one of the e-mails written by Time reporter Matt Cooper in the days following the publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece.[54] Writing to Time bureau chief Michael Duffy on 11 July 2003, three days before Novak's column was published, Cooper recounted a two-minute conversation with Karl Rove "on double super secret background" in which Rove said that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee: "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." In a Time article released 17 July 2005, Cooper says Rove ended his conversation by saying "I've already said too much." If true, this could indicate that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA employee prior to Novak's column being published. Some believe that statements by Rove claiming he did not reveal her name would still be strictly accurate if he mentioned her only as 'Wilson's wife', although this distinction would likely have no bearing on the alleged illegality of the disclosure. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leaks. Whether Rove's statement to Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in fact violated any laws has not been resolved.

In addition, Rove told Cooper that CIA Director George Tenet did not authorize Wilson's trip to Niger, and that "not only the genesis of the trip [to Niger] is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report" which Wilson made upon his return from Africa. Rove "implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger," and in an apparent effort to discourage Cooper from taking the former ambassador's assertions seriously, gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Cooper recommended that his bureau chief assign a reporter to contact the CIA for further confirmation, and indicated that the tip should not be sourced to Rove or even to the White House. The Washington Post reported that the CIA, contradicting Rove, "maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999"[55], though she is reported to have suggested him for the 1999 trip[56].

Cooper testified before a grand jury on 13 July 2005, confirming that Rove was the source who told him Wilson's wife was an employee of the CIA.[57] In the 17 July 2005 Time magazine article detailing his grand jury testimony, Cooper wrote that Rove never used Plame's name nor indicated that she had covert status, although Rove did apparently convey that certain information relating to her was classified: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me."[58] Cooper also explained to the grand jury that the "double super secret background" under which Rove spoke to him was not an official White House or Time magazine security designation, but an allusion to the 1978 film Animal House, in which a college fraternity is placed under "double secret probation."[59]

On 13 August 2005 journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall. In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, from whose prior campaigns Rove had been paid $746,000 in consulting fees, had been briefed on the contents of at least one of Rove's interviews with the FBI - raising concerns of a conflict of interest with the not-yet-recused Attorney General. [60]

Rove email

In an email sent by Rove to top White House security official Stephen Hadley immediately after his discussion with Matt Cooper (obtained by the Associated Press and published on 15 July 2005), Rove claimed that he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations Wilson was making about faulty Iraq intelligence. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote to Hadley. "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." Rove made no mention to Hadley in the e-mail of having leaked Plame's CIA identity, nor of having revealed classified information to a reporter, nor of having told the reporter that certain sensitive information would soon be declassified.[61] Although Rove wrote to Hadley (and perhaps testified) that the initial subject of his conversation with Cooper was welfare reform and that Cooper turned the conversation to Wilson and the Niger mission, many months later Cooper disputed this suggestion in his grand jury testimony and subsequent statements: "I can't find any record of talking about [welfare reform] with him on July 11 [2003], and I don't recall doing so," Cooper said. [62][63]

White House/Republican reaction

From the beginning, the White House dismissed the allegation that Rove deliberately disclosed classified information as "totally ridiculous" and "simply not true."[64][65][66] The White House continued to publicly assert that no Bush administration officials were involved in the leak until after the Supreme Court decision of 2005, the subsequent release of internal Time Magazine email, and Time reporter Matt Cooper's decision to testify to the grand jury. The White House subsequently adopted "we do not comment on ongoing investigations" as their official position. Other Republicans have been more public on what they consider an unfair smearing of Karl Rove.

Denials: July 2003 — July 11, 2005

On September 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said "if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." He followed that remark with "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."[67]

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan explained that "appropriate action" meant "[i]f anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration,"[68] adding that Karl Rove had specifically assured McClellan that he was not involved, and that "the President expects his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics."

Mr. Bush, who repeatedly denied knowing the identity of the leaker, called the leak a "criminal action" for the first time on 6 October 2003, stating "[i]f anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker."[69][70] Speaking to a crowd of journalists the following day, Bush said "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."[71] On 8 October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that "no one has more of an interest in getting to the bottom of this than the White House does, than the President does."[72] On 10 October 2003, after the Justice Department began its formal investigation into the leak, McClellan specifically said that neither Rove nor two other officials whom he had personally questioned – Elliot Abrams, a national security aide, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff – were involved.[73]

On 10 June 2004, eight months after the formal outside investigation was begun and five months after the appointment of an Independent Counsel, President Bush was asked by a reporter, "Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? ... And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" The President responded, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."[74]

'If Someone Committed a Crime': July 11, 2005 onward

On 11 July 2005, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who had since become a grand jury witness himself, refused at a press conference to answer dozens of questions, repeatedly stating that the Bush Administration had made a decision not to comment on an "ongoing criminal investigation" involving White House staff.[75] McClellan declined to answer whether Rove had committed a crime. McClellan also declined to repeat prior categorical denials of Rove's involvement in the leak,[76] nor would he state whether Bush would honor his prior promise to fire individuals involved in the leak.[77][78][79] Although Democratic critics called for Rove's dismissal, or at the very least immediate suspension of Rove's security clearances and access to meetings in which classified material was under discussion, Rove remained working in the White House.

Neither Rove nor the President offered immediate public comment on the unfolding scandal.[80][81][82][83][84] Rove was vociferously defended by Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman and by many conservative news outlets and commentators, some of whom followed cues laid out in a "talking points" memo, circulated among Republicans on Capitol Hill, which questioned Joseph Wilson's credibility.[85] Among others, David Brooks, conservative New York Times editorialist and NPR commentator, attacked Wilson on 14 July 2005 by falsely alleging that Wilson had claimed Cheney sent him on the Niger mission, and that in speaking to Cooper, Rove was merely correcting a misconception about the Vice President's possible involvement.[86] In an even more extreme example of partisanship, the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal praised Rove on 13 July 2005 for leaking Plame's identity, referring to him as a "whistleblower."[87] Fox News's John Gibson said that even if Rove is not being truthful, he deserves a medal for leaking Plame's CIA identity because Joseph Wilson opposed the war and "Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody."[88][89]

After ignoring reporters' questions for more than a week, on 18 July 2005 Mr. Bush said "[i]f someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."[90][91]

Critics of Bush consider this to be an expansion of the criteria, i.e., that Mr. Bush now reserves the right to fire only in the event of an actual conviction, which clearly requires a higher standard of proof and would in any case take much longer. Supporters believe that this is consistent with the position President Bush has taken from the very beginning.

Others counter this view by relying on Bush's one previous mention of illegality, his September 30, 2003 remarks, to suggest that Bush has never meant anything other than that only a criminal conviction would prevent someone from working in the White House, though it seems exceedingly unlikely that any presidential administration would continue to employ someone while they were in prison.

Reactions of members of Congress

Ninety-one members of Congress from the Democratic Party signed a letter on July 15, 2005 calling for Rove to explain his role in the Plame affair, or to resign. Thirteen members of the House Judiciary Committee, all Democrats, have called for hearings on the matter. [92]

A Resolution of Inquiry has been offered by Rush Holt (D-NJ) and John Conyers (D-MI), requesting that the Bush Administration release all documents concerning the exposure of Plame's CIA identity.

Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Conyers (D-MI) have authorized the Library of Congress to research legal precedent for the impeachment of White House staffers. [93]

Twenty-six Democratic Senators, including seven members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have issued a public statement authored by Senator John Kerry, calling for Congressional hearings to investigate the Plame leak. [94]

As of 22 August 2005, none of the 306 Republican members of Congress had expressed public concern about Rove's continued role in the Bush Administration.

Opinion polls

A poll conducted by ABC News in mid-July 2005 revealed that 53% of respondents were following this story closely, and 47% were not following the matter closely. In the same poll, 47% believed the White House is not cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation, 28% had no opinion and 25% thought the White House was fully cooperating. [95] [96]

A CNN poll dated 22 July - 24 July found that 49% of respondents say Rove should resign, 31% said he should not, and 20% had no opinion. USAToday

A poll commissioned by Newsweek and published 8 August 2005 indicated 45% believed Rove "guilty of a serious offence", 15% "not guilty of a serious offence", who 37% who "don't know."[97]

Legal opinions

The unusual circumstances of this case led a number of media organizations to file a friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) brief on behalf of the journalists who were subpoenaed (Matthew Cooper, Judith Miller, and Time Inc.). In this brief, lawyers representing 36 media organizations, including ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, NBC News, Newsweek, and Reuters, argued to the court that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper." [98] Victoria Toensing, the principal author of the amicus brief, also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the Novak article.

Perhaps because Toensing's brief did not address issues relating to (possible) perjury and obstruction of justice charges, nor many other possible violations associated with the disclosure of classified information, many of these same news outlets continue to suggest the possibility that Rove may have violated the law. (The amicus brief predated the publication of internal Time email, as well as Cooper's own testimony and published account of Rove's role.) Although some reporters speculate that Rove's (future) legal defense might be built upon testimony that he was ignorant of Plame's protected status at the time he outed her as a CIA employee, most agree that if it could be proven that he had heard of her CIA covert status or knew material was classified when he spoke to journalists, Rove could face far more serious charges.

A New York Times story of 16 July 2005 suggested that the Independent Counsel grand jury has questioned whether a particular top secret State Department briefing which named Plame in connection to Wilson may have been the source of Rove's information.[99]. Colin Powell was photographed carrying the briefing during a visit to Africa, in the company of the President, in the days following the 6 July 2003 publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece. (According to Time, Powell received the briefing, dated 10 June 2003, nearly a month later on 7 July 2003.)

The Wall Street Journal reported on 19 July 2005 that the briefing "made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared."[100] Specifically, the briefing marked Valerie Wilson's name and CIA responsibilities as "snf", for "secret no foreign", meaning the information was so sensitive it could not be shared even with allied foreign security agencies such as Britain's MI6.[101]

Although some legal pundits felt that Rove was unlikely to have been in violation of the narrowly-worded Intelligence Identities And Protection Act — in fact, the CIA's original "crimes report" submitted to Fitzgerald apparently did not mention the Act[102]— many others argue that by compromising Valerie Plame's position, Rove may have broken one or more federal laws. According to John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist and former presidential counsel, Rove is likely to have violated Title 18, Section 641 of the United States Code, which prohibits the theft or conversion of government records for non-governmental use. [103] In 2003, this law was successfully used to convict John Randel, a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, for leaking to the London media a name of someone that he believed the DEA was not paying enough attention to in a money laundering investigation (Lord Ashcroft) . In a statement to Randel, United States District Court Judge Richard Story wrote, "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country." Having pled guilty, Randel's sentence was reduced from 500 years in a federal prison, to a year of imprisonment and three years of probation.

This may be seen by Bush's political opponents as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641. Whereas Randel leaked sensitive information about an individual whose name could be found in the DEA files, unlikely to affect the national security of the United States, it is argued that Rove may have leaked the identity of a CIA agent, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, at a time when the United States had gone to war based on the perceived threat from such weapons.

Fallout from the affair

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 debate over the damage caused by the leak, and the areas into which that damage may extend, particularly in relation to Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Legal filings by Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others.

While a preponderance of evidence to date appears to suggest that retaliation for Wilson's public contradiction of the Bush Administration claim (that Iraq had attempted to obtain enriched uranium) was the motive for the leak, another explanation holds that the leak was an attempt to sabotage an investigation into Saudi oil reserve (see peak oil).

Rove

Karl Christian Rove (born December 25, 1950 in Denver, Colorado) is an American political consultant, and U.S. President George W. Bush's senior advisor, chief political strategist, and deputy chief of staff in charge of policy.

Rove's election campaign clients include George W. Bush (2000 and 2004 U.S. president; 1994 Texas governor), George H. W. Bush (1992 U.S. president), John Ashcroft (1994 U.S. senate), William Clements, Jr. (1986 Texas governor), and Phil Gramm (1982 U.S. house).

advising many successful election campaigns for state and national offices. These include Republican George W. Bush's 1994 gubantorial race against incumbent Ann Richards, and both his presidential campaigns; Democrat Phil Gramm's 1981 bid

surprise win against Ann Richards in his

HW Bush 1980 campaign unsuccessful 1981 phil gramm 1986 clements repub. gubantorial victorious Ashcroft successful 1993 1992 h.w. bush pres. 1994 dubya bush gubantorial: successful against incumbent Ann Richards Dubya Bush 2000 and 2004 -- successful

Rove has been a frequent target of critics of the Bush administration, and is presently embroiled in controversy for possibly having revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to at least one reporter, allegedly in retaliation for her husband's criticisms of the administration.

Bread Story

The Bread & Puppet Theater is a regular participant in New York's Village Halloween Parade, noted for its use of giant puppets. Bread and Puppet was first invited to march in the parade by puppeteer and director Jeanne Fleming when she took over the event.

In 2001, Bread & Puppet did not march in the parade. The Theater's plans that year included a presentation protesting the war in Afghanistan. The Halloween parade was to occur fifty days after and 1.5 miles away from the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. It was this event which precipitated the war Bread & Theater was protesting, and the company's "anti-war stance" reportedly "...already placed it at odds with some New Yorkers," according to Dan Bacalzo of TheatreMania.com. Other macabre elements in the parade were also retired by Fleming, and the parade didn't receive a final go-ahead to take place until October 25.

Elbow commented, "We certainly weren't saying 'Hooray for the terrorists.' We were saying, 'Look what you're doing to the people of Afghanistan.'" An unattributed quote in that report — "What you're bringing, we don't want" — suggests it was the group's selection of material that was unwelcome, not the group itself; Fleming denies that they were "disinvited." Bacalzo's report did not make it clear how the decision was made, or who made it; the incident was included as secondary background material in a piece publicizing on upcoming B&P show.

Template for photo credits

Description: Subject
Year: [] or unknown, please add.
Photo credit: [photographer]
Download domain: www.blank.com
Download page: from: www.specificpage.com
Date of download: [date]
Permission granted by [name], [title] on [date] with [link].
Licensed under GFDL ver. 1.2
Used by permission.
License secured by: Wikipedian Paul Klenk via e-mail.

Suspicious Anon IPs

24.53.123.144 on Dirty Jobs
69.227.31.39 on Dirty Jobs
68.123.204.81 Imdaking admitted it is him, on Ryan's page, and used for "block warnings" on mine. Removing Chriss P.'s comments from Imdaking's page. Revision of photo following Unike edit on Prison Break page.

Use of television

The film makes continued use of actual television clips throughout. These clips are part of the ambient visual and audio background, presented as a natural occurrence of a television being on in the room where the scene is taking place. The clips were chosen by Dianne Schroeder, and are referenced in the film credits as "Special Television Effects."

These clips are an essential element of the film, and one of its signature features. They provide a window into the mind of Chance, who knows nothing of the world outside the old man's home except from what he's learned on television.

A time-capsule of American culture. Broad references to American culture, from television and newspapers, adult and children's programming, products and services in many commericials, chrono like Fuzzbuster and the now famous "You can call me Ray," Budweiser commercial, athletics, weather, serious and frivolous music,

The film's opening shows an orchestra playing a famous work. It starts somber, growing in melodic intensity, with Chance blankly looking on. It seems to be setting the tone of the movie. Chance is fixed by it, sitting on the edge of his bed and moving intensely forward and back to its rhythm. Then he suddenly loses interest and changes the channel, to a cartoon of a dog in a jalopy non sequitur.

"I hear you're going to stop being my Super Cop Clobberer!" "Anyone who tries to stop him has got to be totally stupid!" "Stupid?" "Hey, Mambly, come baaack!" "Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck."

Sometimes the clips provide a humorous or ironic comment on the scene in which they occur. An example where a commercial seems to parallel the scene takes place early in the film. It is morning, and Chance visits the old man's room. The old man is lying dead in his bed, face ashen, and clearly deceased, his body covered with bedclothes up to his chest. Chance gives him a look, and tenderly touches his forehead, then sits on the edge of the bed with him. As he watches the television, a Sealy mattress commercial plays, showing a beautiful, vibrant woman in a nightgown lying on a mattress. The pitchman tells the viewer they're going to "feel so good it shows." Then the jingle lady sings, "It's a Sealy... Posturepedic morning! Yeah!"

The love-making scene makes a more blatant parallel, in which the character deliberately parallels the behavior he is seeing.

They are also used for their humorous appeal, such as when

Orchestral program.
Commercial, more offices than anywhere in Virgina, people treat you so nice."
Captain Kangaroo, "There're lots of animals in the barnyard. Want to go with the rooster to see them?'
Scene from Jezebel, "Keep in the shade, Alvin." "Yes, ma 'am." "I won't have the horses standing in the sun. You hear me? Stay in your seat." "Yes, ma 'am."
News: "This morning, the President met in the Oval Office with foreign dignitaries and cultural exchange students from the Republic of China."
"The Price is Right" game show, "It's a new car!"
Sealy mattress commercial, "...feeling so good it shows. Because Posturepedic is designed in cooperation with leading orthopedic surgeons for no morning backache from sleeping on a too-soft mattress." "It's a Sealy Posturepedic morning!"
Sesame Street, "Friends? I have no friends." "Big Bird, we came to see you drive," with song, "Different People, Different Ways."
Lt. Mumbly cartoon, "I dare you to stop me in my Super Cop Clobberer." "Anybody who'd try to stop him has to be totally stupid." "Stupid? Hey, Mumbly, come back. And make it snappy."
Basketball Jones cartoon, "I've got more moves than Ex-Lax!"
Get Smart, "Tell me, were you very close to Max?" "Are you kidding? We were inseparable."
Fuzzbuster commercial, "You wouldn't think of driving without your rear-view mirror. And yet some people still drive without a fuzz buster."
Quaker State Motor Oil.
Gatorade commercial, "Ever see athletes on TV chuggin' this stuff down? Ever wonder why?"
Yoga exercise program.
Love-making scene from The Thomas Crown Affair," featuring Faye Dunaway and Steve McQueen.
Local TV news broadcast "...snow that fell over the whole weekend, and the blizzard is one of the worst, as you can see, one of the worst in that city's history."
Documentary about a wheel-chair bound man who gets his Masters degree.
Bud Light's , "You can call me Ray" commercial.

Clips are also included which were made especially for the film and not taken from actual programs, sush as Chance's appearance on the Gary Burns Show, and the president (Jack Warden) appearing on television.

Hidden text

Terms of the new theme

On September 15, Fleming decided to set a new parade theme. It was only four days after the two jet-powered birds, wings turned vertical, flew into the towers and burst into flames. Although no one knew whether the event would take place, she commissioned a new lead puppet from the workshop of Superior Concept Monsters, one of the many puppet groups that participate in the event. Designer Sophia Machihelles and the puppet makers began their work.

Fifty days ago, the towers still rose high into the air. New Yorkers had watched two planes tilt their wingspans and fly into them, bursting into flames. They watched thousands die in the epic collapse, their bodies pulverized in fire, ashes and smoke.

Today, they watched the Phoenix -- the mythical bird that builds its nest, ignites into flames and dies. From its fiery, smoking ashes, a new, young bird springs to life, spreads its wings and rise into the air.

Smoke

Organizers believed the parade would give the city a much-needed emotional release, reform the community, and help it to begin the healing process. They felt that this was the most positive way they, as artists, could serve the city at such a desperate time. "This is the meaning of the Dancing Skeletons that always lead the march: they know better than anyone what they have lost, and so they dance this one night of the year to celebrate life," Fleming told CNN in an interview.

The tragedy, only 1.5 miles from the parade, presented Fleming with a challenge as a "celebration designer" — find an appropriate way for the parade to acknowledge the reality of the fiery collapse and the deaths it caused, one that would bring people hope and a reason to celebrate. She had to communicate this through ideas associated with a physical object, one that could be realized as an animated puppet.

By September 15, four days after the planes flew into the towers and burst into flames, Fleming had scrapped her plans and chosen a new theme. Although no one knew whether the parade would take place, she commissioned a new lead puppet from the workshop of Superior Concept Monsters, one of the many puppet groups that participate in the event. Designer Sophia Machihelles and her team began their work.

It was not until October 25 that the final go-ahead was given for the march. In light of the widely established community relationships which Fleming had cultivated, and the parade's long tradition, Mayor Rudy Giuliani insisted the event go on. However, the Dancing Skeletons were retired that year. It was felt that not everyone would understand their mythic significance.

Audiences lined Sixth Avenue on October 31 as they had before, and looked south towards Lower Manhattan to watch the oncoming parade. As they waited for their first glimpse of the new lead puppet, they saw smoke in the distance, rising from the "pile." It was visible from the entire parade route, through a new gap in the skyline where the towers had appeared in every preceding parade.

Then "The Phoenix", the mythical bird that rises up out of its own ashes, came into view. Fleming's new theme took shape in a fragile, incandescent, red-orange baby bird. The animated creation was mechanically configured to spread its wings and rise out of fiery ashes, represented by flickering lanterns lifted on poles, encircling the parading figure. "It was the first chance many New Yorkers had for a joyous mass gathering post 911, and to say to ourselves and the world, that we are still alive and kicking," wrote resident Alec Bennett.

And so, the theme of "The Phoenix", the bird that rise up out of its own ashes, was selected. A new lead puppet was commissioned from the workshop of Superior Concept Monsters, one of the many puppet groups that participate in the event. Designer Sophia Machihelles fashioned an animated, incandescent, red-orange baby bird. The creation was mechanically configured to spread its wings and rise out of fiery ashes, represented by flickering lanterns lifted on poles, encircling the parading figure.

Smoke effects were provided, but not from the puppet team. As onlookers faced south towards Lower Manhattan to watch the oncoming parade, they saw smoke in the background — visible from the entire route. It was rising through a large gap in the skyline, from the pile, exactly where the towers had appeared in every preceding parade.

Puppet Groups

Superior Concept Puppets

Reviews

Ministry O Info great crowd photo

http://www.newyorkcool.com/archives/November2004/nystories_1.html

New York Cool unbelievable photos
Dummies.com: Deciding When to Go to New York
photoserver by Carnaval.com last year alone hosting 17 international television crews and countless print media. A telephone link-up with Japanese Radio the night of the Parade relays the Parade Director's command "Let the Celebration Begin!" "the Parade has been praised for the role it plays in controlling crime in the Lower Manhattan area on a night which is dangerous and costly in all other parts of the City which don't have the large and happy crowd that attends the Parade. There is less crime the night of the Parade than on a typical night in Greenwich Village the rest of the year round."
New York Times Slide Show great slide show

Other New York City Halloween Events

Halloween is a Scream in New York City

Sources

New York's Village Halloween Parade Official Site
CNN.com
[http://www.nyctourist.com/halloweenparade.htm/ NYCtourist.com, "new york's carnival"
The Village Voice
Superior Concept Monsters
VacationsMadeEasy.com celebrities and stars onslaught
HalloweenNews.com "The original concept of the Parade was that everyone would be a participant--there would be no spectators"
wrybread.com was the first chance many New Yorkers had for a joyous mass gathering post 911, and to say to ourselves and the world, that we are still alive and kicking
virtualtourist.com I always have a large party (80-100 guests) and this year I went as a Goth Shemale Flasher,, you can guess the details.
NewYorkCity.com "After the third year the Parade formed itself into a not-for-profit arts organization, discontinued its association with Theatre for the New City and produced the Parade on its own."
carnaval.com
[Masked Culture (Hardcover) 0231084005 Columbia University Press
New York's Upside-down Holiday, David Earle, Stephanie Fike, and Michael Galkoski, Fordham University
[nyu.edu
newyorkmetro.com contest, great info, great 1 photo, HERE arts center,
Village Voice, Float Fracas
NYU Livewire, 31st annual
NYU Livewire, Preparing for the parade
Gothamist.com, What to do on Halloween: No. 1 Pick Audrey II, Grand Marshall,
Parades and Politics, Gotham Gazette, Gail Robinson "A few years ago, state Senator Tom Duane and some Greenwich Village residents complained that the explosion of the Halloween parade, once a small neighborhood event and now an extravaganza, had given rise to public drunkenness and gay bashing."

Photo galleries

PhotoArts great photos
Zheng Martin more photos, some I used
Photo gallery, amateur
[ /]

Quotes

USA Today, A Year's Worth of New York: New Yorkers have elevated celebrating Halloween to an art form, and as in art, in the Greenwich Village Halloween parade absolutely anything goes. Stand along the Sixth Avenue route, from Spring Street to 21st Street, starting around 7 p.m. and be prepared to drop your jaw.
/Fodor's: Thousands of revelers, many in bizarre but brilliant costumes or manipulating huge puppets, march up 6th Avenue (from Spring to West 23rd streets) in the rowdy Greenwich Village Halloween Parade.
Frommers Halloween at its most outrageous. You may have heard Lou Reed singing about it on his classic album New York -- he wasn't exaggerating.
Improvised Growth, by Gregory Sandow "...Halloween is serious business in New York..."
Reason.com vagine, national tv

Ralph's Page
Omega

External links

Superior Concept Monsters Bread and Puppets Alex Smily Trvel puppet guy

Ralph Lee

Ralph Lee is an Obie-award-winning mask and puppet maker living in New York City. In 1973, he staged a wandering neighborhood puppet show in Manhatan's Greenwich Village that would become the inspiration for New York's Village Halloween Parade, which continues to this day, now attracting audiences of two million.

Lee is the Artistic Director of Mettawee River Theatre Company, an experimental theatrical company which uses masks and pageant sized puppets in its productions. The company has won two design awards from the American Theatre Wing for The Popol Vuh Project and Wichikapache Goes Walking.

Each year, his company presents a children's puppet production of The Little Engine That Could at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx. Lee also produces a Halloween production at The Cathedral of St. John the Divine featuring his puppets.

Lee was motivated in part by a decrease in the celebration of the holiday, especially by children. This drop was attributed to the city's high crime rate, and stories spreading about tampered candy. Lee believed a puppet parade would create a sense of safety and attract neighborhood children back into New York's streets on Halloween. The event is now a model for city crime prevention.

Theater for the New City

Theater for the New City is

In 1975, it adopted an informal wandering neighborhood puppet show, started in 1973 by mask and puppet maker Ralph Lee, and staged it as a formal march as part of its "City in the Streets" program. Eight years later the parade was attracting audiences of 100,000. Today the parade is a Halloween fixture in Greenwich Village, and attracts audiences of two millions.

Pita Dork

Discussion section. My comments will appear at the leftmost margin; your comments will appear with one indent, following the format of a continuous conversation.

You must be logged in as your user name during the discussion, but it is not necessary to sign your messages.

-- Paul

Superior Concept Monsters

Superior Concept Monsters is a producer and presenter of pageant puppetry and processional art in upstate New York. It was "born out of" New York's Village Halloween Parade, in which it is a regular participant. Its name is derived from the company's desire that the ideas, or "concepts" behind its monster puppets, are greater than, or "superior" to, the puppets themselves.

Its chief puppet designers, Alex Kahn and Sophia Michahelles, have received numerous awards for their work. Michahelles is the designer of the celebrated phoenix puppet presented in the 2001 Halloween parade as a response to the September 11, 2001 attack on New York.

Superior Concept Monsters presents workshops in pageant puppetry at the Omega Institute, and each year since 2002 it has hosted a puppetry workshop in Italy, in the Alpine village of Morinesio.

External links

Superior Concept Monsters

Sophia Michahelles

[[:Image:OpenMoth.jpg|thumb|A twenty-foot caterpillar puppet spreads its wings to became a Luna Moth in the 1998 Halloween parade in New York's Greenwich Village.|right]]

Sophia Michahelles is one of the two chief artists and puppeteers of Superior Concept Monsters, makers of pageant puppets and other processional art in upstate New York. She works closely with co-chief designer Alex Kahn. Their work is regularly featured in New York's Village Halloween Parade, the largest parade of its kind in the United States, and in festivals in the U.S. and worldwide.

Many of Michahelles' giant rod puppets, known as pageant sized puppets, are lit from the inside, making them suitable for night parades. They are operated, or "articulated," by teams of puppeteers. For the 1998 Halloween parade, Sophia, Alex and their team designed and created twenty-foot high caterpillar puppets which transformed into giant Luna Moths. In 2001, as a response to the attack on the World Trade Center, Michahelles designed an incandescent baby phoenix puppet for the New York parade. It was designed to spread its wings and rise out a fire, represented by lanterns lifted on poles.

Michahelles and Kahn often work in collaboration with other master puppeteers, such as Basil Twist, Jeanne Fleming, Debbie Lee Cohen and others.

She also presents workshops in pageant puppetry at the Omega Institute, and, since 2002, in Italy.

External links

Superior Concept Monsters

==

Parade sandbox

Talk sandbox

Click on this special message page if you are an admin, a heated debater, or a troublemaker.

Photo drive sandbox

GFDL Photo Drive For Wikipedia

GOAL: License a large number of new, high quality event photos into GFDL, based on the work of talented photographers, both both professionals and serious amateurs.

HIGH QUALITY: Beauty, composition, energy, color, human, story, high resolution, cropping, documenation.

SUBMISSIONS: Can license everything submitted, or submit and license desired selections. Summary submissions preferred.

DATA:

Photographer/copyright owner, if different.

Does Jeanne hold the copyright on everything?

INVITATION:

Ask help from Jeanne.
Consider getting license up front, ask what they sign, who is the owner, copyright, etc., and what they allow Jeanne to do.
Copyright in perpetuity, must be credited, link to site, still can sell the photos. Others can use it and sell it, must credit you, many make changes, your work in its original state is protected and so is you.

The event, all aspects:

People

Audience
Participant
Staff
Police
Marshalls
Media/Photographers
Children

Activity

Side street set up
Staging
Puppet line-up
Beginning
March
Interaction
Playing to the crowd
Leaving
Birthday
Travel
Police

Things

Costumes
Presentations
Acts
Puppet varieties
Floats
Barricades

Organizations

Creation

Yiddish sandbox

The schmendrik stands there and scratches his head wondering how this all came about, and the schlump doesn't care.

A shmendrick is small, short, weak, thin, a young *nebech*,

BigDaddy777 RfC Response

A well-meaning, partially successful, but extremely flawed RfC

A simple solution

A note to possible future arbitrators

The Failures of the RfC

Flaws in the RfC

Flaws in expectations by both side

ANALYSIS OF RFC DISPUTE RESOLUTION SECTION

EXAMPLES OF WELL-ARGUED POINTS BY BIGDADDY, AT LEAST IN PAUL'S OPINION

GENERAL ANALYSIS ABOUT THREADS INVOLVING BIGDADDY

SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF A THREAD INVOLVING BIGDADDY

Plame Summary

Plame Affair

Origins

Publication of the leak

Spreading the leak

CIA seeks special prosecutor from Department of Justice

Supreme Court decision, testimony of journalists

Allegations of illegal activities

Rove's role as Time leaker revealed

Rove email

White House/Republican reaction

Denials: July 2003 — July 11, 2005

'If Someone Committed a Crime': July 11, 2005 onward

Reactions of members of Congress

Opinion polls

Legal opinions

Fallout from the affair

Rove

Bread Story

Template for photo credits

Suspicious Anon IPs

Use of television

Hidden text

Categories

Terms of the new theme

Smoke

Puppet Groups

Reviews

Other New York City Halloween Events

Sources

Photo galleries

Quotes

External links

See also

Ralph Lee

Theater for the New City

Pita Dork

Superior Concept Monsters

See also

External links

Sophia Michahelles

See also

External links

==

Parade sandbox

Talk sandbox

Photo drive sandbox

Yiddish sandbox