This question was generated by student Group A in Cold War Rhetoric, an undergraduate course in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh. The question was played for Karl Rove during his visit to a special meeting of the class on March 3, 2008.
In the students’ peer evaluation using a standardized rating rubric, Group A’s question received 17.78 total points (see breakdown of scores to the left). For generating the top-rated question in the project, Group A won the chance to address Rove first. To read student reflections on the encounter, as well as commentary about the students’ follow-up questions and how Rove handled them, scroll down to comments.
6 Comments | 
71. March 5th, 2008 Melissa wrote:
In response to Group A’s question on whether the government can overextend its powers and go too far during times of war Karl Rove replied that yes, government can go too far. He stated that “assassination of heads of state is an example of the U.S. going too far.” He then proceeded to tell us that our government has strict limitations on how far it can go. The actions of administrative officials are reviewed constantly, even during the planning stages of any event. He said that we [presumably the public] would be surprised at how strictly the actions of a government organization are regulated. He emphasized that, unfortunately, our terrorist enemies do not have these limitations. He then went on to vividly describe one incident involving a terrorist who drove a van filled with children, to provide a cover, and explosives into a crowded marketplace. Leaving the van locked with the children inside, the terrorist walked away and detonated the bomb from afar. Rove also told of another occasion in which a woman with Down’s syndrome was chosen because of her disability and her gender to wear a bomb-filled vest. The terrorists, hiding at a distance, detonated the vest while she was wearing it in a crowded marketplace, killing her and many of those around her. In each of these cases, the terrorists were unharmed and eluded capture while many innocent victims died.
I thought that this was a typically political way to handle an unpleasant question. Rove did directly answer the question, stating that targeting heads of state for assassination would be going too far. However, he immediately proceeded to mention vague limits on governmental authority, and then he brought up another issue involving terrorism. In doing so, he shifted the focus to terrorists as a “wartime enemy,” and he deliberately used heinous examples to evoke sympathy from the audience. Furthermore, I found it curious that, throughout the question and answer session, Rove kept referring to high-profile government leaders with derogatory remarks. For example, he twice called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Islamic Republic of Iran, a “nut.” The second instance, he even gave a colorful anecdote which involved the way that Ahmadinejad referred to a speech he gave to the United Nations. It was an amusing story that lightened the mood, but it left me wondering who, when Rove said “government leader” the designation was meant to include. Apparently, he was referring to more than just the heads of state. Would religious leaders, such as ayatollahs in Iran who wield great power behind the scenes, qualify? Also, are there not some government leaders that deserve assassination, such as Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein? In other administrations, didn’t the U.S. actually have policies targeting some leaders such as these, and others like Fidel Castro? Rove’s answer called to mind many more questions which, unfortunately, we were unable to ask.
The one follow-up question that we did ask Rove was: since he stated that the government has boundaries on how far it can go, how does this affect our nation’s security? This appeared to be a question that he was prepared for and even particularly liked, as he talked at length on this topic. However, the message that I took away from his answer was basically the pat answer that, although terrorist organizations are something we should be fighting against, we should not live in fear of them.
Overall, I thought that this rare question and answer session was a valuable opportunity to gain insight into the outlook of the leadership in our own society, even if I was unconvinced of the correctness of the policies. Rove is a current, important, and influential force in determining the course of our country as established by the present administration. Our class was fortunate to have been able to interview him personally.
Further Reading:
U.S. Policy on assassinations
More on Karl Rove
83. March 5th, 2008 Ray wrote:
In response to Group A’s question, asking for a hypothetical situation in which the United States government could go too far suppressing the liberties of others, Karl Rove’s immediate reaction was to say that the assassination of a head of state would be an example of going too far. He stated that the United States uses self restraint when fighting a war, but our enemies do not. He cited examples in which extremists used women and children, some who have disabilities such as Down syndrome, to carry out acts of terror. Rove went on to say that our country is still not familiar with fighting an unconventional war in which the enemies do not wear uniforms and do not adhere to the Geneva Convention.
During the follow up question, Rove was asked how the self-imposed restraints impact national security. Rove responded, saying, “It means we better be damn good”. He then told a story about an exchange between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in which Putin warned Bush that there would be a large amount of civilian casualties in the then impending Iraq war. Rove said that this ended up not being the case because the United States takes collateral damage very seriously, unlike the extremists.
In my opinion, it would be naïve to think that the United States is not capable of assassinating a foreign leader. The U.S. government could orchestrate an assassination without ever having to take credit for it. Rove’s answer leaves the debate open for what someone has to do to be considered a head of state. Is an unrecognized leader of a country still considered head of state or does it depend of how the U.S. chooses to label them? For instance, on at least three different occasions, Rove referred to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as begin a “nut”. Now, one might infer from those comments that Rove does not consider Ahmedinejad a valid head of state. If this is so, would the United States be above organizing a coup to eliminate him? Rove took opportunities whenever possible to juxtapose the actions of the U.S. against that of the terrorist cells. This could very well have been a cop out answer. The logic is easy to follow, but it leaves more to be desired. It is hard to argue with the stance that America is morally superior to terrorists, but simply being better than terrorists is not much to feel proud of.
I would have liked to hear what we are doing to instill a new sense of morality into to situation in the Middle East. It is one thing to be better than a group of militant extremists, but it is quite another to make progress towards change. The clandestine tactics of the extremists could make any nation look superior by comparison. With that said, Karl Rove did an excellent job communicating his message to the students during the forum. It was easy to see how Rove acquired the reputation for being clever and well-spoken. I feel that having Rove as a guest speaker was a vital learning experience for any communication or rhetoric major in attendance.
89. March 5th, 2008 Mind wrote:
In response to group A’s question of how the United States could go too far in using “any means at [their] disposal” while waging the war on terror, Karl Rove said that assassinating heads of state would be an example of going too far. He went on to explain how the United States plays by a standard set of rule such as the Geneva Convention, while terrorists are rooted in “barbarism” and turn women and mentally challenged people into suicide bombers. His point was that the American public needs to understand that we are in a different fight than we are used to. Rove is indirectly stating that the United States is not nearly as bad as terrorists and thus has not gone too far at this point.
When asked what would be going too far for United States, he spoke mostly on how bad the terrorists are. He talked about how the terrorists use no restraint while the United States does. He also mentioned the elaborate methods that intelligence agencies use to check the legality of their actions. Rove was attempting to establish how the United States has used a great deal of constraint in the face of a lawless enemy. This includes the fact that Russian intelligence had indicated that the U.S. would have to carpet-bomb Iraq in order to win the war, but America had been careful enough to avoid such measures.
In response to a later question Rove said that the United States was probably justified in overthrowing Mohammed Mosaddeq, in 1953, because he was a bad actor who supported communism and the people experienced more freedoms afterwards. This sounded similar to the justifications for overthrowing Saddam Hussein in that he too was called a bad leader who suppressed freedoms of his own people.
There are two separate responses that I would like to make on Rove’s answers as well as the visit in general. In response to his answers, it is important to mention that Rove is essentially rewriting history with regards to Iran in 1953. Although it sounds good to say that the Iranian people experienced more freedom after Mosaddeq was run out of Iran, there are reports that contradict that statement. According to William A. Dorman and Mansour Farhang in their book titled The U.S. Press and Iran, “Mosaddeq was opposed by both the right wing … and the Tudeh party (Communist Party of Iran)” (32). Additionally, from the time that Mosaddeq had come to power his goals were to wrest control of oil exports from the British imperialists and to hold free parliamentary elections in Iran (Dorman and Farhang 33). This hardly paints Mosaddeq as a bad actor, however Rove characterized him as such, perhaps thinking that it should be true in the name of increasing freedom. In other words, in my opinion, the spread of freedom has become a catchall phrase for justifying just about any action.
Another interesting claim from Rove was his distinction between the terrorists who don’t play by the rules and America who is allegedly held in check by the adherence to various codes. In making this distinction Rove appeared to be trying to show the superiority of America and the justification for its actions in the war on terror. However, this claim conveniently ignores the recent failures by the United States government to follow the very codes he cites as justification for its superiority. I am referring to the Government’s actions at Guantanamo Bay Military Prison in which a letter to President Bush from dozens of international bar association states that “few governmental operations in democratic countries have shown such a profound disrespect to the rule of law.”
Gross errors of judgment such as Guantanamo as well as Abu Ghraib led former President Carter to claim that “we’ve said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we’ve said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused.”
This misrepresentation by Rove highlights my second point with regards to the class visit. Midway through the session Rove stopped a graduate student from filming segments of the talk claiming that, “we live in the YouTube era.” I would like to stop a moment and reflect on the broader political implications of this statement. It seems that in refusing to allow videotaping that may be uploaded to YouTube, Rove is admitting that what his statements are not accurate and may be contradictory to prior statements. Does this mean that politicians are protecting their right to tailor their rhetoric to the particular audience that happens to be in front of them? Does this imply that manipulation is simply a part of politics that we can’t eliminate? Lastly, if politicians refuse to allow a record of their statements, how are we as citizens to hold them accountable?
91. March 5th, 2008 none wrote:
On Monday March 3, 200 Karl Rove came to the University of Pittsburgh. Mr. Rove attended a closed interview session with the Rhetoric of the Cold War class, and was asked six questions prepared by six different student groups from the class. Karl Rove viewed the questions in class using a video recording produced on YouTube by each group, and answered them accordingly. According to what he knew and could release to the public.
Mr. Rove faced the question from group A, whether the government “can over extend its power and go too far during times of war?”. I believe Karl Rove answered the question truthfully and with enough information. Karl Rove replied yes, the United States government can on some occasions go too far. Rove followed his answer with stating that “assassination of a head of state is going too far”, that there are constraints on our actions in the US, unlike what our enemies have. Mr. Rove stated that we (the US) are used to rules of war, but are enemies don’t have rules of war. Karl Rove then proceeded to give an example of how our enemy operates with no rules. He explained that our enemy (terrorists) chose a woman with Down syndrome disease to wear a vest laced with a bomb. The enemy decided to choose this innocent woman, because she was a female and because she had the Down syndrome disability. The enemy off in the distance set the bomb off while the helpless woman was walking in a crowded area. Killing the woman as well as many innocent people that where in the area at that time. Rove stated that the US goes through terrific lengths to minimize collateral damage, and civilian casualties were as our enemy does not and murders innocent civilians.
I personally thought that Mr. Rove answered the question like the one mentioned above truthfully and efficiently, and with good examples. Karl Rove was compelling as well as persuasive. He was compelling by telling the class the incident with the terrorists killing civilians using a suicide bomber whom was incapable of knowing what she was doing because of a mental disability. His example helped me understand what our enemy is doing to prove a point. Which is no were near what the United States is doing. We are doing everything we can to prevent civilian casualties unlike the terrorists. When I heard that story it hit home that these people we are dealing with are heartless. His answer to me was very compelling. Karl Rove was also persuasive with his answer that yes, government can go too far. By stating “assassination of a head of state is going too far”. He was persuasive because he kept mentioning that the US has constraints as well as strict rules during war. He knows assassination of the head of states is too far but, he repeatedly said we have rules, and wouldn’t dare. If we did kill a head of state then that is over the edge.
In conclusion I feel that Rove did an okay job answering group A’s question, “Can the government over extend its power and go too far during times of war?. Rove to me was compelling as well as persuasive and answered truthfully and as best as he could, without releasing what can or cannot be told to the public.
93. March 5th, 2008 Kristen wrote:
In response to Group A’s question, Karl Rove immediately stated: “Assassination of heads of state is an example of the U.S. going too far.” Rove went on to recognize that there are constraints on our actions, unlike the enemy. He discussed how terrorists’ actions are barbarian at their core, citing an example of terrorists using children to cover up a car bomb that was taken into a market for an attack. Rove said that, as citizens of the United States, we are used to the rules of war and it is hard for us to wrap our minds around the way terrorists fight.
“Are we using restraint? You bet,” he said. He talked about how the United States worries about “collateral damage” or civilian casualties and that we go to great lengths to minimize it. That’s not true for our opponents. Rove went on to elaborate how lawyers review U.S. policies to ensure that they follow the rule of law. Because our enemy does not play by any rules and we do Rove said, “it means we better be damn good.”
I agree that is true - we better be damn good at fighting terrorism. But Rove’s answer did not convince me that the administration is using the kind of restraint I think is necessary. I understand that he is a civilian now and no longer part of the Bush administration but, until recently, he played a major role in formulating how we fight the war on terror. The truth is that I somewhat expected him to say that we would stop at no length to win, but my next guess was for him to play the “we won’t assassinate a head of state” card.
The truth is that of all things, prohibiting assassination of a head of state may be one of the most flexible laws in war that we have. The law we currently follow is actually Executive Order 12333 that was signed during the Reagan administration. Because it is an executive order, it can be changed at any time by the president: “Executive Order 12333 is not an effective legal obstacle to assassination, but rather is only a visible symbol of policy and a mechanism to ensure that the authority to initiate an assassination attempt resides with the President alone” (Canestro).
This flexibility can be seen in Rove’s words when he said we would not assassinate a head of state. The actual text of Executive Order 12333 states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Assassination by definition is “the killing of somebody, especially a political leader or other public figure, by a sudden violent attack.” Rove’s statement that we would not assassinate a head of state gives leeway to kill terrorist leaders, which in reality would be illegal under the current order.
In fact, we have indeed attempted assassination. The BBC reported on April 7, 2003 that “The US attempted to kill the Iraqi leader on the first night of the war, by bombing a compound in southern Baghdad where he was believed to be” (BBC). This is exactly what Rove said would be going too far. Even if he could rationalize the action by saying that at that point Hussein was already taken out of power, this action went against the current U.S. law. If we are to remain credible in the eyes of the world, we need to remain steadfast to our word. Although this law is not set in stone, we cannot choose to ignore it. If our government is going to act in this manner, then the president needs to take responsibility and take action to change the executive order to fit our policies. So, in response to Mr. Rove, maybe we have gone too far. Actions speak louder than words.
Works Cited
Canestaro, Nathan. “American Law and Policy on Asassinations of Foreign Leaders: The Practicality of Maintaining the Status Quo.” Boston College Law Review. Accessed 5 March 2008.
“Saddam Bunker ‘Almost Impenetrable.’” BBC News. Last updated: 7 April, 2003. Accessed 5 March 2008.
“Executive Order 12333.” Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration Federal Registrar. Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981, appear at 46 FR 59941, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 200, unless otherwise noted. Accessed 5 March 2008.
101. March 6th, 2008 Anonymous wrote:
The students of Cold War Rhetoric were given the rare opportunity to research and put forth questions to Karl Rove, the former advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff for President Bush on Monday March 3, 2008. During the hour-long session, Rove answered many questions, on topics such as negotiations with Iran and Iran’s nuclear program, the Bush Presidential Library, and NSC-68 and the war on terror.
The question pertaining to NSC-68 and the war on terror was constructed by group A, and was voted on by the class as the best overall question. Rove paid full attention to the recorded question, and when it was finished, answered the question without hesitation.
In response to if the US would or could overextend its powers and go too far, Rove stated, “The assassination of heads of state is an example of the US going to far.” As he continued, he elaborated that in the current state of combat with terrorism, the US has constraints, whereas their enemies can do whatever they please in an effort to cause disruption.
Rove described terrorism as barbarism at its core. He illustrated his point by saying as a western nation it is hard for us to understand how a group could recruit women with Down syndrome to strap bombs on them and remote detonate them in a crowded market from a safe distance. We have become accustomed to rules of war established by the Geneva Convention which forces US military forces to use restraint.
In Rove’s answer to Group A’s follow up question, which addressed self-imposed restraints impacting national security, he said that because of the restraints, “we better be damn good.” The United States uses restraint to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. Rove explained a situation prior to the invasion of Iraq in which Russian President Vladimir Putin felt sorry for what president Bush would have to do, in reference to Russian military reports that claimed the US would have to carpet bomb Iraq, which would kills hundreds of thousands. The US has shown restraint and has not done this.
My initial reaction to Rove’s answer was that he was firm in his belief that the assassination of heads of state would be going too far. He spoke with certainty, and did not waver from his word. The session started loosely, as he came in and told a story of working with Radio Free Europe, and how moving it was when cooks with babushkas baked a cake with the Statue of Liberty on it to celebrate the Radio Liberty anniversary, and if caught they would have been sent to Siberia.
As the questions began, Rove answered the questions and the follow up questions candidly. He even engaged in friendly banter between the groups as they transitioned to the next group. However, as the hour drew on he seemed to become increasingly ornery with the questions. As the fourth question was shown he asked a student with a digital camera if he was just taking photos, or if he was taking a video file. When the student admitted to taking video, Rove stated he didn’t agree to that, and that “We live in the YouTube era.”
Even as his attitude shifted Rove maintained a sharp focus on his speaking. He answered all questions, and referred students to read specific documents and books. His recommendation to read “Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright was made in response to the question by Group A. It details Al-Qaeda and 9/11. He also asked students to read Osama bin Laden’s writings, and remarked that bin Laden does not receive royalties for his writings, so we wouldn’t be supporting him or terrorism.
Overall, Karl Rove’s visit was unique, and certainly allowed students to get closer than ever imagined to a former deputy chief of staff to a president. It was an experience I will not soon forget, and despite his change in attitude midway through the hour, I appreciate the gesture he made by agreeing to speak to our class, he certainly had every right to decline and focus only on the event later that evening.