This question was generated by student Group F 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 F’s question received 15.74 total points (see breakdown of scores to the left); putting the group in fourth position in the question queue. 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.
3 Comments | 
85. March 5th, 2008 Nick wrote:
The question that our group (Group F) asked Karl Rove was basically how the American public can make an educated decision regarding who to believe when there are so many conflicting reports about what exactly Iran is doing in regards to it’s nuclear program. Rove seemed to be visibly annoyed at the question. His first response to our group was that we should go back and read the NIE report in its entirety, obviously assuming that we had not read the report. He claimed that the introduction to the report sounded different, and implied something different than what was in the entire report. He continued to say that the sources that we presented were not good enough evidence, even telling us that the Reuters report that we used was incorrect. He did not even seem to necessarily answer the question. He more than anything just defended the United States’ actions, and shot down multiple reports, rather than attempting to explain how the American public can decide which evidence is the most believable. Rove said that the Iranians are continuing to get material for a weapon and that they currently have the knowledge, designs, and plans to build a weapon. He even went so far as to say that the Iranians could be developing a nuclear weapon “relatively soon.” He also continued to call the Iranian president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, irrational and crazy, and said numerous times, “Ahmadinejad’s a nut, the guy’s a nut.” He said that Iran has been clear about their intention to build nuclear weapons, despite the fact that our research showed that they continue to maintain that their nuclear intentions are simply for the benefit of their country and their citizens. Rove also disagreed with our follow-up question, which referenced the story in the New York Times, which said that an Iranian opposition group is feeding the United States information about Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Rove seemed to speak like a stereotypical politician when answering our question. He danced around the actual question and did not really answer it. As for his stance that we should read the NIE report in its entirety, our group did that. The report says a number of things that support our question and go against Rove’s answer. For example, the report states that, “We assess with moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007…” Rove told us that the Iranians have been clear that they have been attempting to develop nuclear weapons, however the NIE seems to disagree. In fact, the closing remarks in the report seem to support our question and not Rove. There is a chart at the back of the report that assesses the NIE report of Iran in 2005 and reassesses it again in 2007. Maybe Rove was thinking that we read the 2005 report, because the 2007 report, among other things says that, “Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Iran halted its nuclear weapon program.”
Rove seems to just be plain wrong when he answered our question. It almost seems that Rove just did not want to provide a legitimate answer to us, and rather just dismissed the report, assuming that we would not actually double check what it read. The other thing I found interesting was that he seemed to just bypass certain parts of our video. For example, when we showed the clip of George W. Bush from his 2008 State of the Union address where Bush says that Iran must suspend it’s nuclear enrichment before negotiations begin, Rove seemed to almost forget about it, not commenting on it at all. He also did not explain why the Reuters report was wrong; instead he just claimed that it was wrong. He would have been more credible if he had explained why the report was incorrect. He also flat out told our group that the story in the New York Times was incorrect, and that we would be crazy to believe it. The Rove exercise was very beneficial to our class, but Rove did nothing to prove to me that he is anything other than someone who just dances around the questions, rather than giving straightforward answers.
88. March 5th, 2008 Alexander Gluhovsky wrote:
The question that Group F posed to Karl Rove focused on the discrepancies between what the United States government, the United States intelligence community and the Iranian government have been saying in regards to Iran’s nuclear program. In answering the question Karl Rove immediately went on the attack, questioning both the credibility of our research, as well as the credibility of our sources. First, he told us to read the National Intelligence Estimate in its entirety, because, according to him, the report’s introduction, which we utilized in our question, was not representative of the whole report. Furthermore, Rove said that the Reuters article, which discussed Iran’s advanced centrifuge testing, was inaccurate. Moreover, he said that Iran has the knowledge and the designs for creating a nuclear weapon and that as a result of their continued use of centrifuges they would be able to produce a nuclear weapon in the near future.
Our follow-up question discussed the United States’ reliance on the fabricated information provided by a CIA informant (Curveball- Rafid Ahmed Alwan) as the basis for their invasion of Iraq in 2003, versus the fact that the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations is saying that the evidence of Iran’s attempt at producing a nuclear weapons is being fabricated by an opposition group. Ultimately, we wanted Karl Rove to tell us why we shouldn’t give credence to Iranian ambassador’s claims, seeing as how we have relied upon information from an opposition group member (Curveball) before and wound up being wrong? Mr. Rove, however, found this question ludicrous and, basically, told me that if I trust the Iranian ambassador, then I am out of my mind (more or less). He then said that there is no question about Iran’s plans for their nuclear technology, the purpose of which, according to Karl Rove, is to create nuclear weapons, and that these intentions have always been clear. Furthermore, he said that Russia has offered Iran free fuel for their power plants, however Iran has said no. Finally, on numerous occasions Karl Rove said that “Ahmadinejad is a nut”, that he and his government are not letting a single inspector form the IAEA in, and that if we trust them “we’re kidding ourselves.”
First and foremost, I thought that Karl Rove’s response to our question was very rigid and it seemed as though his ultimate goal was to discredit us and to invalidate our research and our question. However, I believe, that this question is very valid and the research we did was accurate, on the other hand, it was actually, some of Mr. Rove’s responses, which were inaccurate. Initially, Karl Rove chose to question the applicability of the NIE report and whether or not we read the whole report, because according to him the beginning of the report does not reflect the report in its entirety. Well, I tend to disagree with that statement. The part of the report, which we chose to utilize, discussed the fact that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; however that is the only information provided by the NIE: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015” (NIE 2007). These are a just a few of the statements made in the NIE report, yet even these two statements refute Karl Rove’s statement that Iran has continued its enrichment program and has the capability of producing a nuclear weapon in the near future.
Furthermore, Mr. Rove said that the information provided by Reuters is inaccurate, the comical part of that, is that we utilized the Reuters article in order to support the idea that Iran is actually enriching uranium and may have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon in the future, which is exactly what Mr. Rove was trying to say. It seems that rather, than attacking our question, he should have actually listened to it first; instead he was calling the facts that support his own beliefs, inaccurate. When it comes to the Russian offer to supply Iran with free fuel, Mr. Rove was once again wrong. Initially Iran did say no to Russia, however, if Mr. Rove had been keeping up with the current news, he would have know that on January 20, 2008 the Associated Press reported that a “fourth Russian shipment of nuclear fuel arrived in Iran…” Ultimately, rather than actually answering our question, Karl Rove chose to attack its accuracy and claimed that our facts were wrong, however, it is some of his responses that ended up being wrong or inaccurate.
Having said all of that, I am in no way choosing sides; rather I am just trying to point out some of the discrepancies in Mr. Rove’s answer. Although, I do not feel that he really answered the key point of the question, he did, however, provide the class with a lot of insight into the issues facing our country and what he believes the proper plan of action should be. Ultimately, whether or not I agree with everything Mr. Rove had to say, I did enjoy the overall experience of interacting with him and getting to “pick his brain”.
References
NIE 2007
Curveball
Iran centrifuges
Russian nuclear fuel
95. March 6th, 2008 Jim Moore wrote:
I was a member of group “F”. Our group researched and presented a question to Karl Rove on the issue of Iran’s Nuclear Program. Within the first twenty seconds, Mr. Rove began to shake his head and disagree with the facts that we being presented to him. He began to speak about how wrong misguided our question was before the last segment of the video, when the actual question was presented to him.
I gained little to no knowledge on the issue of how one is supposed to trust the United States’ credibility because Mr. Rove did not come anywhere near the actual question that was presented to him. What he did do however, was give pretty much the standard sound bites concerning the situation with Iran. On the point of the NIE stating the Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, Rove suggested that we have misinterpreted that statement and that it actually says that they are building a weapon. In the same vein Rove moved on to say how all of the statements in the video defending the stance that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon were lies.
On top of that, Mr. Rove said that as time goes on, Iran is getting closer and closer to getting a weapon, and that if such weapon were produced, it would send the region into chaos. He also reiterated a stance from and earlier question that the country is not living up to its agreements from the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the follow up question, which presented more views that Iran is not pursing a nuclear weapon, Mr. Rove stated that the Iranians are not to be trusted. Not the UN ambassador and certainly not President Ahmadinejad. He finished up by presenting the notion that to believe anything contrary to the present United States position on Iran’s nuclear program would be a ludicrous endeavor.
This was certainly an interesting and unique experience. While I am not the biggest Karl Rove fan by any stretch of the imagination, no one can deny how talented the man is. In regards to my question, I was not intrigued. It was nothing new, I was hoping for something with a little more substance. I believed then as I still do that it was a well crafted presentation with a serious question. America has rushed into war on faulty intelligence before. Mr. Rove admitted that earlier in the program. Our question inquired what makes this time any different. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, right? As citizens we need to question and force this and any administration to prove it. Calling President Ahmadinejad a “nut” just doesn’t do it for me. I don’t think I am being that difficult.
Don’t get me wrong. I will always remember this experience. It was a pleasure to have a guest of the caliber of Karl Rove. In person, he does not seem as evil as he is played up to be. Then again, who does? As far as other questions are concerned I believe he did a decent job at taking on the challenges brought before him. He never lost his cool, not once. You have to respect that. This project was designed to be able to include as many people as possible in the discussion. Although Mr. Rove did not answer my question to the standards which I had expected him to, I feel accomplished. I feel that by posting this comment and broadcasting the question, I am letting the world in on the session. In the long run, how many people get this kind of opportunity? Not many. I hope that this sparks some serious discussion down the line, and at the end of the day I’ll be able to take a little bit of that credit. Let the debate begin.