Plamegate Revisited

[Admiral Yi]

Hollywood myth-making on Valerie Plame controversy

Friday, December 3, 2010; 8:54 PM

WE'RE NOT in the habit of writing movie reviews. But the recently released film "Fair Game" - which covers a poisonous Washington controversy during the war in Iraq - deserves some editorial page comment, if only because of what its promoters are saying about it. The protagonists portrayed in the movie, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV and former spy Valerie Plame, claim that it tells the true story of their battle with the Bush administration over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Ms. Plame's exposure as a CIA agent. "It's accurate," Ms. Plame told The Post. Said Mr. Wilson: "For people who have short memories or don't read, this is the only way they will remember that period."

We certainly hope that is not the case. In fact, "Fair Game," based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions - not to mention outright inventions. To start with the most sensational: The movie portrays Ms. Plame as having cultivated a group of Iraqi scientists and arranged for them to leave the country, and it suggests that once her cover was blown, the operation was aborted and the scientists were abandoned. This is simply false. In reality, as The Post's Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby reported, Ms. Plame did not work directly on the program, and it was not shut down because of her identification.


The movie portrays Mr. Wilson as a whistle-blower who debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger. In fact, an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee found that Mr. Wilson's reporting did not affect the intelligence community's view on the matter, and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush's statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.

"Fair Game" also resells the couple's story that Ms. Plame's exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy - but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative.

Hollywood has a habit of making movies about historical events without regard for the truth; "Fair Game" is just one more example. But the film's reception illustrates a more troubling trend of political debates in Washington in which established facts are willfully ignored. Mr. Wilson claimed that he had proved that Mr. Bush deliberately twisted the truth about Iraq, and he was eagerly embraced by those who insist the former president lied the country into a war. Though it was long ago established that Mr. Wilson himself was not telling the truth - not about his mission to Niger and not about his wife - the myth endures. We'll join the former president in hoping that future historians get it right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306298.html

This link showed up when I was googling the title of the movie.  I am completely blown away by the statements here.  I triple-checked to make sure this wasn't a Washington Times article.

Were the rest of you aware of all this?

[Tamas]

History is written by the victors.

[Viking]

History is written by the victors.

No longer, today history is written by the sore losers.

[Sheilbh]

Were the rest of you aware of all this?

Of what? 

The bits you bolded seem the least offensive.

[grumbler]

The Butler report conclusion that Bush's "sixteen words" were "well-founded" always cracks me up.  There was never any solid evidence that the Iraqis were trying to buy yellow cake from Niger.  The Brits thought that some rumors they heard on the topic were credible, but that's it.  Bush claiming that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was false.  The British "learned" nothing of the sort (though they suspected it), and the "significant quantities" phrase was an invention of the White House.

However, as the White House and everyone involved has admitted that the "sixteen words" were inaccurate and shouldn't have been in the SotU address, the issue of Bush's words is entirely moot.  Thus, so is whatever Joe Wilson says.

The outing of Plame is the more interesting part of the story, but I don't think we will ever hear the truth on that.

That Hollywood got it wrong and that people who have a vested interest in seeing the movie do well stretch the truth trying to hype it is unsurprising.  That the Post would do an editorial on it is surprising.  Generally, they save their ammo for issues worth editorializing about.  All I can say is "must be a slow news day."

[CountDeMoney]

All I can say is "must be a slow news day."

HEY NOW
It's Republican Primary day in Maryland! 

[Scipio]

All I can say is "must be a slow news day."

HEY NOW
It's Republican Primary day in Maryland! 

Are all three of them going to vote?

[CountDeMoney]

All I can say is "must be a slow news day."

HEY NOW
It's Republican Primary day in Maryland! 

Are all three of them going to vote?

I think one of them wanted Ron Paul, so he's staying home.

[The Minsky Moment]

In fact, an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee found that Mr. Wilson's reporting did not affect the intelligence community's view on the matter,

That is pretty accurate.  According to the report, prior to Wilson's debrief the intelligence community was skeptical of the Niger claims and sought further corroboration, and Wilson' trip and debrief did not change those views.  The CIA graded his information as "good", meaning that it added to their understanding of the issue.  Of course, information can be useful without altering the view.  The film does exaggerate Wilson's role, but actually IMO it gets this aspect right - it portrays the intelligence officers as having a skeptical view and that Wilson's information was another piece that fit that view.

and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush's statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.

Again this may be technically accurate as worded.  That is Britain may have believed at the time the Niger claim was well-founded.  But the according to the Senate intel committee report, the DCI's assessment on the British information was that it "lacked crucial details" and needed to be corroborated.  It also noted that the British information was contradicted by reporting from the US Embassy in Niamey.

"Fair Game" also resells the couple's story that Ms. Plame's exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy - but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative.

I don't get why ascribing the leak to the Deputy Secretary of State (a senior political appointee) as opposed to someone in the VPs office reflects well on the White House.

[Razgovory]

I remember when Hans was claiming that she wasn't even undercover.

But if an editorial without byline from two years ago is there, who am I to argue?

[Admiral Yi]

Of what? 

The bits you bolded seem the least offensive.

That Wilson did not debunk Bush's sixteen words.

[mongers]

The story was bunk from start to finish and the intelligence analysts knew it; there was never any serious prospect of a French state controlled company selling yellow cake to Saddam's Iraq.

[Admiral Yi]

The story was bunk from start to finish and the intelligence analysts knew it; there was never any serious prospect of a French state controlled company selling yellow cake to Saddam's Iraq.

You seem to be suggesting that someone told a story in which Iraq purchased yellowcake from Niger.

[mongers]

The story was bunk from start to finish and the intelligence analysts knew it; there was never any serious prospect of a French state controlled company selling yellow cake to Saddam's Iraq.

You seem to be suggesting that someone told a story in which Iraq purchased yellowcake from Niger.

No, they could just have 'phoned' up the french and they'd have said "no we've had no enquiry from Saddam Hussein's goverment or it's middlemen". I might even go so far as to say if some Iraq or mysterious individual or company had turned up or enquired about the possibility of buying several 100s tonnes of yellowcake, then the french might well have told their allies intelligence services about it. 

[grumbler]

No, they could just have 'phoned' up the french and they'd have said "no we've had no enquiry from Saddam Hussein's goverment or it's middlemen". I might even go so far as to say if some Iraq or mysterious individual or company had turned up or enquired about the possibility of buying several 100s tonnes of yellowcake, then the french might well have told their allies intelligence services about it. 

You've lost me.  What does this have to do with anything.  No one is arguing that the French were involved.