By now the movie version of the Valerie Plame book, Fair Game, has been so thoroughly debunked, as has the version of history that it purports to tell, that it hardly seems necessary to go back down this path again. But unfortunately it is. Because although the movie bombed at the box office, grossing less than $10 million in the U.S. since its release in November, its assault on the truth will continue as a DVD release, video-on-demand, premium cable and on network TV.
The movie stars Naomi Watts as Valerie Plame, former CIA operative, and left-wing activist Sean Penn as her husband Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador and central figure in a partially successful effort to rewrite history, that nearly brought down a President in the middle of a war.
The film was financed by Imagenation Abu Dhabi, owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) royal family, which has also financed other anti-American propaganda.
The three basic lies of the story they tell are these: 1) The Bush administration knowingly lied us into war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq by twisting evidence to make people believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was a threat to this country; and 2) when former ambassador Wilson blew the whistle on Bush and Cheney for doing so, they got back at him by outing his wife, a covert CIA agent; and 3) Scooter Libby led the White House effort to out Ms. Plame and discredit her husband, and then took the fall for the administration. Within these lies are a whole series of lies and misrepresentations and deliberate damage done to the reputations of a lot of people.
As someone who has explored this topic through an award-winning documentary, “Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope,” a series of articles, and public debates, I regret that this case regularly must be re-litigated. But it is. There are many fine examples of reporting, and commentary, that have brilliantly and effectively made the necessary arguments, but there is significant detail that requires further exposition, which I will attempt later in this report.
The movie was actually based on Ms. Wilson’s book, and Joe Wilson’s book, The Politics of Truth, and made with their cooperation. The New York Times, in its review of the film, acknowledges that the film does “not disguise its sympathies.” It says that “in 2002, [Plame] is given the assignment of investigating Saddam Hussein’s nuclear and biological weapons programs.” Calling the film terrifically entertaining, they write, “When she and her colleagues find extensive evidence that Iraq is not actively developing weapons of mass destruction, their conclusions are overridden by men from the office of the vice president, most notably I. Lewis Libby Jr., known as Scooter…”
The Times must know this is utter nonsense, but they go on.
“Dispatched to Niger, at Valerie’s suggestion, to check out allegations that Hussein had purchased large quantities of uranium, [Joe] finds nothing. When Mr. Bush, in his State of the Union address, contends that Iraq had indeed gone shopping for nuclear material in Africa, Joe tries to set the record straight and then publishes an Op-Ed article in The New York Times to make his case.
“You may remember what happens next. Valerie’s cover is blown, and Joe wages a noisy campaign to expose the culprits and to defend both of their reputations against an onslaught of spin, innuendo and attempted character assassination.”
That version is exactly what the Wilsons and the filmmakers want you to believe. However, it bears little resemblance to the truth.
In a column dated July 14, 2003, eight days after Wilson’s column had appeared in the Times, columnist Robert Novak identified Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative who had recommended her husband. The CIA spokesman had confirmed Plame’s identity for Novak.
This series of events, and a lot more that I don’t have room for here, led to the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who indicted one person, Scooter Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice. No one was indicted for leaking classified information, or outing a covert CIA agent, or any such crimes. Libby never should have been indicted, much less found guilty. Fitzgerald, who had a grudge against Libby from previous matters, knew from the start that it was Richard Armitage, a high ranking State Department official who had given Plame’s name to Novak. Both Armitage and Novak were known to be against going to war in Iraq.
Special kudos to the journalists who have stepped up on this story, and debunked The New York Times/Plame/Wilson version of events.
When this story was unfolding, Christopher Hitchens led the way in exposing evidence that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Byron York, who did great work during Scooter Libby’s trial, showed how flawed the witnesses were, along with the prosecution’s case. Cliff May has also done some great work on this story, particularly regarding Wilson’s trip to Niger.
As far as debunking the movie, “Fair Game,” three people have done excellent analysis. Quin Hillyer, writing for both The Washington Times and Spectator.Org; Stan Crock, the former Washington news editor and chief diplomatic correspondent for Business Week, and Jamie Weinstein, for The Daily Caller. Weinstein identifies four myths propagated by the film, and explains the truth behind each one. “MOVIE MYTH #1: Scooter Libby and other members of the Bush administration pressured CIA analysts into providing cherry-picked intelligence to justify the Iraq War.” This absolutely did not happen, as the bi-partisan Robb-Silberman Commission made clear.
“MOVIE MYTH #2: The intelligence community didn’t believe the aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were for its nuclear program.” Again, the Robb-Silberman Commission proves this false, too.
“MOVIE MYTH #3: The 16 words about uranium from Africa in Bush’s State of the Union speech were a lie, and it was well known to be a lie because of Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger.” Those words, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” have been confirmed on many occasions by the British. Wilson’s report to the CIA after his trip to Niger only confirmed this even more, rather than prove it was false.
“MOVIE MYTH #4: The revelation of Valerie Plame’s association with the CIA gravely harmed American intelligence efforts and cost lives.” This too is false, according to Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has solid contacts with the intelligence community.
Weinstein also interviewed the film’s director, Doug Liman, and exposed that Liman’s knowledge of the case was very thin, and that he hadn’t even read the relevant portions of the Robb-Silberman Report. Nor did Liman know that the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 actually supported Bush’s assertions that Saddam possessed WMD, including a nuclear weapons program. This, by the way, was something that Valerie Plame was well aware of.
Surprisingly, The Washington Post has been among Wilson’s harshest critics. In a December 3 editorial, they wrote, “‘Fair Game,’ based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions—not to mention outright inventions.” Among those it cites are the one about the 16 words in the State of the Union address, their 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,” said the Post editorial, “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.” They added that “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 couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
I wrote or co-wrote with Cliff Kincaid a series of articles during and after the Libby trial that showed he was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, and that Bush did a disservice to Libby and his own legacy by not having the courage of his conviction to pardon Libby rather than just commute his sentence.
What else shows the dishonesty of the film? In some cases, it is what was left out. For instance, there was no reference to George Tenet’s statement, released on July 11, between the release of Wilson’s column on July 6, 2003, and Novak’s on July 14 (though Novak’s column was actually in newsrooms on July 11, which could go a long way toward explaining how many news people became aware of Plame’s identity.)
In Tenet’s statement of July 11, he said, the “CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered,” and that “the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound.” He also said Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger supported the claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger. Tenet noted that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) “judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
As Stan Crock pointed out in his article for the World Affairs Journal, “Valerie Plame says in her memoir that she read the report that the CIA wrote immediately after debriefing Wilson on his trip and also read his column before it was published. She added that she thought the column was accurate. She said the report was only a few pages long. No one, let alone a professional intelligence officer, could have missed the part about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake. She had to know the column was wrong, but evidently said nothing. So she was anything but an innocent bystander as her husband created a political firestorm.”
Crock also wrote about a question and answer period at an advance screening of the film, at the AFI Theater in Silver Spring, MD, which I also attended. “Doug Liman insisted he was ‘diligent’ about fact-checking. He said he left out Armitage and made Libby the heavy ‘for efficiency of storytelling.’ After all, he said, ‘it all ultimately led back to Scooter Libby,’ who, Liman said, put Plame’s name in a memo Armitage saw. But this is simply not true: according to testimony at the trial, a State Department official, Carl Ford, wrote the memo. Libby had no hand in it.”
Crock wrote that “The entire thrust of Liman’s film, told from the Wilson/Plame point of view, is that the White House did something wrong, that it manipulated intelligence and then retaliated against Wilson by exposing a covert operative and endangering national security. But no one was ever charged with violating the law that makes it illegal to expose spies… As trial testimony showed, neither Libby nor anyone else knew Plame was covert. Most importantly, Libby was acquitted on the only charges that relate to leaking Plame’s CIA employment.”
Crock also debunks the underlying case against Libby: “Libby was charged with lying during the investigation about three phone calls with reporters… The prosecution claimed that in two of these calls, reporters Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time asked Libby about Plame’s CIA employment and that Libby confirmed it. Libby denied that he had confirmed her employment for them. Judge Reggie Walton and the jury found for Libby. The judge said there was no evidence to support the charge about Miller and threw it out midway through the case. The prosecution’s evidence of the Cooper leak was so feeble that the jury acquitted Libby on that charge.
“Libby’s conviction turned on his testimony about a phone call with NBC’s Tim Russert that occurred the day before the two calls with Miller and Cooper. Ironically, the prosecution charged that during the Russert conversation Wilson’s wife was not discussed.”
Actually, when Russert testified at the trial, he said that he had no recollection of whether he asked, or did not ask, Libby, in words or substance, anything about Valerie Plame. Russert was apparently just reasoning from what he recalled over a year later to have been his reaction when he saw Novak’s article. That rather thin gruel was the basis of Scooter Libby’s convictions.
In fact, the prosecution never showed any reason why Libby would intentionally lie about his conversation with Russert. By contrast, the defense proved that Libby had no such motive for several reasons, any one of which defeated the prosecution’s case. Notably, uncontested evidence proved that, right after talking to Russert, Libby heard from someone else that the press knew Plame worked at the CIA—one of several reasons why Libby had no motive to make up a story about Russert.
Indeed, the prosecution presented no hard evidence that Libby had lied. Instead, the prosecution asked the jury to infer that Libby had (with no motive) lied, based simply on the jury’s experience of the accuracy of memory. The defense had lined up some leading experts to testify that research shows that memory is much less accurate than people commonly think, and that Libby’s memory errors were fully consistent with common memory errors. But, as Crock shows, the judge—who apparently misunderstood memory himself—barred expert testimony and barred the kinds of evidence relevant to judging Libby’s memory.
Crock quotes one of America’s leading memory experts, Harvard Professor David Schacter, who reviewed the case and concluded: “As someone who has studied memory for a lifetime, I could not render a fair decision based on the evidence before the jury. I do not believe that they could, either.”
In short, Libby was convicted of a motiveless crime for which there was no direct evidence, only the jury’s unscientific inference of wrongdoing based on evidence that America’s leading memory expert describes as completely inadequate to a reasoned judgment. If Hollywood wanted to make a fair film about a great injustice, that would have been the place to start.•
By Roger Aronoff
Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs,
This issue was a real challenge. I covered the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby in early 2007, and wrote and co-wrote with Cliff Kincaid several articles and special reports. I felt then and still do to this day that Libby is a great patriot and an American hero, and in no way did he deserve to be prosecuted, much less convicted.
The basic facts of the case are that Libby was not the source for Robert Novak, the columnist who did first reveal the name of Valerie Plame, and that she worked for the CIA. The evidence was clear that Libby was not out telling reporters about her, but rather was trying to find out why her husband was sent to Niger in the first place. Wilson claimed to have been sent by the CIA at the behest of the Vice President’s office, but Libby, as chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, knew that wasn’t true, and set out to find the truth.
The truth is that Bush didn’t lie. The Robb-Silberman and the Senate Intelligence reports show that the Intelligence Community strongly believed that Saddam was in the process of building nuclear weapons, and that he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. George Tenet acknowledged that he vetted every word of Bush’s State of the Union Address, and Bush was believing and repeating what he was being told was a “slam dunk,” that Saddam Hussein was a threat for all of those reasons.
Plame knew that to the extent that Bush was wrong about WMD, it was because of assurances from the CIA, yet she approved her husband’s wrongful public charges that the President had lied. Appalling, really, given that there were soldiers in the field.
In addition, Plame clearly recommended her husband for this assignment, though they both denied that, until a document was released by the Senate Intelligence committee showing otherwise. And the aluminum tubes were also believed by the Intelligence Community to be for a centrifuge for making enriched uranium. There was doubt on that point from the Department of Energy, but the rest of the agencies involved believed it. And Valerie Plame believed it as well. Her agency, the CIA, had signed off on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The movie “Fair Game” brought all of these lies and distortions together, combined with Hollywood leftist Sean Penn, a man who has openly shown his affinity for people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and in the process they’ve played fast and loose with the truth, to lionize Plame and Wilson, and demonize Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush. You can view them however you want, but this leftist version of history should not be allowed to stand as the truth, and I’m proud to see so many journalists rise to the defense of the truth in this matter. This is a real cultural and political divide, but the weight of the evidence is so heavily against the Wilson-Plame-Penn version of history, which has been embraced by Chris Matthews and the gang at MSNBC. We will continue to send Hollywood a message. Don’t try to define our history.
Could these just be honest disagreements over the interpretation of various facts, as opposed to being lies on the part of the filmmakers, Plame and Wilson? At one point in the movie, a character marvels at Plame’s ability to lie. Plame explains, “You have to know why you’re lying.” Which is quite ironic. Why would Plame and Wilson lie about all this? They’ve certainly gotten wealthy from their books, speeches, and movie. They are the darlings of the far left for standing up to their government, who they say lied us into a misbegotten war.
For Accuracy in Media,
Times Helps Muslim Rep. Ellison Obstruct Terror Probe
By Cliff Kincaid
In an editorial titled “Homeland Blather,” The New York Times said that it agrees with Rep. Keith Ellison that it is “very scary” that the incoming chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, wants to investigate the “radicalization of the American Muslim community.” The editorial, however, failed to note that Ellison, “the nation’s first Muslim elected to the House,” comes from a district that includes young Muslims recruited to go to Somalia to participate in plots to kill Americans.
The problem of radicalization, as we pointed out in another column about Ellison’s resistance to the probe, has been examined by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The topic was addressed by Andrew Liepman, Deputy Director of Intelligence of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). “FBI Watching Somali Muslims In Minneapolis” was the headline over a CBS News story about the danger.
Investigations into this continuing problem are clearly warranted, especially in relation to the Muslim problem in Minneapolis—Ellison’s district. But perhaps Ellison, the newly elected co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fears being probed as well. After all, the radicalization of American Muslims is personified in his own transformation from radical leftist to advocate of Muslim causes.
In addition to being the first Muslim member of Congress, which is usually mentioned by the media, Ellison was an official of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), cited as a Communist Party front organization by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It remains the U.S. affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the old Soviet front. In that capacity, Ellison had been a vocal supporter—and attended a fundraiser for—Sara Jane Olson, a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), an off-shoot of the Weather Underground that is probably best known for kidnapping Patricia Hearst.
Olson served seven years in prison for involvement in the murder of a bank customer and the attempted murder of Los Angeles police officers by bombing their cars.
Before she was apprehended by law enforcement authorities, she had been hiding out in Minnesota. She was paroled in 2009 for crimes committed in California and returned to Minnesota. Seven years in prison for the crimes of murder and attempted murder strike most people as hardly enough, but Ellison considered Olson a fighter for social justice.
An Ellison speech on behalf of Olson, in which he called the terrorist a freedom fighter, has been eliminated from most websites, including one devoted to her legal defense, but a Minneapolis blogger who followed the case saved and posted it. One notices the lavish praise that Ellison bestows not only on Olson, also known as Katherine Soliah, but to Bernardine Dohrn, the former leader of the communist terrorist Weather Underground. Ellison also praised cop-killers Mumia Abu-Jamal, on death row in Pennsylvania, and Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), who escaped the U.S. and is now living under the protection of the Castro dictatorship.
As he campaigned to be the first Muslim member of Congress and then won the seat, the PowerLine blog and WorldNetDaily covered the story of Ellison’s radical transformation and ideology.
In an article for The Weekly Standard, entitled, “Louis Farrakhan’s First Congressman,” Scott Johnson of PowerLine blog examined Ellison’s radical record, including his involvement with the Nation of Islam, and how the local paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, tried to keep this information from the voters.
The New York Times did so as well. A Times story about his election to Congress highlighted praise from Muslims, including Al Jazeera, and only referred to his “past support” for Louis Farrakhan and the “radical group,” the Nation of Islam. It said nothing about his praise for the SLA terrorist and membership in the NLG.
Now we know why Rep. Ellison wants to obstruct a probe into radical Islam. But why would The New York Times want to conceal this information?•
Interview with Melanie Phillips on “World Turned Upside Down”
By Roger Aronoff
Has Western civilization now reached a point where it has stopped trying to survive? That is one of many questions raised by British journalist and author Melanie Phillips in her recent book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth, and Power. In an exclusive interview with Accuracy in Media, she was very critical of the role the media have played in creating this upside down world, as she sees it. She said that “The British media are worse than your American media. At least in America you have Fox News, you have talk radio, which can challenge the otherwise unchallenged worldview of the Left represented in organizations like CNN, ABC, and so on—and our BBC. But the fact is, most journalists are on the Left, and most journalists, I think, are acting as fifth columnists in the war against the West, a war waged both from within and from without.”
Melanie Phillips worked for a decade for the left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian, as a correspondent, editor and columnist, starting in 1977. From there she went to The Observer (which had been bought by The Guardian), The Sunday Times and later The Daily Mail, and has written several books along the way, including the widely acclaimed Londonistan. She also currently writes for The Spectator.
Among the issues most important to Ms. Phillips, are the breakdown of the family, the obsession with multiculturalism, the phenomenon of radical Islam coming into Britain and not being dealt with properly, and Israel, of which she is a passionate supporter.
She explained that she decided to write The World Turned Upside Down when she realized that the above-mentioned issues, and others such as how the war in Iraq was reported, had something in common: “They were all issues on which it was not possible, any longer, to have a proper discussion or debate; they were all issues on which the progressive side of politics took the view that it wasn’t simply that they believed that people who dissented from their point of view were wrong, they believed that they shouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.”
What these issues have in common, she concludes, is that “They were all linked by the fact that they were all ideologies—that is to say, they were all governed by ideologies such as a whole range of -isms: Feminism, anti-Americanism, environmentalism, anti-Zionism, moral and cultural relativism, and so on. And all these ideologies, because they’re ideologies, basically, they start with the belief that the idea is not only correct, but can’t be challenged, whatever that idea is, and then they force evidence to fit the idea.”
You can read the full transcript or listen to the interview here.