John Gibson Rewrites History in 3 Minutes
In a cringe-inducing Orwellian moment, John Gibson conveniently rewrote history last night in a mere 180 seconds. According to Gibson's narrative, the motive behind the Plame outing was simple: Cheney and Libby were benignly trying to defend themselves against the factually inaccurate charge that they had initiated the CIA inquiry into Niger. In "fact," it was the all-powerful Valerie Plame who overrode senior CIA officials and demanded her husband be sent. Furthermore, it was all a carefully crafted conspiracy by the "anti-war activist" Wilsons and CIA "cabal" that was hellbent on "sabotaging" President Bush's carefully treaded march to war.
"So why would Cheney send an anti-war activist to investigate a key fact in the decision to go to war? Answer: He wouldn't. And the person who did was trying to sabotage the president.
"That is the real story behind this entire saga."
Got that? Cheney & Libby = Exonerated. CIA & The Wilsons = Guilty. Case closed. Note the hilarious on-screen graphics as the fairytale goes along. As a smart man once said: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts.
FOXNews.com has the historically updated transcript in case you can't bear to watch John Gibson propagandize.
So let me get this straight: Scooter Libby is going to jail for not remembering who he told what. He didn't lie, evidently. He didn't remember right, and that is a federal crime, of course, if you happen to be speaking to a FBI agent when your memory fails.
But at the same time, the same Justice Department has taken the case of a high government official who lied, who stole classified documents, who destroyed those documents, and he's walking around free as a bird. They won't even ask him to take a lie detector test to determine if he lied more than they already know.
People are saying the Libby trial is the key to the kingdom, that it stands for the trial of the entire administration and the war in Iraq.↓ Story continues below ↓
Here's what it was about: Does the vice president have the right to say, see that guy named Joe Wilson who is going around saying I sent him to Africa to investigate Saddam's nuke bombs? I didn't send him. His wife did.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Joe Wilson wrote a piece for The New York Times implying the vice president sent him on a mission to Africa and then ignored his advice. In the vice president's office the question was: Who is this guy? Why is he saying we sent him, and as a matter of fact who did?
Let me quote from an Associated Press report from the trial, dated January 24, 2007, when former CIA Iraq mission manager Robert L. Grenier appeared as a government witness in the trial of Libby. The report reads: Grenier testified he told Libby that the idea of sending ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger was the brainchild of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who worked in the CIA office that sent him in 2002.
Now, Libby was informed who sent Wilson to Africa. He certainly knew the vice president's office didn't because, well, because he would know. He was the V.P.'s chief of staff.
So the vice president and Libby wanted the press to know because they were getting pointed questions about why did you send this guy if you weren't going to pay attention to his report. And they found out that his wife had sent him. They wanted people to know. Problem was, she was a covert spook, at least technically.
So if you are the vice president or his assistant, can you out the spook if the spook is pulling strings behind your back to make you look bad? Evidently not.
Personally, I'm glad they did. There was a cabal inside the CIA working against the president's policy and they wanted to hide behind their secret status while they did what was essentially an anti-war political hitjob.
This is bad. It is the bad thing at the bottom of this whole episode. Valerie Plame knew what she was doing when she sent her husband. She knew he would never come back with an endorsement for the war. He says in his own book he didn't even believe in deposing Saddam back in the '91 war.
So why would Cheney send an anti-war activist to investigate a key fact in the decision to go to war? Answer: He wouldn't. And the person who did was trying to sabotage the president.
That is the real story behind this entire saga.
- Arthur Silber
- Down with tyranny
- Jay Rosen
- Rising Hegemon
- Taylor Marsh
- Sadly, No!
- AOL Hot Seat
- Average Bro
- Raw Story
- Southern Beale
- Juan Cole/Informed Comment
- The Political Carnival
- democratic underground
- echidne of the snakes
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- Raw Replay
- left coaster