Of course not everyone agrees with Amb. Wilson's assessment of things. MSNBC's fTucker Carlson, whose father is an advisor to the Scooter Libby legal defense fund, thinks the whole thing is just "bullshit".
“CIA clearly didn’t really give a sh*t about keeping her identity secret if she’s going to work at f*cking Langley.” Carlson then added “I call bullsh*t on that, I don’t care what they say,”
Now first of all, Plame confirmed her status under oath. Second Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed it in his sentencing filings, specifically noting that Plame-Wilson was covered under the IIPA. If either of them were lying, it would have been -- Perjury. In additional you have the testimony of the CIA's point-man on Iraq, Robert Grenier who is one of the people who specifically told Libby about "Wilson's Wife" working at CIA - who specifically realized he may have made a grave error because...
Because I knew that person could be undercover. We were talking about DO (Directorate of Operations) the vast majority of whose employees are undercover.
The Directorate of Operations happens to be - at Langley.
Shutup fTucker.
Vyan
2 comments:
where is that tucker carlson quote from? is that really legitimate?
It's from Salon.com in an article where they try to claim, contrary to what Pat Fitzgerald and Judge Walton have established, Larry C. Johnson has stated and to what Valerie Plame-Wilson herself has already testified to before congress concerning her covert status.
They claim that the IIPA only applies to people working "in the field" ignoring the fact that not every agent is always deployed in the field all the time. Sometimes, between specific assignments they work at Langley - and the IIPA should still cover them because they might deployed in the field in the future. It's simply common sense, which in this case seems highly uncommon.
Vyan
Post a Comment