Talk:Valerie Plame

The whole thing is confusing, and the McClellan book doesn't help.

I don't understand why Fitzgerald would "investigate" the source of a leak if:

1. He knew it was Armitage before he launched his investigation
2. Plame was not covered by the Identities Act

What did President Bush hope to gain by having (letting?) Fitzgerald keep the "investigation" going for 3 years, when their was no crime to investigate and the leak source had already come forward? --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:36, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

In your second point, are you suggesting that Plame was not a covert agent and therefore not covered by the Identities Act? --Jareddr 09:45, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

On the first point, are you suggesting that Armitage was the only one who did any leaking?--Frey 21:55, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I am no more "suggesting" these points are true than you are "suggesting" they are false. What are you guys getting at? --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:22, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

I was asking if you were "suggesting" that not to indicate it was false, but to understand your reasoning. You said she wasn't covered because Robert Novak's column said she wasn't covered. But the column doesn't explain WHY she wasn't covered. Since I can't ask Novak, I was asking you. It seems she was a covert agent at the time of the leak, so I wanted to understand what qualification wasn't met for her to be protected. Rather than take a defensive posture and assume we have ulterior motives, perhaps you can expound on the qualifications for coverage by the Identities Act? --Jareddr 11:33, 3 June 2008 (EDT)