The Plame leak is in itself evidence of how Bush administration officials failed to apprehend the most basic operations of intelligence. “I’ve talked with a number of people who knew [Valerie Plame Wilson] and worked with her,” said Burton Hersh, the author of The Old Boys, the groundbreaking study of the C.I.A.’s Cold War career. “And the whole idea that she [or] her undercover status was not that important is ridiculous. She was key to the effort to contain nuclear proliferation in the Third World. Once she’s taken out, her whole network of people can be exposed. That shows you a disconnect across the board. This was a network trying to keep jihadists from acquiring nuclear weapons …. You know, it’s hard enough to keep these people undercover. To lift that cover for short-term political advantage—that’s indefensible. And to punish Joe Wilson like this—it’s suicidal.”

- more here

Not exactly. The issue is whether Plame was covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act at the time of the disclosure. Which, roughly speaking, means that she had to have served overseas under cover within, IIRC, the past five years and the CIA was still taking affirmative measures to protect her cover. (There are other important issues involving the IIPA that could still get Rove-Libby off on what Sen Hutchinson would probably call "technicalities".)

But more relevant is the process that led DoJ to undertake the investigation. First, the CIA legal office (OGC) had to send a "referral" to DoJ saying that there had been a possible violation of the IIPA and providing specifics -- the first of which would be to demonstrate that Ms. Plame was covered by the IIPA. DoJ then examined the referral and, if it had questions about any part of it, would have gone back to the CIA for clarification. Again, Ms. Plame's IIPA status would have been the first thing they nailed down before proceeding further: You don't start an expensive grand jury investigation into a bank robbery if there isn't significant going-in evidence a bank has been robbed.

Note that CIA makes a few dozen referrals to DoJ each year and DoJ almost never decides to follow through with a grand jury. So it would seem that DoJ thought the initial evidence of a IIPA violation in the Plame case was pretty solid.

Your defense of this crime is like defending a car thief by saying that the keys were left in the ignition so stealing the car was not really stealing.

If her status as a covert CIA agent was known by unauthorized people before the Novak article how does that excuses government officials from broadcasting that information even further?

As long as her official status remained covert, no one with clearance was authorized to confirm, or otherwise disclose her true employment information, right? She had an official cover that should have been defended by government officials regardless of whatever rumors the public my have believed.

And isn't that the crime? Not so much that you are now also aware of it, but that white house officials, presumably with top secret clearance, gave information regarding the true employment status of Plame to Novak, and others, that Novak then told you.

That is my point. Obviously it does for "human beings," look around you.

All think links I've followed so far descended down to nothing, or were "partial evidence" in the first place.

But sure, I can look at this in a rational and non-partison way. Give me your link.

The “Plame was not covert” lie is just a lie to cover a lie, to cover a lie, to cover …

Just one problem: at the time of Novak's column -- and for some years before, according to news reports that the "D" tribe seems to have overlooked -- Valerie Plame wasn't covert. Prosecuting anyone for "outing" Plame in conjunction with Wilson's Niger trip makes about as much sense, legally, as prosecuting them for treason in connection to the Niger trip. Which you may have noticed some people in the "D" tribe believe can and should happen.

But I guess tribalism justifies labelling a fact as a lie, eh Odo?

I think Clinton did us a great disservice by making lies the public coin of politics, but it doesn't look like this administration reversed course. It looks like they used the same coin to start a war.

The "Plame was not covert" lie is just a lie to cover a lie, to cover a lie, to cover ...

And James:

The Novak-Plame-Rove-Libby case has been dragging on for years now and is there have been so many twists and turns and so much idle conjecture that I do not have a clear picture in my mind of what happened.

Precisely why the Democrats ahve been pushing for htis as long as they have. THe facts are not what's driving the issue. They're hoping that if the people hear about it long enough, they'll simply assume guilt.

There seems to be serious doubt as to whether the original issue in question--the "outing" of a covert agent--in fact took place, in that Plame may no longer have been covert.

Doubtfull to who?

Valerie Plame had no doubt about her covert status. She kept her true employment secret from her mother, her best friends and all casual acquaintences.

The CIA had no doubt about her covert status as they referred the outing to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

I was thinking about tribalism this morning, with respect to how easily people of both parties accepted the idea that we must go to war in Iraq II. I was a stubborn outsider Republican, who argued against it, but the vast majority of the people I met (Democrat and Republican) were on board.

Modern spin aside, I think the core issue is our human nature. "Our tribe right-or-wrong" absolutely must have evolutionary survival potential. If you stick with the tribe, even when they are wrong, you more likely to survive than if you branch out on your own.

Sen. Hutchinson's rationalization is just a microcosm of the tribalism that greased the rails on this war.