They never learn:

It was all from Wilson’s perspective: Plame was exposed; it was done to exact revenge on Wilson, an honest whistle-blower; her career is over as a result; serious national security damage has taken place...

It obviously wasn't just Rather and Mapes.

So who exactly stood to benefit from the alleged outing of Valerie Plame, other than Joe Wilson and the DNC?

The CIA, which has been attempting to override White House policy since 2001 and ran a war of leaks in '04.

Amazing that the Left doesn't seem to have a problem with renegade spooks attempting a coup. Guess that insubordination and treason is okay when the President is a Republican.

So...why WAS an important mission handed to a doofus with no prior intelligence experience, who was then sent off without being made to sign a standard nondisclosure form?

Rand - I generally agree with you, but not today. Whether or not Joe Wilson's report from Niger was valid or not (probably not), exposing secret agents is wrong. Especially if, in the process, you blow a CIA front company, that could have had other people using it. Randomly blowing cover on covert agents in the 1970s is what ruined the CIA's human intelligence capabilities.

What the White House should have done was blast Wilson for doing a lousy job of investigating the Niger connection, not for being sent on the mission by his wife.

Chris--that'd certainly be true, if we were talking about, you know, secret agents. But Plame no longer fit the description of an undercover agent; and from what I have read, it was an open secret in the DC world already that she worked for the CIA. (Not that that justifies outing her, mind, but you could make an analogy to trademark law, where not protecting your trademark can cause you to lose it.)

But Plame no longer fit the description of an undercover agent; and from what I have read, it was an open secret in the DC world already that she worked for the CIA.

So why didn't Libby just say that to the gand jury?

So why didn't Libby just say that to the gand jury?

Because you tell a grand jury as little as possible, and only facts related to the trial in question - otherwise the opposing lawyer finds something to charge you with. There is always something you can be charged with!

Moreover, while it may not be immorral to out an agent that has already blown their own cover - it still might be illegal.

But Plame no longer fit the description of an undercover agent; and from what I have read, it was an open secret in the DC world already that she worked for the CIA.

There's a difference between being an "open secret" and that secret appearing in a high profile news story. Further, the Novak story reveals other information about the decision making process at the CIA (which may or may not also be secret information).

My take however is that this appears to have mild reprecussions for the US (not that we'd hear differently if it did), but it still indicates a serious lack of judgement on the part of the official or officials who leaked this. I think pursuing criminal charges are worthwhile under these circumstances.

Scoreboard:

Mark Felt announces it was he who violated the law, while 2nd in command at the FBI, by leaking Grand Jury information to the press. He makes the announcement as a plea bargain, not to prevent jail time but to solicit money.

Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, steals top-secret classified documents from the National Archive and then destroys information that could be important to an ongoing war and investigation into a crime of homicide against thousands of US citizens. Although originally professing innocence, he pleads guilty when confronted with hard proof. He gets a fine and loss of security clearance during a time when he really shouldn't have had it anyway.

Valerie Plame, a non-covert civil servant analyst within the CIA, selects her own husband, who lacks expertise, to perform an investigation for national security to determine the validity of a significant threat to the US. She fails to get her husband to sign a simple NDA. She is declared a victim.

Joe Wilson takes a boondoggle to Niger thanks to his wife's pull in the CIA. He is there to prove that Iraq never tried to obtain Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger, but instead finds that they indeed did. He writes a formal report to the CIA reporting that a real national security threat exists, yet then procedes to both leak his activities and lie about the conclusions to the press via an Op-Ed report in the New York Times. The reason is to discredit the President of the United States, who made a claim based partly on the official report submitted by Joe Wilson. He is called a "whistle blower".

Scooter Libby lies to a Grand Jury about having told a reporter that "he too had heard rumors that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent". He is to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I admit, Democrats know how to run the courts...

I admit, Democrats know how to run the courts...

If this were true, the Supreme Court would have given Florida to Al Gore in 2000.

= = =

If Libby, et. al. had simply told the truth about Plame back in 2003 some lefties would have gotten their knickers in a knot and the story would be dead and gone by now.

But today, the prosecutor (who is slamming both a Dem governor & a former GOP governor in Illinois) will hold serious prison time over Libby's head seeking testimony against higher-ups.

Fitzgerald also has Judith Miller in his target sights ever since she tipped off a Chicago area Muslim charity the night before an FBI raid. Seems the paper shredders were running all night on that case. Fitzgerald has great credentials in the prosecution of Islamic "sham charity" front organizations.

The Florida Supreme Court did side with Al Gore while ignoring both Federal and State law. If the law of the land mattered, the 2000 Florida election would have ended with the 2nd recount. Yet, the courts gave Al Gore several recounts, and the Florida Supreme Court was willing to allow him to have recounts in precincts were the votes were already certified and accepted by the candidate. Sadly nearly half of the US Supreme Court found no issue with this. So I stand by my comment.

Rick - here's the real test. If the chief of staff to Al Gore had leaked the name of a CIA operative who disagreed with him, would you be singing the same tune?

Chris: You mean, Al "No controlling legal interest" Gore, who thought that recieving $15,000 checks from Bhuddist monks was normal and unexceptional?

Who was Johnny Huang again, and where exactly did he get all of that money?

And if you didn't notice, Scooter was NOT prosecuted for "revealing Valerie Palme's secret identity" (Joe Wilson is the one who should be prosecuted for that). He was prosecuted for allegedly lying to the grand jury. Fitzgerald deliberately and clearly stated that the charges against Scooter had NO bearing on Valerie Palme.

For the record - I am and have been a supporter of the war, and I do not think that Joe Wilson did a good job in his "investigation."

However, discrediting the investigation by exposing a CIA agent was wrong - period. There were enough substantive issues with what Wilson did to discredit him.

My second problem is this - to win elections, one needs to convince people who are not partisans of one side or another. You can't do that without credibility. And you get loose credibility if you run around saying "everything my opponent does is criminal" but if you get caught doing the same thing you say it's "overzealous prosecutors."

There are people who think moral consistency matters - they are called independents, and it really helps to have a few of them on your side come the first Tuesday in November.

ROFL, moral consistency!!!

If you want to be morally consistent, drop the term CIA Agent and instead use "Civil Servant". Also drop Joe Wilson and use the term "Spouse".

A civil servant sent her spouse on a government financed trip to conduct a formal investigation on a classified subject matter. The spouse then returns and sells his findings to a newspaper. He puts the money from the sell in his and his wife's checking account.

The response to this is to grant the civil servant undue immunity from exposure and then denounce anyone who points out any ethical issues?

Your idea of moral consistency sucks.