[DustyMoment]

#2 - It also disturbs me greatly that some folks on this board seem to be willing to forget their principles in the rush to defend Libby & Rove.

I don't care what the technicality of the narrow 1982 law says. I don't care if they broke the law or not. What they did was unethical at best.

Interesting how this and the remainder of your post goes on to try and convict Rove and Libby of "outing" without any concrete evidence to support it. You don't know any better than the rest of us if Rove and/or Libby really are the source for her being "outed". The fact is that the previous investigations into her "outing" keep leading back to Joe Wilson.

[lepton]

I don't care what the technicality of the narrow 1982 law says. I don't care if they broke the law or not. What they did was unethical at best.

(I know you didn't originally post this) What is purported to have been done was not unethical. Joe Wilson came forth of his own accord and publically and specifically lied about who sent him and why. The idea that this or any of the other secrecy laws were made in order to protect people from being accountable for public attacks is ridiculous. The comments were not retribution. The comments were correcting just one of many Wilson lies - lies which of course, were unethical both because they were lies, and because they should have been subject to nondisclosure.

Further, once he made himself a public figure, his wife would attract sufficient attention to make any cover meaningless - obviously she would be a U.S. agent with ties to the U.S. government, CIA or not. This going above and beyond the problems with just having married an ambassador.