I don't believe it. I'm just trying to understand the dynamics that indicate why Fitz didn't "check up" on "covert or not" as a first matter, and think that the general tenor of being appointed, etc. plays into that.
I also say that Fitz has motive to not be fingered as a leaker, based on President Bush's public expressions that he considered the leak to be a serious matter.
When the DEMs howled about the word "operative", Bush's staff ran for the bunkers. They have horrible, almost debilitating PR skills.
Maybe somebody wanted to throw Libby under the bus - although there is no evidence to support that. I don't know the players, but my guess is that Libby was acting on his own judgment when (if) he decided to lead the investigation away from his factual knowledge that Plame worked at the CIA. Note that I am carefully using the same phrase that is in the indictment "worked at the CIA." Not "covert," or "calssified" or some other hocus pocus phrase. Just "worked at the CIA." Did Libby know that, for a fact? That's one aspect of the decision the jury will face, if the case goes all the way to trial.
Whatever happens, it will not get much more press until the rules are set and the jury selection is in process.