It's my understanding that she is in covert operations. The guestion, however, seems to be whether Novak outed her or whether it was done by her husband or someone else in response to the article. Novak said she worked for the CIA. He probably would not have published her name if the CIA press person had asked him not to and gave him a reason (i.e, she's in covert ops.
My information is that she's an analyst, not an agent. Further I've been led to believe that she was placed in the job by the Clintonistas to spin for them. On top of that her husband is a Clinton security advisor who has been very critical of Bush for some time, with no investigative experience. I find it incredible that he was selected to conduct this so called investigation. Now that's a scandal that needs to be checked out.
Back to the point, she's D.I., not D.O. If we're basing our judgement on whether or not she was officially a "spy" as to whether or not a law was broken (which is the argument being floated by the dims, and what the law is about) then no law was broken. We have to be careful, though.
My wifes uncle, who did work overseas under a "cover" job, was outed as a CIA agent in Philip Agees book. He could no longer work overseas and returned to Langley. He had been working as the agency crypie in several embassies (his favorite? Switzerland - his least favorite? at least the one he'd talk about, was Beirut).
His "legend" was that he worked as a crypie for the Pentagon, not CIA. Great cover, wasn't it? Anyway, exposing his identity endangered his life. How much more than his so called cover, I don't know, but he wasn't able to work overseas anymore.
He took early retirement sometime later and then went right back to doing the same job at CIA as an EDS contractor. He decided to really retire when they decided to switch to Notes. He wasn't going to go through another learning curve (g).
again, the reason I bring up the story is that he did work overseas and had a cover legend, even if he wasn't a "spy." It's conceivable the same was true of her, in which case you could clearly argue that the law was broken. But my info is that it's not the case. This is the important fact that reporters should be digging for. So far Bush's enemies in the press are taking the dim spin without question. Those less hostile to Bush are tentatively raising questions, but still not demanding the actual facts, from CIA or the dims pushing this.
My biggest concern is that she or her husband will turn up dead, like the "arms expert" used by the BBC for their "sexed up report" charges. If this story starts to fade look for some arkancide.