(Note: See his comments just this morning on Meet the Press, where he commented that this was well orchestrated. He even went through a seemingly logical sequence so he could imply Rove again, even after he spouted off out in Seattle and retracted his statements: "It was a political act. There is a political office in the White House. And, Karl Rove is the head of the policitical office"...or something to that effect).
A leak implies intention. I am still not so sure that intent was there on the part of the administration officials cited.
As well, I still have a specific problem with the word "administration". Everyone on the left implies that this means, explicitly, the White House. It simply doesn't. In fact, most journalists that have stories where a White House source would is included would prefer to include "a senior White House official" or "a top White House official", rather than the more generic "administration official". The fact that the probe is also going outside of the White House, I believe, reinforces that the "leak", at least in the context of the original Novak story didn't come from someone in the White House.
That a CIA official even confirmed her identity and didn't specifically request the name to be withheld, even though Mr. Novak has explained that he would have withheld if explained that there was a danger --a contention that seems to be at the heart of the real "concern" that so many demos supposedly have--, isn't not only curious, it is telling.
Let's suppose it was someone in the White House that "leaked" the information to Novak, why isn't the press playing up the CIA's tacit admission? Why isn't the CIA making as much a stink about that?
Because the focus of their story is on the White House. They want to somehow pin this to the President, or Karl Rove. They want Bush out of the White House. They want a demo in there, because over 90% are demos and vote for demos.
The reporting comes down to the love for scandal, especially (maybe even particularly) when the scent of scandal surrounds a Republican.
Your assertions towards the end of your post are not fully substantiated, as of yet. It was obviously revealed. It was revealed by an administration, though not necessarily a White House, official. It appears that she may have done, in the past, some undercover work (though that is still a little murky), but it seems that she may have been doing desk work at the time of this revelation.
As far as the front company business, I have heard reports of this, but I haven't seen a source identifying an official source (such as the CIA or DOJ) stating this is the case. (If you have an actual source, please cite it and link to it. I would like to read up on that, if, indeed, that is the case).
Even if all of this were true, it doesn't mean any laws were broken because the person revealing the identity must have 1) known the person was undercover and 2) that the CIA was actively trying to maintain that undercover status.
It doesn' appear to be the case here. And, if it is, the official at the CIA is just as culpable as the "administration" official. In fact, one might argue that the CIA official is even more cupable because 1) they specifically know the sensitivity of cover and 2) they could have done something about the publishing of that name if they had expressed the potential danger to Mrs. Wilson and/or any other CIA employees (as Mr. Novak indicated in a follow-up column and this morning on Meet the Press).
So, coming back to your original statement, this situation is the farthest thing from a conspiracy as some conservatives and nearly all liberals want to contend.
Was it a screw up by the administration official? Yes.
Could it have been on purpose by the administration officail? Possibly.
Is the whole situation a mess? Yes.
But, is there some organized effort going on inside the Bush White House with either the President or Karl Rove specifically seeking to damage the lives of those who disagree with them? Not at all.
Ironically, we had 8 years of an administration that openly was hostile to any opponent. Heck, even totally innocent people like Billy Dale who never did anything more than being in the way, had their lives ruined because of the ambitions of that White House.
As far as the misguided conservatives who are trying to contend that this situation is a massive conspiracy, they need to take a reality check and remember 1992-2000.