[Cowboy Bob]

Wilson himself said on CNN this afternoon that she was NOT an operative at the time Novak wrote his column.

Didn't watch CNN today (usually don't!), but on Fox, there still seemed to be some confusion about what job she actually held at the CIA. It is clear, however, that she hasn't been stationed outside the US since 1997, so there was no violation the law - no matter what job she had.

[Howlin]

Doesn't much matter what Fox says; her husband admitted she wasn't undercover at the time Novak published his column.

[vollmond]

It is clear, however, that she hasn't been stationed outside the US since 1997, so there was no violation the law - no matter what job she had.

In 2003, sure, so it looks like Rove is in the clear. But depending on the timeline, 2002 is within the five year window so there could be a number of people in trouble if this information was being passed around a year earlier while Wilson was shopping his story around the MSM.

I'm starting to think it was no coincidence that this story exploded in 2003 - it put it safely outside the 5 year limit. But if it can be proven that plans to launch this attack took place a year earlier, then anyone involved could be looking at violations of the covert operative law as well as criminal conspiracy.