Yes,you should be concerned about that. By"in the government" I meant that she was a CIA operative hence "in the government" it doesn't matter who leaked the info. I just think "the government" should be able to explain what happened to the American public flat out. However they could'nt. Why?
When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
I repeat my question: If you are so concerned about a breech of security, why aren't you concerned about Joe Wilson's blabbing all over Washington that his wife was a CIA operative?