And if she *isn't* actually an operative, then all the CIA has to do is say "She doesn't work for us at all", and the story dies. All Valerie Plame herself has to say is "I don't work for the CIA". Because if she's not an agent, no laws have been broken. And if she's not involved in WMD analysis, then who cares?
What difference does it make to the CIA that some columnist has screwed up and outed a non operative?
The only reason that the CIA would care, and therefore would request an investigation into the matter, is that she was indeed an operative. An operative whose cover had been effectively blown whether they admitted or not.
Because the democrats have made it a national security issue.
If the answer is 'nope', then the investigation stops dead, and the CIA looks stupid by asking for an investigation into a matter that it *knows* has no basis in fact.
The only reason for the CIA to request an investigation is if Valerie Plame actually was an operative.
You are simply incorrect on the basis for which an investigation is requested. There are many reasons why the CIA would refer a case to the DOJ, and the potential (read that again...potential, not actual) revelation about an agent's status is just one of the reasons.
I just explained in post #87 and Bubba_Leroy (in post #85) has a link to an interview with former CIA Director James Woolsey who say:
WOOLSEY: No. I think that's normally what they'd do in an investigation. CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across.Please review my comments and the link to Director Woolsey's interview and reply accordingly.
And it's relatively routine thing. These leaks get investigated all the time. Occasionally somebody gets caught, but it's pretty rare. It's a lot rarer any directors of Central Intelligence would wish.