[lugsoul]

The point is that she was covered. Novak's unnamed source notwithstanding, the official position of the CIA is that her employment by them is classified. It doesn't really matter what she did for them - what matters is whether anyone was supposed to know, and it is UNDISPUTED that we were not supposed to know she worked for the CIA, and it is UNDISPUTED that a "senior administration official" told Novak that she worked for the CIA - and, btw, did it in the context of pushing a story line that is contradicted by the CIA - that Plame got the gig for her husband. If Democrats had done this, you'd be screaming for their heads.

[mattdono]

Well, I have refrained from insulting you and I don't mean this to come off as an insult, but I really don't think you are making any sense anymore.

You are totally missing the point. No crime has been committed, by anyone (in the administration or at CIA) unless it violates ALL the aspects of the law (Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421). You have yet to address how what has happened NECESSARILY violates the law.

Rich Galen makes the 4 necessary aspects of violating the law very clearly in his column, The Sweet Mint Tea Pot Dome Scandal" (Galen's comments are in parantheses):

"According to the Washington Post, the following elements must exist:

• The disclosure must have been made by a government employee with access to classified information; (That's probably a go)
• The disclosure must have been intentional; (That's obviously a go)
• The person accused must have known the person identified was a covert agent; (That's not at all clear), and
• The person accused must have known "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." (Ah. Drat. There goes the case.)
  
  [Emphasis Added].

If Democrats had done this, you'd be screaming for their heads.

You are assuming something about me that you have absolutely no knowledge of. You have no idea what I would do if this occurred under a democrat administration. I know that I would be looking for facts, as I am in this case. I want to know what happened. From Mr. Novak's statements on how this all came about (at from his perspective), it appears that at this point this is simply a political ruse.

We will have to wait to see what the investigation reveals.

I'm willing to do so.

Why are you so willing to throw the administration official under the bus, accusing them of not only revealing the name, but knowing that she specifically was a covert agent, when in fact, according to Mr. Novak, this person wasn't a politico? If you don't believe Mr. Novak, please state that clearly and explain why you don't belive him (give actual reasons).