So the fact that it was mere gossip makes it ok to engage in a National Secrutity leak...?

The reason it took so long for this "explanation" to be leaked to the press is that Rove was caught up in a big internal debate with himself over whether to use this one or "the Devil made me do it" explanation. "The Devil made me do it" came in a close second.

goes to prove that it's not the crime, it's the coverup that's gonna git ya.
we don't know what Fitzgerald has, but the mere fact that this investigation has gone on this long is indicative that he has something on these people. Conspiracy, perjury and obstruction of justice indictments all seem likely, although the brass ring of violating the Intel Identities act is worth reaching for, in the case of Rove.
the Times piece today seeks to take some of the heat off Rove, but I think instead it actually makes things worse for him by allowing the reader (who knows his omnipresence in the Bush WH)to connect the dots from the phrase "the memo went to Powell through the WH" (doh! the Rovian filter!) and then lists all those other players (Fleischer, Libby, Grossman, Hadley).
Sounds like "conspiracy" and "coverup" to me. 
wonder who's going on vacation with Bush next month?

I'm glad you asked that question, Matt.  You see, the President was terribly worried about the #1 National Crisis  --  Social Security  --  and he felt that the facts just weren't being put out there in the media.  Part of my job is to give the factual backgrounders on the President's policies, so in this regard I was asked to talk to a few of the honest journalist folks out there, just to see if we could clear up some of the false reporting we were seeing.  Now, as you all know from the recurring leaks in the ongoing investigation, Matt Cooper tried the old bait and switch with this Joe Wilson charade, but I didn't bite.   In policy matters, the President always weighs all available facts and perspectives, but we have to be careful to steer clear of these type of media tricks.  No one wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President.  He has made it abundantly clear that in wartime the nation must be focused on the security of the homeland.   Partisan political ploys to distract us from this mission by persecuting individuals in the media will not be tolerated.

I want to know why it is that timing of Rove's chat with Cooper hasn't gotten more attention.  According to the Rove spin, Rove was just trying to do Cooper a favor.  On July 11th, 2003.  When George Tenet had this to say to the nation:

"Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

Are we supposed to believe that Rove wasn't aware of this?  I thought Bush was the one who didn't watch the news.

Of course, once we find the real leaker, the one who started all of this, we'll find that Karl is an entirely innocent victim of coincidence.

The real leaker, of course, will also have brushy hair and a floppy white hat, and know where Hoffa's buried.

These recent 'leaks' are no accident. 

The coverage underscores the secrecy surrounding Fitzgerald's grand-jury investigation. The few leaks that constitute public knowledge of the investigation's progress have largely come from one side: the defense attorneys'. And what they have to say is oftentimes self-serving, misleading, and in some cases untrue. Their all-too-willing collaborators have been the nation's leading newspapers. Murray Waas

He just meant to accuse her of something she didn't do, and in the process accidentally identified her. 

If that one truth had been accidentally included in a basket of related truths disclosed to a reporter, there might be latitude to be charitable.

But his disclosure was the only truthful element of a larger lie: that Wilson was dispatched by an enemy of the president who circulated false intelligence.

Naming a covert agent in this falsehood isn't an accident. She didn't do what he claims. He didn't have to mention her except to mislead.

He picked his victim, and he betrayed his country.

But it may give him protection from the outing charge - which I understand is very intricate.  However, John Dean's article on FindLaw yesterday cites another law that Rove might be held accountable to: 19 USC Section 641 .

As Dean points out, this is the statute the Bush Admin. used to prosecute DEA's Jonathan Randel, who "outed" conservative Brit Lord Michael Ashcroft by simply leaking that Ashcroft's name was in the DEA's files.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander? 

One wonders then why CIA sent the matter to DOJ.

But think about it, and see if you are making any sense.  Was the NOC Brewster Jennings & Associates also given a desk job at Langley when V. Plame came in from the cold?  

How much do you think was invested into BJ&A over the years?  Can it still function as a NOC now?  What about others who were still operating under this cover in the interests of our national security? 

And yet again! Recently, Pincus wrote about this very topic.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Showcase.view&
amp;showcaseid=0019
"On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."
If Rove was Pincus source, that makes it 3 times he casually discussed Wilson's wife.  
If it wasn't Rove, a second person was "accidentally" leaking the exact same info.  That spells conspiracy.

If one of these "reporters" who kept calling about "other topics" but kept "veering off" to pester Rove with information he clearly had no interest in hearing or passing along ...say Judy Miller ...were to say, "Rovey boy, I heard it from an authorized source at State [maybe even flashing her neo-con colors by dropping Bolton's name] ...that Wilson's wife is an agency operative on WMD," wouldn't it be a crime (conspiracy?) for Rove <b>not</b> to report that info to the DOJ?

Let's see, in an interview on CNN, Wilson said his wife was not  a clandestine officer:
 

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html 

I suspect that Fitzgerald is after something other than the outing of an under cover agent.

So can we please stop pretending the Rove "outed" an under cover agent? 

(those 16 words in March 1 SOTUA)

btw, I HATE that phrase "16 words."  It's a RNC friendly phrase, and a media elite phrase, that totally diminishes thier meaning and value to the ordinary channel flipper. The term I prefer is more descriptive and accurate: "nuclear scare" i.e. "Bush's nuclear scare in the SOTU." It's especially important for pundists and people speaking to the public to use meaningful terminology, and nothing is less relevant sounding than "16 words."

Thanks for the pointer to Brewster Jennings & Associates. As you can probably tell, I tend to read conservative sites and I have not seen a reference to the front company (I occasionally read liberal sites just to make sure I'm not missing anything).

After reading some stories on how Novak discovered BJ&A, it is obvious why the CIA is not happy. And yes, the stories do seem to indicate that Plame was a covert agent as recently as 1999, which means that Rove could be in hot water.

Note, also, that I suspect that the CIA is not too happy with Plame, either. For I find it hard to believe that it is CIA practice to reference a front company on your personal tax return (for I expect that the name of any "employee" of a front company to be a cover name). This stupid mistake by Plame made it possible for Novak to find BJ&A. It also indicates that BJ&A probably wasn't an "active" front company (for I don't believe that Plame would be that stupid).

I suspect that the CIA is not too happy with Plame, either.

Well, at least you're coming around on this. Here's something else to consider: If she referenced her front company to the IRS under her cover name, why would the CIA be upset? Isn't that how it works?

MMPost99: For I find it hard to believe that it is CIA practice to reference a front company on your personal tax return (for I expect that the name of any "employee" of a front company to be a cover name).

Interesting assumption.  I suppose most deep cover operatives file their tax returns “Federal Government – Super Secret” 

MMPost99: This stupid mistake by Plame made it possible for Novak to find BJ&A.

Yah, now you’re getting the idea.  Once someone out’s an Undercover CIA operative a whole bunch of sensitive information gets exposed to our enemies.  The Front Company.  Other deep cover operatives.  Operatives in the Field.  And those working in Washington.  Careers are destroyed.  People are endangered.  Contacts are exposed.  And years of hard earned intelligence is flushed down the toilet.  All for partisan gain. 

MMPost99: Answer: Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent at the time and has not been a covert agent since 1997.

Or maybe, just maybe, that's not the answer at all...

There's a problem here, right?

The problem is that the republicans have short, understandable clear messages that they are actively and systematically trying to advance through the media and the democrats do not.

I'm not a professional, but these points are points I'd make:

1.  George Bush gave his word, more than once, that the parties that identified Plame would be out of the White House.

2.  The exposure of Plame was an organized effort.  The identity of Plame was "shopped" by more than one member of the White House to several journalists.

3.  Rove and the White House have deliberately lied over the last two years with their claims that they did not know who identified Plame.

4.  Rove and the White House, partly through leaks, are deliberately lying today about the circumstances around Plame's exposure. (Novak identified Plame for Rove?, Wilson's trip was approved by his wife?)

The original post is just an example of point four.

If the Democratic National Committee sends out an "analysis" that makes a short number of points to advance, then the millions of politically interested people on the left can start hammering those points and putting those points into their blogs and sending letters to editors asking why their stories did not include those points and deconstructing any attempt by the other side to argue against those points.

But if the right wing of the politically interested is focused, and the left wing is scattered and disorganized, the right wing will get the most ridiculous stories printed in the Washington Post and New York Times.

As Matt understands well, the system is there for the gaming.  That's the reality that the reality-based community has to take into account better.