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

     In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson
     writes that he and his future wife both returned from
     overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a
     reading of the book indicates, was again stationed
     overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington,
     D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

     Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA
     officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist
     Robert Novak.

     The column's date is important because the law against
     unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a “covert
     agent” must have been on an overseas assignment “within
     the last five years.” The assignment also must be long-
     term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on
     the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to
     the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to
     July 2003. 

    "She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who
     also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court,
     referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want
     someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to
     Langley."

          Media Admits Rove is Innocent

     An amicus brief has been filed in the US Court of appeals
     for the DC Circuit by the following media organizations: 

     There is ample evidence on the public record to cast
     considerable doubt that a crime has been committed... 

     Congress intended only to criminalize only disclosures
     that "clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort
     to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair
     or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the
     United States..."

     Public information casts considerable doubt that the
     government took the "affirmative measures" required by
     the Act to conceal Plame's identity.

     At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been
     revealed must trule be "covert" for there to be a
     violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less
     to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not
     given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. See 50
     USC § 426 ("covert agent" defined). She worked at a desk
     job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen
     traveliong to and from, and active at, Langley. She had
     been residing in Washington—not stationed abroad—for a
     number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to
     take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her
     name... 

     Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA
     ineptitude: The Agency's response to a request by the
     State Department and the Vice president's office to
     verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was
     accurate was to have "low-level" bureaucrats make the
     decision to send a non-CIA employee [Joseph Wilson]
     (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass
     destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's
     suggestion...Did no one at Langley think that Plame's
     identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a
     nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign
     mission about a volatile political issue that focused on
     her subject matter expertise?

     The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA
     was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the
     publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's
     suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public
     uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had
     every incentive to dissemble by claiming it wash shocked,
     shocked" that leaking was going on...

     "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation
     initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time
     away from publishing things that were going to be
     established as false." 

     Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl
     speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't
     think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that
     what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish
     the name of Wilson's wife." 

    (Rove's lawyer) Luskin also addressed the question of 
    whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin 
    says Fitzgerald (the prosecutor) has told Rove he is not 
    a "target" of the investigation, but, according to 
    Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually 
    anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the 
    investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" 
    of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a 
    very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, 
    Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very 
    broad view of what a subject is."

     And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want
     to know who it is.  And if the person has violated law,
     the person will be taken care of.

     If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to
     know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
     President Bush