Not quite that easy. Novak found out about Plame, mentioned it to Rove, and soon published it in his column. Novak cited that two administration officials told him about this. Somebody committed a serious crime here. I think we can both agree to this.

During this process however, Rove basically told him that he had heard the same thing. Considering the information they are discussing, what right did Rove have to confirm this to Novak? Maybe not technically a crime but highly unethical. Rove's security clearance should be removed for this alone.

Then, four days later, Rove went on to inform another journalist that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. It doesn't matter that he didn't use her name. Nor does it matter that Novak already had this information. What matters is Karl Rove actively divulged the identity of a CIA employee. That violates federal law.

I know how much you all want this to go away but I don't think that is going to happen here. I expect to see at least one indictment. Time will tell.

My major question, which is extremely valid, and just as serious as giving the name, did he verify that she worked for the CIA. Because that offense is just as serious as disclosing the information, because it IS disclosing the information. And that is one of the questions I would be looking at if I were investigating this. In fairness, I will allow Mr. Rove to be innocent until proven guilty, but he is still a suspect.

Actually, Novak said he called the CIA to confirm that she worked for the CIA. If the CIA confirmed it, and if most of her friends and neighbors knew she was in the CIA because she talked it up (as her former boss has asserted), then that isn't even unethical, much less illegal.

And I know how much you want this to go to the highest levels of the Bush administration.

No, what I want is accountability. This administration thinks they can get away with anything. They think they can lie us into a war, and so far have been quite successful. They have destroyed many a persons career in the process. If someone doesn't say exactly what they want them to, they go on the attack. Someone in this administration leaked the name of a covert op. That is a felony, and according to Bush Senior, "the highest form of treason". I could personally care less if it was Rove, personal distaste for the man aside. I want whoever is responsible held accountable for a change.

I could say the same thing about other administrations, but it doesn't matter.

If you support accountability, I hope that you want the NY Times to reveal their source. Get the poor woman out of jail. The source already said it was OK to tell. Again, I suspect the editors at the NY Times does not want the source revealed because it could cause embarrassment to someone they do not wish to be embarrassed.

I find it highly unlikey that Novak, or anyone for that matter, could call the CIA and have that information confirmed, especially without the proper clearance, which Novak certainly doesn't have.

I also have not seen any evidence that her friends and neighbors knew that she worked for the CIA.

Also, from Media Matters:

Novak:
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'

So he called the CIA and a former Clinton administration official confirmed it. Sounds like that's the guy who should be found and indicted.

I think you're getting off track here.

Notice where the offending words (he is a former Clinton administration official) are placed in the sentence - directly after "... Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband". My sense here is he's talking about Joseph Wilson, not his confidential source at the CIA. And by getting "he is a former Clinton administration official" in the records, he's introduced the idea that Wilson was motivated by the politics of embarrassing this President.

But what do we find if we keep picking at this statement?

To do so would have indicated to Novak that Plame was in fact a covert agent, wouldn't it?

Asked him, specifically, not to use her name, eh?

Using her name would be identifiying a covert agent, wouldn't it?

... which Novak proceeded to do.

Red courtesy phone for Mr. Novak: Your source was trying to keep you out of trouble.

I agree this confidential source should be questioned. He did NOT handle this exchange with Novak properly. "No comment" would have been the appropriate response, in my opinion. But, it seems that Mr. Novak disagrees with us about who should be indicted and questioned. In order to question this informant, Novak would have to identify him/her. I just don't see that happening unless Novak is compelled to do so.

Of course, it is possible this informant has been called by the Grand Jury and records of any such appearance have not been linked to Novak, at least in the media.

Of course you're right....I was half being funny, trying to poke at MBC. That may shock you, of course.....me, try to poke at a lib????? :)