Friday, March 25, 2005

Plame case not a crime?

Maybe I'm just not up on the ins and outs of the law--in fact, I know I'm not. But this post from some blog that I found doesn't seem to jibe with the reality that we've been looking at for what, the last year and a half?

There was a huge-ass flap concerning Bob Novak's (Douchebag for Liberty) revelation of Valerie Plame's name and identity as an undercover CIA operative. For those of you who don't know, Plame is the wife of former US ambassador Joe Wilson. Wilson was quite outspoken in his criticism of the administration, and shortly thereafter, Novak wrote a column that screwed his wife. Not literally, though I'm sure he would have gone there if he could have, just to stick it to an infidel like Wilson a little more.

But anyway, people were up in arms about this, and about who leaked this sensitive information. There wasn't even question about whether or not it was criminal; just about what to do about it. It seemed that every reporter who touched the story was under scrutiny. Except Bob Novak, of course. That gargantuan tool seems to enjoy some sort of immunity in even the investigative press. I guess they're a bit worried about turning on themselves.

But how is it now that we're starting to hear, in the blogosphere, whispers that this may not have been a crime? Is this really how things go? Are the bloggers just going chronologically backwards and retroactively thinking up excuses, issue by issue?