It seems you're missing a few key points:

"Karl Rove is identified in emails from Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as someone who mentioned that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA - just days before her name was revealed by columnist Robert Novak."

...as you may recall, Cooper also said Plame's CIA work was news to him. So claims that 'everyone knew' about Plame are not persuasive. Novak said "I didn't dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."

"In order to show that Rove broke the law, you must show the following:

(1) That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame"

...must the name be used to reveal an agent's identity? Does that include their middle initial too? Could you simply point out to Osama Bin Laden a covert agent and say 'That one's CIA' and it would be no crime, because you don't use their full name? If that is the case, the law as written is seriously flawed, and practically worthless.

That the CIA has followed up on this matter shows that at least THEY think a crime has been committed.

"(2) That Valerie Plame was actually working undercover for the CIA."

...again, the fact that there is an investigation of this matter at all seems to indicate that the CIA takes this seriously. Do they do this for desk-jockeys of no importance?

Your 'evidence' that Plame was not covert consists of a photograph published TWO YEARS after Plame was outed by Novak. The chronology of events is important to keep in mind if you want to understand their significance.

"(3) That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA."

...did Rove know she was undercover?
I guess that depends on how he came to know this privileged information. Did Rove even have clearance for this at the time? If not, someone must have leaked it to him. The White House appears to be as leaky as a sieve regarding state secrets.

"(4) That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying, to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter."

...was the CIA trying to protect her cover? Well, they certainly seem concern that information identifying her was published. That should clue you in to how serious the matter is.

Later on, you mention that that Plame "drafted an op-ed article to correct what she felt were distortions of her and her husband's actions, but the C.I.A. would not authorize its publication, saying it would 'affect the agency's ability to perform its mission.'"

That would seem to indicate that Plame was no mere desk-jockey of little importance to the CIA's mission. They didn't want her in the limelight.

You go on to quote New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof:

"...she [Plame] was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a NEW cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without h
blogreader | 07.20.05 - 11:42 am | #