A CRIME OR A BLUNDER?
The alleged leaking of a CIA employee's identity by the White House was probably not a crime, but it was most certainly a blunder.

The facts of the case are somewhat obscure, but columnist Robert Novak apparently found out for himself that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee who who probably set up his trip to Niger. At about the same time, someone at the White House telephoned journalists to call attention to the wife's role. Apparently none of the other journalists bit on the leak. After the Novak column in July, CIA duly filed a routine leaking complaint with the Justice Department, which it does about 50 times per year.

Wilson heard about the attempted leaking, and did his best to call attention to it. He finally hit the jackpot when the Washington Post quoted an unnamed "senior administration official" as saying that "two top White House officials" did the leaking and that the leak was "meant purely and simply for revenge."

The leak was immediately interpreted by Democrats as a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime, under certain circumstances, to blow the cover of a "covert agent." This particular leak may not be any kind of a crime, however. The law has several specific conditions that must be met for the leak to be considered criminal. CIA will have to be able to prove in court that Mrs. Wilson was a "covert agent" and that she has spent time abroad recently, among other conditions, before prosecutors could hope to make a case. A successful prosecution seems highly unlikely.

What is beyond doubt, however, is that someone in the White House -- and probably someone high up in the chain of command -- made a huge mistake in doing the leak. The CIA is supposed to be above politics, even when it isn't, and dragging it into a partisan brawl was stupid. The White House, which has cultivated an image of businesslike control, clearly blew a gasket over Wilson's public naysaying.

Even worse was the amateurish quality of the attempt to plant a story. Anyone with any experience in political media relations knows that this kind of mission is a fool's errand, more likely to blow up in your face than to result in the desired story. When the opposition is an aggressive publicity hunter outraged by an attack on his wife, the effort is almost doomed to catastrophic failure.

What tipped the White House into the disaster zone, however, was the role of the "senior administration official" who spilled the beans to the Washington Post.

The paper did not further identify the official, but the "administration" apparently means "the executive branch," not just the White House. The suspicion here is that the unnamed official is either a State Department bureaucrat in touch with Wilson or a CIA official striking back on behalf of his wife. Either that, or someone at the White House is about to resign in disgust.

Since a professionally conducted investigation will probably lead to the conclusion that no crime was committed, the political pressure will be enormous to set up an independent probe that is more likely to bring an indictment. An independent investigation could lead to virtual paralysis at the White House just as the Bush re-election campaign ought to be gearing up (not that it has ever been in low gear).

There is almost no good option for President Bush, since it is hard to believe that the leaking campaign could have been conducted without the order of someone very close to him. Bush may soon face a choice between forcing someone to walk the plank and putting up with a debilitating investigation. The prospect is extremely ugly.