Jeepers, Mrs. Wilson! Let's not all jump off into the deep end, okay?

I've just spent about three hours getting reasonably up to speed on the Robert Novak/Amb. & Mrs. Joseph Wilson/Tom Clancy affair that's been rocking the blogosphere today.  (Out of respect for statutes allegedly broken and confidences allegedly violated, I shall avoid using the maiden name of former Ambassador Wilson's wife, although I note that it appears to rhyme with "blame," "came," "dame," "fame," "flame," "game," "lame," "maim," "same," and "tame" — unless she gives it a French pronunciation, in which case I frankly don't give a damn.)

Tom Maguire has been blogging in Just One Minute about this story for some time, most recently here and here.  Daniel Drezner has moved from switching-party-level outrage to something less condemnatory and more openminded.  There are generally good-quality comments on their posts, and also on posts by Pejman Yousefzadeh (here and here, the latter of which includes quotes from and links to the relevant statutes, thank you!) in his blog, Pejmanesque.  Mark Kleiman is fairly hysterical repeatedly, and Kevin Drum of CalPundit is predictably witty and acidic and especially eager to quote Republicans who have been pottymouthed, but his comment sections go on and on without end, beyond what I am willing to parse or even wade through.  I no longer quote or link to, and rarely read, Josh Marshall, who I've concluded — based on his studied refusal to correct a significant and indisputable mistake about the recent history of Texas redistricting — lacks ethics and integrity; you can find him yourself if you wanna.  And don't forget Professor Reynolds at InstaPundit or the inestimable Jane Galt of the delightfully named Asymmetrical Information.  Finally, no round-up would be complete without Novak's latest ("There is no great crime here"), Amb. Wilson's backtracking ("I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment. I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak."), and Clifford May's argument that lotsa folks already knew of Mrs. Wilson's CIA connection before Novak ever published.

Whew!  Read all that and you'll know a lot about almost nothing.  Indeed, you'll see that some of the big news from yesterday or a few weeks ago (for example, Ambassador Wilson's rather premature and immature and unfounded reference to Karl Rove being "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs") has ... evanesced.  To say that there is conflicting information bouncing from the blogosphere to conventional media and back is a considerable understatement.

I have just three points to make at the moment (variations on comments I've left at various other blogs), and I'll try to be brief (by BeldarBlog standards):

1. The statute making it a crime to deliberately "out" a covert intelligence agent is important.  It's important that violators be caught and punished; but it's important that the innocent not be unjustly accused of violating it.  Broad-brush painting is extremely dangerous in this matter, especially now.

2. The fact that the CIA has asked DoJ to investigate emphatically does not mean — as Professor Kleiman among others asserts — that we can already "say with confidence that serious crimes against the national security were committed by at least two people."  The CIA unquestionably has a substantial interest in seeing that the statute is vigorously enforced, but that only means that it ought to report all plausible allegations of violation to DoJ — not that it should make any attempt to pass on the merits of such allegations itself!  The CIA has its own lawyers, yes, but their job is to keep the CIA from violating the laws (no simple or frivolous task); it does not have prosecutors.  CIA would be acting outside its mandate and competency if it were to dismiss any even remotely plausible allegations, and would be accused of cover-up by the very same people who are already calling for a special prosecutor.  DoJ, by contrast, exists for the exact purpose of gathering facts, analyzing and applying law to them, and prosecuting crimes if it finds probable cause to believe laws have been broken.  It has career prosecutors who have the trust of both Janet Reno and John Ashcroft, along with the experience and the security clearances to dig into this.  That CIA has referred this matter to DoJ means nothing more than that the rule of law is being pursued and enforced by the appropriate authorities, which is no small matter and a good thing in and of itself.  But as Prof. Kleiman might recall, there's also a role to be played by that other branch of government — you remember, the ones with the funny robes? — before anyone can conclude with reasonable confidence that someone, or anyone, is guilty of a crime!

3. The President ought not be "out in front" on this.  He has a role in setting and generally enforcing White House staff policy on leaks, it's true, and from all reports this administration has in general been the most leak-free and disciplined of any in recent history.  He also could have a role, hypothetically, in proposing further or amending legislation on this subject.  When and if anyone is convicted, finally, he may also have a role in reviewing any requests for executive clemency or pardons.  But there are extremely sound and long-recognized reasons for a President — any President — to avoid trying to do the DoJ's job for it, and to stay the hell out of an on-going DoJ investigation or prosecution.  Just as with the CIA and its lawyers, this would be outside his and his staff's field of competence and would inevitably look like a cover-up.  And a President has no business opining on any accused defendant's guilt or innocence before trial and the exhaustion of all appeals.  If you're such a Bush-hater, so committed a member of the Angry Left, that you believe seriously George W. Bush would approve of or condone this stuff, nothing he (or I or anyone else) could say or do now would convince you differently anyway.  And if instead you've got a clue about how Dubya actually feels on the subject of covert intelligence and the War on Terror, you don't need him holding a pep rally to be persuaded that he's already done what's appropriate — no more and no less — in terms of motivating DoJ's professionals in general.

I'll likely have more to say as things continue to develop.  What a surprise, eh?