You see, the statute which has everyone's panties in a twist, was written to protect people from outing undercover CIA agents for the purpose of assassination. The law is very, VERY specific in it's terms regarding the violation of the law. The quick version of those terms in this case are:
1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA.
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
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.
Regarding point one, it appears that Karl Rove never specifically named Valerie Plame, but even if he did, so what. Point two makes the whole thing moot.
Valerie Plame was undercover at one time. In 1994. She was pulled off of her undercover assignment after it became apparrent that Aldrich Ames ratted her out to the Soviets.
In the case of point three, I'm pretty sure Karl Rove knew that she wasn't undercover, since she was working a desk job for the CIA, and was able to come and go as she pleased in public.
Regarding point four, if the CIA had been trying to conceal the identity of Valerie Plame, they did a pretty piss poor job of it.
The Democrats would love for you to believe that Karl Rove endangered Valerie Plame's life, and broke, as paT like to say, 'some really real laws'. Too bad that's not the case. It would be hard to break secrecy laws in this case when, as the article states:
Toensing says that on the contrary, the CIA gave Plame a desk job in which she publicly went to and from work, allowed her spouse to do a mission in Africa without signing a confidentiality agreement and didn't object to his writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times about his trip.
Keep trying kids. One day, you might find someone who was wronged by Karl Rove, but today won't be the day.
Linky - The business.