[richlevy]

Victoria Toensing testified that "she was not, as a matter of law, a covert CIA agent." Republicans and Democrats "agree that this leak harmed [Comment: How about destroyed?] Plame's career, but there's intense disagreement about what the administration's motives were, or were not, in how her name was leaked."

I saw Ms. Toensing on Hannity and Colmes repeating her line about the non-covert status. Colmes pressed her by asking if she was accusing Ms. Plame of committing perjury for stating that she was covert. All she would say was that there were different meanings of covert and that Ms. Plame was not 'covert under the law'.

To me this hearkened back to the Bill Clinton 'it depends on what you mean by sex' defense. To me blowing the cover of Ms. Plame and by extension a whole group of agents overseas pretending to be employed by a fictitious company would seem to be the kind of action covered under such a law. I actually heard the phrase 'shame on the CIA' uttered by Hannity.

Both sides are gearing up their spin machines on this one. Personally, I would like to see a Plame-Coulter cat fight if someone could assure me that Plame had and kept a 'double 0' status.