In an October 18 editorial, The Washington Post distorted “accounts given by reporters about their conversations with administration officials” about former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame, in concluding that the accounts do not describe a crime. But unless one ignores the single most important element of those accounts -- that in those conversations, Bush administration officials disclosed that Plame worked for the CIA -- it is clear that they very well may describe a crime.

The Post editorial, appropriately titled "Rush to Judgment," concluded:

This affair began with a trip to Niger undertaken by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, which he said disproved one of the Bush administration's contentions about Saddam Hussein and nuclear weapons. Columnist Robert D. Novak reported that Mr. Wilson had been chosen in part because Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA; Mr. Wilson then charged that administration officials had deliberately blown his wife's undercover status to punish him for his truth-telling.

If so, they should be punished. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may have evidence that they did; there is a still a great deal that is not publicly known. But so far, in the accounts given by reporters about their conversations with administration officials, no such crime has been described. What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection. If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers.

In describing “accounts given by reporters about their conversations with administration officials,” the Post omits the central fact -- giving rise to the whole investigation -- that White House officials reportedly revealed the classified information that Plame worked at the CIA. The Post ignored, among other things, New York Times reporter Judith Miller's October 16 statement that “well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis ”Scooter"] Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A." The Post editorial also ignored the fact that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper has said he was told by Libby and White House senior adviser Karl Rove about Plame's affiliation with the CIA. By omitting these actions, the Post was then free to dismiss the import of the White House officials' reported efforts to “undermine” Wilson's credibility. One would not know it from reading the Post editorial, but these officials did far more than simply “suggest[] that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his [Wilson's] selection.” By revealing Plame's affiliation with the CIA, these officials may have converted what the Post dismissed as tough politics into a federal crime.

The revelation of Plame's affiliation with the CIA is the central issue in the case. The Post's decision to ignore it is akin to describing eyewitness testimony about a murder, without mentioning that the witness spoke of seeing a person killed, and then concluding that based on available evidence no crime had occurred.