01:00 AM EST on Monday, March 29, 2004

The initial furor over the Plame case may have died down, but the public must not lose interest in finding out who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Revealing the name of an undercover agent is a felony, and investigators are trying to find out who "outed" Ms. Plame.

To recap: Ms. Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent to Niger in search of evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium. He came up empty-handed and publicized his findings last July in a New York Times op-ed column. By undermining some administration assertions about Iraq, Mr. Wilson no doubt irked officials close to, or in, the White House.

What followed was disturbing. Shortly after Ambassador Wilson's op-ed piece appeared, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that "senior administration officials" had identified Ms. Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." The officials, Mr. Novak said, told him that she had suggested sending her husband to Niger to investigate an Italian report of uranium sales.

High administration officials appeared to be taking revenge on Ambassador Wilson -- or trying to intimidate others who might dare to contradict administration statements about Saddam Hussein's weapons.

The citizenry deserves to know what actually happened. After all, the naming of Ms. Plame constituted a breach of national security. Whether it was a criminal offense depends on whether the people who leaked Ms. Plame's name knew that she was an undercover agent.

Adding to the intrigue, The Washington Post reported last September that Ms. Plame's identity had been divulged to at least five other journalists, as yet unnamed. If that was the case, the other journalists wisely chose not to take the bait and disclose Ms. Plame's identity.

Mr. Novak apparently did not share their scruples. He seems to have played errand boy for ethically challenged members of the Bush administration. Political gamesmanship seems to have trumped concern for national security, not to mention common decency.

Given the political nature of the case, U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has properly appointed an independent special counsel outside the Justice Department to look into the matter. Any whiff of a cover-up would aggravate the sensitive issue.

A grand jury's job is to investigate allegations and decide whether to bring indictments. Witnesses who do not answer questions honestly can be subject to criminal charges, even if the leak did not meet the standards of a felony.

Some new tidbits come from an article in The American Prospect, a liberal magazine. Author Murray Waas writes that President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI last October that he had discussed Ms. Plame with journalists, outside political consultants and others -- but only after the information had appeared in Mr. Novak's column. Mr. Rove also reportedly said that he was not the leaker the agents were looking for. Mr. Waas did not name his FBI sources.

The public needs to get to the bottom of this troubling case. Mr. Novak should not be permitted to hide the identities of of people who may have committed serious crimes. Previous Supreme Court rulings have held that journalists' right to protect their sources is not absolute. So if sending a subpoena to Mr. Novak is a way to get at the truth, so be it.