I have to disagree with a recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the Plame Affair:

The larger point here is that intelligence is supposed to be a tool for elected policy makers, not a restraint on their action. CIA analysts aren't an infallible Sanhedrin but are supposed to be collectors of facts and interpreters of often fragmentary evidence. The policy judgments are supposed to be made by Presidents who have to decide--based on that ambiguous evidence--how best to protect and defend the American people. They don't have the luxury of waiting until the bowels of the CIA reach consensus on some disputed set of facts.

By all means, let's have a national debate about intelligence priorities and counterterrorism policy. But let's acknowledge what we are really debating and not hide behind sideshows over leaks and claims of "politicized intelligence." When the arguments are made, we imagine Americans will feel safer with the Bush policy than with the one advocated by Joe Wilson and his anonymous friends.

The Journal skims by two salient facts in their analysis. First, the yellow cake story was proven to be wrong, both through CIA intelligence and by the confirmation that the smoking-gun documentation was forged, yet the Administration continued to tout the story as if it were true. Rather than using ambiguous intelligence, the Administration used fabrication and wishful thinking to defend its position. Second, the turf war between the White House and the CIA is only the back drop for the central act. Two people in the Administration broke the law and endangered national security.

When the arguments are made, I imagine Americans will be more concerned about the shabby implementation of the Administration's policy and its ideological arrogance. Policy is the framework used to guide action when the evidence is ambiguous. It is not an excuse for unprincipled or illegal action.