The ambassador that the CIA agent is married to spoke out against the war in Iraq, pointing out that no weapons of mass destruction were found. It is my opinion that by dissenting against the government his wife's identitiy was revealed or the wife was deep in something that she wasn't supposed to be. Why a CIA agent is married to an ambassador is up for debate. (See my Random Thoughts) Yet I find it too strange of a coincidence that the wife's real job was revealed after the husband dissented, and it all had to do with no weapons in Iraq.
It is my opinion that this was either an attempt to silence the ambassador via a threat for his wife's security or keep the wife away from the whole "no weapons in Iraq" bit. I also feel that the fact that an agent's name was leaked may be used to keep even more information/truth away from the people. Think about it: "Oh no... someone's sharing information that shouldn't be shared... We should pass some legislation here... Some legislation there.... And now we are not obliged to tell the people sh@#." (Or perhaps on the presidential end the all popular executive order will take care of this nicely.)
What I would like to know is what the ambassador and/or his wife were working on at the time. Perhaps it had something to do with Iraq. Perhaps not. This may or may not change my opinion... Though I feel it is obvious revealing the identity of his wife was somewhat of a threat... Pick the one you feel most likely is the target of this devious plot.
I also find it interesting that Ashcroft felt the need to stand up and say it wasn't him (which probably means he had something to do with it).... making a big deal out of "not being involved" when it probably wasn't necessary... Then again... Ashcroft could be trying to win some free publicity for the CIA... Afterall, I hear they're hiring...