Matt Yglesias argues, with some cogency, that given a choice between an outcome to the Valerie Plame affair that demolished Judith Miller and one that demolished Karl Rove, the Miller demolition would be preferable.
I can see Matt’s argument — that Rove would be replaced by another Bush acolyte, while Miller might not be replaced by another Chalabi sock puppet — but that seems to me to ignore both the damage done to Bush by the indictment of his chief political operative for espionage and the likely gap in competence and ruthlessness between Rove and his replacement.
On a deeper level, Matt’s argument violates the Raiffa Principle: when offered a choice between A and B, always ask, “Why can’t I have both?”