So, how could Libby have avoided this fate, in the view of some, a fate so ignominious, so unfair? Libby could have easily said "I learned of Valerie Plame's CIA employment from Vice-President Cheney" (and possibly, though implausibly, argued that he did not know of or remember Plame's covert status)—but, of course, then he would have implicated the OVP.

Or more realistically he could have stated that he heard it first from the State Dept and CIA. Do you think he had reason to protect them, or are you content to pull allegations about Cheney out of your butt for your own personal amusement?....

5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents.
6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

Libby could have shown remorse, possibly lessening the severity of his sentence but any such showing would have similarly raised the issue as to why he lied in the first place, again, raising questions as to the involvement of the Vice-President.
That Libby knowingly lied under oath about a material fact is serious enough; that he did so, apparently, to hide the involvement of a higher official who might have committed a crime is inexcusable.-- Jeff W

Luckily for you, expressing misguided opinions for partisan points is expected, if not excusable.

So in answer to your question in your title: Yes, he did nothing illegal (here) and he should be fired. Many people are fired in many jobs who have not broken any laws, merely they performed poorly at those jobs. This is, a great example of really bad job performance: Not taking the nation's national defense secrets with the utmost seriousness.

Excuse me while I laugh out loud. Can I presume then, that you are hot on the trail of those criminals that leaked national defense secrets, multiple occassions to the NY Times? No? Gosh, what a surprise!

You know Shooter, none of those 9 fired US Attorneys broke any laws either, yet I'm sure you have defended those firings as legitimate.

Absolutely. They serve at the pleasure of the President, as does Mr. Rove. If you have a problem with that, the next election is nigh.

Nice to know that this is the Republican bar for good job performance: Not committing a felony.

Actually you mean to say not committing any crime at all.

Too bad Bush himself has actually failed to meet that bar, in light of breaking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, multiple times.-- Scientician

There you go again.... throwing out untested assertions, when in fact no one really knows exactly what happened. Given the track record of disproven innuendo and insinuation one would think Bush-Bashers would quit while they are behind, but as you aptly demonstrate.... no.

You could erect a 300-foot electrified fence with a moat of sulphuric acid along the border, and there would still be substantial illegal immigration. As with most things Republican, the stagecraft is a lot more important than any substance.-- e_five

This is obviously BS. If Israelis can reduce the number of suicide fanatics by a huge margin with a wall, the same should be true of immigration. Interestingly I've read that the cost of a double walled fence the entire length of the southern border, even with cost overruns typical of Govt. projects would be less than the aid costs to New Orleans after Katrina.

The real problem is that businesses and individuals in the US keep giving illegal immigrants jobs. The fines, if caught, are inconsequential. The enforcement is abysmal, particularly under the Bush administration. The people that suffer are low income Americans that are deemed "too lazy" to work for half the going rate with no legal protections. And the people that benefit are businesses big and small that have a ready supply of desperate, near-slave labor.

And what exactly do you think will alter that if the size of the labor force isn't stabilized? If there is a constant supply of people willing to work for nearly nothing, how are you going to apply any leverage anywhere to get where you want to go? If anyone wants to know why lower incomes are stagnant, that's the reason. In addition, having Government penalize business for using resources Government provides, by not fulfilling it's obligation to secure the borders, is absurd. That's like expecting Democrats to fulfill their promises of containing pork now that they are in office. It's just not going to happen.

You don't have the intellectual firepower to twist yourself into a rhetorical pretzel like Caplan and keep from looking like a total idiot. The only thing keeping Caplan afloat is lots of Scaife money and some bold faced initials after his name.--Anonymous

That alone is more substance, than you are offering with this gratuitous insult. Apparently your personal intellectual firepower is exhausted by this "retort". Perhaps a rest is in order.