1.) This is an important and easily neglected paragraph from the WaPo story:

In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

Rove's actions and comments suggest the White House knew of Wilson's report. Next question for Scott McLellan at today's gaggle: "Who knew and when?"

2.) Relatedly, Cooper's e-mail suggests to me that the "revenge" motivation is too simple, and not one Dems (at least rhetorically) should hang their hats on. It seems that it was more important for Rove to discredit the report than to out Plame--a priority that still makes the outing of a Plame a crime, but also points to the White House's need to suppress the impact of Wilson's report in the Iraq war runnup. In my reading, a CIA agent was outed in the course of telling lies about Iraq, rather than in retaliation for Wilson telling the truth. The retaliation might be seen as an ancillary benefit.

While "revenge" is clearly Wilson's explanation (and one many here at TPM are inclined to believe), the reasons we Dems shouldn't get stuck on it, I think, are that the Cooper e-mail suggests otherwise (and so there's an easy Republican counterpoint there) and that the outing of Plame in the course of lying about Iraq reverses the administration line that no-WMD's was an "intelligence failure" rather than the outcome (as we learn time and time again) that had been predetermined from the outset.

Yes, there's political value in casting Rove as outing Plame in revenge, but I hope that doesn't keep us from realizing there's bigger fish here to fry.