Breathless daily coverage centers on leaks to journalists, the accuracy of statements by White House aides and a former diplomat, and the propriety of reporters withholding information from secret sources in a criminal probe.

But at bottom, the investigation of the leak to columnist Robert Novak that allegedly outed a covert CIA operative is about the validity of President Bush’s arguments for war against Iraq and the unique role of the most powerful presidential aide in memory, Karl Rove.

That explains the zest with which the Bush White House and its allies have sought to tar the reputation of Joseph Wilson, the former diplomat who questioned their contention Saddam Hussein threatened U.S. national security.

And it explains the glee with which Democrats have pounced on each sign of administration vulnerability, especially those involving the man they consider responsible for the president’s success and their political woes, Rove.

The case stems from Mr. Bush’s statement in his 2003 State of the Union speech that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” CIA Director George Tenet later said those 16 words “should never have been included in the text written for the president.”

But the event that triggered the flap was Wilson’s July 6, 2003, column in The New York Times about his diplomatic mission to Niger at the behest of the CIA with questions about whether Iraq sought to buy uranium there.

In contrast to some of his later statements, Wilson was careful in discussing who suggested the trip – unnamed “agency officials” – and what he found – “that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2004 his findings were less clear-cut – and hinted at administration tensions on intelligence about Iraq.

“For most analysts,” it said, “the information in the report lent more credibility” to initial CIA reports Iraq had sought uranium, “but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts believe that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.”

It also found Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, recommended him for the mission, something he initially concealed – and later denied.

Administration allies have focused on such misstatements in trying to debunk Wilson’s trip. But they were the means for the effort against him, not the purpose.

Even before his article appeared, it’s clear the target was his contention the administration “twisted” intelligence on nuclear matters “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

A State Department memo on the trip’s origin, which circulated among Bush aides after Wilson’s article appeared, was dated four weeks earlier.

In addition, an anonymous senior administration official, in a move uncharacteristic of the Bush White House, fingered two colleagues and their motives in a Sept. 28, 2003, article in The Washington Post.

The Post quoted the source as saying two top White House officials “called at least six Washington journalists” to disclose the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife, adding, “Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge.”

Some of the journalists have since testified. Some said they talked about Wilson and his wife with Rove and Lewis Libby, Vice President Richard Cheney’s chief of staff.

This undercuts press secretary Scott McClellan’s October 2003 assertion that Rove, Libby and National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams assured him “they were not involved in this.”

But whether anyone committed a crime, either by outing a covert agent or committing perjury or obstruction of justice, won’t be known until special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ends his probe.

However, it seems clear Rove used his access to classified data for a political goal: debunking Wilson’s trip. Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said in a memo to his editors that Rove “implied strongly” additional data “to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium from Niger” would soon be declassified, something that, in fact, didn’t happen.

Bush once said he would fire any aide involved in the initial leak. On Monday, he said he would fire anyone who “committed a crime.”

Barring a conviction, that may protect the jobs of Rove and other top aides. It won’t end questions about how the United States got into the war in Iraq.