The situation strongly implies that there were at least 2 different primary sources (Cooper's specifically released him, Miller's apparently did not do the same for her) and reason maintains there were at least 6 initial calls (the 6 reporters contacted: Novak, Cooper, Miller, and 3 others), and 3 follow-up calls (by Novak, Miller, Cooper) for confirmation. This is the minimum.
In order to make sure this story leaked properly, in order to discredit Wilson's Niger yellow-cake findings and to imply he and his wife had an agenda against the president from the beginning, one person would have to coordinate the calling. (Of course he could have made one or more calls himself as well.) Neither of the 2 (or more) initial callers should call the other's contact(s) (that would seem too eager, perhaps a dirty trick). In addition, 4-5 others would have to know the story was true in order to confirm it, and they had to be encouraged to do so.
Who better than the master of such odious activity, Karl Rove? Perhaps Cheney (who would have felt some direct responsibility in the affair since it was at the behest of his office that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger) used his clearance to discover this information and brought it to Rove at a meeting of the White House Iraq Group (see snippy's beautiful post in DU, link at bottom of this post). Then Rove would go into high gear, doing what he does best (I mean worst). He coordinated the initial callings (who makes what contact, when, what general torque in the mnessage) and made sure there were the requisite secondary sources ready and willing to confirm the information (perhaps each having different details or a different slant).
Therefore, Rove may well be both a conspirator (a little RICO, anybody), and the leaker of illegal information, AND we may have at least one other indictment handed down. Think of the possibilities! Rice, Cheney, Libby, Hughes (why the hell did she retire before?), Matalin, etc. Maybe even W. Hell, maybe someone in CIA as a follow-up. (Is _confirming_ someone is a covert officer against the law?)
Please think about the above and then read snippy's lovely item backed up by a Washington Post article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=142863&mesg_id=142952