ASHINGTON — A federal judge dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants of the leak scandal.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq. Plame believes the leak was retribution and that it violated their constitutional rights.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.

"This just dragged on the character assassination that had gone on for years," said Alex Bourelly, one of Libby's lawyers. "To have the case dismissed is a big relief."

Plame's attorneys said they were reading the opinion and had no immediate comment.

While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

On February 12, 2007, Woodward testified in “Scooter” Libby's trial as a defense witness.

While on the witness stand, an audiotape was played for the jury that contained the interview between Armitage and Woodward in which Plame was discussed.

The following exchange is heard on the tape:

“ WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. I mean that's just —

ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.

WOODWARD: Why doesn't that come out? Why does —

ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.

WOODWARD: — that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.

ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's [expletive] off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he's all [expletive] off.

WOODWARD: But why would they send him?

ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency.

WOODWARD: It's still weird.

ARMITAGE: It — It's perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there.

WOODWARD: Oh she is.

ARMITAGE: Yeah.

WOODWARD: Oh, I see.

ARMITAGE: Yeah. See?

WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?

ARMITAGE: No she isn't the chief, no.

WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, “Oh yeah, hubby will go.”

ARMITAGE: Yeah, he knows Africa.

WOODWARD: Was she out there with him?

ARMITAGE: No.

WOODWARD: When he was ambassador?

ARMITAGE: Not to my knowledge. I don't know. I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [expletive].