I could careless if one is a Republican or Democrat, but Fitzgerald's questioning crossed over into Executive Privilege protections,

This is wrong on more levels than your sentence has words.  

The so-called Executive Privilege, such as it is, extends only to the President.  It operates as an aspect of the law of evidentiary privileges (Federal Rules of Evidence 500 series, FWIW) to allow the President to keep to himself the consultations and deliberations (for lack of a better term) of the President.  You know, Bushie.  

The so-called Executive Privilege does not apply to the Vice-President.  Period.  In constitutional and (heretofore) legal terms, the Vice-President has had two functions:  (a) be the successor to the President in case something happens, and (b) preside over the Senate and break tie votes in the Senate.  That Cheney was able to arrogate to himself and his henchmen all the powers he did was a result of two developments.  These are (a) a historical creep in the duties of the Vice-President, assigned to him by the President, and (b) his own aggressive grabbing power from his weak puppet, Bush.  

The former of these derives from (I'll say) the realization that Harry Truman knew nothing about the Manhattan Project when he assumed office, and "people" thought it a good idea for the VP to have a clue in case he actually did have to step up.  This remained somewhat static until Reagan, when he was persuaded to have Bushie the Elder be "in charge of crisis management" and similar right-hand guy stuff.  I'd suspect this was a camel's nose under the tent for the Unitary Executive folks, from them.  And it went (downhill) from there, though Bush the Elder kept Quayle the Dull out of it, for good reason.

The latter of these is inherent in Deadeye, and well-exemplified by his leading Bushie's VP selection committee, soliciting all the dirt from all the prospective nominees (as a prerequisite for their consideration, "to avoid scandal"), which they voluntarily gave and he put in a notebook (for reference) and promptly selected himself.

The "questioning of [you meant "by"] Fitzgerald" was not limited.  In the delegation to him, which was done according to statute, he received all the powers of the Attorney General, as regards the general topic of investigating, prosecuting, etc. the case(s) relating to the disclosure of Plame's identity.  As such, he could do anything the entire Justice Department could do, to anyone he pleased, for as long as he pleased, with as many people from the Justice Department and FBI as he wanted to do it, without any check on his power except (a) being fired by the President (a bad idea, cf. the "Saturday Night Massacre" of 1973, executed by Robert Bork at Nixon's behest) or (b) adverse court decisions in litigated matters.  In the context of questioning, he could subpoena anyone to attend the grand jury, ask anyone anything he wanted before the grand jury, and do whatever he wanted to do with the testimony.  

pre-war intelligence was not part of his referral

It was, insofar as it related to Wilson's article, the VP's motive to smear Wilson by outing Plame, and Scooter's lies to cover it up.  Pre-war Republican-generated and repeated bullsh*t masquerading as intelligence and their attempts at retribution for calling their bullsh*t by its true name are the core of the case.

Please don't try to defend the war - you just look silly.

As proponents for FISA court oversight of FBI agents, you should be equally protective of the privilege rights of Constitutional officers.  

This, too, is nonsense, for the reasons stated above.  First, the FISA court does not have oversight over FBI agents.  Rather, the FISA court is supposed to issue particularized warrants for electronic intercepts, when proper affidavits and applications are made.  The affidavits would be the sworn statements of FBI agents, working in conjunction with attorneys from the Department of Justice.  The latter would be making the applications and incorporating the affidavits into them, as factual support to justify the issuance of the warrants.  That the Preznit and his lackeys have deliberately not followed the procedures of the relevant law does not change what those procedures are;  their breach merely makes those persons breaching them criminals.  

Second, the FBI agents work, ultimately, for the Director of the FBI.  The Director works primarily for the Attorney General, though the position of Director is not purely subordinate to the AG.  The AG, in turn, has specific statutorily defined duties to perform, though it can be said his position is subordinate to the President.  The AG would, if following the law, have to investigate and charge the President if that's where the crime lay;  politics would probably get in the way before it got to that, though.  

Then you jump to being "protective of privilege rights of Constitutional officers" - a true non-sequitur if ever there was one.  

First, the Vice President has no rights to any special privilege beyond those of the ordinary citizen.  The Vice President is not entitled to the so-called "Executive privilege".  Period.  Even the President's grasp on the so-called "Executive Privilege" is limited, and slippery.  No other "constitutional officers" are involved.

Second, Courts (oh, those wily judges) are the ones charged with deciding whether privilege applies - the person claiming the privilege is charged with protecting their claimed entitlement to the privilege.  In contrast, statutes, such as FISA, are supposed to be followed - and their violations prosecuted, if appropriate.

If a judge had been present and council [sic, counsel] representing the OVP, Fitzgerald would have been held in check.

More nonsense.  

Law and hundreds of years of following the law tell us Judges have no place in the grand jury room.  Period.  It's just the prosecutor, the witness, and 20 some citizens sworn to their duties as grand jurors, all in a closed room.  The grand jurors are supposed to make only one determination:  based upon the facts (testimony, evidence) before them, whether is is more likely than not that (a) a crime was committed and (b) that [defendant's name here] was the person who committed the crime.  That's all.  For that reason, if no other, it has been said that a grand jury, properly instructed, will indict a ham sandwich.  If the facts presented to the grand jury - which are solely selected by the prosecutor - indicate that it;s more likely than not a crime was committed and the ham sandwich committed it, they'd have to indict.  

Note, too, that the witness in the grand jury has no right to have their attorney present in the room.  The grand jury is not an adjudicatory body, rather, it is an investigative and accusatory body.  Said another way, they don't decide with finality what happened but they investigate and accuse.  For that matter, a witness' Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is very, very limited when the witness is before the grand jury.

You go on about how "Fitzgerald would have been held in check".  This is more nonsense.  Given the scope of his powers, he was very, very restrained.  He easily could have, based upon what is known and what can be surmised from that, had indictments returned against Rove (e.g., for starters, conspiracy* to violate IIPA, conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, attempts to violate these two acts, and probably perjury), Deadeye (same, except maybe false statements instead of the perjury, if only because it appears he did not appear before the grand jury), Armitage (violating the Espionage Act by leaking), Judy Miller (Espionage Act by receiving classified information), Novak (conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act and the IIPA), and maybe even Bushie for his participating in this scheme - to whatever degree.  That Fitz chose not to was a function of prosecutorial discretion (which is both absolute and unreviewable) and that, in turn,  was driven mostly by what he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Further, there's a specific name for what government officials under investigation do when they are "holding in check" a prosecutor doing that investigation:  "obstruction of justice".  It's a crime.

And, Fitz has not taken up any civil actions (lawsuits) to, say, revoke security clearances, though having all the powers of the AG he could do that, too.

Finally, "representing the OVP" is meaningless.  The constitutional and legal existence of the Vice President and his office is, as discussed above, limited.  All the other stuff Deadeye is and has been doing is extralegal.

Any support for this criminalization of politics is hypocritical.  

This is pure nonsense, too.  If you want to talk about "criminalization of politics", you can start with the US Attorney purge Gonzales and Rove and the WH carried out - because they wouldn't devote their prosecutions exclusively to Democrats.  But, moreover, this term "criminalization of politics" is a long-time favorite of Republicans.  I've seen it for over 20 years.  They pull it out every time they get caught violating the criminal law, claiming "it's not a crime.  It's just partisan politics."  

It's bullsh*t.

-

but Fitzgerald's questioning crossed over into Executive Privilege protections, pre-war intelligence was not part of his referral.

I call BS on that one. Fitzgerald was given a wide brush by Comey to get to the bottom of the potential crimes committed, which included crimes by the executive branch regarding prewar intelligence.

COMEY: Mr. Fitzgerald alone will decide how to staff this matter, how to continue the investigation and what prosecutive [sic] decisions to make. I expect that he will only consult with me or with Assistant Attorney General [Christopher] Ray, should he need additional resources or support.

[...]

My choice of Pat Fitzgerald, a sitting United States attorney, permits this investigation to move forward immediately and to avoid the delay that would come from selecting, clearing and staffing an outside special counsel operation. In addition, in many ways the mandate that I am giving to Mr. Fitzgerald is significantly broader than that that would go to an outside special counsel.

[...]

An outside counsel also only gets the jurisdiction that is assigned to him and no other. The regulations provide that if he or she wants to expand that jurisdiction, they have to come back to the attorney general and get permission. Fitzgerald has been told, as I said to you: Follow the facts; do the right thing. He can pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it.

Being covert requires certain crieria be met.

Plame didn't met them.

Libby and Armitage wasn't charged with outing one.