Question Author
Since asking my question, I've gotten some answers from other sources. Woodward opined that the damage was "minimal". Stansfield Turner, a former CIA director opined (along with three or four other CIA types) that the outing was "despicable".
Apparently, tjhe CIA conducted an "unofficial" damage assessment at the operational level (the "official" assessment hasn't been made yet because the matter is under "criminal litigation". The assessment is still secret, but unverifyed reports are that the damage was minimal as to personell but substantial as to intelligence operations.
While Plame may not have been a "covert agent", as defined in the 1978 law governing the outing of agents, the indictment said that Plame had a "cover" which was "blown". (I don't think there is any serious disagreement with that fact). That law required that the outing be intentional, deliberate and with full knowledge of the agent's undercover status; no such intent could be proven in the Plame outing.
The most persuasive opinions led me to believe that, while no one has been killed, or other agents seriously compromised, Plames work and intelligence on WMDs, especially those going to Iran, has been set back at least ten years, which is especially troubling considering the current tensions with that country..
In Woodward's taping of his conversation with Amitage (the original source of the leak), Woodward asks Why HIM? (refering to the decision to send Wilson) and I still don't know what about Wilson made his assignment so bad in both Woodward's and Armitage's eyes.
Anyhow, many thanks to those who responded.
Carl