That's a variation on "there was no outing, therefore there can be no false testimony or statement" objection to the indictment. Fitz insinuated there was an outing, using terms like "employment status was classified" (irrelevant to the indictment) and lots of rhetoric in his press conference to paint a misleading picture that this is a "real" outing case.
Even President Bush contributes to that false impression, by saying "the investigation is a serious matter."
I've read the indictment from front to back with a mental picture of "what if all the reporters knew of Plame as of the year 2000?" and IMO, the indictment still stands for the violations it charges. The charges may fall on evidence not contained in the indictment, or on jury nullification. But, again IMO, the indictment is strong on its face as a matter of legal principle and simple logic; and Woodward's disclosure doesn't alter the analysis of whether or not the charges in the indictment are valid.