Since there is no evidence that Plame was covert, and there is no evidence even hinting that President Bush terminated Plame's non-existant covert status, the entire discussion in this item is hypothetical and moot. In fact, this stated "reason" is completely immaterial to the Plame case, and might even mislead uninformed readers.
Yes, I know that it is tempting to rebut arguments from the left, no matter how unfounded and idiotic those arguments may be, but IMHO #4 is a non-sequitur that does little, if anything, to add to the already strong and relevant arguments in the rest of the piece.
"Since there is no evidence that Plame was covert, and there is no evidence even hinting that President Bush terminated Plame's non-existant covert status, the entire discussion in this item is hypothetical and moot. In fact, this stated "reason" is completely immaterial to the Plame case, and might even mislead uninformed readers."
Well, I think the fact that the President has the legal authority to terminate an agent's covert status is very significant here. When the story first broke, I remember how the Left tried to make it out as if Bush had no more authority here than any private citizen. And the media parroted the same nonsense, of course. What I am saying is that, even if Plame *had* been covert at the time, the whole thing is nonsensical. The fact that Plame wasn't covert just compounds the absurdity.
It's the same trick the Left pulls on other national security issues too. Bush authorizes surevillence of terrorist cell phone calls from outside the US, and the Left accuses him of "breaking the law," as if the President has no authority unless granted to him by Congress. They just don't seem to understand the concept of separation of powers.
I think the issue here is that if President Bush wanted Plame to be covert, he would have demonstrated some major annoyance at having her exposed. If he didn't want her to be covert, her exposure would not be a crime.