Yesterday at Think Progress, John Podesta asked, "Has Rove’s Security Clearance Been Revoked?" Podesta notes that "disclosure of an undercover agent is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information," under the terms of a 1995 presidential executive order, and he quotes a November issue of Newsweek: "Having his security clearance yanked would not require Rove to resign as deputy chief of staff to President Bush. But it would prevent him from taking part in policymaking that relates to national-security issues, which would mean a much-reduced role in the Bush White House.”

Interesting. However, this is predicated on the assumption that the Bushies would actually abide by the law.

In the areas of secrecy and national security, if a law doesn't suit the Bushies purposes, they simply ignore it. So I have to reject this theory.

****

(By the way, Elisabeth Bumiller tells us in today's New York Times that Scott McClellan "told reporters on Air Force One on Wednesday morning that Mr. Rove would continue to have his security clearance.")