These are all valid points. I hadn't really thought much about this point until you all just brought it up. The reason I so quickly spout off that phrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implement more anonymity-based features. When I say there are bigger priorities, they suggest that "anonymity" is a core benefit of Bitcoin and I should be supporting it. I'm not against anonymity, and I most certainly favor privacy, but my goal was to produce a versatile client, not one focused on any one aspect -- there are plenty of people who use it for other reasons than anonymity.
However, I do like Greg's comment about "attacks" against a blind-dust-inclusion algorithm, and suggestion to maintain a clustering of already-linked addresses. That's not terribly difficult to do with the transaction history in hand, and it could increase how often the logic triggers. I suppose these hardcore SD players probably have a lot of one-satoshi outputs that could use vacuuming...