The newspapers have been all over the Administration's incessant leaking for political reasons, while any or all disclosure of information by anyone else, including where it exposes crimes, is deemed a treacherous blow to our national security.
Bush has of course the definitional defense - if leaking is defined as anything not by him, then of course he is never guilty of it. But he also has a stronger defense against the claim of having harmed our national security for crass political reasons.
In the latest Libby imbroglio, it turns out that the information the Administration leaked to discredit Wilson was already known to be false.
There you have it. Surely the Administration is safe from any charge of damaging national security through leaks when it is careful to leak only false information (as it did throughout the Iraq war controversy).
But is there anything else wrong with suppressing accurate information while leaking lots of false information? Gee, I'll have to think this over a bit more.