A lot of nasty email regarding this piece. Almost all of it is from Philadelphia, where a version was published in the Inquirer last week. There also appears to be lots of confusion out there. FWIW, here’s my response to the main points raised:

1. The president cannot leak classified information because if he orders its disclosure it is no longer classified.

2. That a president cannot leak classified information does not mean he cannot do something sleazy with classified information. I never suggested otherwise. If, for example, a president were to promise to fire anyone who had leaked X fact, well aware as he made that promise that he had, in fact, directed the leak of X fact, he would be guilty of lying to the American people, which is serious business whether or not the information at issue is classified. There is no evidence that President Bush did anything like this. The “information” that Bush said he would fire “anyone” over was the leak of classified information identifying Plame Wilson as a covert agent. It was not just any “leak” of information — particularly non-classified information (which is what those portions of the NIE became when Bush authorized their disclosure).

3. That a president cannot leak classified information does not mean that his authorizing of its disclosure is sound judgment. It is entirely valid to criticize a president for declassifying and causing the communication of information that harms national security — or even that suggests a cavalier attitude toward classified information. Again, this would not be a valid criticism of President Bush. The Joseph Wilson misinformation campaign (and the opposition’s general campaign to discredit the administration’s understanding of prewar intelligence) made it appropriate for the President to declassify those portions of the NIE that rebutted Wilson’s story.

4. The president’s essential immunity from the possibility of leaking classified information does not extend to his subordinates. Only the president is the chief executive with power over the entire executive branch and thus total control over what is and/or remains classified. If an executive branch official wants to disclose classified information, he must either (a) get the president to authorize it directly, or (b) follow the declassification procedures that are in place (which generally involves getting the pertinent executive agencies to agree to declassification). If an executive branch official fails, before leaking, to have the information legally declassified, he has leaked classified information — period.

5. Not all leaks of classified information can be prosecuted criminally. A lot depends on the subject matter and the state of mind of the leaker. But all leaks of classified information can subject the leaker — if he can be identified — to administrative discipline (including, I believe, termination of employment).

6. I didn’t bash President Clinton. To the contrary, I entirely agreed with what he did — in connection with both the retaliatory strike against the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and the later disclosure of previously classified information to explain to the country why he did it. I simply pointed out that this is what presidents do … but that the media seems to react to it differently depending on who the president is.