Legacies of a Leak Case
By Jim Hoagland
Thursday, October 20, 2005; Page A27

When historians write about the Weimarization of Washington in the Bush years, they will highlight the tawdry and divisive case involving the publication of Valerie Plame's CIA association and the unjust incarceration of reporter Judith Miller.

I was like, "Weimarization, nice word," only to be crushed to earth before the sentence even ended. Still, nice word. I'll be looking for an opportunity to use it.

Crucial details of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year investigation -- such as whether anyone in the Bush administration will be indicted for naming Plame or for lying under oath -- remain unclear.

This is not something you'd expect to hear complaints about. No leaks from an investigation of possibly illegal leaks. We're talking "lead by example", not "do as I say not as I do."

The problem the right wing pundits are having (other than defending an administration they don't believe truly supports them) is the lack of leaks denies them one of their strongest tactics...injecting doubt.

An argument can be supported by the accuracy of its projections. If you can, you want to sow doubt on each individual link in the argument because people tend to treat "mights" and "maybes" as additive. 

Think about Crossfire, remember that absurdity? Where political Tourette Syndrome was the rule of the day? Only recently have the Tim Russerts of the world made their guests allow a liberal, Democrat or progressive to finish a sentence.

Like the subplots and intrigues that divided post-World War I Berlin into hostile camps that reflexively rubbished any political idea, artistic creation or strategic proposal coming from another camp -- historian Walter Laqueur's "Weimar 1918-1933" describes that collective and destructive pigheadedness brilliantly -- the Fitzgerald investigation will be more important for its effect than for its cause.

Another effective tactic is to confuse cause and effect. In politics this is very easily done because it's kind of fractal...the process operates on its own output. This investigation is the result of a long history of divisive confrontations initiated by the Right.

He has built his case around the discussion of possibly classified information -- Plame's name -- by government officials with journalists.

Speak definitively. Don't worry that you're making assumptions about a case you just admitted knowing little to nothing about.

He is sending a message -- one that President Bush fully endorses, even as it creates severe complications for him -- about the dangers of talking to journalists about national security matters.

Project your own fear onto your readers...

The separate prosecution and conviction of Larry Franklin, a Defense Department official who was investigated for discussing classified information with journalists, two former officials for a pro-Israel lobby group, and an Israeli Embassy official, sent the same message.

...and use non-sequiturs to make things as non-specific as possible.

Finally make sure your real concern...

But Fitzgerald has wielded his prosecutorial discretion like a bludgeon, with scant regard for the need for a balance of official candor and journalistic responsibility that serves the public good.

i.e., your job...is raised with the proper delicacy.