White House Insider

Washington Post staff writer Michael Fletcher will be online Wednesday, July 20, at 1 p.m. ET to take your questions on all the latest happenings in the Bush White House.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Michael Fletcher: Hello everyone. It's been quite a few days for news. let's get started.

_______________________

Largo, Fla.: Will the Supreme Court nomination completely push aside the investigation into Rove and Libby and Fleischer (and Cheney and Bush)and the CIA leak case as the Story of Main Interest for the White House press corps, as is obviously the White House's underlying design?

Will the administration/Bush/McClellan be quizzed at length as to the timing of the nomination announcement, in that it appears to be a craven attempt to manipulate the media (a prime-time announcement!?!) and distract the public and the press from the leak story?

After all, every day new revelations were being unearthed on the leak case... and just when the press was starting to show some real teeth and actually present tough questions to Bush and his minions (and follow up, and follow up, and follow up when the questions get evaded or ignored), now a fresh bone has been tossed- the nomination announcement...

While as a story, the nomination is huge, so too is the leak case. Can we hope for a longer attention span from the White House press corps?

Michael Fletcher: I think the nomination will push Rove out of the news only for short period of time. The Rove story is too important to stay out off the front page for long. Not only does it reveal how the White House sometimes operates, but it shows how sensitive the administration was to any arguments that undercut its rationale for war. The court obviously is important, perhaps almost as important as a presidential election. But developments in the Rove case will surely be back in the news.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Last night I watched Bush's nomination speech on CNN. I kept thinking he looked smug and had an "evil" grin on his face. It wasn't until later that evening that Nightline showed the speech from a different angle, and there was Robert's son playing and jumping in front of the podium which was obviously what was making the President grin. Do you think the White House is aware that most people probably never saw that wider angle view?

Michael Fletcher: I'm sure they are aware of that. The White House communications people watch such broadcasts closely so they understand how their message is getting across. I'm willing to guess that they wouldn't have characterized his grin as 'evil.' In any event, they, more than most of us, understand the president's various quirks and they often put them to use on his behalf.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Are there any good guesses why President Bush expressed such confidence that Karl Rove "wasn't involved" in the leaks? Rove must have known that his involvement would come out, and he must have told the President.

Michael Fletcher: The best guess seems to be that maybe the president didn't know. Often, staff insulates the president from certain knowledge that could prove damaging. But you pose the question of the day. People want to know what the president knew and when.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Re: Largo, Fla. question:

How can you let it stand that this nomination timing is machinated by the White House to divert from the Rove (non)issue? Did the White House design O'Connor's retirement? Is the Supreme Court's restart in October a new timeline created by the White House?

Michael Fletcher: I didn't mean to imply that I bought that line of logic. I'm saying that the nomination has had the effect of pushing Rove out of the news, but only temporarily. I believe the court appointment is working on its own, very important clock.

_______________________

Ames, Iowa: It seems to me that in demanding a "dignified" confirmation, Bush is setting the stage so that any opposition from the Dems is seen as mean and petty. IMO, the Democratic Senators have an obligation to represent those of us who voted for THEM and do not agree with Bush's conservatives views. Why should they sit down and shut up?

Michael Fletcher: Both sides are trying to gain the upper hand in the all important public relations game when it comes to a nominee. They do this by trying to cast the other side as unreasonable. The 'left' has called for Bush to appoint a 'mainstream conservative' such as O'Connor. The 'right' has asked for up-and-down votes, fair hearings and a dignified process. The reality is that the Senate will weigh in, and with force. This is particularly true in the case of Roberts, who has a relatively short record as a judge. So there will be a close examination of his views from both sides of the aisle.

_______________________

Toledo, Ohio: Does Scott McClellan have any credibility left after the Karl Rove fiasco?

Michael Fletcher: That's an interesting question. I think part of what fueled that memorable scene in the White House press room where Scott was asked about the Rove affair something like 35 times was a feeling among reporters that they had been misled. Most reporters I know don't think Scott did it intentionally, but that he only told the story as he knew it. Either way, it fed the near anger that you saw.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi there. I've been following the White House press briefings on and off for the last few years, and have been tracking Rovegate with particular attention. It appears to me that the White House press has hit a dead end, and that despite their best efforts to pry some tidbits from Scott McClellan, there will be no further information forthcoming until the investigation is complete, or the press gets distracted by the next media storm.

My question is, what options are available to the press, in the face of direct resistance and refusal to answer questions by the press secretary. Would something like a boycott, a refusal on the part of the press to participate in press briefings until the White House becomes more forthcoming, be possible?

Michael Fletcher: I'm afraid you won't see anything like that. The business is just too competitive and the feeling is that information is available elsewhere: among interest groups, on the hill, among former administration officials. There is loud grumbling among the press when the White House does background briefings in front of auditoriums full of reporters but then requires that the briefer be identified only as a senior administration official. Some reporters have tried to organize walkouts of such events--which, by the way seem to be on the wane--but the overriding views that we have to gather as much news as possible. Moreover, reporters don't like when the dispute is about us, when we are just trying to cover the news.

_______________________

Grass Valley, Calif.: Does the White House hold a position that 'doing away' with Roe v. Wade does not change the legal status of abortion?

Michael Fletcher: Not that I've heard. I think it is clear to them that doing away with Roe would throw the issue of abortion back to the states and most likely cause a political firestorm in the population. Something like two-thirds of Americans support abortion rights, even if some in that number favor certain restrictions. Bush himself has cited this fact in telling members of his Christian right base not to expect Roe to be overturned until public opinion on abortion shifts.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Lacking a media backlash against the recent outburst of David Gregory, could we say that the White House press has lost any remaining sense of objectivity?

Seriously, it may be reasonable to write reams of articles about whether Rove should be fired, but how about some balance in the number and depth of the stories? For example, why do I have to search hard in the MSM or on conservative blogs to hear that Iraq actually had a nuclear program? Has that angle been shredded? I'd love to hear some evidence to support that. Until then, I say the corps is uniformly partisan.

Michael Fletcher: It's funny you'd say that, as many people feel like the press corps is not tough enough on the White House. Look, the Rove story is legitimate. Not only was the press misled on this issue two years ago but, again, the story speaks to the feeling that the administration wanted to silence any and all internal critics of its Iraq policy. Whether Iraq at one point had a nuclear program, it seems, is a separate question.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: You mentioned something I don't understand as an outsider. When an administration official talks to a room full of press and then says it's off the record, why doesn't somebody break rank and just report the who, what, when and why that they saw? I thought that blogs and the Internet would bring an end to this kind of nonsense.

Michael Fletcher: The problem is that you have to work with these people day in and day out. I'm not sure that all the bloggers and web-based reporters follow these rules, but in major news organizations, once we agree as reporters not to use a name, we don't. What we do, however, is press for these people to go on the record as often as possible.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I watched the President on MSNBC last night and didn't see Roberts' son's dancing til this morning via an AP photo. I know kids can be tough to control, but in cases like this isn't there some kind of back-up plan for dealing with kids who are acting out? It reminded me of Rudy Giuliani's son back in the 90's.

I don't have any kids, so I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I do wonder why something like this was left to chance.

Sigh - I miss Jack and Emma Claire!

Michael Fletcher: If I had to guess, the White House loved having Judge Roberts' son in those pictures. All the better to humanize the nominee and blunt the attacks they feel are likely to come from the 'left.'

_______________________

Nelson, British Columbia: Hello Mr. Fletcher

With regard to the nuclear deal the White House is supporting with India, although it is a good idea gaining India's support to create a balance in Asia...as Asian countries are creating their own dynamic and summit leaving the U.S out of the loop do you think that creating a bond with India will help U.S. foreign policy...i.e. dealings with Iran and North Korea on the nuclear proliferation issue, as China didn't pressure North Korea with regard to nuclear proliferation, for fear of immigrants swamping their border, and also the trade aspects Russia and China have with Iran which is another nuclear wild card which would stop them from backing the U.S on that issue.

As well Russia does not have a developed security to protect nuclear components or fuel rods etc. from being sold on the black market.

How will the deal with India help the U.S.?

Michael Fletcher: I think the deal helps the US by cementing a relationship with India and recognizing that burgeoning nation as a true world power. But I don't know that the deal won't undercut US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation. Obviously, India has had the bomb for some time. But the more that status is recognized, it seems like it will only fuel, not dampen, the nuclear ambitions of other developing nations.

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you know if it is true, as has been reported on the Internet, that Judge Roberts advised the Bush campaign in 2000 on how to have the Florida legislature decide who Florida's electors should be, regardless of the recount outcome? Are you able to please confirm or spike this rumor?

Michael Fletcher: We reported in today's editions that Roberts gave Florida Gov. Jeb Bush advice on how the legislature could name George Bush the winner of Florida in 2000, when Republicans feared the recount might go the other way.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: So, did the White House feed a false rumor about Edith Clement to keep the media off the scent of the true nominee?

That Karl Rove...what a scamp !

Michael Fletcher: That's funny. Some conservative leaders said they felt misled by the White House which left them with the impression that Clement would be the one. But when asked, the White House said those folks were under informed. Who knows? is the real answer. One thing you can say for sure about this White House: it knows how to keep a secret.

_______________________

Kiawah Island, S.C.: re:"Not only does it reveal how the White House sometimes operates, but it shows how sensitive the administration was to any arguments that undercut its rationale for war." What an amazing assumption that you have made here. What are the facts that show the sensitivity that you claim. Is it "sensitivity" that a reporter calls Karl Rove regarding the claim that Joe Wilson made that he was sent to Niger by the Vice President's office and Karl Rove states that he was not sent by Cheney? The fact that he mentioned that there was a possibility that he was sent by his wife who worked for the CIA was a fact. It is extremely myopic to say that this was an attempt to shut up a critic of Bush. How would it? Wouldn't it have the opposite effect?

Michael Fletcher: I'm not sure they wanted to shut up Wilson. But they wanted to undercut his authority, such as it was. Rove himself said he wanted to wave reporters off Wilson and dispel any suggestion that his mission to Niger was authorized by the vice president.

_______________________

Michael Fletcher: That's all the time we have. Thanks for the great questions.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.