John F. Harris
Washington Post National Political Editor
Thursday, October 20, 2005; 11:00 AM
Don't want to miss out on the latest buzz in politics? Start each day at wonk central: The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news. Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris was online Thursday, Oct. 20 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news. The transcript follows. ____________________ Washington, D.C.: Bottom line -- who is the source of the leak, if you had to make an educated guess? John F. Harris: Good morning. We certainly know a lot more about how this story got spread than we did before, and the essential role of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and probably others in playing damage control against Joseph Wilson's allegations. But the essential question--who was the first to leak her name?--remains a mystery. I'll pass on the educated guess opportunity, since I'm afraid it might soon become apparent that it is an uneducated guess. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Some articles today suggest that not only was Miers's response to the Senate's questions incomplete and a bit sloppy, but downright constitutionally inaccurate. And it showed that she had been suspended from the bar, twice. The White House keeps saying, you'll see, but when? And how seriously do her answers on the survey jeopardize her standing with senators? Is it possible that she won't make it out of committee? John F. Harris: I was quite surprised--given how many questions there already were about Miers's qualifications--that she and her White House handlers would turn in a questionnaire that was anything but immaculate. The sloppiness goes beyond her to others at the White House. The consensus from reporters who have been following this is that she will still get confirmed, but it seems to me that the nomination is becoming more precarious each day, and that offending both the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee was not a wise move. _______________________ Atlanta, Ga.: I love these chats ... this is more a comment than question. It seems that some people on the left on this chat and other Post chats charge that the mainstream media fell down on its job in prewar reporting. Hindsight is 20/20. People seem to forget the atmosphere after 9/11. America was surprised, hurt, then angry and wanted revenge. In that context, the entire country's judgment may have been clouded. Plus, opposition to the Iraq invasion in 2002 was labeled as anti-American, supporting terrorists or military wimpiness. Anyway, the press may be powerful, but it is only an observer. The press can't lead us to war, only our government (with tacit support of the people) can. That said, I'm enjoying the -rule of law- people who now says the Plame affair is criminalization of politics. John F. Harris: I'm sympathetic to your point (not surprisingly, I guess the press critics you refer to would say.) I think some people do apply the retrospectoscope somewhat unfairly. The fact is, all the intelligence sources and elected officials in both parties did believe there was WMD in Iraq. It seems hard to imagine that the press could easily counter that. That said, there was good reporting by such people as the Post's Walter Pincus that did raise skeptical questions about whether the administration was exaggerating the evidence it had. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: It's mentioned that Miers is going to get grilled with questions from both sides of the Judiciary Committee. I'm sure Ms. Miers is being coached for the real toughies. My question is where is the truth in hearings if one has packaged answers to any tough question? Is the idea to trip her up in her questions like they do in depositions? John F. Harris: She can and will be well-coached--as would any sensible nominee prepare thoroughly. I think no amount of preparation and "packaged answers" can prevent her from illuminating in genuine ways how she thinks and how she would approach the job. That's true with every nominee. In Miers case, because her background is not in constitutional law, there probably will be a game of Judicial Jeopardy! "I'll take stare decisis for a thousand, Alex." _______________________ San Diego, Calif.: Good morning. With all of the buzz about what Patrick Fitzgerald may do, what do you think will happen if Libby is indicted but not Rove? Will Rove go back to work as "Bush's brain" as if nothing ever happened? Or is he fatally damaged anyway? Thanks. John F. Harris: Even more to speculate about. I've never thought Rove was "Bush's brain," but as the White House's top political strategist he is an essential player. In the absence of an indictment, I'd be surprised if he does not remain doing exactly what he is doing--and the president has lots of important political business before him, particularly with the recent dissension among the conservative movement. _______________________ Blacksburg, Va.: Could you comment on US News & World Report's article from the 18th that stated that due to the CIA Leak case "the vice president might step aside .. " Have you heard this from your sources as well? Do you think Cheney might be culpable in this probe as well as Libby and Rove? John F. Harris: I saw that US News item and have to confess I laughed. I think that is getting waaay ahead of the story. _______________________ Tulsa, Okla.: With more fissure opening within the Republican party each day ... what do you think about the House and Senate changing majorities in '06 or '08? John F. Harris: As political reporters (or an editor in my case) this is always what we are alert for--signs that a major political shift is underway. As the majority party, the Republicans do face a lot of problems right now--DeLay's ethics problems, public unease over Iraq, high gas prices all among them. But there is not clear evidence so far suggesting that this is another 1994--a seismic political event in which control of Congress flipped. Because of natural GOP advantages in the drawing of congressional districts, it would take a pretty big shake-up for them to lose Congress. _______________________ College Park, Md.: Why aren't the Democrats pushing to have the hearings for Miers ASAP? It seems that she is unfamiliar with many of the constitutional issues and the more time she has to prepare the better she will do in the hearings. It seems that if she does poorly in the hearings that would be a good way to attack the president by giving another clear example of loyalty triumphing over competence. John F. Harris: First off, Democrats don't control the schedule...the Republicans do. I'd add that Democrats seem uncertain so far how to proceed with Miers. They plainly are enjoying seeing the Republicans divided by the nomination. And they must ask themselves whether Miers might be at least a somewhat better justice from a liberal perspective than whoever would come instead if Miers withdraws or is defeated. My own guess is that Democrats at the end of the day will come out vigorously against her. The political interest groups on the Democratic side are motivated powerfully by the abortion rights issue, and it seems clear that Miers is an opponent of abortion rights. _______________________ Danbury, Conn.: The investigation with respect to a leak of a CIA employee's name is continuing with one significant question remaining unanswered: Was the position within the CIA, of their employee whose name was leaked, one which really was "secret", "covert" or any such appearance causing revealing the individual's name, a crime under any statute? Too many people are providing too many unsubstantiated labels to the individuals position, raising questions as to the real substance or sensitivity of her position. Or, Would revealing the name of even a janitor or receptionist be a crime? John F. Harris: I think you are identifying important questions: What was the actual degree of intelligence damage by the disclosure of Plame-Wilson's name, and what was the specific crime? It has long also seemed to me that Joe Wilson's own activities--publishing op-eds etc.--were not exactly calculated to maintaining secrecy about himself and his family. _______________________ Gaithersburg, Md.: Can the vice president be indicted for crimes committed in office while he holds the office? John F. Harris: I'm not expert on this, but there was some discussion among reporters and editor yesterday, and we believe the answer is yes. (In other words, impeachment and Senate trial is not the only legal avenue, as some say it is for presidents.) Didn't Spiro Agnew resign to escape imminent impeachment? If we have real expertise out there on this question, zap us a note. _______________________ Wellesley, Mass.: How wide is Fitzgerald's investigation (and indictments) going? Is he going to indict based on a conspiracy to lie about going to war in Iraq, or will he stick to the narrower issue of Plame's identity? John F. Harris: It's stating the obvious, perhaps, but worth emphasizing: No one who is talking knows what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is up to .This has been the most opaque and secretive investigation of its type in memory. That actually makes sense--it would be odd to have an investigation about leaks be driven by prosecutorial leaks. As reporters, though, we sure wish this was not locked up quite so tight. _______________________ San Antonio, Tex.: This information, below, from today's VandeHei/Leonnig article seems critical. Shouldn't it have been put up much higher, paragraph-wise, in their article today? Do we know who these other reporters are? Was there a concerted effort by the administration to orchestrate a broader leak campaign to out Joe Wilson's wife? --- But other reporters were contacted by other White House officials about Plame during the crucial week in July 2003 after Wilson's views became public, according to government officials and people involved in the case. This leaves open the possibility of a broader leak campaign. In September of 2003, a senior administration official told The Post that at least six journalists were contacted about Plame by two top White House officials. John F. Harris: It may not be that critical. Our best guess (and this is based on reporting about what he has been asking witnesses) is that Fitzgerald is interested only in conversations that predated the disclosure of Plame's name in the Novak column in July 2003. Some of those conversations among those "at least six reporters" I'm pretty sure occurred after the column ran. _______________________ Chicago, Ill.: Hello Mr. Harris, I too, love these chats. Would you please compare Ms. Miers and the nominated version of the (now) Justice Thomas, and explain how she is any "less qualified" (i.e., constitutional law, judicial experience, etc.) than he was when he was nominated. From what I've seen, other than the school that they each got their law degree from, Ms. Miers seems to have a leg up on Justice Thomas. Thanks! John F. Harris: You'll recall that at that time Bush 41's claim that Thomas was the most qualified man in America was met with some skepticism, and that was indeed an issue before the hearings got taken over by the Anita Hill allegations. One difference between Thomas and Miers--and this could be critical--was that Thomas was known by and embraced by activists in conservative legal circles. They have no such affinity for Miers. _______________________ Farmington Hills, Mich.: As a very interested follower of the Plame case I have a question about news coverage. When Rove and Libby claim that they did not "name" Valerie Plame but referred to her as Joe Wilson's wife would it be injecting opinion for a reporter to say that these two gentleman are splitting hairs and that by referring to Ms. Plame as Joe Wilson's wife they have essentially named her. Just curious. John F. Harris: I covered the Clinton presidency and later wrote a book on that era, so I am something of an expert on legalisms and hair-splitting (it depends on what the meaning of is is) I would observe that many people--regardless of party and irrespective of their previous denunciations of evasive language--resort to such tactics when they are the subjects of criminal investigations. _______________________ Baltimore, Md.: I cannot understand why White House personnel would risk a serious crime such as outing a CIA agent, surely it was not just to get back at Wilson? Are we seeing a much deeper reason, in fact, was the White House trying to prevent her carrying out an intelligence investigation that was 'too close the bone' John F. Harris: On this point, I tend to be more believing of the White House line. It has always seemed clear to me--and the evidence coming out over time has strengthened the point--that the White House motive in talking about Plame was not "to get back at Wilson." This was not about revenge. It was about trying to persuade reporters not to write about Wilson's allegations or take them seriously, because his mission to Niger was a low-level endeavor that had been cooked up lower down in the bureaucracy (with the assistance of his wife) and was not something that was done with White House knowledge. Remember, at the time, Wilson's suggestion was that of course the vice president knew about the results of his trip to Niger, because he had ordered it. In the course of trying to knock down a damaging story--a routine activity in Washington--they obviously stepped over a line...quite possibly without fully appreciating that they were stepping across. _______________________ Springfield, Va.: Delay's lawyers seem to be trying to get him off on technicalities. Won't he be weakened by anything short of a not guilty verdict or a complete retreat by the prosecutor? John F. Harris: His future depends on two questions: What happens in his legal case, and what is the willingness of former loyalists in the House Republican conference to embrace him as leader. His political problems and potential legal vulnerabilities go beyond the Texas fund-raising case (in particular, the uncertain course of the Jack Abramoff investigation.) I'd be pretty surprised if he returns to his old post (though should hasten to add that I'm often surprised by unexpected turns in the news.) _______________________ Hickory, N.C.: What is your take on the level of "command and control" this president has compared to other presidents? It seems to me that a very select few (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and possibly a few others) have an overwhelming amount of influence on national policy. In your opinion, does W really run the show, or is he just a convenient face to have in front of the average American? John F. Harris: My frame of reference is always the Clinton presidency, because I covered that as a reporter and knew that White House well. It seems apparent that Bush relies on a much tighter organization, and a far smaller circle of loyal advisers. Clinton often prospered--whether by design or subconscious preference--with competing camps of advisers and a certain amount of organizational looseness to his decision-making. I don't think Bush is a "convenient face"--most of what we have learned about this administration makes it clear he is always the ultimate decision-maker--but his admirably organized and disciplined operation does carry risks of its own: isolation from dissenting opinions, reliance on key advisers whose judgment may not always be perfect. Comparing these two presidents is really a fascinating case study in differing leadership and decision-making models, and it's an argument without end as to which is superior. _______________________ Brooklyn, N.Y.: "This was not about revenge. It was about trying to persuade reporters not to write about Wilson's allegations or take them seriously" Then how do you explain the fact that Libby leaked Plame's name to Miller before the op-ed came out? John F. Harris: Good question. The answer is that Wilson was busy talking to reporters and columnists on a background basis before his op-ed. These background conversations are now established on the record, and recent reporting in the Post has also made clear that the White House was acutely aware of who Wilson was and that he was talking with reporters before his op-ed column was published. _______________________ Osh Kosh, Wisc.: Your ace White House reporter Jim VandeHei said he only goes to those useless briefings because you make him. Why do you make him? John F. Harris: VandeHei is the best--one of the really great reporters in Washington. I don't make him do anything. I do encourage all the reporters who work for me to attend briefings in person when possible, rather than just read the transcripts later. One gets a better sense of what stories are really causing a lot of tension, how official spokesmen are answering or not answering, by being there as opposed to just writing. I think Jim agrees with me about this. By coincidence, he is from Wisconsin--Oshkosh, I believe. Thanks for all the good questions and comments. Check in again tomorrow. John Harris _______________________ 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.