Post Politics Hour

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 White House reporter Peter Baker was online Tuesday, Dec. 13, at 11 a.m. ET .

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning everyone. Lots of interesting, even provocative questions await us this morning. The blogosphere is awake and hungry, so let's get started.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Greetings - enjoyed your article on Bush' speech yesterday - you packed in a lot of good information. However, when I went back to read the transcript, I noticed that the question about casualties in Iraq was quite explicit -

"Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators."

Whereas most articles covering the speech have linked Bush' estimate of 30,000 dead to other similar estimates of civilian casualties (exclusively). It would appear that the number Bush cites references the "collateral" damage, and doesn't include the targets. Any thoughts on the apparent death gap?

Peter Baker: Good question. If he's referring to the estimate of a group called Iraq Body Count, they're counting civilians, not Iraqi police or army. Presumably many more were killed in the shock-and-awe bombing during the initial campaign to dislodge Saddam Hussein.

_______________________

Lawrence, Kan.: Did Jim VandeHei misspeak on Hardball when he attributed Rove's knowledge of Valerie Plame to Hadley?

Peter Baker: Thanks for the question. Jim informs me he did misspeak. He meant to say chatter between Rove and Libby, not Hadley. That's the trick with television, it's hard to correct. Appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight here.

_______________________

Lindenhurst, N.Y.: President Bush said to Brian Williams, he reads the newspaper every morning and his staff fills him in on news items as well. Does he read only The Washington Times?

Peter Baker: I'm sure he has a subscription. But I get the sense he reads several papers, or at least the clippings from several newspapers. From time to time, he says something that's clearly a response to something in that day's paper.

_______________________

Barstow, Calif.: Blogsters and some foreign media put the Iraqi death toll at over 100,000.

Why is President Bush using a figure of 30,000 - for what purpose at this point?

Peter Baker: Any kind of firm count is very hard to come by. There was an epidemiological study printed in the British journal Lancet last year that posited that 100,000 figure based on door-to-door surveys in several neighbors and extrapolating nationwide. Other experts and even groups such as Human Rights Watch consider that exaggerated, though.

_______________________

Camilla, Ga.: With all of the investigations surrounding the White House at all levels of government personnel, could there be an impeachment of the President on the outer perimeter of these allegations and trials?

Peter Baker: I wouldn't expect an impeachment of a Republican president by a Republican Congress. And frankly, a lot of Democrats in Congress were left with a bad taste after the last impeachment and would probably be reluctant to go back down that road even if they were to take over Congress in the 2006 elections.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Monday the President acknowledged for the first time the big picture of carnage in Iraq from this war, quoting (presumably) the Iraq body count figure of 30,000 deaths. Their figure is a lowball estimate, limited to violent deaths confirmed by two media sources (in a chaotic country where the media was sometimes shut down by the CPA for just that type of reporting).

There have been two major studies of the overall death toll (inclusive of those attributed to deteriorated health care and other infrastructure) - one published in The Lancet estimating 98,000 deaths in the first year of the war, the other by an Iraqi humanitarian organization finding 128,000. Why didn't The Post include these numbers in their coverage of the President's speech?

Peter Baker: In fact, our story this morning did cite the Lancet study, but as mentioned above, a number of experts and even human rights groups doubt it because of the methodology. That said, there are obvious flaws in counting in other ways as well and it's certainly quite plausible that the 30,000 figure tabulated by Iraq Body Count misses a lot of other deaths.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Bush Estimates Iraqi Death Toll in War at 30,000 , ( Post, Dec. 13, 2005 )

_______________________

Redondo Beach, Calif.: Political Editor John Harris wrote yesterday on the washingtonpost.com blog that Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing" column that "-the confusion Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work." As one of the aforementioned White House reporters, can you give your readers an example of how Froomkin's column has impeded your ability to report on the Bush administration?

Peter Baker: Okay, lot of questions on this topic today, so let's go ahead and get into it. John's point is only one of clarity. Let's make sure there's no confusion. There shouldn't be any debate about that. We don't put Richard Cohen or George Will on the front page, we put them on the op-ed page where everyone understands what they write is based on their own opinions. The web site is less clear simply because we don't have the traditional design of the newspaper with a front page and an op-ed page.

_______________________

Freeport, Ill.: Mr. Baker, I was wondering if you are one of the insecure, jealous, Washington Post reporters who feel threatened by Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing. Sir, would you please comment on getting a life, doing your job relentlessly and not being so afraid anymore? Thank you. I look forward to your reply.

Peter Baker: Insecure? Jealous? Need a life? All of the above. Threatened by Dan Froomkin's column? Hardly. Dan compiles links to other people's work and throws in some thought, analysis and opinion of his own. There's great value in that. But it's a different thing from being a White House reporter.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: I might as well ask (I'm sure you're getting a lot of this) - but what is your take on Froomkin and his column?

Do you get a lot of flak about it from peers and sources at the White House? Do White House staffers ever comment on his column to you?

Peter Baker: Can't say any White House staffer has ever mentioned Dan's column to me, at least not that I recall. They're pretty sophisticated over at the White House and understand he's not a reporter. I think the concern on the part of our ombudswoman and political editor is about readers more generally, including some in the political class who may not be as closely attuned to how this works as the White House. John Harris has told us that even some of his normally savvy contacts have been confused over this.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Connected with the brouhaha surrounding Froomkin's opinion blog, I for one would appreciate disclosure of your background in reporting and any personal political connections you have that may color your reporting of the White House. Thank you.

Peter Baker: Okay, fair question. My background in reporting goes back 17 years at the Post and a couple years before that at the Washington Times. I've covered the Clinton White House and now the Bush White House. I don't have any personal political connections to speak of, other than a family that, like many, includes liberals, conservatives, independents, Republicans, Democrats, socialists, Christian conservatives, libertarians and quite a few who, to use the president's term, might be called rejectionists. None of them, to my knowledge, works in politics. As for myself, I'm not a member of any political party nor any organization other than a few professional ones. And I stopped voting a number of years back to avoid taking sides even in the privacy of a voting booth.

_______________________

Spring, Tex.: You mention that Bush sometimes cite articles he has read, I think I could count on one hand the number of times Bush strays from whatever his speechwriter has written. Does he really have any cognitive thoughts of his own?

Peter Baker: You're right that he doesn't stray from the speech text often, but he does take questions, usually from a press pool and from time to time at news conferences. These less-scripted moments can sometimes show what he's reading. Just yesterday, for instance, he drifted off a question posed after his speech and began rebutting critics who "say, well, he's making it up that they want to establish a totalitarian empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia." That seemed to refer to critics quoted in an article yesterday morning by Elisabeth Bumiller in the New York Times. (I'm sure Dan Froomkin has linked to it.)

_______________________

Northfield, Minn.: The blogosphere has gone insane. Harris's comments about Froomkin seemed totally sensible to me.

Anyone who read his book Clinton knows that he is a fair-minded writer. Froomkin's rabid supporters on the left do not appreciate the value of independent, non-objective journalism.

Keep up the good work.

Peter Baker: I happen to think John is a fair-minded journalist as well, and not just cuz he happens to be my boss at the moment. But it's normal if you feel strongly about a subject or a political figure to view everything through a prism and take offense or assume the worst in those whose job is only to provide information, not serve as advocates. I was overseas for four years and came back last year to discover a sharply more suspicious readership and it's distressing that motives are automatically assigned to journalists even in circumstances with no reason.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: I do not understand why anyone is confused about Froomkin's column if they read it. He has time and time again stated that he is not a White House reporter in it.

Peter Baker: I would hope there wouldn't be confusion, but some readers may not be paying as close attention as you are.

_______________________

Ellicott City, Md.: RE: Froomkin. It is labeled opinion (has been for a bit), it is obvious when he is commenting and when he is quoting, very much like Howard Kurtz's Media Notes pieces, I feel your savvy person purposefully didn't "get it" as opposed to innocently.

Peter Baker: If I'm not mistaken, it was labeled opinion, in fact, after John Harris raised his concerns. That was helpful and we were glad there was a move toward clarity. On the site today, for instance, Dan's column is in the same pull-down as other opinion writers, such as George Will, E.J. Dionne and others.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Wow, you don't vote? That surprises me. I realize reporters need to be objective in their work but certainly are entitled to an opinion of who'd they want to represent them in their government. Is this a common thing among reporters?

Peter Baker: No, it's not common. Most reporters believe strongly that they should do their civic duty as voters and I'm very respectful of that. I just found it was easier for me to try to keep from being invested emotionally or otherwise in one candidate or another.

_______________________

Cedar Glen, Calif.: Have you really been able to avoid having a political viewpoint? Wasn't it clear in your own mind how you would have voted in the last Presidential election, had you been willing to vote?

Peter Baker: Of course it's hard to avoid having a political viewpoint and obviously reporters come into their jobs as human beings with experiences and feelings and opinions. But it's our job to sublimate the personal for the professional to the extent that we can. And no, I honestly don't know how I would have voted in the last election, and I'm glad not to have had to make a decision. In whatever small way, it helps keep my mind clearer.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Two Questions:

All conditions the same in Iraq, do you think the Republicans would be complaining about the way things are going now if a Democrat were president?

Are White House reporters at all intimidated or do they worry about their careers because of Bush's history of retaliation when he feels betrayed, for the lack of a better word?

Thanks.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the questions.

On the first, it's a fair point. There were certainly Republicans who complained when President Clinton went to war in Kosovo and things did not go according to plan at first.

On the second, no I don't anyone who feels intimidated by the White House. The benefit of a White House where there's no access is there's nothing to lose if you write things they don't like. But our job isn't to make people mad or happy necessarily, but to inform, and I think that's the source of a lot of this consternation since a lot of readers would like us to take sides.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: You mentioned that you used to work for the Washington Times. Couldn't a liberal reader argue that makes you suspect? Or were you working there before it was bought by Reverend Moon?

Peter Baker: Readers can draw anything they want from it. But the Washington Times is a good paper in a lot of ways and has much to offer both readers and young journalists who started out there, as I was fortunate to do.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: I think I read one of your bosses also said he doesn't vote but even though you are a reporter I would encourage you to vote. I think it's really important people vote. If they see people giving reasons for not voting I'm afraid it only encourages not voting.

Peter Baker: Fair point. Appreciate the input.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: Why isn't Cillizza's column listed under the opinion heading?

Peter Baker: Chris Cillizza's column, The Fix, isn't an opinion column but a compilation of items and information from the political world that you can't find anywhere else. There's certainly analysis in there but it's not Chris's personal opinions, it's a reflection of the dialogue in the political world. For those who haven't, check it out. It's a terrific addition to the site.

_______________________

Toronto, Ontario: "I was overseas for four years and came back last year to discover a sharply more suspicious readership and it's distressing that motives are automatically assigned to journalists even in circumstances with no reason."

WE have been given many reasons to be very distrustful of journalists in the past while. Miller, Woodward, most reporting leading to the Iraq War, etc.

I think it is very unfair to place the blame on the readers.

People want less discussion of politics, left-right, liberal-conservative; less on this hand, on the other hand, less protecting confidential sources, and more actual reporting on the truth.

Peter Baker: The trick is truth isn't so easy to identify. Your truth might not be the same truth as Judy Miller's. Journalists are certainly flawed but most of the ones I know try very hard to get at truth to the extent that we can. Readers keep us honest when we fail, and that's certainly fair too.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Boy, we could go on and on, but I'm into overtime already and like the Redskins it looks like I'm behind. Thanks for participating today. Come back tomorrow for our crack congressional correspondent, Chuck Babington (who has nothing to do with the current dispute, so go easy on the guy).

Best,

Peter

_______________________

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.