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 Michael Fletcher was online Thursday, Dec. 22, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Michael Fletcher: Good morning, everyone. Congress has been working late. The president is on the griddle over his domestic spying program. And he is on the pr offensive when it come to Iraq. Let's get started.

_______________________

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Thanks for taking my question. If Katrina and its devastation of New Orleans is such a significant event, how come we don't hear more about what is going on with the recovery there? The most we hear is that a story was done back when and then get provided a link. For many Americans, I think there is a grave concern about New Orleans just as there was about NYC after 9/11. The difference being, NO doesn't have the same media centers located in it. I know there may not necessarily be "news" there, but to what degree does the media owe the public an idea of whether our government is performing effectively in wake of this disaster? Thanks.

Michael Fletcher: Good question. If I recall correctly, Katrina only merited one mention at President Bush's most recent press conference. There are still many stories in our paper about New Orleans, but most are now running inside the paper, rather than on the front page. Some of it has to do with the here-and-now nature of the news business. But I can say this: I was in New Orleans a couple of weeks ago, and the city is absolutely devastated. I can't imagine the place returning to anything approaching normal in under five years. And, I assure you, the story will be in the paper for a long time, even if it is overshadowed by others.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: The ANWR rejection yesterday was a sign of hope for some semblance of principle returning to congress. It seems clear that there will never be any significant return to fiscal responsibility with the explosion of earmarks and the addition of extraneous measures to all kinds of "must-pass" bills. Do you think that there might be some kind of bi-partisan agreement reached to avoid a total war breaking out between the parties?

Michael Fletcher: In a word, no. Not only that, look for ANWR to come back.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Is there some reliable independent source who can opine as to whether the Bush spying tactic is illegal or are we stuck in a grey zone that both sides can claim legal and illegal and be justified?

Michael Fletcher: We could well be in the gray zone, as independent sources have offered contradictory assessments. It feels like there is a lot we don't know about this program. Because if a warrant can be had retroactively, and is almost always approved, then why not get one? The administration says it needs to move quickly. And because of how current communications technology works, borders are rendered almost meaningless. Stay tuned.

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: Is President Bush going to laud the extension of the Patriot Act over the next six months as a political victory, an unpatriotic act by Democrats, or will he try to side step the issue? Thanks.

Michael Fletcher: I think he'll claim victory, while continuing to turn up the heat on Democrats to keep it pretty much as is. And why not? The Republicans clearly feel they have a political advantage on this issue. I think they believe that a strong national security stance is more marketable than a strong civil liberties stance. You can almost see the GOP ads now: "Harry Reid boasted that his party killed the Patriot Act...he and the ACLU say..."

_______________________

Anonymous: Yesterday I saw Bill Frist excoriating Democrats on their maneuvers re the budget bill. As with Harry Reid closing down the Senate, he strikes me as a very (excessively?) emotional man who takes every political defeat as a personal affront. I don't recall ever seeing this from the Senate side. Does his own party think that he is effective?

Michael Fletcher: I'm not on the Hill enough to really know. But I do see where Trent Lott misses few opportunities to second guess him.

_______________________

Wake Forest, N.C.: Cheney, Bush, Blair, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc have all made "surprise" visits to Iraq. When do these visits no longer warrant a "surprise" in the title?

Michael Fletcher: When they announce it in their weekly press schedules.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: What's the matter, no questions? Okay, do you think Scott McClellen will remain Press Secretary long enough to be able to answer about his Libby/Rove lie? If he leaves, do you think he will comment before it is resolved?

Michael Fletcher: Well, as you know, McClellan says he did not lie. Whether he knew the truth is an open question. I see no signs of his leaving anytime soon. But, then, that observation could prove to be the kiss of death.

_______________________

Salinas, Calif.: Yesterday marked the first time that I noticed the "I" word (impeachment) mentioned in the MSM regarding the conduct of the President and Vice Pres. Is it going to require a 2006 Democratic party majority in the House and/or Senate before this issue gains any traction?

Michael Fletcher: At least.

_______________________

Prague, Czech Republic: During WWII, I think I remember from reading, they used to talk about doing things "for the duration." Why the push to make this Patriot Act permanent? I think this bothers me more than any specific feature of the act. And are they just going to be talking about making its provisions permanent again in six months, or are they considering some kind of renewal provision until the need has passed?

Michael Fletcher: The administration has said this war on terror could go on for many years, even decades. And if the enemy is truly Islamic radicalism and the solution is to plant true democracy throughout the Middle East, they're probably right. So they don't see the need passing for a long time.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: The secret court was set up specifically for situations when the government needs to move quickly. Will the administration be forced to explain in detail why they absolutely had to bypass it? Reading Cheney's comments a few days ago it seem like the administration just seized on a opportunity to exert executive power.

Michael Fletcher: Executive power seems to be part of it. There will be Senate hearings on the matter early next year. I'm not sure whether they'll be open, given the subject matter. But this issue is not going away and fuller explanations will emerge, sooner or later.

_______________________

Montreal, Canada: Has the Post held or is The Post holding any stories that may be damaging to the administration at the administrations request as did the New York Times, or are you reporting all you know to be true?

Michael Fletcher: That's a question best addressed to the top editors here.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I question whether the GOP Patriot Act support argument is really going to win out over the civil liberties argument. The Patriot Act has always been much more popular inside the Beltway than outside, and civil liberties has the potential to drag away a portion of the Republican base. The President's supporters on domestic spying are in the clear minority of opinion, and it all seems to tie together so well with the government run amok storyline. If I were Congressional Republicans, I would use this as a time to demonstrate my ability to check the executive.

Michael Fletcher: Interesting argument. I think the administration will cite the Patriot Act as a crucial element in preventing any more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil subsequent to 9/11. If people buy that, then your calculation may not hold.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: In their visits to Iraq, have Bush, Cheney and Rice ever ventured outside of the Green Zone? If not, I don't see how they can claim anything other than that we're winning in the Green Zone, which doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment.

Michael Fletcher: I'm not sure exactly where they all have gone, but I know all the trips have been conducted under extraordinary security. Cheney even ditched his blue-and-white Air Force Two for a cargo plane to fly into Iraq. The cargo plane was outfitted with a RV-type trailer for his comfort. In Iraq, he and his entourage zipped around via Black Hawk helicopters. Clearly, Iraq remains a very dangerous place. And I think they administration will count it as a victory when Iraqi security forces are taking on that violence, rather than U.S. troops.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Given Bill Frist's ham-handedness and relative ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader, do you see him as any kind of significant presidential candidate for '08? He has not even appeared at all "likeable" or "above partisan politics" during his tenure, which were his big country-doctor bona-fides before anyone got to know him at the national level.

Michael Fletcher: Who's to say? But it does seem that he hurt his credibility in some circles with the Terry Schiavo case. But, all in all, he seems to be getting his way with judges and some other issues, even if the process is not always smooth.

_______________________

My thoughts on six months extension...: The first thing that jumped to my mind when I heard the extension was now six months instead of three months was... politics. July is a lot closer to November than March/April is. Either way, it will be portrayed as Security vs. Liberty. Based on recent events and unknown future events, I personally would have preferred 3 months instead of six just to make sure the politics doesn't unduly ratchet up the climate so close to an election. Your thoughts...

Michael Fletcher: I pretty much agree with the frame you laid out, even though neither party would put it that way. They'll claim to offer both.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: You guys have been taking quite a beating in the blogosphere concerning your reporting Bob Woodward, the Froomkin Fiasco and as recently as this week with the polling for impeachment issue. I have seen some fairly hostile exchanges between Post staff and the Internet community. Your credibility and objectivity has been challenged a number of times this year.

Have the staff there made any decisions to regroup, or reevaluate their methodology to determine if there is any merit to the complaints and issues being raised. How do they determine if someone's reporting is undermining the credibility of the paper? Is it just editors? Any independent auditing?

Michael Fletcher: We talk about these issues all the time. As you know, Froomkin's blog, for example, is a far different form than the daily reporting we put into the paper. But these discussions make me, at least, reflect on our journalistic (newspaper?) tenets. How I go about being fair, providing balance, etc., without giving every story a he-said, she-said quality or making them impossibly confusing. In short, it's an ongoing, difficult--and critical--process.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: How can Iraqi security forces take over when, for the most part, U.S. forces on the ground don't trust them enough to give them good equipment?

Michael Fletcher: That's one of the things that would have to change.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: The Patriot Act and the NSA spying on International conversations are sited as a key weapon on terror. It has been over four years since 9/11/01. Where is the evidence, prosecutorial or otherwise that these tools have been productive? I recall a few statistics, but nothing but secret prisons, rendition, and a few other acts I used to associate with Stalin & the KGB. Can you point me to an article that list details and not just the claims of success?

Michael Fletcher: No, I can't. The problem is that most of these examples, if they exist, reside in the realm of secrecy. We essentially know cases cited by the administration, including one plot to take down the Brooklyn Bridge. But look at Padilla. The first thing we associated with him was a dirty bomb. But that's not what he was charged with.

_______________________

RE: Spying on Americans: This database of names and numbers being used by the CIA, NSA, FBI... I understand it has hardcore known terrorists, and peace protestors... Do you think the question will change when it turns out Cindy Sheehan is on the watch list along with PETA and Catholic Worker members? I think Americans will have a problem spying on people whose name isn't "Habib"

Michael Fletcher: I think so, even though anyone who cherishes the Constitution should worry about the government spying on Americans named Habib, too.

_______________________

Michael Fletcher: Thanks for the great questions. And happy holidays, one and all.

_______________________

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.