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 Monday, April 17, at 11 a.m. ET .

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. The White House braces for further shakeup, the Supreme Court rejects appeals by Gitmo detainees, Don Rumsfeld's under fire (again) and Congress people are out doing what Congress people do during breaks, namely raise money and traipse around Brazil. So let's get going.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: What do you make of the numerous General Officers speaking out officially against the Secretary of Defense? Especially if you include Rep John Murtha's comments prior. Seems there's a lot more than what's been stated, for I don't see these guys in the same class as say a Michael Moore or Nader.

Peter Baker: As you say, this is a different category of critic than, say, Michael Moore, and one that much more worries the White House. That's why you saw the president interrupt his Easter break to come to Rumsfeld's defense and why you're seeing some other retired generals speaking out for him as well. The White House doesn't want the message sent to the military community at large that there are serious misgivings about its leadership among the uniformed class.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: I've seen multiple versions of the quotes from Rumsfeld about two or three complainers out of thousands. One version attributed to an interview with al Arabiya has him saying "There are I don't know what three, four, five, 6,000 generals ... And that doesn't surprise me at all, in the middle of a war, that people are going to disagree with this or have a different opinion,"

My question - do you find it scary that our Secretary of Defense doesn't know that there are only somewhere around 850 general and flag officers in the U.S. active duty forces and only 300 or so of those are Army?

Peter Baker: My guess is he's talking about the broader pool of retired generals and admirals out there, rather than active duty. No active duty general has spoken out in the way the retired generals have in recent days.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Did any reporter ever expose the fact General Zinni was paid to promote Kerry in 2004? I think it is disgusting for these generals to retire, and then use their clout to get your reporters to spew their points to undermine our president and the plans for Iraq. Why don't you guys get retired General Tommy Franks to talk about the plan since the Dems keep yapping about the perceived lack of a plan in Iraq. Even Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, is more realistic and based on facts than anything these retired generals have complained about to the newspapers. The President is not POLITICIZING the military, these guys like Wesley Clark and Zinni put themselves in the political limelight which makes the military leaders all sound like Democrats. That is politicizing. So why not be honest about what they trying to do? They had their chance to speak up before and during the war, so I think they should retire and stop undermining our president.

Peter Baker: Off hand, I'm not aware of whether General Zinni was paid to promote John Kerry in 2004, but I do recall he spoke out strongly at that point about the war. The broader point you make is one that concerns a number of people, including General Richard Myers, who retired recently as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Should military officers, even retired ones, be criticizing the country's civilian leadership? That brings up a lot of touchy issues that go back to the origins of the country and the framers' decision to place control of the military in the hands of civilian leaders. But retired officers have often jumped into politics -- from George Washington and Ulysses Grant to Dwight Eisenhower and Colin Powell. If I recall correctly, the Kerry camp and the Bush camp both trotted a bunch of retired generals and admirals to support their candidate in 2004. Where's the line? Interesting question.

_______________________

Dunn Loring, Va.: Does Macy's tell Gimbel's? Does The Post read the Times? I ask because I was wondering if there's any buzz in the editorial department today regarding the NYT's piece, "A Bad Leak" which seems to be a direct shot at your misguided and less-than-factual "A Good Leak" editorial of a week ago.

Peter Baker: I'm sure there may be some buzz in the editorial department, but I don't work there, I'm on the news side. We keep a pretty strict wall of separation between the two. And as I see a number of questions on this topic, let me just say right now that I haven't read either editorial. If you'd like to discuss editorials, you may want to take it up with the editorial department.

_______________________

Bill Frist: Hugh Hewitt, conservative talk show host said this in defense of Bill Frist during his online chat on Friday: "He's a good man and a serious candidate for president, but the position of Majority Leader in a 60 vote senate is extremely difficult." Huh? I would think having 60 votes on your side is a pretty good place to be. Can you explain what he meant by that, other than a weak alibi for Frist's performance? Thanks.

Peter Baker: Frist doesn't have 60 votes, he has 55 Republican votes. I assume "60 vote Senate" is a reference to the filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to shut down debate. That means if the Democrats decide to filibuster a bill, Frist has to keep all of his Republicans together and get five Democrats to go along as well.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A previous question demanded that Democrats stop politicizing the military. I wonder how that person would describe the numerous photo ops in which this president has used the troops as a prop.

Peter Baker: By virtue of being commander in chief, every president makes appearances before troops and invariably to some people they will look political. It's a fine line -- when is the commander in chief in the middle of a war doing his duty by appearing with troops and when is he using them for props?

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Peter, this may be before your time, but did generals call for Les Aspin to resign after the Somalia disaster? Did retired generals speak out against Clinton's plans for gays in the military? Did the media highlight those generals then? If I can't remember it, I really wonder if this doesn't show a bias against Bush and for Clinton in the news media.

Peter Baker: Good question. I was at the Post at the time, but not covering the White House then, so I don't remember. Does anyone out there know?

_______________________

Point of Rocks, Md.: Have you wondered whether these generals aren't speaking out because of some inter-service rivalry issue? One general for Rumsfeld says the "ground-pounders" don't like him because they don't want to modernize. And can we be informed as readers whether these supposedly apolitical generals all voted for Kerry and Gore? You know Zinni must have...

Peter Baker: One of the things Rumsfeld's admirers have said -- and the president implied -- is that much of the criticism comes from an institutional resistance to change. Rumsfeld has made transformation of the military a top priority and his supporters argue that anyone doing so would ruffle feathers. Many of the officers who have been speaking out have not said publicly who they voted for, so far as I know. I do know that one general we quoted in Saturday's newspaper agreeing with the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, has been a lifelong Republican who said he voted for Bush in 2000 but no one in 2004. But there are certainly Democrats in the upper ranks of the military and that may be some of what we're seeing. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark added his voice to the resignation chorus over the weekend and of course he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

_______________________

Doylestown, Pa.: Anybody wondering whether retired generals should speak out should take a look at Eisenhower's Oct. 24, 1952 "I Shall Go To Korea" speech. Ike pulled few punches in criticizing Truman's Korean policies while the Korean War was very much still in progress.

Peter Baker: Interesting historical point. And of course, on the other side, Truman fired General MacArthur for questioning his policies.

_______________________

Lansdale, Pa.: What is going to happen after the thirty day deadline for Iran is expired since both China and Russia are against acting in any way?

Peter Baker: An excellent question. The reader is referring to the Security Council's 30-day deadline to Iran to resuspend its uranium enrichment activities. The deadline expires April 28. Iran, clearly, doesn't intend to comply. But China and Russia just as clearly don't support economic sanctions. That leaves the U.S. and the Europeans in a difficult position of trying to find a way to have the council escalate pressure in a way that's acceptable to Beijing and Moscow and there's no clear answer to that at the moment.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: I doubt that Rumsfeld will ever resign. This administration doesn't back down under pressure. Bush doesn't care what any outsiders think, be they insider journalists or retired generals. And can you imagine what the confirmation hearings would be like?

Peter Baker: If I had to guess, I'd say the latest Rumsfeld-must-go boomlet may have only ensured that he'll be around for a while longer. Bush is famously loyal to the people around him (with a few notable exceptions) and doesn't like giving into criticism. As the White House sees it, to get rid of Rumsfeld now because of some carping in the ranks would make the president look weak.

_______________________

Morristown, Vt.: RE: The Fitzgerald investigation and Libby's latest filings. Didn't Cheney in his interview with Brit Hume following the hunting accident say that he as vice president had authority to declassify? And wasn't he specifically asked about the release of the National Intelligence Estimate? So, after going to the trouble of establishing that, why involve Bush at all?

Peter Baker: Interesting question, and don't know the answer. He may have wanted agreement with the president about the best way to handle the questions about pre-war intelligence. And Libby may have wanted more reassurance that he would be helping the president. But we may have to wait for the testimony to find out.

_______________________

Denison, Tex.: I was flabbergasted by the proposition that Libby had a good defense to prosecution for leaking classified material because the President told him to do it. Now, I am confused to read the following (rearranged from the article):

Libby Wasn't Ordered to Leak Name, Papers Say , ( Post, April 13, 2006 ) "To bolster Libby's contention that no conspiracy existed to make selective disclosures to undermine a key administration critic,...Libby's lawyers said in a court filing late yesterday" that "...Libby did not assert (in grand jury testimony two years ago)that President Bush or Vice President Cheney instructed him to disclose the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters as part of an effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war..."

Is Libby admitting the crime of leaking classified documents?

Peter Baker: I don't cover the legal aspects of the case, but I don't believe he's admitting any crime. Two things to remember: 1) if the president declassified the information, as he has the power to do, then it wouldn't be leaking classified information (and so far as we know, Libby didn't give anyone the documents themselves) and 2) Libby hasn't been charged with leaking classified information; he's charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with Fitzgerald's investigation into whether classified information was leaked.

_______________________

Wayne, Pa.: If we use Richard Nixon as the standard for impeachable behavior, and Congress drew up articles of impeachment for abuse of power for Nixon's warrantless wiretapping program (at a time when Congress had not regulated the matter), then how is President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program (at a time when Congress HAS regulated the matter and thus lessened Presidential power) NOT an impeachable offense? Is is just because the GOP-controlled Congress has spinelessly abdicated their oversight responsibilities?

Peter Baker: Most Democrats in Congress aren't beating the impeachment drums either. Most Democratic senators didn't even want to discuss the idea of censure when Sen. Russ Feingold brought it up. There's a strong sentiment within Democratic circles against such notions in part because of the hangover from 1998-99 when President Clinton was impeached and acquitted in a Senate trial.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: What is the relative importance of for whom generals vote? Do people really believe that when a general votes D or R it influences how he/she conducts military business? Should generals not be free to vote for whom he/she thinks is the best candidate? Should all generals be required to vote only for candidates who are of the party currently in power? Doesn't that run counter to the democracy that the military is supposed to enforce?

Peter Baker: I think the idea is if we know someone's personal political views it provides context for their comments on Rumsfeld's leadership -- i.e. a lifelong Republican criticizing a Republican administration carries more power than a lifelong Democrat, whatever the substantive merits of the criticism.

_______________________

Ontario, Calif.: Peter,

I'm really losing faith in Patrick Fitzgerald. He starts off by making a big deal about Libby being the first one to out Plame to the press, which Bob Woodruff quickly discloses isn't true, and now we've got the much ballyhooed correction he had to make to the court last week about his initial false assertion regarding Libby's supposed understanding that he was to convey to the press that a key judgment of the NIE was that Iraq "was vigorously trying to procure uranium." All this loss of credibility over things that don't appear to be directly related to Libby's lying to the grand jury!

We all know that Libby deserves to be convicted of something, and since perjury is what he's been charged with, I wish the prosecutor would keep his eye on the ball and start addressing the elements of that case. Do you think that Fitzgerald is actually trying to convict Libby? Or is he more interested in scoring political points?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Peter Baker: Well, he's still investigating beyond the charges particular to Libby. We still haven't had any definitive word on the fate of Karl Rove yet, for instance. It would be nice to have a better understanding of where he's going with this, but we're all just reading tea leaves (or, more precisely, court filings).

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Maybe the reason the Dems are beating the impeachment drums is that the alternative is Cheney, who's currently polling lower than the President and is viewed by most as potentially more damaging the Bush. If we could impeach both the POTUS and VPOTUS, then maybe you'd see more of a groundswell.

Peter Baker: Hmm, interesting point. Hard to imagine happening, though. What do you think of Dennis Hastert?

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: When military folks talk about politicizing the military, what I believe they are referring to is the change in the way general officers are chosen-- a change implemented by Mr. Rumsfeld. It used to be the service sent one name to the Secretary. That wasn't good enough for this Secretary-- he wanted three names. The implication is that Mr. Rumsfeld would choose the person most closely allied to his way of thinking. This ensured that he would have a progression of yes-men at the top levels of the military.

Peter Baker: I cover the White House rather than the Pentagon, so I'm not as familiar with the details on such things, but here's another explanation for what the generals are talking about.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I believe it is illegal for officers in the military to speak against the President and his policies. Once they retire, they can say what they please.

When retired generals speak favorably of Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush, I would love to know what boards they are members of, if they are lobbyists (and for whom), and where they now consult are employed. I imagine it would be pretty enlightening.

Peter Baker: Active duty officers take very seriously their duty to the chain of command, leading up to the commander in chief. I suspect many retired officers are by and large reluctant to speak out on politics as well, but some of them feel strongly about these things, on one side or the other.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I've asked this before but never received an answer: If Florida Senator Nelson is running a staggering 30% ahead of Katherine Harris, why is it not Republican will challenge her in the primary? It simply makes no sense to me.

Peter Baker: Our sharp-as-nails political blogger, Chris Cillizza, says Harris appears much tougher in a Republican primary than in a general election because she's still got a lot of support among devoted party voters. A number of Republicans looked at the race and decided it would be too difficult to beat her in the primary. (Shameless plug department: Check out Chris's blog, The Fix, on our site every day.)

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: Re Impeachment and "Democratic Circles",

The recent Washington Post poll (story April 11th) showed strong support among Democrats for both censure and impeachment. Just not amongst the curious, shy and gentle creatures called "Congressional Democrats."

Peter Baker: One thing many Democrats said in 1998-99 was that impeachment had to be bipartisan to be meaningful, otherwise it was destructive to the country. So even if Democrats in Congress did support impeachment, and even if they had a majority, under their own thesis, they would need Republicans as well. That doesn't look likely.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: "Did retired generals speak out against Clinton's plans for gays in the military? "

A general the Alexandria may have heard of spoke out vigorously against the policy of President Clinton's policy of gays in the military. As a matter of fact, he was ACTIVE DUTY. Not only that, he was the head of the Joint Chiefs. You may have heard of him.

General Colin Powell...

Peter Baker: Oh, yes, on gays in the military, for sure. There have certainly been lots of times when retired officers aired policy differences with the government's decisions on the military. But I don't happen to remember whether anyone called for Aspin's resignation or anyone else's.

_______________________

Anonymous: Re: comment about Cheney having the power to de-classify anything - No offense to him but the Vice President has no such powers under the Constitution and as much as he might want, he can't create his own powers.

Peter Baker: Cheney's referring to an executive order signed by the president that lays out who has the power to classify and declassify and in what circumstances.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Peter,

First, let me say that I find your chats to be the most informative, fair, and balanced of all of the chatter during the politics hour. Your chat last week set a perfect tone for these chats as you answered some very hard questions without the snark and confrontational manner of others who chat here regularly. My question...

"As you say, this is a different category of critic than, say, Michael Moore"

I find this analogy very interesting from a political standpoint.

It sounds like the General's are making very similar statements to those of Michael Moore and Howard Dean 2-3 years ago, albeit without the rhetorical flourishes. However, Michael Moore and Howard Dean are still characterized as outside of the mainstream and polemic. I know the General's were mostly for the war, but the critics of the war were primarily against the war because they did not believe the consequences we are seeing today, did not outweigh the immediate removal of the Hussein regime. Yet, those that suggested this before the war were ostracized, those who suggest it after they fact are applauded.

Do you think this has more to do with a successful demonization campaign by the right, or do you think as a country we are so polarized that we are unwilling to listen to dissenting voices regardless of the validity of the points they are making?

Peter Baker: Well, flattery will get me to take a question any day! I do think the political environment in the U.S. has become so polarized these days that we often seem to want to dismiss other points of views. Just looking at my business, for instance, I'm struck that so many readers are quick to assume bias -- conservative or liberal. Legitimate criticism of our stories is great, and believe me there's plenty to criticize and we try to listen and improve, we really do. But that doesn't mean we're automatically pro-Bush or anti-Bush, to cite an example.

_______________________

Tampa, FL: Here's an October, 1998, CNN story about active-duty military officers criticizing then-President Clinton. Where were the conservatives screeching about the military staying out of politics? Just more conservative moral hypocrisy.

________________________________________

Military officers risk discipline if they criticize Clinton

By Chris Plante/CNN

WASHINGTON (October 20) -- A small flurry of public criticism directed at President Bill Clinton and authored by U.S. military officers has made some waves in the military ranks and could lead to disciplinary action for at least one Marine officer.

First, a number of Marine Corps officers placed an item on the Internet reportedly calling for Clinton's impeachment.

Then a blunt opinion piece by Marine Corps Maj. Shane Sellers attacking Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair was published in the "Navy Times." - Navy Times Online Web site

Sellers' article pointed out inconsistencies between the way military officer are treated in circumstances similar to the president's, and the way the current Clinton scandal has been handled. The major's article also declared, "One should call an adulterous liar exactly what he is -- a criminal."

The episodes prompted the Marine Corps' No. 2 general to issue a warning to his subordinate generals to keep officers away from such "unethical" endeavors.

Assistant Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, General Terrence Dake, warned Marine generals, "It is unethical for individuals who wear the uniform of a Marine to engage in public dialogue on political and legal matters such as impeachment."

Dake's e-mail message, which was not technically in the form of an "order," instructed the commanders to "emphatically discourage any such actions" on the part of Marine officers.

Military officers are not allowed to use "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense ..." and a range of other civilian government officials as a matter of military law.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for a maximum punishment of expulsion from the military, one year in jail and financial penalties for the most severe offenses.

A second letter published in the "Army Times" and authored by a now retired Army colonel has also garnered some attention. The letter, by retired Col. John Baer, described the embarrassment at his retirement ceremony as Clinton's name was read from the bottom of the traditional "certificate of appreciation" given to retiring officers. Baer's letter to the "Army Times" states that "... an audible chuckle rose from the audience representing ranks from private to general across multiple armed services inclusive of civilians, active and retired" military.

Baer said in his letter that after the ceremony, he tore the Clinton certificate into pieces and mailed it back to the White House.

"Simply stated," Baer's letter says, "I've honorably adhered to the oath my father administered at my commissioning over 27 years ago. Values are fundamental, necessary and not negotiable. Mr. Clinton, character is important and you've 'negotiated' away yours. I urge the Army to adopt (a policy) making Mr. Clinton's 'certificate' optional at future retirements so as not to embarrass soldiers."

As a retired military officer, Baer is likely not subject to any disciplinary action. Major Sellers' fate is now in the hands of his commanding officer.

Peter Baker: Hey there. Thanks for passing this along. It's good context for our current discussion. If I'm reading it correctly, though, the main focus is on an active-duty officer. There's a big difference between active officers speaking out and retired.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Okay, once again into overtime. Thanks for bearing with my slow typing today. And thanks for playing on a rainy, dreary day here in Washington. Make sure to tune in tomorrow.

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.