What's going on inside the White House? Ask Dan Froomkin , who writes the White House Briefing column for washingtonpost.com. He'll answer your questions, take your comments and links, and point you to coverage around the Web on Wednesday, Aug. 2, at 1 p.m. ET.

The transcript follows.

Dan is also deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org .

____________________

Dan Froomkin: Hi everyone and welcome to another White House Talk.

My column today starts with a survey of the many editorials from small- and medium-sized newspapers across the country expressing concern about President Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements to flout the will of Congress.

I wasn't sure, initially, whether this was an issue that went much beyond policy wonks and constitutional scholars. Certainly, the news coverage from the major players, with the exception of the Boston Globe, has been lackluster at best.

But now I have reason to believe this issue's got legs.

After all, everyone cares about the Constitution. Right?

In other news, President Bush continues to almost single-handedly block an international consensus for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon; Iraq is as deadly as ever; and a whole bunch of former press secretaries are coming by the White House this afternoon to bid the ratty old briefing room and press offices goodbye for now -- while they undergo renovation.

_______________________

Roseville, Calif.: Hi Dan, thanks for all the great columns and tireless work. I especially appreciate your writing on the signing statements and straw-man arguments.

Here's my question: Does the US have a foreign policy anymore? It seems like on every issue at hand, we have nothing to offer - Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Palestinian conflict, Russian democracy, etc. Even the possible Cuba transition seems to catch the administration flat-footed. Where are the ideas coming from and who is trying to break through the logjam? Or does everyone just follow the president down the hole?

Dan Froomkin: Thanks for the kind words and good questions.

The answer to all your questions is: I don't know. If you've followed the approved Washington narrative over the last several weeks (see, for instance, my July 10 column, Desperately Seeking Doctrine, first we had Cowboy Diplomacy, then we had Condi Diplomacy, and now we're apparently back to Cowboy Diplomacy. The one thing they have in common, of course, is that none of them is legitimately called "diplomacy." The one consistent behavior in this administration has been that it refuses to engage in a dialogue with its enemies, considering that either a sign of weakness or a reward for bad behavior or both.

What's our foreign policy? Bush would say it's very clear: Fight terrorist and spread democracy. But if the net result of his actions is to actually create more terrorists and bomb democracies (like Lebanon, for instance), well, then, the only thing you know is that his words don't mean much.

_______________________

London, Ontario: Thanks Dan for another great column entry.

You write about the Fox News interview in which Bush stated "the terrorist activities of a Hezbollah or an Al Qaeda or a militant Hamas, are all linked". Seeing how poorly things turned out for the American people the last time he tried to link unrelated influences (ie: Saddam and Al Qaeda), do you think we're just dumb enough to go for it again?

It would seem to me that attributing everything he disagrees with to the workings of a guy on dialysis in a cave does more to make that renegade Saudi the William Wallace of the Arab world than anything he could ever do on his own.

Dan Froomkin: Well, in Bush's defense, he did qualify that linkage. Here's the full quote from the Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto:

"I have got two big issues, Neil, as we go into the future. One is to remind people we're still at war, but have them comfortable with the fact that the government's doing everything we can to protect them; and, two, to remind people that the terrorist activities of a Hezbollah or an Al Qaeda or a militant Hamas, are all linked, that they may not be coordinating together, but they have this kind of same attitude and same desire to stop the advance of democracy, that a long-term peace for America will come when liberty is unleashed in the Middle East, and a policy that had excused tyranny in the past simply didn't work."

I found that quote fascinating for all sorts of reasons. For instance, for a guy who claims not to care about public opinion, he sees both of his top two challenges as being, essentially, "educating" the people.

Then there's what he's educating them about, like for instance that all these terrorists are alike. Because he's wrong: they're not all alike. Their goals are quite different. And to see it as so black-and-white (they hate democracy) leads to the thinking that the only way to deal with them is to kill every one of them. But even Israel is having a hard time executing that strategy, and it is arguably backfiring. So where does that leave us?

And yet... the guy is clearly on to something. Maybe it doesn't matter what's really happening, as long as the public sees things his way.

You may recall an item from last Wednesday's column:

"Editor and Publisher reports: "Despite several years of official and press reports to the contrary, a new Harris poll finds that half of adult Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when the United States invaded the country in 2003.

"This is actually up from 36% last year, a Harris poll finds. . . .

"In another finding wildly diverging from most expert opinion and media reports, Harris found that 64% said Saddam Hussein had 'strong links' with al-Qaeda, up from 62% in October 2004."

That was also the subtext that I took out of Karl Rove's odd attack on the political reporting profession the other day. Here's Caren Bohan 's story for Reuters about that.

Rove said: "There are practitioners of politics who hold that voters are dumb, ill-informed and easily misled, that voters can be manipulated by a clever ad or smart line."

He said he disagreed. And then added: "The American people are not policy wonks. But they have great instincts and they try to do the right thing."

There's little doubt that the voters are ill-informed. But one could argue that the American people are indeed

not

misled by a clever ad -- they're misled through repeated assertions of unreality (often perpetuated by the partisan media and insufficiently refuted by the traditional media) along with powerful imagery and emotional appeals, all of which works on them on the gut level, not the policy-wonk level. And Rove is the master of communication on that level.

_______________________

Montville, N.J.: Is there any more information about POTUS, VPOTUS or any other WH senior staff 'lawyering up' in case the Democrats take one or both chambers of Congress?

Dan Froomkin: As far as I know, just that one, tantalizing clue from newly-minted Time.com blogger Mike Allen last week. He wrote:

"As for Bush himself, he is curtailing his traditional August working vacation at the ranch so that he can barnstorm before the midterm elections. Their outlook thus far seems so ominous for the G.O.P. that one presidential adviser wants Bush to beef up his counsel's office for the tangle of investigations that a Democrat-controlled House might pursue."

_______________________

Bloomsburg, Pa.: Dan,

I enjoy reading your blog every day. Keep up the good work!

Tony Blair spoke out yesterday, basically calling Bush's Middle East policy a failure, saying that we should instead show the middle east a better way through "moderation." I am curious if this speech of his will even have any effect. Blair just met with Bush, and probably cleared with Bush this speech. Yet Blair has to "show" that he is not a poodle to Bush. Can Blair tell Bush in his face that his policy is a failure? Or is this just a hollow attempt by Blair to "show" his independence?

Thanks

Dan Froomkin: I'm wondering the same thing.

For the rest of you, here is Patrick Wintour writing in the Guardian about Blair's speech.

_______________________

Syracuse, N.Y.: So how is Karen Hughes doing in her job of winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? Or has she packed it in, haven't heard much about her lately.

Dan Froomkin: She's still on the job. But consider what she has to work with.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: While the Middle East is exploding, Is George Bush going to be in Crawford, Texas during most of August solving the Middle East problems?

Dan Froomkin: Presidenting is definitely eating into Bush's vacation this year. Bush heads off for Crawford tomorrow, for about a week and a half. And he's expected back for at least one more short visit after that.

But no more month-long hiatus for him. I'm also quite sure that his aides will set up several high-profile official events (or at least a few handout photos) showing that he is still working.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Hi, Dan-- In reference to your item today about the administration circulating an amendment to the War Crimes Act, is there a sense that this is motivated by a desire to get protections for their actions in place in advance of a possible Democratic takeover of one of the houses of Congress? Is there anything else like this happening under the radar?

Dan Froomkin: Actually, it would seem to me that all the potential war-criminals out there are safe until 2008 at the very earliest, regardless of who takes Congress. After all, it would be Bush's Justice Department that does the prosecuting.

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.: On the Rove media analysis:

So does contemporary American politics essentially boil down to who is the better ad-meister and who's got enough bucks to run those gut- and heart-appealing ads (without truth) repetitively?

Dan Froomkin: Well, that's awfully cynical, isn't it.

Even if you were right, however, I'd have to add a caveat: Much of what Rove is doing (at the gut level) right now is free. The White House is one heck of a bully pulpit.

_______________________

Orange County, Calif.: Hi Dan, what are new next steps to reverse the signing statements that Bush has added to every piece of legislation that he hasn't liked yet sometimes has supported publicly? Can any citizen challenge this or can only the feckless Congress? Is it the Supreme Court that will receive the challenge and, if so, how long will it take to test the whole system of signing statements?

Dan Froomkin: Well, since you asked: Step one, it seems to me, would be to do some reporting. Did any of those signing statements actually result in Bush not following a particular statute. Who was harmed by that? When you find that out -- ta-da! -- suddenly, you have someone with standing to sue.

As far as I know, not one single reporter (or Congressional staffer, or law student, or anyone) has found a single instance of something that actually happened (or didn't happen) as a result of a signing statement.

The two possibilities: 1) Maybe those signing statements aren't really that big a deal; 2) Journalists haven't done their job.

My understanding is that the Specter bill is necessary to give Congress the standing to sue. Just being frustrated that the president is ignoring them apparently does not give them legal standing.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Dan, I disagree with Mr. Bush on most things, but I'm not sure I understand the point of calling for a cease fire in Lebanon. Doesn't that essentially just mean that Israel should cease fire? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with a history that suggests they have no interest in actually ceasing fire. Thanks.

Dan Froomkin: That's certainly been Tony Snow's repeated assertion -- but on what basis?

The Lebanese government (which, unlike us, is in fact talking to Hezbollah) is begging for a cease-fire. They would be in the best position to know whether Hezbollah would honor it.

In fact, if Hezbollah didn't honor the cease-fire, then the political pressure would be off Bush and Israel.

That said, nothing in the Middle East is predictable.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: I appreciated your compilation of editorials from across the U.S. concerning signing statements. It would be interesting to know if these editorial pages have experienced this turnaround recently...for instance, how many endorsed Bush in 2004?

Dan Froomkin: That's a great idea. Lacking an intern: Anyone out there want to do a little research?

_______________________

Anonymous: My understanding is that the Specter bill is necessary to give Congress the standing to sue. .....Dan don't forget Specter's bill stipulates that the suits go the the secret FISA court where the administration holds all the cards, the judges are secret, there is no transparency, no public record, no appeal etc. etc. this bill makes the situation worse not better.

Dan Froomkin: You (understandably) are mixing up two Specter bills.

It's all the domestic wiretapping lawsuits that would vanish into the ether of a secret court, under one Specter bill.

The Specter bill I was talking about would give Congress standing to sue in a regular, real-live, open-to-the-public court.

_______________________

Dover, N.H.: On someone being injured by a signing statement. Bush has issued signing statements about torture and about wiretapping without warrants. In both of these cases, Bush has BLOCKED the justice department from investigating these cases on the grounds that they would violate national security so how pary tell is one supposed to claim injury??

Dan Froomkin: I believe that experienced beat reporters pounding away day in and day out, mining their sources and not taking no for an answer, could get to the bottom of a lot of these stories in fairly short order.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Re Bush's insistence on "not talking to enemies." Paul Krugman labeled this "childish" in the NYTimes and I think that is frighteningly accurate. How does the President think we avoided nuclear war with the Soviets for decades? There were little things like the START and SALT discussions on one end of the spectrum, and cultural exchanges on the other end. That approach (some call it diplomacy) worked fairly well.

Frankly, I think if we asked to Iranian national soccer team, for example, to come here and play a series of exhibition games, it would probably help more than all the bluster from Bush, Rise, et al. put together.

Dan Froomkin: I think it is absolutely worth asking why this administration is so adamant about not engaging in dialogue with its enemies, and whether they don't think it's maybe time to reconsider.

In yesterday's column I noted that Jimmy Carter and Bob Schieffer were at a loss on this subject, as well.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Dan:

Regarding the NY Times story today about how President Bush has broken with his father on how to approach the U.S. relationship with Israel, it seems to me that much of this Bush's presidency has been based on a strong desire to undo not the Clinton presidency but the elder Bush's presidency. Have any thoughtful articles been done about how "W," who for most of his life was the failed son of a father who was famously successful at just about everything (business, sports, war), may be primarily motivated by a desire to finally out-do a father he apparently has some resentment toward? I realize pop psycho-analysis is not the role of journalists, but seeing W as a rival, not a protector, of his father explains a lot.

Dan Froomkin: There was a fair amount written on this topic during the 2004 election, but not recently. See my May 10, 2004, column, Bush vs. Bush . Here's Lisa Anderson in the Chicago Tribune in August 2004.

I think it's probably worth revisiting. And the Times is setting the way.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Thanks Dan for keeping the flame alive on the signing statement controversy. To me, this is a huge and very dangerous issue.

My question: Has any reporter asked the President about his use of signing statements? If not, isn't it bizarre he hasn't been forced to account for it, at least by the press?

Dan Froomkin: No, no one has ever asked Bush about it.

Heck, they've barely even asked Tony Snow about it.

It is my hope that today's column will help demonstrate to Washington assignment editors that this is a story that has more than just wonky significance.

_______________________

Ellicott City, Md.: I think this will be known as the ADD White House. They never seem to keep on any one track through to completion. For instance, whatever happened to the big reshuffle at the White House. And what of the big reengineering of the government?

Dan Froomkin: I think you give them short shrift. They may be going through some intense contortions on foreign policy now and in the coming weeks, but they've been incredibly consistent and true to their word on any number of other fronts.

The White House reshuffle has been fairly extensive; Josh Bolten is palpably different from Andrew Card.

And you have no idea how dramatically Bush has re-engineered government.

I mean that literally. You have no idea, because it's one of the great unreported Washington stories. No, he hasn't made government more efficient, suddenly -- but he has, for instance, put dramatically unqualified political appointees in all sorts of key positions all over the government, with bold and unprecedented marching orders to hire like-minded people. See, for instance, Princeton Professor David E. Lewis in NiemanWatchdog.org, or the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage a few days ago in the Boston Globe. Those sorts of effects could be with us for a long time.

_______________________

Davis, Calif.: Dan, regarding not talking to our foreign enemies (Iran, Syria, etc...). Is this really a surprise? Bush does not talk, appear, dialogue, or even credibly debate his domestic opponents. Why would he do so with his foreign or international ones? Or is the debate only done in private?

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Dan Froomkin: As I wrote in my Friday column, Bush's Choice , "The Bush White House has a long-standing aversion to engaging in dialogue with its enemies -- foreign or domestic. At least in part, that's based on an intense desire not to reward bad behavior. But the aversion to rewarding enemies by talking to them has not historically risen to the level of doctrine."

_______________________

Dan Froomkin: OK, I've got to run. Thanks very much for all the wonderful questions and comments. I'm sorry I couldn't get to more of them. See you again here in two weeks, and every weekday afternoon at washingtonpost.com/whbriefing .

_______________________

Dan Froomkin: Oh, golly, Bush himself just showed up in the briefing room.

_______________________

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.