Washington Post White House Reporter Michael Fletcher (Julia Ewan -- The Washington Post)

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with 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 Wednesday, Dec. 20, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

The transcript follows.

____________________

washingtonpost.com: Michael Fletcher has been briefly delayed but will begin momentarily. Thank you all for joining us.

_______________________

Michael Fletcher: Sorry for the delay, everyone. Let's get started.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In '04 Kerry ran on a platform of increasing the number troops in the military. I remember opponents criticizing that idea as unworkable and unrealistic. What has changed?

Michael Fletcher: One word: Iraq. It has gone much more badly than the administration had imagined, stretching, stressing or even breaking the Army and Marines, depending on who's offering the verb.

_______________________

New Bedford, Mass.: Hey Fletcher,

Great picture in The Post today!

One question about Bush's decision to increase the troop strength. Where are these soldiers going to come from? Last I heard, they weren't exactly breaking down the doors to get in the local recruiting offices. Did Bush mention "draft" yesterday?

Michael Fletcher: The soldiers will come from where they always come from, best I can tell: from working-class families, many of them in the South and Midwest. For many Americans, the military remains a way to climb the ladder toward the American Dream. And from what I read, recruiting has been going well of late, even if it has required the Pentagon to offer sizable for people to enlist and re-enlist, particularly people with special forces training and the like. The reality is that there aren't many career-track jobs for people in this country who aren't college graduates and for them, and many others, the military is an attractive option.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Will Bush ever apologize for bashing Kerry when he has adopted most of Kerry's ideas?

Michael Fletcher: I don't think he's going to apologize, or ever acknowledge that he has adopted "most" of Kerry's ideas.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Is anyone at the White House worried that the situation in Iraq could completely devastate the Republican Party in 2008?

Michael Fletcher: Right now, I think their horizon is much shorter. They are trying to salvage something that could be packaged as victory in Iraq so the central enterprise of the Bush presidency does not go down as a complete and utter failure. Also, Mr. Bush is passionate in saying that if the U.S. loses in Iraq it will only embolden terrorists and come back to haunt the U.S. down the line. You can buy that line of reasoning or not, but it is something the president seems to believe.

_______________________

Windsor Mill, Md.: Enjoyed your article in The Post today Mr. Fletcher. Incisive, as usual. I have two questions for you. You alluded to Bush promising to be the great uniter at the beginning of his first term in office and now he vows that he will work towards that goal. What took him so long and has he ever addressed the question of why he has practiced such divisive politics?

Also with the added billions being added to the Iraq tab, isn't that taking away from our ability to "fight the terrorists" elsewhere in the world? Or in terrorist circles is all the action in Iraq these days?

Michael Fletcher: For much of the Bush presidency, the Republicans ran Congress and there was no great need for the president to reach across the aisle. Moreover, congressional Republicans--those in the House, particularly--were more conservative than he was. Remember during the Social Security debate when Bush for a moment mentioned the possibility of raising the income cap for Social Security payroll taxes as a way of partially offsetting the cost of going to private accounts? That idea floated for about 10 minutes before it was shot down by House Republicans. Remember the outcry after Katrina when the House GOP complained that Bush wanted to give away the store in the rebuilding effort? My theory is that in the past Bush responded to what he might call conditions on the ground in Congress. We'll see if he does now.

_______________________

Claverack, N.Y.: So the First Lady had skin cancer, and we only find out because a reporter notices a bandage on her leg and asks about it.

I do have sympathy for the privacy argument. I want the first family to have some zone of safety where everything that goes on isn't public fodder. But matters of health are another matter. If it's serious, we need to know, and if it's not serious, why on earth wouldn't you tell people?

Michael Fletcher: Good point. The White House position, of course, is that she is not an elected leader and her condition was not serious.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Michael:

Has anyone in the administration (or military) explained how we're going to increase the military without diminishing its capabilities? We've already seen the military reduce its standards to meet current recruiting goals. What are they going to have to do to get more people in uniforms?

Michael Fletcher: Everything I read says that our military is the best educated, most capable, most skilled in our history. Sometimes the skills needed in combat are not those needed for a high school diploma or college degree.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: You write of Bush's belief about "failure" in Iraq: "You can buy that line of reasoning or not, but it is something the president seems to believe." Why do you and others continue to give Bush the benefit of the doubt about his so-called convictions? If a Clinton (Bill or Hillary) said the same thing, the media would be skewering them for saying something they couldn't possibly believe. Isn't it time to start treating Bush like just another president, instead of as the infallibly honest straight-talker the American public knows he isn't.

Michael Fletcher: Are you saying he doesn't believe that? I don't know whether he does or not, but he certainly says it all the time.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: This isn't about Congress, but how do you think the recent nomination and swearing in of a Texas educator will affect our defense posture and foreign policy?

Michael Fletcher: If Dr. Gates's resume offers any clue, I think you'll see U.S. foreign policy grown even more pragmatic and "internationalist" than it even has during the president's second term. Contrast the patience and international approach the U.S. is taking with North Korea and Iran to the posture the country took with Iraq. Gates is from the old school that values stability over idealism, so I expect him to push in that direction.

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: Is it just my new HDTV, or has the president aged 10 years since this summer?

Michael Fletcher: He's certainly grayer, and you know the war is weighing on him despite his repeated claims of being at peace with his decisions. But he remains fit and seems energetic when I'm in the room with him.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I'm a little confused about The Post's interview with Bush. One article mentioned that it lasted for 25 minutes and there was evidently time to discuss his reading habits. That suggests to me that there was no follow up on any of the questions he was asked and certainly no refutation of any of his bright and shiny falsehoods (i.e. new bipartisanship and his oft-repeated "I listen to the generals," when he has apparently decided their opinion on troop increases should be ignored). How many of you were there?

Michael Fletcher: Have you read the transcript? Three of us were there. But some of the comments about his reading habits, etc.. were made on the way out the door after the interview was officially over.

_______________________

Warrenville, Ill.: Mr. Fletcher: Thanks for taking this question.

Yesterday President Bush acknowledged that we are not winning the war in Iraq. If I read "The Post's" report correctly, he also indicated that last month's elections were not about the war in Iraq nor about the people's distress over lack of leadership either by the Republican Congress or from the President. (And what does the President mean by "winning" or "losing" in Iraq?)

To what does he attribute the election results? And what will Americans have to do to persuade Mr. Bush that he and his plans are out of touch with American realities?

(Sorry, if I'm asking too many questions in one posting.)

Michael Fletcher: He blames corruption among Republicans in Congress and the fact that the American public does not perceive the U.S. as winning in Iraq for the November GOP defeat.

_______________________

Harrington Park, N.J.: How come nobody is mentioning the fact that Bush's proposals for Iraq are opposed by a strong majority of Americans? Do you think the media have a responsibility to mention this in news stories about the President's plans?

Michael Fletcher: We certainly mentioned that in our interview with the president yesterday. And our stories at least made vague reference to that by saying the president does not see the election results as a call to bring troops home. Instead, he sees it as a reflection of the perception that the U.S. is not winning in Iraq.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: What was the President's demeanor at the interview? For instance, did he appear confident in his answers as compared to a few years back or more chastened and unsure? Was he groping for responses or did he have the talking points at the ready? Body language? And how many of his advisory staff were in the room with you and did you notice any of them uncomfortable with his answers?

Michael Fletcher: The president seemed quite relaxed and confident--and a little resigned--in his answers. His two top communications gurus, Dan Bartlett and Tony Snow, were in the room. And they seemed as inscrutable as ever, even though I must say I focused my attentions on Mr. Bush.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: Mr. Fletcher,

After the Iraq report, Bush said we weren't winning as fast as we'd like, and after TIME has a large article calling Bush/Cheney/Rummy a troika of delusion, he's admitted we're losing. Would you describe this shift as being voluntary, or encouraging? Thanks.

Michael Fletcher: I think it mostly reflects the new political reality. If the November elections had gone the other way, I don't think the president would be so contrite.

_______________________

Re: Bush's belief: Excuse me, but why does the fact "he certainly says it (that we must 'prevail' in Iraq) all the time" mean that he believes it? Politicians say things they don't mean all the time. Why is Bush any different? He's a politician, isn't he?

Michael Fletcher: I don't mean to imply that it means he believes it. I should say he has clearly staked out that position.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Was President Bush asked about recent polls that indicate only about 10-15% of Americans actually support the increase in troops?

Michael Fletcher: Not specifically. But we asked the president about popular opinion supporting a troop withdrawal and he basically said that popular opinion would be different if the U.S. were winning and that he is looking for a path that leads toward victory.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: How do congressional Republicans feel about Bush's current direction? They have to run in 2008, he doesn't. They know that the American people hate this war, and are unlikely to change their minds ever. Main Street has turned into Berkeley or Madison: they want us "Out Now!"

Michael Fletcher: I think you point to a story line that will grow more prominent over the next year or so.

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great articles in today's paper about the interview with POTUS. Can you describe the scene and the interaction that takes place? It seems there is always great deference to the office of the pres.

I caught the theme in your article, in particular, that follow up questions and pressing him is a very delicate matter

Michael Fletcher: We arrived at the White House about 20 minutes before the interview. We reported to the press secretary's office and after a while were led to the Oval Office. The president greeted us at the door with handshakes, then led us to sit on the sofas in front of a fireplace in his office. His two top communications aides, counselor Dan Bartlett and press secretary Tony Snow were there. Bartlett kept time and alerted us to our "last question" which became maybe our third to last. Our photographer and a White House photographer took pictures and a stenographer taped the proceedings for the White House. There is a sensitivity to not appear disrespectful to the president and he is not shy about saying he is being interrupted. But I feel like we were able to follow up on some things. Trouble is he basically only gives the answers he wants to give.

_______________________

New York: Any coincidence that Bush does a sit-down with The Post one day and then a press conference the next? What do you see as the strategy?

Michael Fletcher: I don't know what their plan is. He's been doing other interviews for months and we waited impatiently for ours. I think it was the paper's first formal sit down with the president in about two years.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: No question, just a comment--thanks for asking Bush the question about D.C. voting rights!

Michael Fletcher: Right on. If only he had answered. Got to run now. Thanks for the great questions. And happy holidays.

_______________________

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.