Washington Post Congressional Reporter Jonathan Weisman (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 Congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman was online Tuesday, Feb. 6, 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.

____________________

Jonathan Weisman: Good morning, everybody. The snow is falling in Washington. The candidates have hit the road. And I have to listen to the House debate the war for three straight days and nights. So let's get on with something a little more fun. To the chat!

_______________________

Washington: USA Today has a poll out today and I find this sentence quite intriguing: "The Senate's failure to act last week rankled nearly two-thirds of those surveyed. By 51 percent to 19 percent, they blamed Republicans." That tells me that the despite "winning" the procedural move, the GOP is losing the public relations arena in a big way. I imagine these numbers can not be a comfort to the 21 GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008.

Jonathan Weisman: I too was intrigued by those numbers but not surprised. The Republican senators backing the Warner resolution are growing very restive and begging for the debate to begin. If that's not a sign that they are getting the blame, I don't know what it. Now Harry Reid can sit back and let the heat rise while the House debates. Then I wouldn't be surprised if he gets to set the terms of the debate when the Senate returns from the President's Day recess.

_______________________

Mons, Belgium: Hello Jonathan. I'm not sure how some journalists' testimonies that Libby didn't mention Plame to them help his case. They rather give the impression that each different administration official has his own preferred conduit to disseminate (dis?)information among the press corps, and that is there a "scoop" culture that leads people on both sides (administration and media) to cultivate "special relationships." What's your insider's view. Am I completely off track here?

Jonathan Weisman: No, I think you are exactly right. Reporters cultivate sources, think they're being clever. But we're learning a lot about how that game is played in the White House. Libby's legal team has one goal: Keep the client out of jail. It is clear that goal will make the White House spin machine look bad, broad and successful. Diffuse the blame and Libby looks more like a scapegoat than an orchestrator.

_______________________

Chicago: Good morning and thanks for chatting. Assuming that Mitt Romney somehow convinces the GOP base that he is a reformed true believer and wins the nomination on the strength of the religious right's votes, doesn't he face a renewed challenge to explain about his "flip-flopping" when he gets to the general election? Won't the general election voters be a lot less sympathetic to his new positions than his old ones?

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, but he will gladly cross that bridge when he gets there. He can't win the Republican nomination as a gay-rights, abortion-rights moderate. John McCain has the centrist votes locked up in the party. If Romney can get the nomination, he'll gladly field the flip-flop charges from the Democrats, since his Democratic opponent almost certainly will have the same problem.

_______________________

Tarentum, Pa.: Hi, Jonathan, and greetings from out of the snow ... in the latest small-minded claims, Bush wants to hold Iran responsible for American deaths because they supplied weapons to militia and/or insurgents in Iraq. Does it not then follow that gunmakers in the U.S. and the NRA are complicit in shooting deaths in American cities in the same way? I never hear this administration allude to that. And does that not make us all responsible for deaths in Lebanon for providing weapons to Israel, indeed, deaths all over the world for weapons we sell to many countries?

Jonathan Weisman: Guns don't kill soldiers, shaped-charge explosive devices do. I get your point, but I think it's a stretch to go from international policies of war and peace to an argument over handgun control.

_______________________

New York: I'm glad The Post finds it newsworthy to print a story about how worried Bush Sr. is of his son. Maybe you could suggest to your editors a story about how worried fathers of soldiers are for their sons (and daughters) who are fighting in a civil war in Iraq. I know it can't possibly compare to the "worry" Bush Sr. is facing, but it might come close.

washingtonpost.com: 'I'm Doing Fine,' President Tells Worried Father (Post, Feb. 13)

Jonathan Weisman: We have done so many stories about the families of soldiers, fallen or otherwise, that I worry that readers are growing weary and calloused. It's a big paper. Running one story about Bush Sr. doesn't preclude running other stories like the one you suggest. I think The Post has done a terrific job humanizing the cost of this war.

_______________________

Midlothian, Va.: About the Edwards bloggers ... I'm curious as to how much vetting was done of their previous work before they got signed. Did they approach the campaign, or did the campaign approach them?

Jonathan Weisman: Don't know, but I can guarantee you someone from the Edwards campaign is reading right now. Yoohoo, Jennifer Palmieri -- got an answer for Midlothian?

_______________________

New York: I am very disappointed with The Post. It gives full center-stage to unnamed sources claiming evidence for Iran involvement in Shia Iraq. The next day the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is willing to put his name and his career on the line to dissent. The Post does not give it the same credibility as unnamed sources. What exactly did The Post learn from Iraq?

washingtonpost.com: Pace Demurs on Accusation of Iran (Post, Feb. 13)

washingtonpost.com: Military Ties Iran To Arms In Iraq (Post, Feb. 12)

Jonathan Weisman: I take your criticism seriously and I do think journalists are very aware of our failings in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. But I thought the story on the Defense Department holding a press conference in the Green Zone to level such charges against Iran spoke for itself, and readers could draw their own conclusions -- you obviously have.

_______________________

Los Gatos, Calif.: Good morning. Has there been any action on the budget? What do you see as the most likely budget decisions for the next year?

washingtonpost.com: Upcoming Discussion: Explaining Bush's Proposed 2008 Budget (Post, Feb. 14 at 1 p.m. ET)

Jonathan Weisman: The budget process is a long one. The Senate still is trying to cleanup the mess from last year and fund the government through the end of this September. Then it's on to the $100 billion war request for this year. The budget blueprint should be passed in April, but the real spending bills for fiscal 2008 won't pass until September.

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: I thought the attacks on our soldiers came mostly from the Sunni side. If I'm right, how does this square with the emphasis on Iran?

Jonathan Weisman: Those attacks are coming from all sides. Deaths in Anbar Province usually are because of Sunnis, but there are plenty of roadside bombs in and around Baghdad that have been blamed on Shiites, especially with al Sadr's Mahdi army.

_______________________

Marin County: JW, sorry to hear about the prevailing brown air in the Senate these days. The clean fresh cool snow ought to make the next three days bearable. Q: Since when has experience -- real or fictionalized -- proved to be an asset in running this country?

Jonathan Weisman: Well, let's see. John Kennedy didn't have much experience and folks think he did pretty good. George W. Bush may have been one of the least-experienced presidents in modern history, and, well, we'll wait for historians to assess his terms. It's a blank slate, isn't it?

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: I'm writing here as a Democrat who is very sympathetic to the moderate-leaning Republicans in Congress from areas such as the Northeast and parts of the Midwest. Is there a sense among some Republican congressmen that they've been betrayed by the White House? They were told that Rove had "the math," that if they stood by the president, they'd be safe politically, and then a lot lost in November and even more nearly lost. Watching the anti-escalation debate on C-SPAN I see the Republicans are framing it as "stand by the president or you're a traitor" again. Quite simply: I doubt that plays well outside the South. How did the White House talk Northeastern and Midwestern Republicans into going along with this?

Jonathan Weisman: A very good question. First of all, there are now very few moderate Northeasterners left to feel betrayed. November was a bloodbath for that wing of the party. But the feeling of betrayal goes well beyond that wing -- I have spoken to some of the Republicans now going to the floor to speak in favor of the president's policies who, off the record, are furious at the White House and say they will not let this administration determine their party's policies. They were especially peeved when Bush said he never would fire Rumsfeld then waited until the next day to do just that, a move they insist could have helped them in the election. Now let's see if those same House members are willing to take their off-the-record views public and start voting the way they talk privately.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: As a journalist, what is your opinion of Michael Gordon's reporting? It seems like deja vu all over again, yet this time it's Iran instead of Iraq. I know that reporters depend on anonymous sources, but wouldn't you agree that this type of dependence on those sources is irresponsible? How does a reporter avoid becoming a mouthpiece for the administration when reporters depend on the administration for information?

Jonathan Weisman: Look, the fact is we are reporters, not intelligence officers. We have to seek multiple views but some of those views have to come from the powers-that-be. I think Michael Gordon is a hell of a reporter and I don't see how he can be seen as an administration mouthpiece. Did you read his book?

_______________________

Washington: The West has a dismal track-record in regime change in the Middle East (e.g., Britain drawing the borders of Iraq, lumping feuding groups together, the U.S. backing the dictatorial and imperious Shah of Iran, eventually helping to feed the reactionary fanatical Islamic extremism that took power and remains today). What makes the current leaders, including Bush and Blair, think they will avoid the mistakes of the past? I realize most Americans do not know all that much about Middle Eastern history, but do the leaders know what transpired in the past? Sometimes I get the impression that if someone points out we have helped to at least in some small way contribute to the present chaos, conservatives would just say they are blaming America first.

Jonathan Weisman: This would have been a fascinating question four years ago. I think the results answer your question.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: You mentioned previously that McCain had the centrist vote locked up. Do you think he's risking losing that by being keynote speaker at far-right institutions such as Liberty University and the Discovery Institute? It's starting to look more like pandering for the primaries than the "straight talk" that he keeps getting credit for. Thanks for your conversations here. It's great interaction with the readership.

Jonathan Weisman: Happy to interact, and yes, McCain is running huge risks, not only with his tack toward social conservatives but his embrace of the president's new policies in Iraq. McCain believes his reputation as a maverick Republican is unshakable, but I think it's already on shaky ground.

_______________________

Northern Virginia: Re: Romney v. McCain for social conservatives. I'm one of those socially conservative voters (abortion, marriage, judicial appointments). All of the candidates have one flaw or another and all have something positive -- even Rudy Giuliani pushed the porn shops out of Times Square. And I'd like to say that right now we have in our current president a born-again Christian with strong pro-life views ... and yet little action, because there's only so much a president can do. It may be time for the GOP to think about its lines in the sand. It doesn't mean we should nominate the candidate from NARAL/Emily's List/Handgun Control, but perhaps looking for perfection leads us down a fool's path.

Jonathan Weisman: I thank you and Mitt and John thank you.

_______________________

San Francisco: What political clout was used to convince the North Koreans to de-fuse their nuclear power events? Money? Trade? Territory? Men? Products? Aren't we made privy to what we commit to these days? Especially since the Bush White House has manifest almost anything can be bought and sold?

washingtonpost.com: N. Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament (Post, Feb. 13)

Jonathan Weisman: Money talks. And in this case, don't look at Washington for the keys to the breakthrough -- Beijing wields the power now in that part of the world.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Thanks for taking my question. If Sen. Lieberman switches sides, as is rumored, will the Republicans immediately take over control of the Senate?

Jonathan Weisman: Not necessarily. Democrats eventually would have to go along with it and could drag it out, but I think in the end they can't look like sore losers. They will have to agree to rules changes that would give Republicans power and control.

_______________________

Baltimore: Re: the Green Zone press conference: What annoys readers is the acquiescence by the media in letting officials provide quotes about Iran's threat to the U.S. without giving their names. It turned out, thanks to an Iraqi news source, that we know that one of the briefers was a general who is, in effect, the military's head PR guy in Iraq. For heaven's sake, why wouldn't he go on the record? I really think you guys (and I mean journos in general) will have to start saying in cases like this, "Look, if you won't put your name on it, we can't print it."

Jonathan Weisman: It annoys the hell out of us too. Periodically, the press has rebelled with this White House and refused to cover these so-called background briefings. It has reached the point of absurdity. But what would you suggest a reporter in Baghdad do? You're invited to an important briefing in the Green Zone. You know at least some of the sources are credible, but you can't use their names. Do you just boycott and not print the story? Do you tell your editors and ultimately your readers, sorry, The Post won't have that story because I wouldn't cover something on background? It is not the press's fault. Blame the administration.

_______________________

Syracuse, N.Y.: Jonathan -- I have a question about the budget President Bush has proposed. The president will always, obviously, defend his budget and the "other side" will try and shoot it down and that of course is politics. But this budget seems especially important because of the perfect storm that seems to be brewing in the years ahead with increasing entitlement expenses, the ongoing wars as well as the current budget deficit. I keep reading that the CBO is nonpartisan which to me is code for, "You can trust us to tell the truth." If that premise is correct, they say that the Bush tax cuts will exacerbate the current fiscal problems and that the real costs of entitlements and the wars are not accurately represented in the current proposed budget. I think they predict the deficit will expand in 2012, not contract as Bush claims. I guess my question is, as opposed to policy decisions, a budget seems so much more grounded in numbers and facts so it should be a fairly simple process to say this is right, wrong good, bad etc., how does one find the real truth as opposed to what the politicians spin?

Jonathan Weisman: For several years now the CBO has broken down alternative deficit/surplus numbers based on different policy decisions: extension of the tax cuts, continuation of the war or slow withdrawal, a freeze of discretionary spending or allowing such spending to rise with inflation and population. We have printed those numbers. I agree that the budget is inherently unspinnable, as long as we don't let ourselves be spun.

_______________________

Midlothian, Va.: Is there much being said (other than the public and predictable "mind your own business") to the negative international reaction to the Obama presidency bid?

Jonathan Weisman: There was some coverage of the Obama-John Howard smack down down under, but not much else.

_______________________

Washington: Moving towards 2008, I want a president who doesn't practice the Clinton Model of burying your head in the sand and pretend terrorism doesn't exits, which led to three attacks and turning down Osama bin Laden when he was offered up by Sudan. I also want a president and who doesn't practice Bush's cowboy style and try regime change. What can I do?

Jonathan Weisman: Make the demand and see which candidate replies the way you want. I don't dare suggest who you should vote for.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: What is the US/Israel lobby's role in ginning up the war rhetoric on Iran? (By the way, fewer than 200 American soldiers' deaths have been attributed to the Shiites in Iraq so your answer to a previous chatter is a bit disingenuous.)

Jonathan Weisman: Disingenuous? C'mon. And just where did you get your statistic?

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: Yo Jonathan -- what section in The Post can I find the article about Sen. Obama's use of the word "wasted" when referring to lives lost in Iraq? Oops, sorry, silly me; he's a Democrat.

washingtonpost.com: Obama Questions Rivals on Iraq (Post, page A4, Feb. 12)

Jonathan Weisman: Whatever.

_______________________

New York: Hi Jonathan -- With all the hand-wringing about the press's cozy relationship with sources, isn't it true that none of the reporters who were leaked the Wilson info wrote a story about it? The one who did, Bob Novak, says he pursued it on his own, and he writes a conservative opinion column. Why is there so much concern about journalistic independence on this subject?

Jonathan Weisman: I agree that a lot of the concern seems overblown, but it is not every day that the public gets to see how journalism is made in Washington. I'm sure it is quite ugly to uninitiated.

_______________________

Hollywood, Mo.: How many Republicans do you see as voting for the House Resolution?

Jonathan Weisman: My guess: between 30 and 45.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I have not read Gordon's book, but I sent him a few e-mails months ago and received responses that indicated to me that he clearly supported the "surge" in Iraq, and that he was mostly forming that opinion based on his impressions after being embedded. That's fine for a columnist but not for an objective journalist. Soon after his responses to me he made the comments on Charlie Rose about supporting the troop increase. Granted, I'm no journalist, but it seems to me that a good journalist would report on these Iran statements while also putting it in context of what happened in Iraq, including a discussion of public opinion, international law, other sources, etc. ... if all the public reads are administration quotes, how can they make informed decisions about policy?

Jonathan Weisman: I think some reporters, like Michael Gordon and Tom Ricks at The Post, have earned the right to have an opinion. They know a hell of a lot more than most of the columnists telling you what to think.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Re: scapegoat vs. orchestrator. He's not being charged with the leak, so whether he's an orchestrator or not is completely irrelevant. As for his being a scapegoat for Karl Rove, I wonder how your colleague feels about that apology he claims Karl Rove is owed. Isn't the real issue whether Libby lied in the investigation? Seems to me that all these defense witnesses saying Libby never talked about Plame to me is completely irrelevant and is just another red herring/straw man argument rational people have come to expect from anyone associated with the Bush administration.

Jonathan Weisman: I wasn't saying it was relevant to the misdeeds of the administration, I was saying it is a tactic of the defense team. We'll see if it works with the jury.

_______________________

Plano, Texas: Jonathan, thanks for taking questions. Given Romney's reported devoutness to his doctrinally-strict religion, it seems to me that his flip-flop re: abortion and gays is more of a "I was lying then, now I'm telling the truth" problem. While I think he has a serious problem along these lines because of his religion (i.e., it's far more likely that he was flat-out lying then in order to curry favor in one of the nation's more socially-aware states), haven't we seen more than ample evidence from our current "decider-in-chief" that a stubborn refusal to reconsider one's position in light of new evidence is more of a political liability than the decades-old red herring "flip-flopper?"

Jonathan Weisman: If Romney can make the case that his views legitimately have evolved, I think voters' experience with a president who has a hard time admitting mistakes could help him. Hillary Clinton has the same issue with her Iraq vote.

_______________________

Re: Lieberman switching...: If Lieberman switches, won't that be a horrible betrayal of those in CT who voted for him?. I don't suppose they ever expected this! And as there is no "recall" option in Connecticut, what could his constituents do?

Jonathan Weisman: When Jim Jeffords switched, Vermont Republicans were absolutely furious, for the same reason. But remember, most Democrats in Connecticut voted for Ned Lamont; Lieberman won re-election on the strength of Republican votes. So Democrats who did not vote for him will have a hard time saying he betrayed them.

_______________________

Re: Greenville, S.C.: "Whatever" is right. Where is the coverage on Rove's immigration comments? As a Democrat, I just don't care. It's people that care about such things to the point of obsession (on both sides-like Greenville) that make me absolutely bonkers with their mindless questions.

Jonathan Weisman: Stories have a lifecycle of their own. Immigration was a huge issue last year, and I'm sure it will come back. For now, only a Rove comment on Iraq could break through to the front page.

_______________________

Washington: What state will HRC win that John Kerry lost in 2004? Why?

Jonathan Weisman: How about Ohio? It just elected a fairly liberal Democrat as Governor and a real Democratic firebrand to the Senate. That would be enough, wouldn't it? Bush also eked out Iowa in 2004. That state also elected a Democratic governor.

_______________________

Washington: Hey there. What bothers me about the "is he/she qualified?" question is that the answer is obvious. Yes, every one of the candidates meets the "qualifications" of the job. Hence, they applied for it. Now we, the interviewers get to determine if the experience and/or vision and/or approach will suit our needs. It's not a question of qualifications, and I wish people would stop trying to frame it that way.

Jonathan Weisman: Amen.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I am a mathematician. Economic issues are not always as simple as you might think -- sometimes people just don't look deeply enough into the figures. For example, the middle projection of the Social Security Administration is usually taken as gospel when bemoaning the hole entitlements are going to put us in, but if you look at the assumptions used by the SSA you will see they have made some wild guesses about statistics that are just impossible to know because they depend crucially on events in the future.

Take annual growth in the GDP. SSA assumes that it will average 1.78 percent for the next 75 years. If they had assumed 2.7 percent, the same projection with all of its horrible demographics would predict that Social Security could pay all of its promised benefits and end up with a surplus in the trillions. By the way, the average growth in the GDP for the last 75 years was 3.1 percent. See, you really have to be careful.

Jonathan Weisman: I agree. I used to cover economic policy, and projections of economic growth, inflation, labor force participation, immigration, etc., etc., could swing things like Social Security's looming demise or huge bursts in the budget deficit wildly one way or the other. He (or she) who controls the underlying assumptions controls the projections.

_______________________

Virginia Beach, Va.: I read a lot of news and other than Howard, I didn't realize there was a negative international view of Obama's candidacy. What else has been said and by who?

Jonathan Weisman: I've only read about our Aussie friend's comments.

_______________________

Seattle: Considering that Ari Fleischer, Dick Armitage and Karl Rove all either have admitted to or have been exposed as the leakers of Plame's identity, I'm all of a sudden confused as to why Libby is on trial in the first place. I know the trial has a lot of back story, but all of a sudden, Libby is a much more sympathetic character, crutches or not. Any chance of criminal proceedings being brought against the three I mentioned above? Last I knew, releasing the name of an undercover agent was still a crime.

Jonathan Weisman: See folks? The strategy is working. Libby is on trial for lying to a grand jury, not leaking a CIA agent's name. According to the prosecution he concocted an elaborate fantasy to explain how the name got out there to cover up his responsibility. I guess Fleischer, Armitage and Rove were more careful in their testimony under oath.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Do you think the plot to assassinate President Wayne Palmer will succeed?

Jonathan Weisman: No, says my colleague and "24" watcher Shailagh Murray, 'cause that squirrelly guy from Ally McBeal has a conscience.

_______________________

Oxford, Miss.: You said "but the real spending bills for fiscal 2008 won't pass until September." Ha ha ha! That's hilarious. By September of course, you mean, "sometime next year after a bunch of Continuing Resolutions."

Jonathan Weisman: Oh ye of little faith! We shall see.

_______________________

Seattle: Jonathan, do you think America has the interest in gay marriage and other soft issues it did in 2004? Kicking gays as a strategy wasn't nearly as successful in last November's midterms, and I'm hoping we may have matured to the point where uncertainty in the Middle East and climate change concerns may actually trump bogus social issues in the 2008 elections. Am I dreaming?

Jonathan Weisman: It sure didn't work too well in 2006. If the war in Iraq still is dragging on, if Iran still looms, I find it hard to believe the GOP can go back to that playbook.

_______________________

Minneapolis: The thing that rankles me about the Libby trial is that for years you had the White House issuing denials that they were involved in leaking Plame's name (whether it was a crime or not). Literally dozens of reporters knew that was a flat-out lie, yet no one said a single word about it. I understand it's important to maintain sources, but at what point to you have to give them up when it's clear they're not telling the truth?

Jonathan Weisman: This is a very tough question for reporters. If you want us to break news and really ferret out stories, you have to allow us our anonymous sources. And once you do, we need to stand by them. I was not one of the leakees on the Plame story, but I am sure folks like my colleague Walter Pincus were even more frustrated than you. Knowing the truth and being unable to talk about it could not be easy.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: Do you think Hillary could really fend off Obama and Edwards in California, the Rust Belt and the Northeast?

Jonathan Weisman: We shall see. But she still is the juggernaut.

_______________________

Williamsburg, Va.: Why do you say that a Lieberman switch would give the GOP control? The Democrats would certainly not allow a resolution changing the committee structure to come to a vote. After all, the majority switched several times in 1948-49 and the committee structure and majority leader didn't change. 2001-2002 was unusual because the Democrats had control for the first 17 days of the session, and so special arrangements had been made.

Jonathan Weisman: That is correct. And with the illness of Tim Johnson, Republicans flirted with demanding a Senate rule that would vitiate all organizing rules in the event of a numerical flip, just as Democrats did in 2001 -- but they opted against it. I was surprised. Republicans reasoned, and I think rightly, that if the numbers flipped and the GOP brought the Senate to a halt demanding control, political pressure would ensure that after a few weeks Democrats would have to relent.

_______________________

To Tarentum, Pa.: Dude, pay attention okay? When we sell weapons to insurgent groups and governments. around the word we are defending democracy. When others do, they are supporting terror. Geez. Like Saddam. When we liked Saddam we sold him stuff to make poison gas, which he used to slaughter Kurds. That was defending the Middle East against the evil of Iran and Irridentism. Then we decided we didn't like him, and his use of gas to slaughter people was reason to invade and kill him. Very simple. If we like it, it's good and noble, if we don't its bad and evil. Duh. By the way Jon, isn't "readers will derive their own conclusions" the same cop-out you folks used during your substandard reporting before invading Iraq?

Jonathan Weisman: Dude, not so at all. The press have been running skeptical stories ever since that Green Zone press conference.

_______________________

Hillary: Thanks Jonathan, for taking our questions. Why hasn't anyone challenged the veracity of HRC's assertion that her vote for the war was due to being misled by George the Younger? Hillary was a trusted advisor to a two-term president at a time when Iraq was front-page news. Given that she was able to view NIE's and CIA reports for 8 years, how can she say she was misled? It doesn't wash. It simply doesn't wash.

Jonathan Weisman: That's a good question. There are Democrats, Obama and others, who say the argument doesn't fly. None other than Nancy Pelosi has said the intelligence that she and other members of Congress were privy to did not support the administration's conclusions. I think HRC will be called on it.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Okay -- let's say the House's nonbinding resolution -- supporting the troops but not the surge -- passes with a good margin (or even some countable Republicans), what difference does it make? Or does it?

Jonathan Weisman: If it didn't make any difference, why is the prime minister of Australia urging Congress to relent? The vote also would be used by Democrats in the coming weeks when they bring to the floor binding legislation to throw up road blocks to further troop deployments.

_______________________

Washington: Two things: As a former Air Staff officer, I can tell you Gen Pace's response was political -- he did not say that the Iranian leadership was not aware, he said there is no direct evidence that they know. I am sure that if there is direct evidence, its source is classified.

Second, I wish the public would understand that we have a volunteer military, and every one of them knew that war was a possibility. It's not Vietnam folks, there's no draft.

Jonathan Weisman: I will publish this as-is. We have lots and lots more questions but I am out of time. Until next time, sayonara.

_______________________

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.