Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

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 Peter Baker was online Wednesday, March 7, 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.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. Gosh, not much going on in politics to discuss, is there? Guess we'll have to muddle through. Thanks for joining us. Let's get to the questions.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Peter -- Thanks for taking my question, which is pretty broad but I'd interested in your thoughts: Where does the administration go from here? The war isn't going very well, the president's approval ratings continue to be stuck in the low 30s, he doesn't really seem to be pushing any sort of agenda or legislation (other than the war), the administration has been disgraced (Katrina, Walter Reed and now Libby, etc., etc.). Is he just going to wait it out and then get the heck out and hope to restore some credibility to his legacy down the road? What's the overall feeling/attitude at the White House?

Peter Baker: It's certainly been a bad time for the White House, no question about it. And the folks inside are well aware of that, even if some try to convince themselves that it's not as bad as it looks. But President Bush and his aides insist they're not going to just wait it out, that they plan to "sprint" to the end, to use the president's words. He laid out an agenda in the State of the Union that could be challenging if he really pushes it and if Congress really takes it up -- energy, education, health care, immigration. Still, frankly, Iraq has a way of sucking all the oxygen out of the room and the president understands his legacy rides largely on the war. He said in a speech yesterday that he sees promising signs that his new strategy is working. But he said it on a day that 146 Shiite pilgrims were killed in Iraq and another 11 were reported killed this morning.

_______________________

Washington: The jury instructions were very clear as to what the jury could and could not consider in making its decisions. As such, the issues were very narrow. Assuming the jury followed Judge Walton's instructions, their decision was very narrow -- applying to law of perjury, false statements and obstruction to the evidence presented. Why then is the press extrapolating the verdict as a condemnation of the Bush administration as a whole? Perhaps that is how the press viewed it, but if the jury was doing its job, then their verdict could not have been based on facts outside of the four corners of the case. Therefore, isn't the press being irresponsible by making more of the verdict that it is?

Peter Baker: You're right, of course, that the only one found guilty yesterday was Scooter Libby and for the narrowly crafted charges of perjury and obstruction. But it's hard to ignore the broader political impact of the case. He's the highest ranking White House official convicted of a felony in two decades. He was the top aide to the most powerful vice president of our time, and the actions that gave rise to his involvement in the investigation in the first place evidently were taken at the behest of the vice president. And the nature of the events underlying the case were not simply something tangential, such as Claude Allen, the former domestic policy adviser who was caught stealing from a store. They go to the heart of the central project of this presidency. It's not just the press that looks at it this way; talk with politicians in both parties in town. Ed Rogers, the prominent Republican lobbyist, is quoted in our story this morning on the extraordinary impact this case has had.

_______________________

San Diego: Vice President Cheney is not in good health lately. Will he resign soon? Who will be his replacement? Sen. Lugar from Indiana would be a perfect fit for Mr. Bush.

Peter Baker: Vice President Cheney was diagnosed with a blood clot in his leg, evidently a result of his long trip to Japan, Australia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he saw a doctor without needing to check into a hospital and there's no indication at the moment that he's suffering from anything more serious.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Many of The Post's most illustrious contributors (Broder, Woodward) downplayed the import of Fitzgerald's investigation -- do you think the press was objective in analyzing this story when they were, in essence, implicated in the story?

Peter Baker: Well, our earlier chatter from Washington thinks we're making too much of it, you think we've downplayed it. I think we've tried to put it in the right context, but everyone's free to come to their own conclusions, of course.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: What outcome can this decision on Scooter Libby have for the coming presidential election? Additionally, isn't it the duty of our justice system to continue the investigation until the person who leaked Plame's identity is brought to court? Why isn't this a priority?

Peter Baker: It's not clear this will have any real impact on the upcoming presidential election, if only because none of the candidates running are part of the Bush administration or had any direct involvement in the case. I imagine Democrats may use it as one of their talking points to attack the record of the Bush administration and tie that broader record around the neck of the eventual Republican nominee. But it's early and lots will happen between now and the time anyone votes, and it's easy to overestimate the impact a news event can have on an election many, many months down the road.

_______________________

Tryon, N.C.: The next time Bush undergoes a press Q&A, will he say "I won't comment on this because, with the expected appeal, this still is an ongoing legal matter," or will he take Scott McClellan's advice and start to comment more specifically on what happened? Also: If this is still page one news in ten days, is there the slightest chance that Rove will be moved out of the White House (subtly, with a promotion, "to spend time with the kids")?

Peter Baker: The White House yesterday declined to comment using the very rationale you cite, and I would imagine the president would stick to that line next time we get to question him. But it shouldn't stop us from at least asking the question. As for Karl Rove, the investigation into him is now long over and there's no sense that he's in any jeopardy because of it.

_______________________

Oklahoma City: Ann Coulter's "f-word" was silly and marginally offensive, but honestly, in a political atmosphere where leftist bloggers hope for Dick Cheney's assassination by terrorists, where Cindy Sheehan calls the President of the U.S. the "world's biggest terrorist" and where Michael Moore and Al Franken routinely include terms like "liar" and "stupid" in their book titles, liberal pots ought not call conservative kettles black. Both sides have extremists, and extremists on both sides detract from civil discourse. Haters are haters, regardless of their leanings.

washingtonpost.com: The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb (Post, March 6)

Peter Baker: Whew, for a minute, I thought there would be a question in there. But you're right, there are professional provocateurs on both sides of the aisle and it's hard to know when or how to cover some of the outlandish things they say. Is Ann Coulter really news? Is Michael Moore? They both have an effect, obviously, on the political culture so in some sense what they say matters. But they also say things to attract attention and the challenge for journalists is to figure out when it's really news.

_______________________

Jersey City, N.J.: Once again a Washington Post editorial states facts that are contradicted by the paper's own reporters. Your editorial says there is no convincing evidence that Valerie Plame was a covert operative; however, in an article by R. Jeffrey Smith published today, he writes that Valerie Plame worked as an undercover CIA officer. What's going on at this paper?

washingtonpost.com: Editorial: The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal (Post, March 7)

washingtonpost.com: Cheney's Suspected Role in Security Breach Drove Fitzgerald (Post, March 7)

Peter Baker: What's going on at this paper is that editorial and news sections are completely separate. We always tell readers that and they often don't believe us. But it's true. The editorial page editors can answer for themselves, so I'll take a pass on that. But in general, I believe there's a distinction some are drawing between "covert" and "classified"; there are legal differences between the two and in terms of the issue of leaking. I think I understand it, but since I haven't covered that aspect of it in depth, I should shy away from giving a fuller answer that might be wrong.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Mr. Baker, great article today. As to accountability, the CIA "Wall of Honor" lists an employee who was killed sometime in a short period that overlaps the outing of Plame and Brewster Jennings (Feb. to Oct. 2003). I don't want to know this agents name, and the whens and wheres may not be that important but whether this agent worked for Brewster Jennings or was killed because of the outing is. It is a matter of accountability. Have you looked into this or are you aware of any colleagues looking into it?

washingtonpost.com: For an Opaque White House, A Reflection of New Scrutiny (Post, March 7)

Peter Baker: You're right, that would absolutely be a matter of accountability and I've wondered myself what, if any, consequence there has been from the disclosure. If we had any indication that someone was harmed as a result of it, we would write about that, believe me. So far as I know, though (and I don't cover the intelligence community), there has not been any indication of that to this point.

_______________________

Re: Making too much of it: When was the last time a person who had a high security clearance got convicted on perjury and obstruction of justice during the course of an investigation involving national security matters? The Post seems to have lost all its perspective.

Peter Baker: Okay, I'll bite. How have we lost all perspective? We covered the trial intensively, put two stories on the front page today under a five-column headline plus a couple pages of coverage inside.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Many Republicans insist that Libby had no chance of a fair trial given that the liberal demographics of Washington taint any prospective jury pool assigned to establish guilt or innocence in a case with such political ramifications. This insistence can in many instances be vociferous amongst conservatives. How might you respond?

Peter Baker: It's certainly true that this is a heavily Democratic town. I'm not aware if Scooter Libby's lawyers asked for a change of venue or not. From what I read, the judge and the lawyers tried to screen the jury pool to select a panel of people who were not especially partisan or political. It tended to be a more educated jury than the average pool, including three PhD's, for whatever that tells us. I guess we'll have to see if the Libby team cites jury demographics in any appeal, and not being a lawyer, I'm not clear on whether that's still possible at this point.

_______________________

Washington: Was the Libby jury sequestered for the duration of the trial?

Peter Baker: No, it wasn't. But they were instructed not to read or watch news accounts of the trial. In one instance, a juror was taken off the panel when she evidently did become exposed to some sort of outside material relating to the case, which is why there were 11 jurors at the end instead of 12.

_______________________

Washington: Re: The press' complicity in the Plame outing -- when media analysts defend folks like Miller, Woodward or Russert giving administration sources blanket anonymity as a default, it looks really, really bad to outsiders. Do you think these folks understand the difference between a whistleblower under cover of anonymity and a hatchet-job by government officials? Also, do you think the Beltway conventional wisdom has changed? Folks like Kurtz, Woodward and others all asserted at one point or another that the Libby trial was a non-story, and that people just couldn't make sense of it because it was just so darned complicated. Oh, one other thing: NPR interviewed about a half-dozen former CIA operatives, and to a man they expressed outrage that no further prosecutions were pending. Any reason this angle isn't getting more play? Thanks!

Peter Baker: Lots of questions in there, all important ones. The "non-story" aspect we've covered and I'm happy to let Howard Kurtz or Bob Woodward speak for themselves. As for the press's complicity, there's certainly a difference between a whistle-blower and a hatchet-job, but it can be a fuzzy line at times if you try to define when we should respect the principle of confidentiality and when we shouldn't. Even many genuine whistle-blowers are providing information to reporters out of some self-interest. It makes me nervous that courts can order reporters to disclose sources, no matter how honorable or unsavory those sources may be, because of the obvious slippery-slope precedent it creates.

_______________________

Crystal City, Va.: Mr. Baker. I am a huge fan of your book, " Kremlin Rising." Why are you not doing anymore reporting on Russia?

Peter Baker: Oh, Mom, I told you not to write in! Kidding, of course. Thanks for the kind note. My wife, Susan Glasser, and I were posted in Moscow for four years and returned home in November 2004. But we still follow Russia closely even from Washington and write and give speeches occasionally on the topic. As long as we're doing shameless plugs, the updated paperback edition of Kremlin Rising comes out next month, published by Potomac Books. (I know, I know, shameless ... )

_______________________

Anonymous: Based on the e-mails you receive, these chats and other feedback, do you sense this country is becoming more divided or less?

Peter Baker: If we're to judge strictly by emails and chats, it does feel more divided. By chance the other day I found a chat I did back in 1999, one of the early versions of this sort of format, and I was struck by the difference in the questions. Back then, most of the questions were more about seeking information and explanations of current events -- what does this mean? how does this work? -- and now many questions are more pointed, more about expressing a view. But it also makes for a robust back-and-forth and there's value in that. The marketplace of ideas is better for vigorous debate. The only thing I hope everyone understands is that it's not for journalists to take sides; sometimes it seems readers want us to do that.

_______________________

Northampton, Mass.: Hi, Mr. Baker. What service do you think you are doing for me, as your reader, when you allow "a senior official" to make statements in your article today disputing what they characterize as the "conventional wisdom" (what most of us outside the Beltway neverland you all live and work in refer to as "the facts") without attaching their name to the quote? Given that within the past week or so we know that the VP has gotten himself quoted as "a senior official" and he is the person in the administration (besides Libby) who is most damaged by this verdict, I have trouble with this.

I know a lot of the overheated blog-fueled left-wingers get after you guys about this kind of stuff and it gets kind of personal, so the reactions I see in these chats and other places about these issues by reporters such as yourself tend to react to that element of things, but don't you think this kind of thing hurts the public perception of journalism itself? We just learned a lot about how Washington journalism works in this trial and it wasn't pretty. Do you think you've learned anything from it that might change how you do your job?

I ask this not as somebody looking for a scalp, but as someone who wants desperately to believe that people such as yourself are out there working for the regular citizens, not those in power. I know, I'm full of silly ideas. Thanks for reading my question!

Peter Baker: Thanks for the question. You raise a legitimate point. We do try to avoid using unnamed quotes as much as possible but there are times when we feel it adds something important to the story if done in a limited way. In the case of this story, I talked with probably six or eight White House officials yesterday, none of whom would be quoted by name. I didn't use 99 percent of what they said. But in the case of the one quote I did use, I thought it provided important insight into the way the White House views the situation that the press office was not willing to say on the record. Was I wrong to do so? Maybe, maybe not. It's always a close call. In this case, it wasn't a blind quote attacking someone else or something like that. If we don't explain how people inside the White House think, we're sometimes accused of withholding from readers what we know. It's a tricky balance, no question, but it is an issue we take seriously at the Post.

_______________________

Indianapolis: In today's Post you report on comparisons that Bush administration officials are making between the cases of Libby and former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger. While there certainly has been plenty speculation about Libby's motives, I have never read even the most tentative speculation about Berger's motive in stealing classified documents. I am not the paranoid sort, but why is this? Would you care to venture a guess about Berger? Can you point me toward anyone willing to discuss this topic?

washingtonpost.com: Berger Case Still Roils Archives, Justice Dept. (Post, Feb. 21)

Peter Baker: It's a fascinating case, no doubt, and as someone who covered Sandy Berger when he was national security adviser, it remains a mystery to me. There has been speculation about motives, mostly centered around the notion that documents were removed to hide something about the pre-9/11 operations of the Clinton White House, but so far as I know, nothing has been proven in that regard. I haven't covered this, so I'm not able to give you a better answer, but my super-smart colleague, Jeff Smith, has written about it extensively and I know continues to be interested in the matter and would write again if he learns more.

_______________________

Washington: On September 30, 2003 President George W. Bush said: "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of ... I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

Is Scooter Libby still being taken care of by the Heritage Foundation? They hired him as a senior fellow when he was forced to resign when he was indicted. Do they still have him on staff? A second question is, what efforts will the Fourth Estate take to make Bush answer questions? The previously used excuse for not answering questions ("it is in the courts") is laughable now that Libby has been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Peter Baker: I don't know the answer about Heritage off hand. As for "making" the president answer questions, well, until they give reporters subpoena power, we're a little limited in that department, as we have with every president. When it comes to the Libby case, the White House is still citing the ongoing legal matters in not discussing it, referring to Libby's intent to ask for a new trial or appeal. We have asked the president about this repeatedly and we will certainly ask again. But at the end of the day, it's his choice whether he wants to answer.

(Update: Jim Weidman of the Heritage Foundation e-mails in the following:

(It's a variation of the old "when did you stopbeating your wife"? Heritage never hired Libby. Not as asenior fellow. Not in any capacity. He is not "still" on staff, as he never has been on staff here.

(This is the first I've heard of this myth. If you know who the reader from Washington is, please advise him that he's dealing in fantasy.)

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: I realize that you get sick of questions about your op-ed page, but would you agree that some of what was said in Fred Hiatt's piece today was simply not true? For example, Joe Wilson never said that the VP's office directly contacted him about going to Niger, as Mr. Hiatt asserts.

Peter Baker: Sorry, don't mean to sound like the president punting on tough questions, but really, we have nothing to do with the op-ed pages. We have a hard enough time answering for ourselves!

_______________________

Peter Baker on Posts About the Libby Verdict::"Well, our earlier chatter from Washington thinks we're making too much of it, you think we've downplayed it." Isn't there an axiom in journalism that you're probably doing your job right when both sides are complaining?

Peter Baker: Sure hope so!

_______________________

Anonymous: Was there any evidence that Mr. Armitage revealed Ms. Plame to discredit her husband's message? Or was he just careless with inside info?

Peter Baker: The assumption is that he was not trying to discredit Joe Wilson, an assumption built on the understanding that he was an internal skeptic of the approach taken by the administration in Iraq.

_______________________

Brinklow, Md.: I would like to go back to the question of journalistic ethics on blind quotes -- when I was in journalism school (35 years ago), we were taught that all quotes, particularly from "official" government people, should be accompanied by a name. Do you think journalists have overused blind quotes from high-ranking government officials? Do you think if newspapers stopped reporting blind quotes that the practice would end or diminish? (I loved the blind quote from Cheney recently in which he slipped and referred to "I" and "me.")

Peter Baker: Do we overuse blind quotes? Sure. Can we kick the habit entirely? Doubtful. The problem is that the Washington culture has evolved in a way that way too much is done on "background," or whatever. Believe me, no one is more frustrated by that than reporters are. I go around and around with officials sometimes about how ridiculous it is that they don't attach their names to things. It's particularly aggravating to return to Washington after four years reporting overseas, where everyone either talks or they don't talk but no one tries to set ludicrous ground rules. Whatever happened to just saying what you think, providing information you know and standing by it with your name? Sadly, it doesn't work that way here, much as I wish it did. And so we try to respond as judiciously as we can while providing as much information and insight to our readers as we can. A tough balance.

_______________________

New Boston, N.H.: It is said that Libby trial prosecutor Fitzgerald carries a sealed indictment to be opened after the Libby trial. Now that Libby was yesterday found guilty of four of five of the charges of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice, any idea as to who might be the secretly indicted individual? Also, all day reporters have quoted Fitzgerald as saying that the investigation is now over; they have used that quote as rationale for saying that there will be no further prosecutions unless Libby flips. It seems to me that what he said was that the investigation was over, not necessarily that the prosecutions were over. Any input?

Peter Baker: I think this is just bad rumor. When Fitzgerald says the investigation is over barring new discoveries and he plans to return to his day job as U.S. attorney in Chicago, I'm pretty sure he means he doesn't have any secret indictments up his sleeve. That could change, of course, if Libby alters his story.

_______________________

State of Amazement: Hi Peter, and thanks for taking my question. We've all seen the Libby verdict and yada-yada-yada ... but honestly, Peter, do you know anyone inside the Beltway with the IQ of a radish that actually thinks dear ol' Scooter is gonna do hard time? Am I pathologically cynical or simply on-target by suggesting that his appeals will go on and on and that, before GWB leaves office, he'll pardon Libby for his "good service to our nation"? Were I in Vegas, I'd guess I could get some long odds on Libby actually ending up in the slammer. Your comments -- if you dare!

Peter Baker: Honestly not sure. Four felonies usually means at least some time behind bars. But he has appeals and there's a lot of chatter about whether the president would pardon him. We'll have to see. I like a good bet but I wouldn't put money down on this one way or the other.

_______________________

Frankfort, Ky.: Peter -- Thank you for taking questions. In your interesting analysis piece this morning, it's suggested that the public will equate the Libby prosecution and Congressional hearings on Iraq and Walter Reed with the "old Washington" -- investigations of Whitewater, "Travelgate," FBI "Filegate," Monica Lewinsky, Chinese campaign contributions, etc. Will this be the new White House/talk radio spin -- "don't take us back to those bad old days of partisan rancor"? Did any of those Clinton-era inquiries result in any convictions or changes in government policy?

Peter Baker: There were in fact convictions in the Clinton-era investigations. In this case, you may be right about the next White House talking point -- "don't take us back to old days." Or they may just wait to see if the Democrats in Congress overreach the way many believe the Republicans in Congress did in the 1990s.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Although I don't discount the possibility here, I'm not sure why so many observers think a Libby pardon is in the offing, even at the end of Bush's term. One of the main thrusts of the defense strategy at trial (and the jury was well-attuned to this, apparently) was that Scooter was set up as the fall guy for others in the Administration, principally Cheney and Rove. Bush values personal loyalty above all else -- why, then, would he reward someone who implicitly pointed the finger directly at his two closest and most valued advisers?

Peter Baker: That's a good question -- are they mad in the White House at the scapegoat strategy Libby's team used? I haven't heard anyone inside the White House suggest that they are, and since that line of defense didn't really lead too far, it may be they've given him some latitude without holding it against him. Hard to know, I'm afraid.

_______________________

New York: Seems to me that at 33 percent (and he'll never lose those right-wingers) the President has nothing to lose by granting Libby a pardon. There will be a huge left-wing furor, but then some bad B-list celebrity will die or things in Iraq will explode and it will fall off the front page.

Peter Baker: I've heard that calculation as well from Republican supporters of the White House -- that any hit would be short-term and not that important in the broader scheme of things. What past presidents have done, including George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, is wait until after the election has passed and they were in their final days in office. The elder Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger and others from Iran-contra, while Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, his brother Roger, Susan McDougal and others. By that point, there was a furor in both cases, but it eventually did go away.

_______________________

Memphis, Tenn.: Let the betting pool on Libby's presidential pardon begin -- I'm betting that it will be delivered on Bush's last day in office. (No sense in getting the voters all worked up before the 2008 elections are held -- might be the basis for another thumpin', and besides, we've got to give Libby's team time to appeal a couple of times -- Washington lawyers need to send their kids to college too!)

So let's move onto the next scandal -- what do you see as the top contender: the DOJ firings of several prosecutors for "performance issues"? More fall-out on Cheney for his involvement? What? Inquiring minds want to know!

washingtonpost.com: Guess Libby's Pardon Date, Win a T-Shirt (Post, March 7)

Peter Baker: Al Kamen is running a when-will-the-pardon-be contest in his In the Loop contest, so get your entries in early. In terms of what's next, there's certainly lots to chew on.

_______________________

Peter Baker: And with that, our time has again run out. Thanks so much for participating today, we had an awful lot of interest and a long list of terrific questions, most of which I couldn't get to in the short hour we had.

Have a great day.

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.