Click photo to play
Length: 10:24
JOHN ROBERTS: We begin,
though, tonight with an exclusive look at a making of
another sort of mess, one involving the kind of
allegations that can lead to war -- in this case,
that Iran's government, at the highest level, ordered
the shipment of armor-piercing IEDs into Iraq, where
some are being used to kill American troops.
But soon after the allegation was made at a briefing
in Baghdad on Sunday, the backpedaling and restating
began from the secretary of defense, the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and, today, the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: But, given some of those contradictions,
Mr. President...
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
There's no contradiction that the weapons are there
and they were provided by the Quds Force.
What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders
of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Well, that directly contradicts what an
intelligence official said at that briefing on Sunday
in Baghdad.
How did such an allegation get made? Tonight, we want
to know.
First of all, we are going to begin with that Baghdad
briefing. It was long expected and had been a long
time in the making as well. January 31, the State
Department explains that the briefing about those
weapons is going to be delayed. Then, from the 1st of
February to the 8th, a military team in Baghdad
assembles the evidence.
The briefing paper goes through 17 different
revisions. On February the 9th, Defense Secretary
Gates says the evidence is good, but he hasn't seen
the details -- on the 10th, pressure. The White House
learns that "The New York Times" has gotten a draft
of the talking points.
On Sunday, the briefing happens, and here's where the
whole thing comes unglued -- an intelligence official
saying, "orders to send the IEDs are coming from the
highest levels in the Iranian government." He is
saying, we later learn, what he thinks to be true,
not what he knows to be true, not what his bosses
expected him to say, not what was in the briefing
notes.
This timeline came together through the reporting of
CNN's Jamie McIntyre, Ed Henry, and Michael Ware, who
was at that briefing in Baghdad on Sunday.
All three join us tonight.
Michael, let's start with you.
What were your impressions when you heard this
intelligence official say those words that, clearly,
this is connected to the highest levels of the
Iranian government?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, if you accept
the premise of the central allegation that is agreed
upon by everybody -- from the chairman, General Peter
Pace, to President George Bush, to Secretary Gates --
and that is, that this Iranian special forces unit,
the Quds Force, are the ones responsible for sending
these deadly IEDs to Iraq, then you have to accept
that what the intelligence analyst says is correct.
If President Bush is right, and this is the Quds
Force, then you talk to anyone who knows anything
about the Revolutionary Guard or the Quds Force, or
someone who's followed them for two years, like
myself -- indeed, I have met members of the Quds
Force -- then there is one thing you know. They don't
do anything without orders. And they answer to the
highest office in the land.
So, if everybody is right, then, yes, these orders
are coming from the highest levels in the Iranian
government.
ROBERTS: So, Jamie McIntyre, if what Michael Ware is
saying is, in fact, the case when it comes to the
chain of command for the Quds Force, why is everybody
walking this back?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT:
Well, you know, he is absolutely right. And, of
course, the intelligence officer who said that is
absolutely reflecting the belief of the U.S.
military.
The problem is, they expected this briefing, whatever
was presented at it, to be bulletproof, to be backed
up by evidence. And while, you know, common sense
tells you, and circumstantial evidence tells you, and
everything else tells you that this is the case, they
need to be able to really point to something. And
they couldn't. So, they weren't expecting this
conclusion to be made public during this briefing.
And that's why you see everybody else being more
cautious publicly. And, frankly, part of it is
because the U.S. was stung by the intelligence
failures leading up to the Iraq war.
ROBERTS: So, Ed Henry, what are the potential
political ramifications of having -- having
statements that you can't back up with evidence? You
asked the president today in that back-and-forth, you
know, can you guarantee that this evidence is going
to be solid, unlike the evidence that took us to war
in Iraq?
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That is the
rub.
And, as Jamie McIntyre just pointed out, I mean,
after everything that happened in the lead-up to the
Iraq war, you would think that, this time, in dealing
with Iran, that the administration would make sure
that it was rock-solid, that they had everything in
line.
And, instead, what you are seeing between the
reporting of Jamie McIntyre and Michael Ware in
Baghdad is all this confusion about exactly what the
truth is. And that has now put a cloud over what very
well may be a rock-solid case that the Iranian
government is behind this.
But now there's so much confusion and back-and-forth,
and General Pace saying one thing, the president
saying this, Tony Snow at the White House saying
that, that it's almost clouded what could be -- and I
stress could be -- a rock-solid case. And you have to
wonder why all the confusion.
ROBERTS: Michael Ware, at his briefing, General
Caldwell said that he would like to entertain the
notion of talking with Iran about this, to say, look,
either stop producing these munitions or find some
way to stop them coming across the border.
Is that an idea that could work?
WARE: Well, no, not really.
I mean, certainly, these sentiments, these requests
have already been, by and large, passed on through
the Iraqi government and Iraqi intermediaries. The
Iraqi government has already asked the Iranian
government to stop this and many other types of
activities.
Quite frankly, it's not in Iran's interest to stop,
that they're in the driver's seat. They have got the
momentum. The mojo is with them in Iraq. It is their
friends, their surrogates who are in power. It's the
Americans who are bogged down. Why would they take
their foot off the accelerator?
ROBERTS: Yes. And, as long as they keep the Americans
bogged down in Iraq, the thought is that the
Americans won't be able to wield their influence
elsewhere in the region.
But, Jamie McIntyre, back to these pronouncements by
this intelligence officer. It became so significant,
because it really looked like the White House was
beginning to make the case for war.
What was the reaction in the Pentagon as the media,
and, indeed, the American public believed that they
were going down that road?
MCINTYRE: Well, you know, Secretary Gates has said --
you know, he said, I can't tell you how many times I
have to keep saying we are not planning for a war in
Iraq (sic).
But, of course, the more you talk about that, the
more people tend to believe -- disbelieve it. It was
interesting, in the president's news conference
today, when he was asked directly to sort of dispel
that notion, he answered a completely different
question, and never came back to it. So, that just,
again, plants this doubt.
But there's -- I can tell you that, from all the
sources we talk to, there's no planning for a
confrontation with -- a major confrontation with Iran
like that. And -- but the problem is, when people
look at this, and they see the intelligence being
laid out, that's what they think. And it's hard to
disabuse people of that notion.
ROBERTS: Yes. He did come back to it a little bit in
response, Ed, to a question that you asked him. But
he didn't go as far as he normally does, in saying,
look, I have got absolutely no plans.
He kind of left the door open, which I found
intriguing as well.
One of the other topics, Ed, that the president
tackled was this resolution that is being debated in
the House, will probably be voted on, on Friday,
stating opposition, a sense of the House, stating
opposition to the troop buildup in Iraq.
Let's, first of all, quickly take a listen to what
the president said on that particular front.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: My hope, however, is that this nonbinding
resolution doesn't try to turn into a binding policy
that prevents our troops from doing that which I have
asked them to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Now, earlier, it looked like there was no
danger that this was going to be anything other than
just a sense of the Congress.
But, Ed, a statement from Nancy Pelosi earlier today
leads some people to believe that they may be going
down the road of binding legislation to try to bring
an end to the Iraq war. What's the White House take
on that?
HENRY: Well, the White House would be delighted if
Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders want to go
down that road. That's why you heard the president
put his finger on that.
That's where they think Democrats have a weak point.
The president, obviously, doesn't have a good hand in
Iraq right now. He's hoping that this plan, which,
essentially, most people in both parties believe is
the last chance, he is hoping it's going to work. But
even he, the president, now admits that it might not,
that they don't know how it's all going to turn out.
So, one way that they could get out of this, from a
strategic standpoint, is if the Democrats overplay
their hand and cut off funding for the troops.
Republicans believe, especially within the White
House, but some on the Hill, as well, that that would
be a miscalculation by Democrats. It could blow up in
their face.
And then the White House could turn it around, and
blame it on the Democrats, and say, if only we had
all the resources to help the troops in the field...
ROBERTS: Right.
HENRY: ... we could have gotten this done.
So, the White House is almost hoping the Democrats
walk into that -- John.
ROBERTS: And, Michael Ware, wrap us up here.
With 21,500 troops going into Iraq, 17,500 into
Baghdad, which had been the scene of so many of these
EFP attacks, if those attacks do increase, do you see
the American intelligence services trying to make a
greater case for connecting these two to the
government of Iran? And what might that lead to?
WARE: Well, John, let me say this.
First of all, if this is preparation for attack, or
should that time ever come that the Bush
administration is readying its people for an attack
on Iran, you will know that's coming, because there
will be a draft. There will be conscription in
America, because, honestly, there is no other way for
the United States to fight Iran, unless there is a
draft.
It's already bogged down enough in Iraq. And what
we're talking about here in Baghdad, one of the very
reasons the military says it's gone public right now
is because there has been a massive upswing in the
use of these deadly bombs, 150 percent upswing over
the last year.
And the last three months alone has seen more use of
these bombs than in any other month since they first
emerged in 2004.
ROBERTS: Yes. And I saw a very -- from a very
personal perspective what these things can do, as
well. And they are just absolutely terrible.
Michael Ware in Baghdad, Jamie McIntyre, good
reporting on the timeline. Thanks for joining us --
Ed Henry, as well, from our Washington
bureau.