A report on a killing in Iraq that is currently under investigation by the US military -- was a man killed during a raid near Baghdad executed by a Special Ops team or was he killed as he attacked the soldiers? The piece is mostly voice-over only, although Michael provides wrappers filmed in an unidentified studio.

Note: this piece carries a graphic-footage warning.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

CNN ran a year-end special on the 2008 crop of iReports, and it included a very brief clip of Michael talking about covering the war in Georgia.

MICHAEL WARE: To see the tenacity of its people, their love for their country; to see an entire society rally together in the face of impossible odds, really was an honor to witness.

This is a remarkable prepared piece that has not yet aired on Domestic, although it was in "heavy rotation" on International and also posted at CNN.com -- a reality check about the war that P-E Obama is inheriting from the Bush administration, one that will involve less combat action but far more clandestine fighting between the US and Iran over ultimate control of Iraq.

This is such an important piece that I did a transcript of it myself. (Although hopefully Domestic will start airing it soon!)

MICHAEL WARE (voice-over): After too many years of this... America's president-elect has vowed to make it stop.

BARACK OBAMA, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT (video clip): As president, I will end this war.

WARE (voice-over): But how much of a war is there left for the president-elect to end? Under the Bush administration's new deal with Baghdad, much of America's ability to wage war in Iraq has already been surrendered.

LT. GEN. LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. ARMY: We won't -- we don't plan on conducting unilateral operations in the future.

WARE (voice-over): For America's second-highest commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin, it's clear that when SOFA -- the Status of Forces Agreement -- activates on New Year's Day, America will no longer be leading the fight.

AUSTIN: It is their country, and they have the ultimate call on how operations -- the direction that we'll take in proceeding.

WARE (voice-over): A direction that will ultimately look like this... This is a state-sponsored Iraqi ad. A young boy bewildered as an American column disappears into the desert, leaving Iraq for good.

And until that departure, says the chairman of Iraq's equal to the Armed Services Committee, U.S. troops will take a backseat. "It is normal that Iraq is in the driver's seat, and with Iraq taking over internal security," he says, "America must play a supporting role."

But beyond the combat, there may be another war yet the Obama administration is forced to fight, one that Iraq's Sunni vice-president says is already underway.

TAREQ AL-HASHEMI, IRAQI VICE-PRESIDENT: Yes, I think so. I think it's already a spy war, in fact.

WARE (voice-over): He and U.S. intelligence officers say that war is being contested between American and Iranian agents. It's waged in Baghdad between two rival intelligence agencies -- one in this fortress-like building, funded and trained by the CIA; the other, according to U.S. and Iraqi intelligence sources, funded and trained by Iran.

(on camera) And their war is a hot one, according to intelligence sources, with agents -- all technically working for the Iraqi government -- dying on both sides.

(voice-over) And there's nothing in Washington's new deal to address that, prompting concern among Western diplomats over the fate of Iraq's official intelligence service, the one run by the CIA. Already Iraq's Sunni vice-president has called for the Iranian-trained agency -- called the Ministry of State for National Security -- to be completely disbanded.

But that's unlikely to happen. Iraq's Armed Services Committee Chairman, a Shia, believes both agencies will be under Baghdad's control, with much less of a CIA role. "I believe the relationship with the CIA will be gradually decreasing," he says, "though that doesn't mean there won't be a relationship at all."

With U.S. forces soon to be restricted, the spy game appears to be rising. Diplomatic and intelligence sources confirm U.S. soldiers recently arrested dozens of officers from the Iranian-trained agency. With no comment from American or Iraqi officials, the U.S. military's charges against the men are unknown, though Vice President Hashemi suspects it's part of a wider U.S. operation.

AL-HASHEMI: I know that the Americans are very much keen to clean up all our Ministries from any sort of direct connection to Iran.

WARE (voice-over): And with allegations Iraq's Shia prime minister is building new illegal militias, like this one, for his own -- a claim he vehemently denies -- the potential for more conflict persists.

So despite the Bush administration that started this war signing the deal to end it, the questions remain: what was the point, and is the conflict being left behind for President-elect Obama still to fight?

Michael Ware, CNN, Baghdad.

A voice-over only piece that shows local Iraqi reaction to the reporter's gesture and the reaction from the Iraqi government.

HEIDI COLLINS: The fact of the matter is many people in the United States find the shoe throwing incident a little bit funny and they're glad the shoes missed their target. But it is evoking some very powerful mixed emotions in Iraq.

Michael Ware has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: With world leaders at a Baghdad podium, in the blink of an eye, one Iraqi journalist both divided and united his country, calling the gesture a "farewell kiss" to the American president. His actions have split Iraqi opinion right down the middle.

This Baghdad accountant says the shoe-throwing was wrong and not the behavior of an educated man... while this mechanic calls it impolite.

But there are now just as many who now cheer the 28-year-old journalist who reported from Baghdad's Sadr City slum.

"Sure, I was very happy. I consider it a victory," says this young law student. "The Americans invaded and destroyed our civilization, our books, everything that was beautiful, with even Baghdad losing its smile."

Some hail the journalist as a national hero. His own network, al-Baghdadia, is running nationalist music clips fonted with the reporter's picture and calls for his immediate release from police custody. Along the bottom of the screen are the names of politicians who want him freed, and endless text messages of support.

And in Sadr City, American flags were set ablaze in a large demonstration in the streets. Though many Iraqis found the insult offensive, it was not because it targeted U.S. president, George W. Bush.

"Bush deserves to have a shoe thrown at him, but it wasn't proper because he should show respect for the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki," says a local photographer.

Many also agree that the journalist should not be punished.

"He does not deserve legal punishment. It was involuntarily behavior in a moment of rage and emotion," says this mechanic.

"I asked the government to release him," this law student says.

This accountant thinks the journalist should have to apologize on his own television network.

Whatever the reaction, it barely seems to matter, for this moment will surely become another iconic image of an unpopular war.

Michael Ware, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Michael updates the current status of the Iraqi journalist as well as the reactions from the Iraqi people.

JOHN ROBERTS: President Bush says he saw the man's soul... Iraqi government officials say the journalist who threw his shoes at the president is now in the custody of Iraq's military command. We're learning more now about why he did it. And now he's become something of a folk hero in Iraq and other parts of the Muslim world as a result.

CNN's Michael Ware is live in Baghdad for us this morning. What do we know about this young man's story, Michael?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, good day, John.

Look, he's a 28-year-old Shia who works for this Iraqi network that runs of Cairo in Egypt. Now, he's been living and working in Sadr City, the sprawling slum of more than two million Shia, mostly loyal to rebel anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Now we know that last year he was kidnapped for three days by insurgents or militia. This year he was detained for a day by U.S. forces but then released. And we know that he's been covering, in the words of his family, lots of stories about orphans and widows and generally the carnage from this war. And they say it's deeply affected him.

And we do know that in a few of his reports, he's signed off with his name and the location of "occupied Iraq." So this guy obviously had become pretty disenchanted. That, unfortunately, is not uncommon here in Iraq -- John.

ROBERTS: What's the reaction been to him there on the ground in Baghdad, Michael? And also, we have been hearing some reports coming from his brother and others that he may have been beaten while in Iraqi custody and it did seem when he was taken down there during the press conference that the Iraqi authorities were pretty harsh with him.

WARE: Yeah, surprise, surprise. Iraqi police, you know, giving someone a touch up. That would be a first.

He actually -- if they don't give you a flogging that's the grounds for complaint over here. But, you know, what happened in the press conference was, you know, I would imagine perfectly legitimate. What's happened after we don't know.

A Sadrist politician and his brother claimed that he's got a broken arm or a few other injuries. We don't know until he's handed over to the court system.

Now in terms of reaction, obviously, he's become a folk hero across the Middle East with outpourings of support. And just here today and it's only just past lunchtime, we've had a demonstration by high school students in Fallujah calling for his release, supporting him. More high school students in northern Baghdad demonstrating for him. Journalism students at Baghdad University protesting for him. Students at Diyala University protesting for him.

People are texting each other on their phones like crazy with jokes and poems and words of support for him. And he's even got a Facebook fan site, where hundreds are already signing up, John. So he's become a rock star in some ways.

ROBERTS: Yes. The Maliki government officially not very happy with him, though. We'll see how this goes and continue watching. Fascinating story.

Michael Ware for us this morning from Baghdad. Michael, thanks so much.

Anderson Cooper asks Michael about the Iraqi journalist whose outburst has riveted the world's attention -- what will happen to him? Under Saddam, he would most certainly already be dead; has enough democracy been brought to Iraq that his fate will be different now?

ANDERSON COOPER: The other important part of this story is the reaction in Baghdad and what has happened to the reporter-turned-assailant.

Michael Ware joins us now live in Baghdad.

Michael, the reporter was arrested. What's going to happen to him?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's what we're all waiting to see.

In many ways, Anderson, this is going to be a litmus test of the Iraqi democracy that President Bush tried to highlight after this shoe-throwing assault. The irony is that, perhaps reflecting Iraqi opinion, according to the Iraqi prime minister's office, police are investigating this 28-year-old journalist, but not for an assault on President Bush, but for an assault on the prime minister.

They're not pursuing him for throwing his shoe at President Bush. They're pursuing him for throwing it in the general vicinity of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

We will have to wait and see if they think there's any evidence and whether he gets a hot poker in an uncomfortable place for that -- Anderson.

COOPER: The brother of the reporter had pretty strong words to defend his brother's actions. I want to listen to what he told ABC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: "Americans have been disrespecting and killing Iraqis for five years," he said. "It's time we pay them back."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Is that the reaction of a lot of Iraqis? There was a big demonstration, I think Muqtada al-Sadr's people were out demonstrating today.

WARE: Yeah, Anderson, that is a sentiment shared by an enormous section of the Iraqi community.

We spoke to many people in the streets and beyond since this incident and it was a common refrain to hear people saying, President Bush deserves this kind of insult.

However, there's also an equal portion of the community -- it's fairly divided down the middle -- that says, well, we condemn what the journalist did, because it's such an embarrassment to our prime minister.

But even those who condemned the journalist all agree that they can relate to the sentiment. They don't approve of his method, but they certainly approve of his message. And we saw the furious anti-American demonstrations in Sadr City, where people were calling for his immediate release, condemning President Bush, and burning the American flag.

This is resonating across the country, where he's now being treated, in many quarters, as a national folk hero -- Anderson.

COOPER: President Bush did try to put sort of a positive spin on the whole thing. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: This doesn't represent the Iraqi people. But that's -- that's what happens in free societies, where people try to draw attention to themselves. And, so, I guess he was effective.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: You know, I mean, had this guy thrown a shoe at Saddam Hussein or -- or -- or a post-Iraqi leader, the reaction obviously would have been very different.

WARE: Oh, yeah.

As my Iraqi mates are telling me, if this happened under Saddam Hussein, this would not have happened under Saddam Hussein. The guy would have been lucky to make it out of the room alive. And, I dare say, he wouldn't be breathing by this point, 24 hours later.

But, I mean, this is just a sign, I mean, not just of the ability of free speech -- and we're waiting still to see just how free that speech will be -- but, really, it's just, this guy has struck a chord, not just in Iraq, but across the region. We even saw the most prominent Arab newspaper that's published out of London, influential across the world, applauding the guy and decrying President Bush as a war criminal.

In many ways -- I hate to say it -- but, after all these years of this war, it's a reflection of the esteem with which the Arab world holds President Bush, his administration, and perhaps a sense of American power -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right, Michael Ware from Baghdad -- Michael, thanks.

Campbell Brown speaks to Ed Henry (at the White House) and to Michael. Ed speculates that future press conferences may include not just magnetometers but a media shoe-removal as well! (And hey, better collect those BlackBerrys, those could do some serious damage!) Michael goes over the cultural issues in the gesture and why whether Iraqis agree with what the man did or not, they understand his anger and believe he should not be prosecuted.

CAMPBELL BROWN: Followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr staged an angry protest today in Baghdad over the arrest of the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at President Bush during a news conference on Sunday.

President Bush tried to brush it off. But the video of the leader of the free world getting pelted with a pair of shoes, well, it kind of ricocheted around the globe today. This as Iraqi government officials said that the journalist who threw the shoes is being tested for drugs or alcohol. He could face charges of assaulting the Iraqi prime minister who was standing right next to President Bush. But is the story bigger than it seemed at first. In the Muslim world after all, the shoe thrower has become a modern day hero.

And joining me now to talk about this, Ed Henry at the White House, Michael Ware for us who is in Baghdad tonight.

Ed, let me start with you. First of all, walk us through what happened. I mean, we've all seen the video obviously. The president's reflexes in a way though seem faster to some than the Secret Service. Are they reviewing this incident?

ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Campbell, they are taking a look at it. If nothing else, when you look at that video, it's clear that the lead Secret Service agent -- who is supposed to dive on the president in, God forbid, some bad situation like this -- didn't react after the first shoe.

You know, it's understandable he didn't see the first shoe coming, but he didn't actually go until after the second shoe. It took two full shoes before that agent really run towards the president, who said, look, back off, I'm fine.

I've been in a lot of these press conferences. They have what they call a hand mag, where they wand you beforehand to make sure you don't have a gun or a knife. But it's an imperfect system. You've been through this. You know, Campbell, you could have your keys. You could have a digital tape recorder. You could have your BlackBerry. You could obviously have your shoes. You can take them off and throw them. Nobody's really thought to do that before. But now, I have to wonder whether they're going to start doing it because we've taken our shoes off at the airport. Maybe before presidential press conferences, that's what we're going to be doing pretty soon too. It's going to be just as annoying.

BROWN: Can you imagine, Ed?

Michael, let me go to you. In the Arab world, it is incredibly derogatory to throw your shoe at someone. It does mean a lot, doesn't it?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely, Campbell. I mean, it is the height of insult.

I mean, here in Iraq and in the region just showing someone the sole of your shoe is an enormous mark of disrespect. But to actually throw your shoe is egregious. Now, we've seen this in the past, for example, after the invasion. Do you remember when the statue came down?

BROWN: Yeah.

WARE: And all the Iraqis leapt upon it. And they hammered it with their shoes. That's the level of loathing. That's the anger. That's the disrespect we're talking about.

And this action by just one angry Iraqi journalist has resonated throughout this entire region, Campbell.

BROWN: And, Ed, you know, President Bush, I think to his credit, really seemed to shrug it off, right?

HENRY: Sure. And I mean, he tried to tell reporters afterwards, look, this is just one guy. He's speaking for himself. You can't read too much into it.

But as Michael is reporting on the ground there in Iraq, it certainly looks like it's not just one person. It's resonating. Nevertheless, the president did try to downplay it. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But let me talk about the guy throwing the shoe. It is one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. That's what happens in free societies where people try to draw attention to themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: And so you can see right there, I mean, clearly the president trying to turn this politically to say, look, there's now freedom in Iraq, so the guy's ability to do that. But on the other hand, this is not the storyline the White House wanted.

BROWN: Yes.

HENRY: This could have actually been a positive trip for him because security has improved on the ground. Instead, this is overshadowing everything.

BROWN: Completely. And Michael, a much stronger reaction to the incident in Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world even. And a lot of support for this journalist.

WARE: Oh, absolutely, Campbell. I mean, in so many ways, he has expressed the sentiment of a lot of Iraqis. Iraqi local opinion here is divided now, and it's almost straight down the middle.

There's one body of opinion that condemns what he did. But not because they assaulted -- he assaulted President Bush, but because he did it in front of the Iraqi prime minister. And that's embarrassing to the Iraqi prime minister so it's not polite. The other body of opinion which is just as big says that President Bush deserved what he got.

It seems to be agreed here in Iraq, by and large, that this journalist shouldn't be punished for this. And that even though you don't approve of his method, everybody here can relate to his message, Campbell.

BROWN: And the frustration that they're feeling there.

WARE: Yeah.

BROWN: Ed and Michael, appreciate it. Thanks very much for your time tonight.

Michael speaks with Michael Holmes on BackStory for a look at the footwear event in Baghdad. The second clip is just a short bit of goofiness, one Aussie to another.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 0:34

LARGE (6.8 MB) ----- SMALL (736 KB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Four more NewsRoom appearances: first is with Betty Nguyen at 8pm Baghdad time; second is pre-recorded; third is with TJ Holmes at 10pm Baghdad time (there is a brief transmission glitch during this one); and fourth with Rick Sanchez at 11pm Baghdad time.

BETTY NGUYEN: And with that, you can see why it's now the most-Googled video of the day. Can you believe it? That shoe-throwing incident happened yesterday during President Bush's surprise trip to Iraq. The man who hurled the footwear, well, he is an Iraqi journalist and the gesture is a regional insult. CNN's Michael Ware is in Baghdad.

You know, Michael, the president's headed back to the states now, but this trip in Iraq was surely memorable and maybe not in the way that he wanted it to be.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, no, I suspect not, Betty. But, I mean, this really was an extraordinary event. And for the president, it will be unfortunate that it doesn't matter what he said or what he did here, all the people will remember is this moment.

And indeed the journalist, a 28-year-old from Sadr City here in the capital, is currently enjoying the hospitality, so to speak, of an Iraqi jail. But let's go back first and have a look at just what happened.




WARE: And this new Iraq, full of progress, as President Bush would like to see, is exemplified by the actions of this journalist. According to the president himself, as you saw, he said that, you know, this is an act of free expression. That free expression has landed the journalist in jail and perhaps reflecting popular opinion here in Iraq today, the charges they're investigating are not for assaulting the American president . . .

NGUYEN: President. Yes, it's more about the prime minister because he was standing next to him, right?

WARE: Yes. Exactly. Exactly. And I think that's the government or the investigators tapping into the way Iraqis are responding to this incident -- Betty.

NGUYEN: That is very interesting. Okay. Michael Ware joining us live.

Thank you, Michael, for that.

Length: 1:27

LARGE (16.9 MB) ----- SMALL (1.8 MB)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In Iraq, it was the morning after the American president had to duck for cover.

When an Iraqi journalist at a press conference threw his shoes -- the height of insult in this culture -- at the American president, opinions were divided the next day here on the ground. Evenly, people split between those who supported his actions -- a fierce protest said President Bush deserved no less -- were opposed by those who condemned the action, not because President Bush did not deserve it, but that the journalist should not have done it in front of the Iraqi prime minister and embarrassed him.

Also, it seems to be universally accepted among Iraqis today that the journalist should not be sitting in a jail, and popular opinion appears to sympathize with his sentiment, if not his methods.

And indeed, in his home neighborhood of Sadr City, hundreds took to the streets in angry protest, setting American flags ablaze, and calling for the journalist's release.

This is almost certain to be one of the most lasting images of this war, and that will become part of the legacy of this American administration.

Michael Ware, CNN, Baghdad.

Length: 2:35

LARGE (30.2 MB) ----- SMALL (3.2 MB)

MICHAEL WARE: And the fiery young Iraqi journalist at the center of all this, a 28-year-old from the Sadr City slum here in the capital Baghdad, is still sitting somewhere in security forces custody, most likely somewhere in a prison cell.

The prime minister's office here says that the young man is being investigated for possible charges -- not connected to assaulting President Bush, but for doing it in front of the Iraqi prime minister, and hurling the shoes in the prime minister's general direction rather than at President Bush's head, TJ.

TJ HOLMES: Okay, I think I heard that right, but -- the guy was targeting the president --

WARE: Oh, yeah.

HOLMES: -- of the United States. But just because the Iraqi prime minister was in the vicinity, that might really be what gets him in trouble. All right. I think we've got you there.

WARE: Yeah, brother. This is Iraq.

HOLMES: All right. Michael Ware, let me ask you one more here. This is the thing that is overshadowing the visit itself, and that security agreement that's put in place.

How do Iraqis feel about that security agreement that's going to lead eventually to U.S. troops leaving Iraq?

WARE: Well, to be honest, much like the American public, the Iraqis really don't know much about this agreement. Indeed, few journalists have probably read the document beyond the headine. They know the headline.

This is the beginning of the end of the American phase of this war. And the irony is, despite President-elect Obama coming into power vowing to end the war, the administration that started it has pretty much finished it as well.

So this agreement says U.S. troops, whether you want to be here or not, non-negotiable, no questions, no petrol, you're out of here in three years no matter what's happening on the ground. That's not what America wanted. That, for the Iraqis, is a blessing and a curse. In one way, the Iraqis are happy to have the occupation because it's keeping warring factions apart so they can breathe for a bit. Although their hope is dwindling and starting to question, because, you know, these guys, they're just tired of it. They want the tanks out of their streets. From the moment Saddam was removed, they said thank you very much for that, what time are you leaving -- TJ.

HOLMES: You know, we can't blame them for that. This has been coming up on year six now. Michael Ware for us in Baghdad. Thank you so much.

Length: 1:50

LARGE (21.6 MB) ----- SMALL (2.3 MB)

RICK SANCHEZ: Let's do this. Before we do anything else, let's take you to Baghdad. That's where Michael Ware has been following this story. He's joining us now with the very latest on this.

Take us back to when this happened and what the reaction has been there since, Michael, if you would.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you can see clearly from this extraordinary film that is almost certainly going to become an icon of the war in Iraq what happened.

There is a press conference. President Bush arrives without any warning. He's going through all these sort of formal meetings, a sort of show and tell, you know, dog and pony show, ceremony for the signing of the agreement.

And in the middle of the press conference, this guy just stands up, no warning, and starts hurling the shoes at President Bush's head. Now, today in Iraq, it's the morning after the night before, because this happened overnight in Iraqi time.

When the people woke up here, you know, this was clearly the talk of the town. And opinions divided pretty much equally straight down the middle. Some people criticize this Iraqi journalist for doing this. They say that it's not about throwing it at President Bush. It's about doing it in front of Maliki.

President Bush is Maliki's guest. You embarrassed the man. And it's impolite. Others say President Bush deserves this and more. Across the board, everyone agrees the guy shouldn't go to jail and that whether you approve of his etiquette or not, you understand why he did it.

So, that's the reaction here on the ground, Rick.

SANCHEZ: It's amazing, and especially when you consider that this guy is all but being made a hero at this point. And it may be a bad move to keep him behind bars.

Michael speaks with first Jim Clancy and then Hala Gorani to recap what happened at the press conference and the reactions on the Iraqi street. (The same prepared clip was part of the second piece, but I pulled it. You've already seen it a couple times by now.)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 3:01

LARGE (35.3 MB) ----- SMALL (3.7 MB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

6pm Baghdad time: Michael speaks with Heidi Collins about the reactions on the Iraqi street. 8pm Baghdad time: Michael covers the same with Betty Nguyen and also goes on to discuss how the television station the journalist works for is supporting his release and why the Iraqis are looking to charge the man with throwing the shoes in the general direction of PM Maliki.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The president expected back in Washington after a whirlwind unannounced visit to Iraq and Afghanistan. But his surprise visits were not without incident, including a farewell kiss of some kind from an Iraqi journalist. Kathleen Koch now live at the White House with more on that.

Kathleen, good morning to you.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Heidi.

Certainly a memorable trip for President Bush. And some are calling it actually a victory lap without the victory.


COLLINS: The president as you know by now, coming under unfriendly fire at that press conference during a surprise visit to Iraq. His attacker's weapon of choice: shoes. CNN's Michael Ware is live in Iraq now with a wrap of the president's Iraq trip.

Michael, when I look at that, I also remember way back at the start of the war when we listened to the Iraqi journalists in a press conference similar to that when they stood up and they were yelling, "death to Saddam, death to Saddam." And now all these years later we see something like this happening.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Heidi.

I mean, in Iraqi culture and in much of this region, throwing a shoe or showing someone the soles of your shoe is perhaps the greatest insult that you can give, equivalent to a westerner raising the middle finger or swearing at someone. This really does show a level of emotional distress or anger that goes beyond the pale.

Now why this fellow did this, he said that, "this is your farewell." He's a journalist from Sadr City, an impoverished slum. And we wonder now what's becoming of him as he's in Iraqi custody. But as you say, we've seen the shoe used in Iraq only at these most egregious moments. And perhaps one of the most famous is just at the end of the invasion when Saddam's statue was pulled down and Iraqis leapt upon it, slapping Saddam's stony face with their shoes.

Another time we've seen it just recently is perhaps somewhat prophetic. It was just a few weeks ago during an anti-American demonstration where people were throwing their shoes at guess what? An effigy of President Bush -- Heidi.

COLLINS: President Bush is there, though, also to sign a controversial security agreement, that one that sets the deadline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq in three years.

What is the overall feelings from Iraqis about that?

WARE: Well, I think in many ways the Iraqis are very, very glad that at least the process has been finished. There is an agreement. By and large, most Iraqis do not favor American presence here, but at the same time, almost contradicting themselves, they don't want the Americans to leave just yet. No one likes a foreign occupier, but then again they know that that occupier is the only one holding warring factions apart. So it's quite a problematic mix of feelings for Iraqis.

And yet we see as a result of this shoe throwing, you know, his local television network is virtually celebrating him as a national hero. Though as many people who support him also feel that his behavior was not appropriate. It was bad form to do this in front of the Iraqi Prime Minister. However, everyone does agree with the sentiment that he was expressing. Others took it further with thousands taking to the street today in an anti-American protest where American flags were burned -- Heidi.

COLLINS: Everyone agrees. Wow. All right. Well, CNN's Michael Ware coming to us live from Baghdad this morning. Thank you, Michael.

Length: 3:15

LARGE (38.0 MB) ----- SMALL (4.1 MB)

BETTY NGUYEN: Yes, take one more look because it is the shoe-throwing incident seen around the world. Now the most-Googled video of the day. Iraqi police have the journalist in custody, the man who hurled his footwear at President Bush. In the Middle East, though, that gesture is a well-recognized insult.

CNN's Michael Ware joins us now from Baghdad.

All right, Michael. What's been the Iraqi reaction to this shoe-throwing incident?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it is extraordinary, isn't it, Betty? And the incident happened here overnight, local time. So this morning, people woke up and we started to hear what they were thinking.

Now, opinion appears to be largely divided down the middle. There are those people who condemn what the journalist did, and there are obviously those who support it.

However, those who condemn it do so on the grounds of etiquette. They say that it was impolite to throw the shoe while the Iraqi prime minister was there.

Plus, of course, President Bush was a guest of the prime minister. So it invokes that kind of guest obligation, host obligation in Arab culture.

Now, those who support it, and there's plenty of them, say President Bush deserved this. Now where, again, there seems to be universal support is that the journalist, whether you think he was impolite or not, should not be punished by law. And mostly people agree that he should be released. And indeed, his own channel has spent much of the day just running nationalist music videos with the journalist's picture kept in frame and a ticker that lists local politicians who want him freed, and an endless stream of text messages from viewers calling him a national hero and wanting him let out of jail -- Betty.

NGUYEN: Yeah, Michael, but here's what's really interesting about that. And I'm reading reports here that the Iraqi judiciary is deciding whether the journalist is going to face charges of, what, assaulting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. That's talking about the Iraqi prime minister. It says nothing about the fact that the shoes were directed at President Bush.

WARE: Exactly. And that is a poignant point that proves this case. Even the law sees that the heart of this affront involves the Iraqi prime minister. Now, maybe that's just dancing around the Iraqi provisions of its legal statutes, but by and large, that's also a political reflection of local feeling. I mean, I have to tell you, yeah, Iraqis like the American troops here 'cause it's keeping warring factions apart and no one wants to see it just deteriorate. But you know what? Almost every Iraqi, to a man or woman, is yearning for the end of a foreign occupation. So everyone sympathized with this guy's sentiment --

NGUYEN: Really?

WARE: They're just divided on his method -- Betty.

NGUYEN: All right. CNN's Michael Ware joining us live from Baghdad.

Thank you, Michael.

Morning in America brings the first reactions in Iraq. Michael is on at 2pm and 4pm Baghdad time with a pre-recorded piece that covers the incident, the president's comments immediately afterwards, and the cultural meaning of the action. Afterwards, he discusses what has happened to the Iraqi journalist who threw the shoes and the street protests calling for his release.

CAROL COSTELLO: You know, that was something else. President Bush doing his best duck and cover during his farewell tour of Iraq after an angry Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at him during a news conference. Mr. Bush had just finished remarks hailing a new security agreement with Iraq when that bizarre incident occurred. CNN's Michael Ware is live in Baghdad to tell us more.

Good morning, Michael.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Yes, President Bush certainly showed the reflexes of a boxer there with that cat-like maneuver as he ducked. And obviously, we would all be thankful for that.

Now, President Bush has left Iraq. He's actually indeed visited Afghanistan since this incident. So -- but no matter how short the president's trip was, it did include some of the most extraordinary scenes and we'd like to show you.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WARE (voice-over): This will be something few in Iraq will ever forget, shoes hurled at the president by an Iraqi TV correspondent who's quickly tackled. The journalist from al-Baghdadia television called the president a dog in Arabic and cried, "this is your farewell." When calm was restored, President Bush sought to brush the incident aside.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?

WARE: And then tried to turn it into a positive.

BUSH: I don't know what the guy's cause is. But one thing is for certain, he caused you to ask me a question about it. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it. These journalists here were very apologetic. They were, you know, they said this doesn't represent the Iraqi people, but that's what happens in free societies where people try to draw attention to themselves.

WARE: For Iraqis, throwing shoes is the rudest of insults, reserved for the likes of a statue of Saddam Hussein or, somewhat prophetically, an effigy of President Bush himself just weeks ago. But this trip, the president's fourth and last, was meant to be a farewell and a celebration, one to thank his troops...

BUSH: I am honored to be at Camp Victory.

WARE: ...and to applaud a new deal with Baghdad called SOFA, the Status of Forces Agreement, governing a complete non-negotiable U.S. troop withdrawal within three years. It's the beginning of the end for the U.S. phase of this war, though the president declared the war not yet over. And while President Bush hails the agreement a success, some American officials on the ground see it as far less. To them, it's merely the best that could be gained from a weak negotiating position.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: And what we know now that as we speak this morning, the Iraqi journalist who threw those shoes at President Bush is still in Iraqi government custody. Indeed, the prime minister's office here has told us that he's being investigated for assaulting the prime minister, arguing that given that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was there on the podium as well, it's not easy to say who exactly he threw the shoes at.

However, today, there's been quite some reaction to the incident here in Baghdad. We had a large demonstration in the Shia stronghold, the slums of Sadr City. It became an outlet for anti-American feeling with American flags being burned and calls for this Iraqi journalist, himself a Shia, to be released. However, that will have to be determined by the Iraqi authorities and goodness knows which way they are going to turn on that -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Well, I was going to ask you that. What might happen to him in the end? Might he serve a long sentence? What will happen?

WARE: Well, this is going to be a real test. I mean President Bush tried to turn this to his advantage by citing this in fact as an act of democracy, a sign of the progress here, clearly an exercise of free speech. I'm not sure how this Iraqi government sees something like that. Obviously it's been noted by many here that if this happened under Saddam it wouldn't have happened under Saddam. The guy would have quickly found himself dead.

However, here on the street, opinion's divided. Whilst most Iraqis can relate to the statement, to the message, some people support what he's done and are treating him like a national hero, while others say that just really wasn't good form to show to a guest, Carol.

COSTELLO: Not good form at all. We'll be watching. Michael Ware, live in Baghdad this morning. Thank you.

Length: 4:43

LARGE (54.7 MB) ----- SMALL (5.7 MB)

KIRAN CHETRY: Authorities questioning the Iraqi journalist who hurled shoes at President Bush during a press conference in Baghdad. His arrest now sparking protests in Baghdad, with thousands of people calling for the reporter's release.

CNN's Michael Ware is live in Baghdad. Give us an update now on why he's being held and what we know about him.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kiran, this is an Iraqi Shia journalist who works for al-Baghdadia Television Network, and he's from the area of Sadr City here in the capital of Baghdad; a stronghold of the rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

What we know as you can see from the pictures that we're about to show you again -- and I suggest you get used to seeing them. I think they're going to be living with us -- that he rose up and threw his shoes at the president in the middle of a press conference. I suggest that these images are almost certainly going to become icons of the war in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WARE (voice-over): This will be something few in Iraq will ever forget, shoes hurled at the president by an Iraqi TV correspondent who's quickly tackled. The journalist from al-Baghdadia television called the president a dog in Arabic and cried, "this is your farewell." When calm was restored, President Bush sought to brush the incident aside.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?

WARE: And then tried to turn it into a positive.

BUSH: I don't know what the guy's cause is. But one thing is for certain, he caused you to ask me a question about it. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it. These journalists here were very apologetic. They were, you know, they said this doesn't represent the Iraqi people, but that's what happens in free societies where people try to draw attention to themselves.

WARE: For Iraqis, throwing shoes is the rudest of insults, reserved for the likes of a statue of Saddam Hussein or, somewhat prophetically, an effigy of President Bush himself just weeks ago. But this trip, the president's fourth and last, was meant to be a farewell and a celebration, one to thank his troops...

BUSH: I am honored to be at Camp Victory.

WARE: ...and to applaud a new deal with Baghdad called SOFA, the Status of Forces Agreement, governing a complete non-negotiable U.S. troop withdrawal within three years. It's the beginning of the end for the U.S. phase of this war, though the president declared the war not yet over. And while President Bush hails the agreement a success, some American officials on the ground see it as far less. To them, it's merely the best that could be gained from a weak negotiating position.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: And from that position we now see protests like this and in the streets of the capital. The man who started all of this, the Iraqi journalist, is still in detention. He's in custody, according to the prime minister's office, and is being investigated for assaulting the prime minister of Iraq, who was standing next to President Bush. Authorities saying you can't say who he threw the shoe at.

As we said earlier, all of this prompted fiery demonstrations today in Sadr City, that area of the capital. And there we saw not only calls for the journalist's release from detention, but we also saw a tide of anti-Americanism rise to the surface with the American flag being burned in Baghdad streets -- Kiran.

CHETRY: And you had an interesting note, what it would be like if this happened under Saddam Hussein or would this happen under Saddam Hussein?

WARE: Yeah, that's certainly one of the things that Iraqis around me are asking, and indeed the Iraqi community is divided right now. Whilst everyone understands this journalist's message and frustration -- that's without question -- the division lies in whether they approve of his behavior.

Now, his television network is running almost endless pleas for his release, with his picture on the screen, and tickers with SMSs from hundreds of Iraqi citizens supporting him and calling him a national hero.

Other Iraqis say this is simply bad form, this is not the way you treat a guest, even if you disagree with him -- Kiran.

CHETRY: All right, Michael Ware for us in Baghdad, thanks.

Three more reports about the shoe incident, the first two with Alina Cho (midnight and 1am Baghdad time) and the final with Don Lemon (6am Baghdad time).

ALINA CHO: It happened in Baghdad today. President Bush showed up for an unannounced farewell visit, but much like the war in Iraq itself, things didn't go exactly the way they were planned.

CNN's Michael Ware is in Baghdad. I talked to him just a few minutes ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHO: So, Michael, you may not like President Bush's politics, but one thing you can say for sure is that the man has great reflexes. So tell us what happened.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely! Absolutely. Talk about reinventing duck and cover. Okay, what happened here today is during the president's surprise visit, he has a press conference this evening, local time, with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki. Now, then the most extraordinary scenes took place. While President Bush was talking, an Iraqi journalist for a television network here stood up and threw his shoes -- first one, then the other -- at President Bush, narrowly missing his head and there we see the reflexes of the president.

After this, obviously, Secret Service and others jump on this guy and drag him out, still screaming, having called President Bush a dog and saying that, you know, this is your farewell, so to speak. We then saw President Bush, maintaining his composure, actually try to turn the incident to his advantage, brushing the moment aside. And this is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?

(INAUDIBLE)

BUSH: Right. No, I consider it an important step in - on the road toward an Iraq that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself. But let me talk about the guy throwing the shoe. It is one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and have people not gesturing with all five fingers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WARE: So that's how President Bush tried to handle this rather delicate situation. And bear in mind that in Iraqi culture, throwing a shoe is close to the ultimate insult, normally reserved for things like the statue of Saddam Hussein, during the invasion when it was pulled down, the Iraqis slapped it. And then we saw shoes thrown in an effigy of President Bush just a couple of weeks ago in a rally, perhaps prophetic, -- Alina.

CHO: Well, at least he was able to joke about it. And he did by the way say, Michael, that it was a size ten shoe. Now I don't know if he was serious about that. But let's get on to business now. This is the president's fourth trip to Iraq since the war began. Clearly is going to be his farewell trip. This was his first time outside the heavily fortified Green Zone. What was on the schedule today?

WARE: Well, actually, it's his first time outside of a U.S. military base. So this was a unique trip in many regards. Indeed, when he went and met the president of Iraq, he was outside the Green Zone itself, across the river, so technically in the Red Zone, which we've only seen someone like the Iranian president do.

What's been on the agenda? First, the president has said that he was here to thank the troops for their ongoing service. He was also here to celebrate the striking of this deal between Baghdad and Washington that all but ends the American phase of the war here in Iraq. This is the beginning of the American end. This agreement dictates that America must be out in three years, it governs the new rules here, and President Bush has been hailing that as a success, even though some of his officials here on the ground don't see it as an success at all -- Alina.

CHO: Michael, as always, colorful commentary, colorful reporting. We thank you for joining us.

Length: 7:12

LARGE (83.6 MB) ----- SMALL (8.7 MB)

ALINA CHO: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Alina Cho in for Fredricka Whitfield this hour. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. President Bush has left Iraq following an unannounced farewell visit today. The president declared that the war in Iraq is on its way to being won, but an incident that disrupted a news conference today showed how much controversy the Iraq war continues to generate.

A man threw two shoes at the president before security officers dragged him away. CNN's Michael Ware joins us now from Baghdad. So as I was saying earlier, Michael, may not like his policies, but certainly the man has great reflexes, doesn't he?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely. I mean, he moved like a cat. And it was just so -- actually, he moved like a boxer, the way he just shifted out of the way and the thing whizzed past his head. Something to say about this incident, the man who threw this is actually an Iraqi journalist, working for an Iraqi television network. And it appears he became so outraged at something that he threw these shoes, hurled them at President Bush's head.

Now, not only is that obviously a statement that translates into any language in terms of the frustration and the pent-up anger here in Iraq about the occupation, but in this part of the world, in this country, it's the height of insult to throw your shoe at someone. I mean, it's beyond imagination to convey this to the non-Arab world.

Normally, such an insult is only reserved for the most despised, like after the invasion when the statue of Saddam was pulled down and the Iraqis leapt upon it and slapped it with their shoes. Or we just saw it a few weeks ago when tens of thousands of Iraqi took to the streets in an anti-American demonstration and took off their shoes and hurled them at what? An effigy of President Bush, perhaps somewhat prophetic -- Alina.

CHO: I want to get to what the -- just incredible. I want to get to what the president was actually doing there today, because his fourth and final trip to Iraq as president since the war began. He was outside the Green Zone today. He did a lot, including sort of celebrating a security pact that was recently signed. What's the significance of that? And what -- practically speaking, what will that do?

WARE: Oh, look, this is going to do enormous things. I mean, unfortunately, this incident of the shoe-throwing is going to become an icon of the war in Iraq. People are going to remember this forever and it overshadows all the other purposes of President Bush's fourth visit here to the country. Now, foremost, he wanted to thank the troops for their ongoing service. But as he himself says, he wanted to celebrate these new agreements between Washington and Baghdad.

Now, these agreements, effectively, are the beginning of the end of America's war here in Iraq. President-elect Obama campaigned on ending the war, but the Bush administration has already cut the peace deal, has already struck the agreement. Now, under the agreement, U.S. forces have to be off Iraqi soil within three years. No negotiation, no question, no extensions. You're gone, is the Iraqi position, and that's in this internationally-binding agreement.

Now, also, we have the U.S. forces here on the ground, still more than 130,000 of them, under this agreement, they don't operate as U.S. forces as much anymore. Everything they do, any combat operation, they have to go and coordinate with the Iraqi government. To search a house looking for Iranian Quds force officers who are killing Americans, they have to go and get an Iraqi judge to give them a warrant.

So, this wraps the American military up in operational knots. So, in so many ways, by signing this agreement, America has surrendered much of its capacity to wage war here in Iraq. Indeed, many officials in the mission here on the ground, both military and diplomatic, have said, more than 4,000 deaths, the expenditure of so much treasure from American taxpayers and for what, for this agreement? It does not preserve American interests, according to these people here on the ground working for President Bush himself, Alina.

CHO: Michael, so interesting, your insight into all of this, but I do want to talk about what you alluded to earlier, which is that this shoe-throwing incident, really, is likely to overshadow...

WARE: Yeah.

CHO: ... so much of sort of the practical work that they're trying to do in Iraq. And I want to get to the president's reaction, what he said. I mean, he really joked about it. And let's listen to his reaction. You can react on the other side, Michael.

I believe we have that reaction from the president. There we go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES: So what if a guy threw his shoe at me? I consider it an important step on the road toward an Iraq that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself. But let me talk about the guy throwing the shoe. It is one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and have people not gesturing with all five fingers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHO: You got to hand it to him. He did take it well, didn't he, Michael?

WARE: Yeah, he did. You really do have to give it to President Bush. He didn't lose his composure, he moved like an athlete, and then he tried to turn the situation around by making this rather embarrassing incident a positive by citing it as an example, as you heard him say, essentially, of free speech and the forward march of the democratic process here. But that's, I'm sorry, it's just simply outweighed by the resonance of this statement.

I mean, apart from the theatrical drama of a journalist standing up and physically hurling his shoes at the head of the most powerful commander-in-chief in the world, the leader of the free world, it's the statement that it says to Arabs. It's an expression of how Iraqis or a large section of the community are feeling and it will play so acutely in the Arab world.

Through one journalist, it's -- you know, the feelings of so many have been expressed. And indeed, you have to point out that perhaps in a much more muted way, it's also the feelings of so many Americans, given the fact that President-elect Obama was brought to power with such an enormous mandate from the American people themselves, Alina.

CHO: Michael Ware, our man in Baghdad. Michael, as always, thank you. Great to see you.

Length: 1:34

LARGE (18.2 MB) ----- SMALL (1.9 MB)

DON LEMON: Good evening, everyone. We have seen President Bush in all sorts of situations and some really tough spots, but never anything like this before.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (YELLING IN ARABIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Look at that. The President of the United States dodging a shoe thrown by an Iraqi reporter launched straight at his head, and then another one before the Secret Service and other reporters tackled him.

CNN's Michael Ware, live in Baghdad.

Michael, President Bush is now in Afghanistan, but do we know what provoked this bizarre incident earlier in Baghdad?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, at this stage, all we have is what you see. The man just stands up and starts hurling his shoes at the head of the president of the United States of America. We now have his network, an Iraqi television network calling for his immediate release. And we're waiting for dawn to get the reaction of Iraq's people, all of this obviously happening overnight.

But if what's on the screen with his station is any guide, it's going to be interesting. They've currently got his picture up on the screen permanently, demands for his release while they're scrolling pro-Iraqi nationalist film clips. So, this has obviously evoked a lot of emotion. We'll just have to see what the Iraqis have to say about it, Don.

LEMON: CNN's Michael Ware in Baghdad. Michael, thank you very much.

A report on the shoe incident and the significance of that action in the Arab world, including video of the event and of the president's reaction.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

The first report is a straightforward recap of President Bush's arrival in Iraq and the expected meetings and events during his trip. Just before the end of the program, a quick report about the incident at the press conference that was about to become the shoe heard 'round the world.

WOLF BLITZER: As we told you at the top of the hour, President Bush right now on a surprise visit to Iraq. It's his fourth and final trip to the country as President of the United States. Let's go to Baghdad. CNN's Michael Ware is standing by. It caught all of us by surprise, Michael. What has happened, what's going on?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, President Bush arrived a few hours ago, sort of late in the afternoon local time. He was greeted on the tarmac by his war commander, General Ray Odierno and by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. He was then greeted by the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the country's two vice presidents after having flown from the international airport to the presidential palace. We understand that he's now moved to the prime minister's residence where we're awaiting a ceremony to mark the signing of the SOFA, or strategic framework agreement, and the status of forces agreement, which effectively marks the beginning of the end of the American phase of the war in Iraq -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And do we have any idea how long he's staying there? Is he spending the night? Is he coming right back to Washington, going any place else?

WARE: I think you'll have to ask the White House press pack about that because they're the only ones who are allowed within cooee [Aussie slang for a loud shout] of any of the events that are taking place here in Baghdad. Certainly we had rumors that President Bush was coming yesterday. We heard about it. Today he indeed arrived. I suspect it will be a brief visit, as they have been in the past. Yet, this is the first time that President Bush has actually set foot off a U.S. military base here in Iraq. Now, indeed, he was at the heavily-protected presidential palace and is now indeed in the Green Zone. So it's not as though he were, say, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who visited earlier this year, who rather than taking a Blackhawk, drove from the airport, didn't go into the Green Zone, walked the streets of Baghdad, and went and prayed at a shrine.

Nonetheless, the president is marking this as a farewell tour as he puts an endnote on his presidency and his involvement as commander-in-chief in this war and he's heralding the agreements as a way forward for Iraq to a free society -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Michael Ware will stay on top of this story for us. Michael, stand by, thank you.

Length: 1:31

LARGE (17.1 MB) ----- SMALL (1.9 MB)

WOLF BLITZER: Welcome back. President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq this morning, the fourth and final trip of his presidency. Let's go to Michael Ware, he's our man in Baghdad right now. Michael, what do we know?

MICHAEL WARE: Well, Wolf, the most extraordinary thing, you may or may not believe this -- we're getting reports from the press pool that flew in with President Bush, and apparently just a short, short time ago at a press conference with Prime Minister Maliki, an Iraqi man stood up in the press conference and threw a shoe at President Bush. By the reports we're getting, it just sailed past his head, and while the man was dragged out of the room, President Bush is said to have remarked that, "This was a size 10 shoe he threw at me, you may want to know," even as the man was heard screaming in the hallway.

So this is all during President Bush's farewell trip, as it's billed, to Iraq, where he's celebrating the SOFA agreement struck between Baghdad and Washington to see the US troops go home -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Wow, that's -- that's -- I'm sure that the videotape, we'll get that pretty soon. Any idea when we'll get that video?

WARE: No, we're all waiting with bated breath. Now, we haven't seen many pictures coming out of the trip, but given this was at a press conference, keep your fingers crossed. Let's hope we'll see something very soon -- Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm sure we will and we'll bring it to our viewers, Michael, as soon as we get it. Michael Ware is our man in Baghdad, he's going to continue to cover President Bush's surprise visit to Iraq today.

Michael discusses President Bush's arrival in Iraq and the SoFA, which "effectively marks the ending of the American phase of this Iraq war story."

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

President Bush arrives for a farewell tour of Iraq. (Oh, so many comments that could be made right here!) Michael appeared on Sunday Morning to describe the arrival ceremony and expected meetings with Iraqi leaders.

TJ HOLMES: So glad you could be with us today. We will start in Iraq. President Bush has made it to that country, he's there right now, expected to be his farewell visit. He has made four visits all together, now. CNN's Michael Ware joins us now from Baghdad.

Michael, hello to you and tell us, do we know what is on his plate? We know a lot's on that plate, just speaking in general, but as far as this trip goes, what's on his agenda?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I suspect there's more on the plate than he wishes to be handing over to another administration, that's for sure. Well, what we know is that President Bush landed roughly about two hours ago, which is late in the afternoon here in Baghdad.

Now, once he got off the tarmac, there was an arrival ceremony, and he was met by the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani. Now, from that arrival ceremony, it's believed he has a series of meetings with Iraq's senior leadership, the Sunni, the Shi'a vice presidents, the head of the Kurdistan regional government, a separate sort of mini-state in the north, an important American ally, and of course he will be meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

It's believed there will then be a ceremony to mark the signing between Washington and Baghdad of the Status of Forces Agreement. So, this trip, really, is to celebrate, according to the White House officials, the signing of this agreement between Iraq and America, and to mark how this war is about to significantly change. Iraq's going into the driver's seat.

What they will not tell us, of course is what that's costing America. And there's a lot bubbling under the surface. So, I would not go popping the champagne corks, yet - TJ.

HOLMES: Michael, you talk there about everything sounds celebratory, ceremonial, but is anything substantial going to come out of this, and are the Iraqis pretty much looking forward to the next administration and really holding off and waiting, they know they got somebody else they're about to have to deal with?

WARE: Yeah, I mean, in many senses, we now have a caretaker in the White House. And let's face reality here, President-elect Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq. Well, in many ways, the documents that President Bush is here to celebrate have already ended large chunks of the war, so -- and it wasn't done on U.S. terms. Yes, they're going to dress it up and make it sound pretty, but the terms of these agreements wrap U.S. combat troops up in such knots, so America's surrendered its ability to wage war. Nonetheless, the champagne will be flowing -- TJ.

HOLMES: The champagne flying, that sounds strange that champagne might be flying, but yes a farewell tour from the president. A last hurrah there. Michael Ware for us, certainly won't be your has hurrah in Iraq. We will see you again. Appreciate you.

Domestic coverage of the Gates visit spanning several hours: 7pm, 8pm, and 11pm Baghdad time. In the first, Michael gives some details of the logistics of the trip, while in the second we see a brief clip of Gates addressing troops at Balad airbase. The third clip is a recorded recap.

BETTY NGUYEN: Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he doubts the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will exceed the number in Iraq. He did speak about the war in Afghanistan today while making an unannounced visit to Iraq. Let's go live now to CNN's Michael Ware in Baghdad.

What a surprise there for the troops.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Betty, the Secretary of Defense said his trip had been weeks in the planning.

However, obviously security meant that that was kept a close-guarded secret. He said that this was meant to be his farewell tour as Secretary of Defense but that was until President-elect Obama asked him to continue as Secretary of Defense.

Now, Secretary Gates mentioned how crucial the phase right now was in the war in Iraq. As he explained why he re-uped to continue serving under the new administration as the boss of the defense forces.

When he was talking about this, he also said that the mission in Iraq was not yet over, that America's enemies remained resilient and that it was vital to end the game here in Iraq. The secretary also said whilst troop numbers in Iraq will come down, he was heartened by the fact that President-elect Obama had already indicated that he'll be listening to his commanders on the ground in the war here as to the timing of that withdrawal.

So an unexpected visit by all of us from the Secretary of Defense as he sits down today at Balad Air Base just north of the capital of Baghdad, talking with his top commanders here on the ground -- Betty.

NGUYEN: All right, we do appreciate it. Michael Ware joining us live from Baghdad on that unexpected trip.

Thank you, Michael.

Length: 4:05

LARGE (47.5 MB) ----- SMALL (5.0 MB)

ALINA CHO: Welcome back. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in Baghdad at this hour. It was a surprise visit and that critical visit comes as the U.S. prepares for a transfer of power and a withdrawal of troops. That trip comes amid a recent spike in violence, too. CNN's Michael Ware is in the Iraqi capital with more for us.

As many people know, Michael, Secretary Gates plans to stay on for at least another year. Commanders on the ground clearly need to know what the Obama administration has planned and especially how to get those troops out safely by 2011. I imagine this is a briefing as much as it is anything else.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I would imagine so. This will be a concerted back-and-forth from the commanders in the field to their civilian boss, the secretary, Robert Gates.

Now, when he landed on the ground here at Balad Airbase, just north of the capital, Baghdad, where I'm standing now, Secretary Gates said that the mission was not yet over, and though U.S. troops would start to draw down next year, he said he was nonetheless heartened by president-elect Obama's comments that he would listen to the field commanders to gauge how quickly to pull them home.

Now, he said all of this while he was explaining not just the crucial phase, he says, is now confronting America in Iraq, but elsewhere in the region, as he was telling why he chose to stay on as Secretary of Defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There are a lot of reasons to accept President-elect Obama's request to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Among others, the crucial next phase we're entering here in Iraq, the plus-up of forces in Afghanistan, the tough choices in a tough economy that the Pentagon is going to need to make regarding the budget and priorities, and a wounded warrior care system that still needs more work, but I will tell you that no reason was more compelling to me than the fact that hundreds of thousands of young Americans are doing their duty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WARE: And he told the troops around him at Balad Airbase that that duty will continue. He said the mission was not over, as I said, for America's enemies were resilient, he reminded the soldiers, and that the war must continue, even though the mission will change its focus, it has got some way to go -- Alina.

CHO: Michael, I'm just curious, because it has been so widely reported that the Obama administration, of course, keeping in mind that they'll listen to field commanders, want to safely withdraw the troops from Iraq by 2011. How has that affected morale on the ground there?

WARE: Well, these troops are professionals, and they're going to fight the fight that they have. They're going to continue their patrols, they're going to continue supporting the Iraqi security forces. I mean, I have to be honest, no one's thrilled to be here, not among the 140,000 troops. As Secretary Gates said, it's been a long, hard fight. A lot of these guys and girls are coming back now for their second and third, some of them fourth and fifth tours of Iraq. So somehow, morale remains stoic and they're going to get the job done, but they all want to go home. The question is when?

President-elect Obama is looking for 16 months. The deal that Washington's now stuck to signed by the Bush administration says 36 months. Now, where we're going to meet in the middle or not is going to depend on the new administration and what the commanders like General Ray Odierno are telling the new White House -- Alina.

CHO: I know you'll be watching it all for us. Michael Ware, our man on the ground in Baghdad, Michael, thank you.

Length: 1:56

LARGE (22.5 MB) ----- SMALL (2.3 MB)

ALINA CHO: Welcome back. Defense Secretary Robert Gates paying a visit to Iraq today, assuring troops that their mission remains important during the transition of power in Washington. CNN's Michael Ware has more from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates touched down in Iraq Saturday afternoon local time for discussions with his top commanders in the field here in the war. The secretary said that whilst U.S. troop numbers will start to go down in Iraq, he was nonetheless heartened by President-elect Obama's comments recently that the president-elect will be listening to the commanders as to the precise timing of that drawdown.

The secretary referred to the crucial phase of the war that America was now in in Iraq as he spoke about why he chosen to stay on with the new Obama administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There are a lot of reasons to accept President-elect Obama's request to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Among others, the crucial next phase we're entering here in Iraq, the plus-up of forces in Afghanistan, the tough choices in a tough economy that the Pentagon is going to need to make regarding the budget and priorities, and a wounded warrior care system that still needs more work, but I will tell you that no reason was more compelling to me than the fact that hundreds of thousands of young Americans are doing their duty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WARE: But that duty was to continue, Secretary Gates told the troops around him, as America's enemies in Iraq remain resilient and there was much yet to be done.

Michael Ware, Baghdad.

Michael discusses SecDef Gates' trip to Iraq and meeting with General Odierno, as well as what looks to be early indications that the US plans to use a very, very broad interpretation of the SoFA. Makes you wonder how many DC lawyers are hard at work, parsing every codicil. (Gotta figure John Yoo is one of them...)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael has a bit of fun with a Q&A for BackStory, and despite some technical difficulties, we get some fairly enlightening answers. He also takes a couple swipes at fellow Aussie Michael Holmes, which is to be expected whenever possible!

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

A voice-over only recap of events that includes the video footage from inside the restaurant and at the local hospitals. Michael outlines the various factions competing for power in Kirkuk. (No clue what the "Fallujah" graphic is all about...whoops.)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Three clips from the span of the show, as more details emerge. The first two clips are live and include the first video footage of the carnage; the third one is a recorded recap of the events.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 2:42

LARGE (31.6 MB) ----- SMALL (3.2 MB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 1:44

LARGE (20.3 MB) ----- SMALL (2.1 MB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Three hours after the suicide bombing at a family restaurant in Kirkuk, and the update includes information about the meeting of political rivals that was taking place there. But as Michael says, this one seems likely to become more heartbreaking as we get the full picture of what happened.

HEIDI COLLINS: Dozens of people dead in Iraq. A suicide bomber attacking a crowded restaurant during holiday celebrations.

CNN's Michael Ware is joining us now live from Baghdad with more details on what happened.

Hi, Michael.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, hey, Heidi.

Unfortunately, just a little over three hours ago, a suicide bomber plunged into a packed restaurant on this religious holiday, just outside the northern city of Kirkuk which is about 160 miles north of the capital Baghdad where I'm standing now.

From the mixed reports from various government officials that we're getting, it appears that around 50 people have died, and more than 90 have been wounded in this suicide bombing.

Now what we've just learned is that the president of Iraq's political party which dominates that city, Kirkuk, was having a meeting with rivals from an Arab bloc inside the restaurant. Yet shrouded around them were families there having a holiday feast.

And so we're led to believe by officials on the ground that the most gut-wrenching part of this may be yet to come, in that many of the victims are expected to be children. The restaurant was most popular with families, and it had a children's playground.

The war in Iraq just keeps chipping away, Heidi.

COLLINS: All right, Michael, we will be watching that story today, as it develops as well.

Thanks so much. Michael Ware, live from Baghdad this morning.

The first two reports about the suicide bomber attack at a family restaurant in Kirkuk. These aired 1 1/2 hours and 2 1/2 hours after the incident occurred. Michael outlines the various competing factions in the area and offers the most likely candidates responsible.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 2:16

LARGE (26.6 MB) ----- SMALL (2.8 MB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael recaps the Blackwater indictments and how the Iraqi people view the situation.

KIRAN CHETRY: Also this morning, attorneys for five former Blackwater security guards charged with manslaughter are planning an aggressive counter attack. The men are accused of using machine guns and grenade launchers to kill 14 unarmed -- or rather, 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians. A sixth man who cut a deal will testify against them when they're tried in Washington. Defense lawyers say that the case is politically motivated to appease the Iraqi government.

CNN's Michael Ware is in Baghdad.

Is there anything to this argument that this case is an attempt to appease the Iraqis who were infuriated by this case?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, Kiran, something had to be done to assuage the Iraqi population, who were livid at this -- there's on other word for it -- an atrocity.

But let's bear this in mind first. There's been multiple investigations into this incident a year ago, where our numbers say at least 17 innocent Iraqi lives were ended as they were going about their morning business in the morning congestion of the traffic. Now, of these investigations, there was one by the Iraqi government, one by the U.S. military, and one by the FBI.

And as the assistant attorney general who was announcing the indictments said yesterday that in the course of all of this, there's been found that there was absolutely no provocation or justification for the death blossom or just the spewing of machine guns and grenades at the civilians that happened in that convoy.

Now, we can't speak about the guilt or innocence of any of the five defendants. However, what's clear is that a lot of people died, more than 20 were wounded. They were all innocent and no one was shooting at their convoy.

Now also, there is a message to be sent here to the other security firms still operating in Iraq and elsewhere that this won't be tolerated, and secondly, as the attorney for the District of Columbia said, the message here is that no one, even in war, is above the law.

And that's what the Iraqis needed to hear. They need to see this trial take place to help mend some of the fences on an already fragile relationship between the U.S. and the people who had been occupied here in Iraq - Kiran.

CHETRY: Right. And of course, as we said, their defense attorneys are maintaining their innocence and say that they are going to try to fight this.

Michael Ware for us in Baghdad. Thank you.

Coverage of the indictments of five Blackwater guards from International: in the first clip, Michael was on very briefly prior to the announcement and then came back afterwards (the actual reading of the indictments is edited out); the second clip is from the next hour, and he recaps the situation; the third clip is his report about the survivors of the incident and is VO only.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 3:38

LARGE (42.2 MB) ----- SMALL (4.3 MB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Length: 3:51

LARGE (45.3 MB) ----- SMALL (4.7 MB)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael updates last night's report about the contract workers brought to Iraq and then stranded with no jobs and no way to leave. The situation is indeed deteriorating rapidly.

KIRAN CHETRY: Welcome back to the "Most News in the Morning." It's a disturbing story from Iraq. Foreign laborers duped by a U.S. Defense Department subcontractor into coming to Iraq for nonexistent jobs, then being forced to live in deplorable conditions. CNN's Michael Ware is live in Baghdad. He's been telling their story and looking into this more for us.

Hi, Michael.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kiran. Yes, it's as if there wasn't enough misery in this war. What we're seeing is this dreadful situation with more than 1,000 Asian contract laborers brought to Iraq for jobs that didn't exist. And the situation as we're hearing may be deteriorating rapidly. But I'll give you more on that after we see what this is all about.



WARE: And that scrutiny is taking place, with eyes now turned to this camp, indeed, even at this hour, Kiran. What we've heard is that overnight, within hours of us leaving that compound, buses tried to ferry 160 workers to the airport itself. However, after months and months without pay and being interned, these men who are amongst the poorest of the poor, are less than penniless. So there's few options for them.

Then we heard reports from inside the camp that they'd been told their food and water would be cut off on Monday, and now we've just had more reports from inside the camp that Iraqi police have arrived at the camp and according to a text on my phone, they've surrounded it. We're now attempting to confirm to see whether that's true or not. Either way, it appears the situation is rapidly deteriorating for these beleaguered men -- Kiran.

CHETRY: Wow. All right. Michael Ware, the developments coming in fast and furious due to your reporting in part. Okay, thank you so much for that.

Michael also did an earlier report, which I missed due to a cable outage.
BookAsylum from ATA was kind enough to send me this:

MICHAEL WARE: And this appalling crisis here in the midst of the war zone in Iraq continues to lurch along. Overnight we had reports from inmates within this worker's labor camp and they are telling us that buses showed up in the middle of the night to drag 160 of them to the airport without receiving any money or any assistance whatsoever.

The workers did not get on the buses and now they are telling us that they are being told by the site manager at the camp that their food and water is going to be cut off on Monday. So, someone is going to have to do something about this --Kiran.

KIRAN CHETRY: Well, it's great that you are bringing attention to that situation. That is appalling to say the least. Michael Ware for us this morning in Baghdad. Thank you.

An incredible piece -- more than 1,000 men who were brought to Iraq for promised jobs with KBR have been quite literally warehoused at a compound at the Baghdad airport. Stranded, unable to leave, forgotten by everyone, these men are (as Michael says) the poorest of the poor, and have been victimized by companies who charged them large amounts of money for the 'opportunity.' It is an important issue that desperately needed to be brought to the public's attention.

Michael also has an article about this on CNN.com

WOLF BLITZER: A violent day in Iraq today. At least 22 people killed, including two U.S. soldiers. They're dead after a string of bombings. Nearly 200 others were wounded.

The deadliest strikes happened in the city of Fallujah, where two suicide bombers rammed oil tankers into Iraqi police posts, damaging a nearby school in the process. Many people are believed to be trapped in the rubble.

Meanwhile, CNN's Michael Ware is digging into the story about a Defense Department subcontractor confining laborers in rather terrible conditions for months on end. He's joining us now -- Michael, what's going on here, because this is pretty shocking stuff?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. This is an appalling story. And it's unfolding still, even as I stand here, in the middle of the Iraqi night. What we have is about a thousand Asian contract laborers who are being all but confined here in the midst of a war zone by a Kuwaiti company subcontracted to the American KBR conglomerate. Here's their story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WARE (voice-over): They say they feel like prisoners -- locked in a derelict warehouse for months on end, no salaries, poor food, and armed security guards prowling the fences. It's an obscenity -- abuse of contract workers in Iraq.

From India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Uganda, more than 1,000 men are penned here, lured to Baghdad with promises of jobs that did not exist. Even crueler, most paid for the privilege to come, selling farms or anything of value, told they had jobs waiting with American giant KBR.

All through Najlaa Catering Services, a Kuwaiti company whose officials in Iraq refused to comment, the Kuwaiti office saying only that the situation was under control and being dealt with. KBR says it abhors unethical behavior, insisting its contractors abide by its code of conduct and it alerts authorities when contractors do not.

But the Kuwaiti company who received these men from the recruiters shoved them in here -- a compound within Baghdad's airport, with showers without water and taps that are useless. Six hundred men who had hoped to send money to their families piled in one room -- as many as four to a bed -- and apparently all forgotten, a nuisance no one wanted to address.

Unable to stay without visas, they're unable to go without money.

(on camera): Is your government helping you? Is anybody helping you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing. Nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We didn't get anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing.

WARE (voice-over): And when they protested, the guards fired above to silence them. These Ugandans say Iraqi police handcuffed and beat them, though the police refused to comment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They said, okay, if you say you are here because of USA influence, we are going to show the difference between the Iraqi government and the U.S. government. We're going to -- let's see if the U.S. is going to help you.

WARE: And as they spoke to me, the manager who interns them locked them out for talking.

(on camera): Will you let these men back in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

WARE: You will not let these men back in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. No. I give them -- I give them two minutes. If not come back inside, that's it.

WARE: But if they talk to us, you won't let them in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

WARE: That's not -- that's not right.

(voice-over): Other workers, duped by different agents, don't have a camp at all. These men shelter by this airport road in a wasteland -- living off food donated by Iraqi workers. The men who brought them here have disappeared. Their immigration status is in disarray -- passports taken or pages with visas torn out. They're stranded, forsaken.

The U.N. has visited and it says it's trying to help. But all are in limbo. The U.S. military says it takes human rights abuses seriously and is looking into the matter. The Iraqi government has just confiscated one of the company's official's passport until a solution is found. Until then, the world needs to be watching so they're not forgotten again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: And, Wolf, what we've just learned is that this scrutiny that the company is now under has provoked some action. What we hear from one of the workers in the camp tonight is that as many as four buses have appeared at the compound. And workers are being told to get on the buses to get out of the country. Indeed, this worker who we spoke to said that they've even been told that Iraqi police may be standing by with tear gas.

Now, these men are some of the poorest of the poor. They gave out money to come here and now, after months and months of internment, they may be forced out even poorer than when they arrived. We'll have to see if any of these companies can right any of the wrongs inflicted on these Asian workers -- Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll keep a spotlight on this story. It is shocking, indeed. And thank you, Michael, for doing that story for us. Michael Ware is our reporter in Baghdad.

Let's go to Jack Cafferty in New York. He's a great reporter and he's doing -- he's doing important work, showing the world what's going on.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: That's very, very sad. I -- you know, we've got some tough economic conditions in this country, but we are so, so well-off by comparison to almost every place else in the world. What a shame.

Michael was on American Morning to discuss the formal end of the SoFA negotiations -- the Presidential Council signed the agreement, as was expected. He lays out some of the details that will tie the hands of the next administration and give the Iraqi government full control of the war.

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: 47 days now until the transition of power. And this morning, a brand new CNN Opinion Research Corporation Poll shows most Americans think President-elect Barack Obama has picked the right people to help him run the country. 75 percent approve of his cabinet appointments and just 22 percent disapprove.

Well, we're also getting some breaking news this morning that the presidential council in Iraq has signed on to the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement. That's the final step which would pave the way for American troops to be out of that country within three years' time.

President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies signed that piece of paper just a little while ago. Our Michael Ware is live in Baghdad this morning to talk more about the significance of all of this.

And Michael, the first question that I have is, they have finally hammered out the security arrangement, but in 47 days we get a new president. Is it expected that President Barack Obama's orders, whatever he issues, will supersede this agreement?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly the incoming administration will be considered to be bound by this administration, the Bush administration. Indeed, the government that started this war has all but ended America's capability to fight that war by signing this agreement. And President-elect Obama will be expected by all and sundry to live up to that.

Now, President-elect Obama will be able to draw his troops down as he sees fit, whether he listens to his commanders, as he says, or not, under the terms of this agreement. And indeed, the Iraqis have insisted, despite what Washington originally wanted, that all American troops will be out in three years regardless. No questions, no negotiations. And it's up to the Iraqis, not to Washington.

Now, what we've seen today is that the Iraqi Presidency Council -- that's the president and the two vice presidents -- have ratified the agreement. The real move to creating this arrangement was passed last week in the Iraqi parliament, their version of Congress.

Once they passed this agreement, that was it. So this is more or less a rubber-stamp. The next big step is to see how this is going to be implemented. And as Lieutenant General Austin, one of the American -- second most senior American commanders here in Iraq, said yesterday, this is the end of American combat operations on their own. From here on, the Iraqis are in the driver's seat in this war and they're going to be able to, in so many ways, take control and guide the actions of U.S. combat troops -- John.

ROBERTS: We should remind people, Michael, that President-elect Barack Obama's plans would have U.S. forces out of there by about June or July of 2010, so that would leave about an 18-month buffer before this agreement would demand that they all be out.

But what about this idea that President Bush talked about in his State of the Union Address this past year where he said that there may be a residual force left in Iraq in a long-term security arrangement with the Iraqi government, sort of a garrison force, very similar to what the United States has either in Germany or in South Korea? Is that now off the table or could they sign an ancillary agreement that would provide for some sort of lingering garrison force?

WARE: Yes. Well, certainly, in terms of the agreement that stands at the moment, Washington, the Pentagon, the White House were out-maneuvered by the Iraqis. There's absolutely no provision for any kind of residual or garrison force.

There isn't any hope for a Japan post-World War II, a South Korea, a Germany. The Iraqi government said it doesn't want that. And indeed, in one of the crucial clauses of this agreement, there was a small door that was being kept open to say, the next Iraqi government could look to extend this agreement or could alter it.

Well, certain factions within the Iraqi government here related to Iran made it very clear that that clause had to be dropped, and it was. So it's non-negotiable. The decision for now is out of the American president's hands. He's being dictated to by the Iraqi government -- John.

ROBERTS: Michael Ware for us this morning in Baghdad with all that. Michael, thanks so much. It's now coming up on seven minutes after the hour.

Michael returns shortly prior to the Obama press conference to introduce the new national security team.

HEIDI COLLINS: Another top position to be announced, Obama's secretary of defense. Robert Gates is expected to stay on and continue his oversight of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CNN's Michael Ware is in Baghdad now this morning, with the view from there. Hi, Michael.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Heidi. Well, if, indeed, President-elect Obama confirms the appointment of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, this will be a reassuring and a savvy move by the incoming administration. Because this will be a feat of ongoing stewardship as America is waging two wars.

Now, there's a number of things that can be said about Secretary Gates and this appointment. Firstly, Secretary Gates is politically non-aligned and he's widely viewed as a moderate who's listening to his generals. He's also very important by his mere presence in the rehabilitation of the relationship between those in uniform and the civilians who command them, a relationship that was badly damaged under this administration.

Also, as a former director of Central Intelligence, Secretary Gates is a bridge between the intelligence community and the Pentagon. And finally, as someone who is overseen the implementation of the so-called surge here on the ground in Iraq, Secretary Gates may be a tempering influence on the Obama administration's urgency to start pulling out troops regardless of what's happening here on the ground -- Heidi.

COLLINS: All right. CNN's Michael Ware, coming to us from Baghdad, this morning. We're going to be watching all of these appointments very closely. Thank you, Michael.

A recap for the international audience about the significance of Robert Gates staying on as SecDef.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael is back on the Baghdad rooftop, discussing P-E Obama's decision to keep Robert Gates on as SecDef.

JOE JOHNS: As we just mentioned, President-elect Obama wants the man President Bush installed at the Pentagon, Robert Gates, to stay there when he takes office next month. CNN's Michael Ware is live in Baghdad for us.

Michael, what does the Gates' reappointment mean?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Joe, what this primarily is, is a reassuring and savvy act of ongoing stewardship at a time where America is waging two wars. Now, if, indeed, it's confirmed as we expect that President-elect Obama will continue in office Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Gates himself is a politically nonaligned individual who's seen as something of a moderate. Now in many ways, Secretary Gates' presence has been important in rehabilitating the relationship between those in uniform in Washington and the civilians who command them. A relationship that's been so badly damaged under the current administration.

Also, as a former director of Central Intelligence, Secretary Gates is a good bridge between the intelligence community and the Pentagon, and finally, of course, as one of the stewards of the so-called surge strategy here in Iraq that's been considered so successful, Secretary Gates could also be a tempering influence on the pace of an Obama administration's withdrawal from Iraq -- Joe.

JOHNS: So Michael, given the points you've made here, should Obama have gone with a fresh face or is Gates moving in the right direction?

WARE: I think it's a move in the right direction. Certainly you couldn't have reappointed a Donald Rumsfeld, for example, but Secretary Gates is by no means, by no stretch of the imagination, a Secretary Rumsfeld. Secretary Gates is a pro. I mean a careerist in the CIA, he rose to the level of Director of the CIA, and with the military, certainly here on the ground that I've seen in Baghdad, he's much more consultative. I mean, we're not seeing a civilian political agenda, jammed down the throats of military commanders who are preparing or are actually waging war. And we saw that under Secretary Rumsfeld.

So it's a much better atmosphere within the military community in D.C. and here on the front lines. So I think that bodes well, particularly with President-elect Obama moving into office with his promise to reduce the number of U.S. troops here and bring them home, in a timetable that does not consider what's happening here on the ground. So America needs to protect its interests here in Iraq and Secretary Gates may be a good form of continuity to make sure that that protection is in place -- Joe.

JOHNS: So speaking of on the ground, Gates gets pretty good marks there, I take it, among the military leaders?

WARE: Yes, he does. I mean as I said, he's not seen as forcing issues upon the military commanders. He's not telling them how many troops they must have. He's much more consultative and listening to what they're saying about what they need and what's the situation that confronts them here in this war that's still going on, even though it mightn't be in the headlines back home. We saw that 297 Iraqis died here last month and, indeed, at least 35 have died just today alone.

So this war is still going, and we know that from some reports that indeed, Secretary Gates, unlike other secretaries, attends the weekly meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I mean, in one way, it's a small thing, in another way it's a very big thing. And given that we have such a progressive administration coming in, having someone from the past to provide continuity could be a very good play especially to commanders -- Joe.

JOHNS: Michael Ware, thanks for that. Good talking to you.

An AC360 special in the "Extreme Challenges" series, this program focuses on the issues facing the incoming president. In three segments, Anderson Cooper hosts a panel discussion with Michael, Christiane Amanpour, Peter Bergen, and David Gergen. The first segment covers Iraq, the second Afghanistan, and the third Iran.

This is exactly the kind of discussion a lot of us have been waiting to hear... unfortunately, its only airing to date has been at five in the morning the day after Thanksgiving. Hopefully it will get some prime-time respect in the near future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden, as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security and it will ultimately make us safer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: President-elect Obama is inheriting two wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- both with huge challenges. So how might the U.S. strategy change under an Obama administration? Here to talk it over, CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour; CNN's senior political analyst and a former presidential adviser David Gergen; also, CNN's Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware and CNN's national security analyst Peter Bergen.

Barack Obama has made a lot of promises on Iraq and also on Afghanistan. On Iraq, he's promised within 16 months U.S. troops coming home; perhaps one battalion every month. Can he still live up to that?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, in many ways Anderson, it's already in train. I mean, the timetable that's being set between Baghdad and Washington by the Bush administration is not that different a timetable to what President-elect Obama wants.

Under the current agreement, U.S. forces have to retreat to their bases by the middle of next year. And under the agreement --

COOPER: So does that means, what, no patrols?

WARE: This is what we're still going to have wait and see. Basically, U.S. forces are going to be stuck in their bases and they're going to have to coordinate with the Iraqi government to basically seek permission to go out and conduct massive operations.

COOPER: How does that jibe with the Petraeus strategy of having smaller forward operating bases in communities?

WARE: Well, they're going to have to define which bases, how many bases are going to work, but there's certainly the JSSs within Baghdad itself, these tiny outposts I would suspect they're going to have to be shut down and handed over to Iraqi security forces.

Now, if you're going out hunting and you've gotta to ask permission of the Iraqi government, well, many of your targets are linked to the Iraqi government.

Plus, U.S. forces have to be out of that country by the end of 2011. Now, that's only two years away. And Obama wants people out in 16 months. So there's not a great deal of difference in the timetables.

The question is, what are you going to do to backfill the vacuum that you're leaving? 140,000 U.S. troops currently are the referee in the ring of a heavyweight bout with at least three contenders there if you don't include Iran which is the real story.

COOPER: Well, you also have these Sunni groups which are still are armed, still are trained, still have their hierarchy in place, they've just been paid to be on our side.

WARE: Well, they're the American militia. I mean, this is the Sunni insurgency who basically came to the Americans in 2003 and said, we don't want to fight you. But the American administration at that point wasn't listening. So eventually after four years you put 100,000 Sunni insurgents, form buffers on the payroll. They were then sent out as an indirect assassination program that eliminated al Qaeda in Iraq and reduced them to what they are now. They're also an American counterweight to the Iranian-backed militias and the Iraqi government. They are a stick with which to beat that administration because that administration is more closely aligned with Tehran than Washington.

Now, what are you going to do with them, they're handling them under the Iraqi government, the government hates them. These U.S. allies hate the Iraqi government.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think Obama also will vastly benefit from the deceleration of anti-Americanism. The enemy was anti-Americanism over the last eight years and that is going to have the knees, the legs knocked out from under it because Obama will present a different vision of American foreign policy. And I think that will help him a lot, particularly in these very difficult deals that he has to make and decide.

COOPER: In his vision, though, the central front on the war on terror has never been Iraq, it is Afghanistan. And also I guess to a lesser extent Pakistan. What are his options in Afghanistan?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: They're pretty limited right now, because even when he assumes office on January 20th, even if he said let's move a lot of people to Afghanistan which I think is unlikely because of problems they would have in Iraq --

COOPER: But that is -- during the campaign -- some of what he said. Some of these troops from Iraq would be going to Afghanistan.

BERGEN: You can't get them there magically. You know, it takes -- it would take them probably until July just to show up in terms of redeploying, there's logistics involved. That's a problem because the new Afghan fighting season begins in the spring of next year.

It's also a problem because the crucial presidential election is in August, at least it's scheduled in August of 2009 and that election is the most critical part of, you know, the next Afghan political cycle.

So according to U.S. military officials the best that they can be done is two brigades by the spring. Two brigades is not a game changer. That's 7,000 combat soldiers with support staff. That's not a game changer in Afghanistan so obviously it's a campaign promise but there are some realities about the size of the U.S. military right now.

COOPER: Up next, keeping America safe. What can President Obama do to reassure the more than 55 million people who didn't vote for him that he'll keep us safe at night? Our panel weighs in on that, coming up.

Length: 6:05

LARGE (70.4 MB) ----- SMALL (7.3 MB)

COOPER: Joining us again: CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, CNN senior political analyst and former presidential adviser David Gergen, as well as Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware and national security analyst Peter Bergen.

GERGEN: My question to you guys is, does President Obama have to lower expectations about Afghanistan? He keeps talking about winning Afghanistan.

WARE: Yeah, and destroying al Qaeda. Well, he's going to have to change those expectations.

AMANPOUR: Well, no, no, you have to win. You have to win.

WARE: Well, they're not doing what needs to be done.

AMANPOUR: Soft power. Yes, you can. You can do it. It is a question of re- strategizing, re-prioritizing. You can.

WARE: Agreed. Agreed.

AMANPOUR: Afghanistan was almost won.

WARE: True.

AMANPOUR: It is a massive, huge -- right here in the middle of this volatile region -- a massive block of receptive Muslims. Many of them moderate. This has to be won and it can be won but it really has to have its eye kept on the ball. It has to have a proper military, both hard power and soft power, which Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, has talked about over and over again and it has to have the focus on it.

The reason it is the way it is right now is because the eye was taken off the ball to Iraq.

COOPER: Can the same strategy in Iraq work in Afghanistan in terms of --

WARE: No. The surge?

COOPER: The surge or trying to turn over some Taliban elements negotiations.

WARE: Well, this is where we get to. The problem of Afghanistan is not here. The problem of Afghanistan is here.

COOPER: Pakistan.

WARE: In Pakistan.

Now, General Petraeus -- the new CentCom commander -- the GAO back in May, everyone says, it's agreed, that the Al Qaeda leadership including Osama is here.

COOPER: North Waziristan.

WARE: Northwest Pakistan, yes, the tribal areas and also here in Baluchistan with the Taliban. Now, they said that the leadership is there, it's regenerated and according to the GAO, they said they've reconstituted their ability to attack America.

Now, you're not going to get at any of those people physically there. Because you can throw as many troops as you like at the Afghan mountains but they swallow divisions whole and they can't cross the border. And --

GERGEN: So can you win?

WARE: You can win but you've got to do lot of things and primarily the first target has to be the Pakistani intelligence agency, basically Islamabad's CIA.

COOPER: The ISI.

WARE: The ISI, because elements within that are very closely aligned to the Taliban and al Qaeda. And the civilian government in Islamabad has very little control over these guys.

AMANPOUR: They're fundamentally linked. Hamid Karzai says that they are reaching out to the Taliban even to Mullah Omar. They are apparently Saudi sponsored talks, which is very similar to the Sunni awakening in Iraq. We'll see how that goes.

America doesn't like it. Because they think it's negotiated from a position of weakness, to an extent it is. But that process may be under way and that's really, really important to be able to try to see whether they can bring those people on board.

COOPER: But the urgency, though, is there, and Peter, you've traveled there a lot. We have been there together. It is deteriorating rapidly. I mean, the number of attacks, the number of suicide attacks; something you really never used to see in Afghanistan back in 2003, 2004. Something you see now all the time.

BERGEN: A classified review by the White House is going to conclude that the situation is dire. It is in fact somebody involved in the review said to me that the media -- this is an unusual thing for somebody in the Bush administration to say -- is actually not portraying how bad it is in Afghanistan right now.

And a very leading indicator is that support for international forces has dropped by 33 percent in the last few months according to this review that is going to be published by the National Security Council.

GERGEN: It's dropped within Afghanistan?

BERGEN: Within Afghanistan.

AMANPOUR: Because of the killing of the civilians.

BERGEN: Civilian casualties is an enormous kind of problem. We just -- 40 people at a wedding party.

COOPER: Because there haven't been enough U.S. forces, because there's concern about going into some of these regions, they've been using air raids to go after targets but there's a lot of civilians getting killed, as well.

AMANPOUR: Correct and that the one Hamid Karzai said that has to stop in order to keep the goodwill. It's happening in Pakistan, too.

COOPER: Which is something that Barack Obama referenced during the campaign and got hammered for by McCain and Sarah Palin.

BERGEN: No, so the situation is not good as Christiane said, it's still winnable. Afghanistan still, you know, there's still favorable views of the American-led invasion unlike in Iraq from pretty much the beginning. And in counterinsurgency, the center of gravity is really what the people think.

We're losing -- the United States and its allies is losing some of the goodwill but there still remains I think a reservoir on which it can be built. And by the way Obama, when I was in Afghanistan in July, just doing informal polls with the Afghans, I mean, they love this guy. They think that he's going to take it to Pakistan and sort of be more aggressive there which --

WARE: Yeah, good luck with that.

BERGEN: He may or may not do. But that's their view; he is very popular politician --

GERGEN: But he now seems to feel that Karzai is actually a reliable partner in all of this.

AMANPOUR: Interesting you say that.

GERGEN: One keeps understanding that he's corrupt and he's weak and he's lost the support of the people.

COOPER: There's been allegations about his brother in the narcotics trade.

WARE: No allegations; it's fact. I mean, to survive in Kandahar as a power player, you have to be a warlord. And his brother is currently the head of the Karzai tribe. So to lead their tribe, you think he can disrupt the peoples' opium fields? Do you think he can disarm his men? If he does he's got no stake at the table.

COOPER: Right now 95 percent of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan.

AMANPOUR: But again, that was something that had been lower in 2001 and could have been turned around to do other kinds of crop harvests and another kind of economy and again, the eye was taken off the ball.

WARE: But what ability does he got to extend power beyond Kabul? I mean, he's in this tiny little enclave here.

GERGEN: Can we get to victory with Karzai? Or we have to have somebody else?

AMANPOUR: He is who you have right now. You have an election coming up that he says despite what the Americans want which is to delay the elections that he says he doesn't want to. And I think the strategy has to be reshaped and you can bet your bottom dollar that's what General Petraeus is doing right now. He's just recently been there and they're looking at it and trying to figure out how to turn it around. And I don't think it's impossible.

COOPER: Up next, we continue to look beyond our borders. How can President Obama boost our image in the world and at the same time handle potential nuclear threats like Iran and Russia? We'll dive into those challenges in a moment.

Length: 5:42

LARGE (66.0 MB) ----- SMALL (6.9 MB)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: And all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular but our destiny is shared. A new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Let's look at some of the other extreme challenges in terms of foreign policy for Barack Obama. Russia. North Korea. What are the other major challenges?

AMANPOUR: Iran, of course.

WARE: Yes. That's who you're really at war at.

AMANPOUR: Might be number one because none of this, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Middle East -- in the considered view of many former U.S. officials, Secretaries of State and many people in the region -- will not be fully resolved and solved without a mature relationship of some sort based on mutual interest with Iran which believes itself to be the superpower in the region and is certainly acting as if it is.

WARE: Yes, regionally it is a super power. As Tehran tells the visitors from Iraq, from the Iraqi government, "we are a regional superpower. We will be a nuclear power of some sort and unlike the Americans we're never going anywhere." So they're the practical political realities within that region.

AMANPOUR: And from all my conversations and deep reporting over the last couple of years and particularly during this campaign, I believe that they want to do business with the United States.

In other words I think they want a paradigm shift. I think the door is open. You saw from the letter of Ahmadinejad, I know people in the United States tend to laugh at that, but it was unprecedented that an Iranian president sent a letter of congratulations. And just recently after that, the speaker of the parliament in Iran has told all his MPs not to talk to the foreign press. They don't want to make a mistake.

BERGEN: I think his biggest test is going to be potentially a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran. Because I don't think that Israel -- at a certain point they regard it as existential, the nuclear program in Iran. And they are not necessarily going to ask permission.

And so what happens when you get either information or intelligence leading to believe -- this obviously changes the game enormously in Iraq. American military commanders in Iraq are extremely concerned about such an attack because they believe that the Iranians would interpret it as something that we have sanctioned.

COOPER: How likely do you think such an attack is?

AMANPOUR: Well, there's been a lot of fear about it. And not just the Israeli attack but an American attack. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff here in the United States and seniors officials like the outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had sort of walked military resolution back.

In other words, Olmert has said, all these hard liners, all these people in Israel who are talking about a military solution to Iran, they need to really think carefully about -- he said that in an interview on the record. Remarkable.

WARE: I don't even think there is a military solution.

COOPER: Striking Iran is not like striking Iraq.

WARE: No, no it's not going to work.

AMANPOUR: And the truth of the matter is that the Israeli part of this equation will put pressure on the next administration and it will be more difficult to open dialogue with Iran because they do -- they are suspicious about that.

GERGEN: Does that mean the first task of the next Secretary of State should be to take all this on?

AMANPOUR: For the Middle East peace process.

GERGEN: The Middle East peace process.

AMANPOUR: I think it's going to take a very considered, very careful look because obviously, Iran, both inside Iran and inside the United States is a very political hot potato.

You've got hard liners on both sides who don't want it to happen. In Iran, you've got a presidential election that's coming up that both sides, reformists and hard liners seem to want to use opening the American door to benefit themselves.

On the other hand, very, very senior people in the U.S., all the Secretaries of State that we've interviewed have all said --

GERGEN: You had five.

AMANPOUR: Five. Across --

GERGEN: Republican and Democrat.

AMANPOUR: Republican and Democrat from Powell to Baker, to Christopher, to Kissinger and Albright, all have said that that must be a priority. Sensibly, properly, the right way but without preconditions to start some kind of change of paradigm here, a change of relationship.

GERGEN: A dialogue.

AMANPOUR: A dialogue, yes, of course.

GERGEN: A serious dialogue. A diplomatic offensive.

AMANPOUR: Absolutely.

WARE: And I've actually sat down with the man America has been talking to so far. It's the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. Now, he himself is a member of the Quds Force, the very elite military unit that's been helping kill the American soldiers in Iraq.

Now, while as stony-faced or as poker-faced as he is in that embassy or in the two talks he's held with the American ambassador, the fact that he is there, the fact that he's shaping a framework for any kind of a discussion, even though it may not have progressed too far yet is a positive sign. They're there to listen but they want to see what you got to put on the table and unfortunately for them that's mostly about leverage within the nuclear issue.

AMANPOUR: And just very quickly, it was Iran that helped the United States in Afghanistan.

GERGEN: How important is it to get to Russia engaged with the Iranian issue?

WARE: It's vital.

GERGEN: Do we need Russia as a partner in all of this and therefore all these other issues we have got with Russia become -- you know, complex?

WARE: Absolutely. Russia's also looking for its own leverage.

COOPER: Russia's already testing Barack Obama. I mean, threatening to put missiles on their border if the U.S. goes ahead with a defensive missile shield.

AMANPOUR: They are. They're breast beating, chest beating. Again, I think they also will have a problem because up until now, for the last several years, they have been able to capitalize internally on virulent anti-Americanism that has spread over the last eight years of the Bush administration. That's going to decrease and it's going to be more difficult for them to use the American bogeyman to justify their actions.

COOPER: Up next, your health, your wallet. As president, Obama has said he wants to make sure insurance is available to everyone who wants it. With the shaky economy, though, can he still follow through with that promise?

As part of the "Memo to the President" series, Michael outlines the decisions President-elect Obama faces in regards to removing troops from Iraq. The Iraqi parliament has approved an agreement to extend the time US troops remain in the country, but also included a firm date by which all troops must be out.

JOHN ROBERTS: An important and positive step, that's what U.S. officials are calling the approval of the security pact between Washington and Iraq's cabinet. The agreement will allow the U.S. forces to remain in the country for another three years. The United Nations mandate was due to expire at the end of this year. But now that the agreement is in place and we know that American troops can stay in Iraq for another three years, what does Barack Obama need to do during those 36 months? Our Michael Ware has today's "Memo to the President."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mr. President-elect, the war in Iraq will soon be yours to command. It's a war that's weakened some of your enemies while strengthening others, and though it's a war in which America has not lost a fight, Professor of Middle East Studies Juan Cole says the solution won't be found on the battlefield.

PROF. JUAN COLE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: If I were writing a letter to the future president, I would tell him to be diplomat in chief.

WARE: And to somehow deliver a miracle by bringing Iraq's warring factions together while containing the influence of America's enemies.

COLE: It is that kind of diplomacy that is needed if a military withdrawal is to be accomplished.

WARE: Getting out of Iraq will be come at a price, perhaps including an emboldened Iran. It's already well placed to fill any vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal. From the moment of the U.S. invasion, Iran has sponsored powerful militia like this one and nurtured its ties with Iraq's most powerful political factions now running the government in Baghdad. U.S. military intelligence says Iran has contributed to the deaths of countless American soldiers. So America needs all its allies like these Sunni militiamen who've systematically assassinated Al Qaeda members. Mostly former insurgents, now more than 100,000 of them are on Washington's payroll.

Another ally are the Kurds. They helped topple Saddam but are now in dispute with Baghdad over oil and land. 140,000 American troops have been keeping Iraq's rival militia from an all out civil war.

COLE: There are these looming conflicts. A quick U.S. withdrawal with no diplomatic arrangements made for reconciliation could throw the country back into very substantial chaos.

WARE: A problem, as president, you must find a way to avoid.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: So, John, that's what confronts the president-elect when he takes office. As we've heard, the Iraqi cabinet has now approved the terms of the agreement that would allow the ongoing presence of U.S. troops in that country. However, it's not entirely in the form that Washington would have liked. And it has to be said, it sharply curbs U.S. power there in Iraq. John.

ROBERTS: Michael, what do we know about a long-term strategic relationship between the United States and Iraq? Even after major combat forces have been removed from that country under Barack Obama's plan, what could that look like going forward? President Bush has suggested, you know, think North Korea or South Korea and Germany when you think about how long U.S. troops could stay?

WARE: Well, that's the thing. And that's the great dilemma facing the next administration is how are you going to fill the vacuum after your troops come home? Everybody wants the troops to come home. Yet that 140,000 combat troops on the ground are what's holding the country together, by keeping the warring factions apart. So the more you reduce the troops, the more you leave Iraq to its own devices.

And with a firm out-date imposed by the Iraqi government, that means U.S. forces could be forced to leave Iraq no matter what's happening on the ground. That could include bloodshed as a civil war erupts. It may include increased Iranian influence, it could even be a return of al Qaeda elements. Essentially, much of the question has been taken out of U.S. hands in terms of boots on the ground. So what will the president-elect and his cabinet do to put something into the breach, and it's certainly not something that we could look at and consider a win or a victory at this stage.

I wouldn't be putting any champagne on ice when it comes to the signing of this agreement, the departure of the American troops and what will happen after they leave. John.

ROBERTS: The important questions still to be answered. Michael Ware for us this morning in Washington. Michael, thanks so much for that.

Michael appears on D.L. Hughley's program to discuss what we should do in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. That's a lot to cram in to just a few short minutes, but D.L. asks great questions, and gets straight answers. (The raw honesty of Michael's first answer is simply stunning.)

D.L. HUGHLEY: My next guest is a guy who takes risks every day, because he lives and works in a war zone, CNN's Baghdad correspondent, here to talk to me, taking out some time from dodging bullets, welcome Michael Ware.

How are you doing, Michael?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good day, mate, how are you?

HUGHLEY: How you doing? Is Baghdad very scary?

WARE: Um... yeah.

HUGHLEY: That's a good answer right there.

WARE: I mean, things are changing all the time. It's getting slightly better. But by and large, it used to be the case that if you were on the streets for more than 10, 15 minutes, you were gone. I mean, I got grabbed once. They put the gun to your head, pull the pin on the grenades. You know, it's worse than catching the subway.

(LAUGHTER)

HUGHLEY: Why is it that I hear so much talk about Pakistan? And how afraid of Pakistan should we in America be?

WARE: Well, Pakistan is a complicated place. You know, American intelligence says that's where al Qaeda senior leadership is. They say that, you know, they've got sanctuary in the mountainous Northwest Frontier Province. And, man, that place, I've been there, it's vicious. It swallows infantry divisions whole.

But, you know, they also say that al Qaeda has reconstituted its ability to attack the U.S. homeland. So basically al Qaeda and the Taliban have a safe haven. Meanwhile, you've got a weak, you know, central government in Pakistan. You've got a strong intelligence agency in Pakistan that's working with the Taliban and al Qaeda, certainly elements of it.

But even if you add all of that up, I'd be more worried about Iran than I would be about Pakistan.

HUGHLEY: You just scared the hell out of me. Now we're going to Iran?

WARE: Yeah, man! Well, I sure as hell hope not because I'll be going with them!

HUGHLEY: Why Iran more so than Pakistan?

WARE: Well, Iran has got a lot more muscle to flex within the region. Okay, Pakistan has got what they call the "Muslim bomb." They are a nuclear power. Iran wants to be a nuclear power. And Iran is writing all the checks on Lebanese Hezbollah. And they kicked the butt out of the Israelis a couple of years ago, and I was there to see that.

They're killing U.S. troops right now. Pakistan ain't doing that. Now, they're doing that in Iraq, using Iraqis, that they're arming, funding and training. And they're bleeding literally U.S. soldiers to gain leverage so they can get nuclear power, and many think a nuclear bomb. So you've got to watch out for those dudes, mate.

HUGHLEY: So President-elect Obama, he is going to have an obviously difficult task.

WARE: Oh, man.

HUGHLEY: So which, out of all those -- we have Iran, we have Iraq, we have Pakistan, we even have Afghanistan -- which is the most urgent matter he should deal with? What should he do first?

WARE: Your government took you to war to fight al Qaeda and a regime that wasn't threatening you, led by Saddam Hussein.

HUGHLEY: Right.

WARE: Because you did that, you've made Iran...

(CROSSTALK)

HUGHLEY: You keep saying "you" like -- wait a minute, I...

WARE: Yes, it's your fault!

HUGHLEY: I don't even...

WARE: Sometimes I feel like it's my fault.

(LAUGHTER)

HUGHLEY: Right, right. I'm like, always blame the white guy, I'm telling you. I was like, wait a minute.

(LAUGHTER)

WARE: No, I mean, Iran. Iran poses much more of a threat, I would argue, than al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is always going to be out there, I'm sorry. You're just not going to get rid of al Qaeda.

HUGHLEY: But now our resources are diminished, you know, we're in two wars, we're in a bit of an economic turmoil, so what can we do, like, here? What is the first thing he can do?

WARE: Well, this time you need a plan.

HUGHLEY: Oh, come on. What do we need a plan for, what, are you crazy?

WARE: Yeah, I know. It's so crazy it might work!

HUGHLEY: You know what's so funny, and this is -- I was just talking to the writers here -- every time I see Obama, he's reading a newspaper, a book, or a magazine. And it occurred to me, I haven't seen a president reading in eight years. So it's better already, ain't it? Maybe if you read, you can have a plan.

(LAUGHTER)

HUGHLEY: Thank you, Mr. Ware. Thank you very much.

WARE: Yes, thank you, mate.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

HUGHLEY: We have got plenty more coming up. Thank you, man.

The Status of Forces Agreement remains a central sticking point in Iraq, and both Michael and Peter Bergen talk to Anderson about that and the odds of our forces in Afghanistan tracking down Osama bin Laden (pretty much zero, since he's in Pakistan.) So what will President-elect Obama do?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People said, you weren't afraid? Of course I was afraid. Of course. Everybody is afraid. But, when you have got a job to do, and it's a big job, and it's an important job, and it's a God-given job, then you do it without fear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are honoring the veterans that have gone before us, both past and present, both living and -- and gone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have done a lot of things in my life, and I have worn a lot of hats, but none of them was more important than this one.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Thank you for your courage. Thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for standing up when your nation needed you most.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER: President Bush today, his final Veterans Day in office.

It is the seventh Veterans Day since American troops began fighting in Afghanistan, the fifth since the Iraq war began -- both wars about to become president-elect Obama's problem.

And, tonight, the Associated Press is reporting the Taliban posted a message on a Web site they often use, urging Obama to withdraw troops from both countries.

Let's dig deeper with CNN's national security analyst Peter Bergen and CNN's own Michael Ware.

Michael, let's talk about Iraq.

President-elect Obama has talked about withdrawing troops within 16 months. It's actually now much more in line with the Iraqi government's position.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it is, and indeed the Bush administration's position.

Right now, Washington and Baghdad are desperately trying -- well, certainly on Washington's part -- to thrash out an agreement that will allow the continuing presence of U.S. troops. The clock is ticking down until New Year's Eve. That's when the U.N. mandate for the U.S. troops runs out.

Right now, we're at stalemate. Indeed, the Iraqi government spokesman today just said that the U.S. is not doing enough, and they expect the U.S. to offer more.

So, what we're seeing is an enormously complex situation, where America desperately needs something to help break this deadlock. And, in the meantime, you see the insurgency making announcements today, calling on their forces to increase the attacks to overturn this agreement.

COOPER: Peter, there had been talk about leaving -- even president-elect Obama during the campaign had talked about leaving a residual force in place in Iraq. How long would that remain there? And do we have any sense of how big a force would be required?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, when he was candidate, Obama talked about this residual force, you know, counterterrorism mission, protecting the largest embassy in history, these kinds of things, but he was pretty careful not to say what that residual force would actually involve, because, clearly, the anti-war base of the Democratic Party isn't necessarily going to be happy when they find out that the residual force might be something between 30,000 and 60,000 soldiers.

That's the level that U.S. military commanders are likely to recommend to the incoming Obama administration in terms of the residual force that should be left. But, as Michael has pointed out, all this is, in a sense, moot, because the Status of Forces Agreement between the Iraqis and the United States has yet to be agreed upon, and, in fact, is very unlikely to be agreed upon until the new Obama administration comes in.

But there's one big sticking point, which is, the Iraqis really want a date certain for all American soldiers to pull out. And, of course, a residual force is not something that most Iraqi politicians will allow themselves to at least publicly sign on for.

So, there's a great deal of uncertainty going forward. And when that deadline expires on New Year's, you know, theoretically, at least, U.S. soldiers will have to be confined to their bases, if there isn't some sort of agreement, if the U.N. Security Council doesn't come in and say, we're going to extend that U.N. mandate by several months, which is plausible.

COOPER: And, in simplest terms, the idea was -- or at least in some quarters, was to take -- transfer the troops who are Iraq, move them to Afghanistan. But it's not that simple.

WARE: No, it's far from that simple.

And if you're looking at throwing troops at the problem in Afghanistan, that's simply not enough. The so-called surge that has delivered so much success in Iraq was much more than the 30,000 reinforcements sent to the Iraqi capital.

And, in Afghanistan, the terrain there, the mountains on the end of the Himalayas swallows entire infantry divisions whole. So, just picking people up from Iraq will not only leave a vacuum in that conflict, but throwing them at Afghanistan simply won't work. And that's why we're hearing people like General Petraeus talking about talking to elements of the Taliban.

COOPER: Yes.

And, Peter, in "The Washington Post" today, it reporting that Obama is planning a more regional approach to Afghanistan, perhaps even this dialogue between Afghan government and what are termed as reconcilable elements of the Taliban.

BERGEN: Yes. And, certainly, General Petraeus has talked about that. The Bush administration is doing its own review, obviously, in the dying days of the administration, is going to be looking at that.

And there's really no other option, because, as Michael pointed out, even if you send several thousand American soldiers to Afghanistan, that's not a game-changer. A game-changer is bringing in people who used to be shooting at you and trying to get them on your side, maybe put them on the payroll, as happened in Iraq.

Obviously, Afghanistan is different. There's different details that would have to be involved, different structures, but, nonetheless, taking the Iraqi model to some degree and seeing if it can work in Afghanistan.

COOPER: Obama also reportedly intends to renew the commitment to hunt down Osama bin Laden. I think a lot of Americans think that all our troops in Afghanistan are doing is looking for Osama bin Laden. But that's the least thing they're doing, it seems like.

WARE: Absolutely.

I mean, they're fighting a resurgent Taliban. They're trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan villagers, who have seen so little produced since the fall of the Taliban. And, ultimately, if you want to find Osama bin Laden, according to America's own intelligence community, the place to look is not Afghanistan.

COOPER: Pakistan.

WARE: He's in Pakistan. He's in the Northwest Frontier Province.

And, indeed, a GAO report that came out in May this year said that, not only is al Qaeda senior leadership sitting there in northwest Pakistan, but it's also reconstituted its ability to strike the U.S. homeland. So, that's quite a promise from the president-elect.

COOPER: All right, two major issues, two wars we're fighting.

Peter Bergen, thank you.

Michael Ware, thanks as well.

Michael (in NY) and Peter Bergen (in DC) talk to Campbell Brown about what President-elect Obama will be able to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both agree that just pulling troops out of the former and shifting them to the latter is not the answer.

CAMPBELL BROWN: As a candidate, Barack Obama was pretty blunt about Osama bin Laden. He wanted him, dead or alive. Tonight, we are getting a look at how Obama plans to bring him down.

And here now with a NO BIAS, NO BULL assessment of president-elect Obama's approach to the war on terror, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen and our Baghdad correspondent, Michael Ware, who is here with me in New York.

Welcome to both of you.

Peter, let me start with you here.

President-elect Obama made it pretty clear that his priority is going to be to refocus on Afghanistan. He plans to deploy more troops and devote military resources there. Is that going to be enough to turn things around?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, but he is constrained by the fact that the U.S. military is very stretched right now.

The Bush administration is moving forward two combat brigades in the spring. But even if President Obama comes into office on January 20, 2009, says, I'm going to pull a lot of people out of Iraq, it's easier said than done. Redeploying these units takes several months. And of course Afghanistan is not just a matter of sending a lot more soldiers there.

It's a security problem which isn't going to be solved by thousands of new American troops on the ground. It is something that will involve reaching out to tribal militias, things that the Bush administration has been thinking about, things that General Petraeus at CENTCOM has been thinking about, and things no doubt that Obama's advisers have been thinking about.

So, it's part of a larger strategy. It's not just more American boots on the ground. It's the right kinds of boots: special forces, advisers to the Afghan army and Afghan police -- Campbell.

BROWN: But what does that mean in Iraq, Michael? If you are shifting resources, troops in particular, from Iraq to Afghanistan, what does that do on the ground in Iraq?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's going to erode what kind of leverage you have in Iraq. And you're really struggling with leverage as it is now -- 140,000 American combat troops have not deterred the warring parties so far.

I mean, one side was bought off. America's natural ally in Iraq, the Sunnis, who were fighting America, are now, 100,000 of them, on the U.S. government payroll.

BROWN: Right.

WARE: Being handed over to a government that hates them. And they hate their government.

Meanwhile, you have got the Iranian militias and other factions there. And so the more you erode the number of troops, the less effective America is going to be at keeping all these sides apart or affecting American foreign policy.

BROWN: So, the flexibility may not actually be there.

Peter, let me ask you about this other point. Obama has made capturing Osama bin Laden a huge priority. Should it be? And do you have any reason to believe that president-elect Obama would have an easier time than at this than George W. Bush did?

BERGEN: I don't think there is any reason why President Obama would have an easier time than President Bush. It's after all seven years after 9/11. There hasn't been information about bin Laden's exact whereabouts since the Battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001.

Finding one person in the world is not a particularly easy thing to do. He's in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan almost certainly, which is a bit like saying I know that somebody is in Virginia. It is not a very useful piece of information, unless you have a much more precise set of coordinates.

So, yes, he will make it priority, but the law of averages suggests that bin Laden, who, after all, is only age 51 right now, isn't suffering any kind of life-threatening illnesses, may well survive for several more years. He isn't making mistakes. He's not communicating on satellite or cell or radio. So, there is no signals intelligence. People in his immediate circle don't seem to be inclined to pick up cash rewards.

He is a human being. He will make a mistake eventually, but so far that hasn't happened, and that won't change with a new Obama administration -- Campbell.

BROWN: One thing that may change, though, is his strategy in terms of how to deal with the region overall. He has talked about reaching out to Iran, reaching out to Syria, having conversations in order to find new ways to deal with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How will those overtures be received? And give us a sense for how he is perceived right now in that part of the world.

WARE: Well, certainly, he is perceived as a better option, per se.

But that's why it's also going to be important for president-elect Obama as soon as possible to sort of metaphorically flex his muscle as commander in chief, so he's not seen as weak-kneed and therefore vulnerable.

Meanwhile, what we saw in Iraq that worked so well was America come to terms with the Sunni insurgency. Now we're hearing rumblings about coming to terms with elements of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So, doing that with Iran, which is far more powerful than any of those other two, is something that we simply have to look at.

And I have sat down with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. Now, the American ambassador, Ryan Crocker, and the Iranian ambassador are the only two American -- well, the only two who have spoken between these two governments since 1979.

BROWN: Right.

WARE: And the Iranian ambassador is there to talk, but he's basically saying, what have you got to put on the table?

BROWN: All right. A lot more to talk about. I'm sure we will be seeing you again, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergen, both of you, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

Michael and General Wesley Clark speak with Becky Anderson about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

As CNN recognizes Veterans Day, Michael was on NewsRoom briefly to introduce his piece on David Bellavia. (Since the piece is available here already, these are just his before/after clips.) He definitely stumbles right out of the gate, although it's pretty obvious what he intended to say.

HEIDI COLLINS: They have survived war, but many veterans face personal battles after coming home. CNN's Michael Ware has that story now from New York.

MICHAEL WARE: Yes, Heidi, more than one and a half [million] Americans have already served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as you'll see in this film that I shot during the battle of Fallujah in 2004, for so many of them those wars will always be with them.


Length: 0:34

LARGE (6.6 MB) ----- SMALL (704 KB)

WARE: And of those veterans who have come home, there are hundreds of thousands of National Guardsmen and soldiers who have now left the military and are back in their community, and for them, the struggle to transition home from war continues. Heidi.

COLLINS: It's often a really, really tough transition -- that's right, Michael -- from being in the military to back to civilian life. So many things need to be relearned, things a lot of them don't even think about when they're over--with that focus of battle on their minds. We sure do appreciate it. Great story, Michael Ware. Thanks so much.

Considering that it wasn't too long ago that Michael was complaining about having to be on the air at 8amET, he seems wide awake and extremely happy to be there at 6, 7, and 8am! But then, this is a very, very special occasion!

During the first panel, he talks about how President-elect Obama is going to deal with the realities of getting the US out of Iraq; the second one is about how other leaders are going to view him; the third is how the average citizen of Iraq (and Australia) is reacting to the news.

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: So what does Obama's victory mean for the African-American community and how will President Obama deal with an emboldened Democratic Congress and as well, problems around the world? Joined now by our very own Michael Ware who is here from Baghdad, Jeff Johnson from BET. Jeff, welcome, good to see you here.

Mark Halperin, of course, from "Time Magazine" and Patricia Murphy from citizenjanepolitics.com. Let's start with you, Jeff. Some personal reflections on the results of last night's election?

JEFF JOHNSON, BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION: Clearly I've been covering this like so many others for the last two years and tried to remain neutral as a journalist until tonight when, after it was called, clearly there was emotion from me as an African-American. I don't think the country, really the world, has seen anything like this since the release and election of Nelson Mandela.

I mean something that was able to in a real way spark the interest of a nation but bring the entire world together in an embrace of a shift and a change in a nation that for so long had felt one way, but a glass ceiling, a platinum ceiling in many cases has been broken with Barack Obama's ascendance to the White House. So for me it was an intellectual decision for what can Barack Obama do for the country but then a very emotional one as well.

ROBERTS: History was going to be made one way or the other. Either the first African-American president-elect or the first female vice president-elect.

Patricia, how do you think the country is changed now? Or is it changed?

PATRICIA MURPHY, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: Well, I think when you think in terms of women candidates it's been on the one hand a fantastic year to have a woman who could have been the president and could have been the vice president. That's certainly never happened but I think also we've seen that gender doesn't really trump a whole lot else. We know that independent women were really turned off by Sarah Palin and that was a gamble that really didn't pay off for John McCain so if you're looking to build out your coalition of women voters -- and you must because we're the majority of voters in the country -- you're going to have to do more than just have a woman on the ticket. You're going to have to get to the issues that they care about.

ROBERTS: Of course one of the first orders of business for President Obama after he is inaugurated is going to be to pull the troops out of Iraq.

Michael Ware, what kind of an effect is that going to have on the situation on the ground there? I mean, you've been there since the very beginning.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, six years now, John. That's going to be the big test, isn't it? How President-Elect Obama executes this policy that has been one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Now how doable is it going to be once he is in the Oval Office and is getting the briefings and is more aware of the realities on the ground.

ROBERTS: Yeah, the realities as president are sometimes very different than they are when you are a candidate.

WARE: Absolutely. And especially when you're down there on the front line and especially when it's 140,000-odd American troops that are essentially holding Iraq together. They are keeping the two sides apart. You pull those troops out of the Iraqi mix, and I'm sure that we'll see not only bloodshed but vast instability throughout the region so that's something President Obama is going to have to confront. And the Iraqi government has already said they are willing to cooperate with him, of course, but one of the most powerful blocs, one of their parliamentarians, has said that was a surprise. They thought it was going to be McCain, that it was rigged from the beginning and that's the Iraqi view. They're quite dismayed.

ROBERTS: So Iraq obviously a big issue though in voters' minds, Mark Halperin, it wasn't as big an issue as the economy. Somewhere between 12 and 18 percent of voters saying that Iraq was their number one issue. The economy was into the 50s and the 60s.

So what kind of challenge does Senator, now President-Elect Obama face on January 20 when he takes over the reins of power?

MARK HALPERIN, "TIME MAGAZINE": Well, if he views it that way, if he sees the challenges like he does on January 20, I think he'll fail. The last two transitions from one party to the other were disasters. Bill Clinton of his own making made a lot of mistakes during his transition including picking his Cabinet very late, his White House staff very late, bringing up issues that distracted from his agenda.

George Bush, from Bill Clinton to George Bush was a disaster because of the recount. I think Barack Obama has done a lot more thinking about the transition than most people realize, I think he has done a lot more planning. I think he knows who he wants for most of the key jobs already.

On the economy, I think it's going to be interesting to watch his relationship with President Bush. We could have a lame duck Congress start to deal with a legislative agenda on the economy. I think President Bush could make a lot of decisions -- he is having this big meeting, for instance, I think he will invite Obama to that. I think in some ways, more than usual, President-Elect Obama in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the elites of this country is going to be seen as a de facto president even during the transition.

ROBERTS: There are certainly a lot of challenges, a lot of issues that he has to tackle. Lots to talk about this morning, folks. Thanks for being with us. We'll talk more about this in the minutes and the hours ahead. Thanks -- Kiran?




Length: 4:21

LARGE (50.3 MB) ----- SMALL (5.3 MB)

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, let's bring in our political panel now again. Patricia Murphy is with us, as well as Mark Halperin, Jeff Johnson from BET, and Michael Ware.

So, let's talk about the international aspect of this, Michael. We talked last time about Iraq and his plans to pull troops out of Iraq. But in the greater international arena, I mean, does he now have to set up his meetings with Iran's leadership, as well as Syria, Cuba, North Korea?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think that's more of a domestic issue. Whether he actually meets with these people or not, whether he starts picking up the cell phone or not, and whether the supreme leader of Iran will answer that call.

What's really at stake here now is to see whether the president- elect can start acting like commander in chief, because the world is already watching him. And they want to see, this is a guy who talked about getting out of Iraq. Now, people may have liked that, but does that weaken people's impressions of America?

Now, for example, there's someone sitting in Tehran, as you mentioned, General Suleimani, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard's special forces. He's the one killing American troops in Iraq, according to the American military. He's going to be looking Obama straight in the eye and wondering what to make of him.

So will, say, for example the Taliban; I mean, General Petraeus, the new Central Commander, has said Al Qaeda's leadership are hiding in western Pakistan. He said it just on Monday. American drones keep bombing western Pakistan. What is Obama going to do about that?

ROBERTS: Well, you know, Mark, of course, the now vice president-elect, Senator Joe Biden, kind of stepped in it when he told that fundraising event that Senator Obama would be tested in the first six months -or President Obama would be tested in the first six months with an international crisis. I mean, it was taken as a great talking point for John McCain. But realistically, do you think, because it happened in 1993, it happened in 2001, that there may an international incident waiting just down the road?

MARK HALPERIN, AUTHOR, "THE PAGE": I have long suspected that one of the things that will really be a challenge for Barack Obama is how much of the job in the post-9/11 world of this president of the United States is Homeland Security and thinking about threats around the world? He didn't have to deal with that as a candidate. He thought about the economy, he thought about healthcare, thought about Iraq, but the Homeland Security pressure will be enormous on him. And I think there is a good chance that in the change in government there will be some test around the world. And it will be closely watched. Joe Biden said something that may have not been politically the right thing to say, but might actually have been accurate.

ROBERTS: You know, Patricia, I got a phone call this morning from a friend of mine in Beirut, who said that the whole perception of America has changed now with the results of this election. From an Independent voter's standpoint, what do Independent voters want to see President-elect Obama do now to restore America's reputation in the world?

PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: Well, I think that is a good question, because that was a key reason why we hear a lot of Independents went for Obama, was because of the promise that he could restore America's reputation around the world. He promised to do that in all of his speeches, every stump speech he said that would be his highest goal. What they want to see is somebody who is out there extending a hand of America, kind of not being as aggressive as the Bush administration has done.

But again, these Independent voters are very sensitive to security issues and if the Homeland Security issue did come up that would be something that would test not only Barack Obama but also the faith of these voters who put him in office.

ROBERTS: And Jeff, do you think that his background gives him a different perception around the world? I mean, the fact that his middle name is Hussein? You could see him going on a trip to Jordan and they would really play up that idea? That maybe he has a greater understanding of the Middle East and oppressed people's around the world?

JEFF JOHNSON, HOST, BET TV: I think, number one, people around the world are just glad to see George Bush gone. I mean, I think that's point number one. I think that has already been mentioned, but, two, I mean we're talking about somebody with a 80 percent approval rating in Europe and somebody that has traveled and so I think he's got a perspective.

But I think there are people who already have drunk the Barack Obama Kool-Aid. They like him. And so I think that is a step in the right direction to give him some flexibility. But a very short leash, if you will, to be able to begin making some moves on domestic policy and reaching out to the right people. So he's got a little bit of space because he's likable. But it is still about what are the steps that he's going to make? And are they in the best interest of the country, because ultimately he has to answer to people at home.

ROBERTS: One issue -

HALPERIN: He's more popular in Paris than Mickey O'Rourke and Jerry Lewis combined.

(LAUGHTER)

ROBERTS: Imagine that, because Jerry Lewis is very popular there.

HALPERIN: So is Mickey O'Rourke.

ROBERTS: A lot of issue ahead. A lot to talk about folks. Stay with us. We'll be back with you in just a little while. You're watching continuing coverage of election 2008 here, on the most news in the morning. We'll be right back.




Length: 4:52

LARGE (56.3 MB) ----- SMALL (5.9 MB)

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, along with making history, Barack Obama repainted the electoral map last night.

Let's turn now to our panel: John Avlon of the Manhattan Institute; Patricia Murphy of CitizenJanePolitics.com; as well, Frank Sesno is joining us this morning.

Welcome, Frank.

And Michael Ware is back with us.

Frank, since you're the new kid on the block here in terms of our coverage...

FRANK SESNO, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I haven't felt that in a while.

ROBERTS: ... this morning, let me throw this at you.

You know, Ed Henry was just talking about Sarah Palin, and we're also thinking about, you know, what were the reasons why John McCain lost last night. Steve Schmidt, his chief strategist, said, you know, we were at bad economic times, that was definitely a drag on the ticket, but he also went on to say, "The party has been very unpopular. The president's approval numbers were not helpful in the race, but the party as a whole is unpopular with the American people, and that was the big albatross."

SESNO: He's right. It shows that the Straight Talk Express, at least remnants of it, are still on the road. There's still a little gas left.

Look, any Republican would have had a monstrous time with the legacy of George W. Bush and a 25 percent approval rating, and unemployment and joblessness going up for eight months in a row. Anybody would have had that.

You know, they had that hardy embrace in the Rose Garden when he got the endorsement and said, by the way, I'll be campaigning with you. They never once were side by side. Okay?

ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. President. Now go back inside.

SESNO: Yes, thank you and goodnight. Goodnight and good luck.

So, yes, that was the albatross. But it got worse. You know, when John McCain says the fundamentals of the economy are strong, when John McCain says, Ladies and Gentlemen, please meet Sarah Palin. These were things that in the end were additional difficulties.

ROBERTS: On the point of Sarah Palin, Steve Schmidt was also asked, "And the pick of Palin for you guys, are you happy with that?" His response, "You know, I'm not going to -- there'll be time for all the postmortems in the race."

What do you make of that?

PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: I think it was so unfair for the McCain campaign to pick Sarah Palin, to pluck her out of Alaska, to put her on the national stage, and then to blame her when it's all said and done. I talked to delegates to the Republican convention who were planning a walkout before Sarah Palin came on the scene. So they are thrilled with her, and they are very lucky that they had her, certainly at the convention. They got a big bounce out of it.

ROBERTS: Well, they didn't quite throw her under the Straight Talk Express in that exchange, but it certainly wasn't a ringing endorsement.

JOHN AVLON, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: They're just like this. I mean, the reality is, yes, she fired up the base, but at the expense of uniting the center. She has proven to be one of the most deeply polarizing figures in American politics, and that's the worst thing John McCain could have had by his side.

What we're seeing right now in American politics is a desire to move past polarization, beyond left/right, black/white, red state/blue state. That's why young voters, 40 percent of whom are Independent, are rising up in such amazing numbers for Barack Obama. And tonight, you know, taking to the street and celebrate. I mean, just going bananas, having a great time.

SESNO: Can I just say one thing? This is not Dan Quayle. This is not incompetence.

She is who she is. And she was very forceful and very...

ROBERTS: Very charismatic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: But John, you know you don't take somebody who's never, literally never, been in the national media spotlight and expect they're going to step on that stage and not be pulled apart.

ROBERTS: So, Michael Ware, what are all the folks in the land of Oz making of all of this?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're going to bed happy, I think, at the moment. Certainly, I spoke to some people in Iraq, for example. They can't believe it.

For many Iraqis, they wanted Obama. But they just figured the whole system's rigged. And they really didn't believe that McCain would be defeated.

So, I actually made some calls back home to Australia, and they said, "Obama won?!" But generally I think the perception, like around a lot of the world, will be more than warm to an Obama presidency.

MURPHY: One bright spot for the Republicans here, the Democrats wanted that 60-vote majority, and they didn't get it. And they didn't get those seats that they wanted in Mississippi. They didn't pick off Mitch McConnell. Michele Bachmann made it through.

So they had some seats that the Republicans were able to defend. So it's not a complete rout -- it's a Category 4 and not a Category 5.

AVLON: But two things. It's on the verge of a realigning election.

Obama has built on Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, is playing in red states. And the second, to Michael's point, this is an election that the rest of the world wakes up and says, you know what? When Americans say they're a country that's different, only in America, that's true today around the world, indisputably.

SESNO: The red light that should be blinking rapidly in Barack Obama's office and in his head is the expectations red light.

ROBERTS: Yes, absolutely.

SESNO: For all of this, Okay, the land of Oz is all excited about it, they can't believe this was going to happen, there were -- I was talking to my kids at their colleges last night. They were all in the streets celebrating.

I've never heard of this before. Ever. So he's a human being in a political Real World.

MURPHY: It's Obama versus expectations. But the Republicans said today they're waiting for the overreach for the Democrats. They're like, just bring it on, we're ready to come in in 2010.

ROBERTS: Maybe let's make that our next topic.

MURPHY: OK.

ROBERTS: We'll see you back here real soon, folks.

A lot of celebration across the streets -- the streets across America, particularly right here in New York City, in Harlem. We'll take you there to show you the celebration, coming up next on the most news in the morning.

Michael spends Saturday night at work... he speaks with Don Lemon about Iraq and Afghanistan and the political football that the wars have become.

DON LEMON: The issues that matter to you in this historic election. We have been breaking down ten of them over ten days. Tonight: foreign policy. The next commander-in-chief will command a country that is still very much at war. Iraq and Afghanistan, two battle fronts, two battles that have captured our attention, fueled our debates, and shed our blood for years now.

Barack Obama and John McCain. Two candidates, two very different war strategies. Let's bring in a man who has spent extensive time on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is our Michael Ware.

Michael, let's start with Iraq. We've been talking about Iraq and the so-called surge. You say both Barack Obama and John McCain are right and wrong about Iraq. Explain yourself on that one.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Don. I mean, in one sense, one of the candidates makes what is by and large a fairly accurate assessment of the situation on the ground but then makes a bizarre or erroneous conclusion more politically based than one based on facts. The other candidate makes a conclusion without looking at the true assessment. Now, let me explain that.

Senator McCain has been by and large fairly close to the events and information in Iraq. And his assessment of the battlefront for the past few years has been very close to accurate. Where he's wrong is dressing this up as a win in the traditional sense. And where he's also wrong is plugging this thing that we now call the surge. Intellectually, it's almost demeaning to the senator for him to be saying the surge is the miracle cure.

LEMON: Why do you say that?

WARE: Well, the surge is a political buzz word that people here in America do understand, but the successes -- and let's not deny it, there are successes in Iraq, that's uncategorical. But those successes have very little to do with the actual surge. The surge was sending 30,000 reinforcements to the capital of Baghdad. The events, the movements, the momentum that has led to the fall in violence that we're now seeing -- only 13 dead Americans last month -- started two years ago and has nothing to do with the troop reinforcements.

So, he's dumbing it down. Whereas Senator Obama is looking at domestic concerns. Let's get our kids home. Who doesn't want that? But what he's not telling anyone is what that's going to cost you. And how he's going to pay for it.

LEMON: You know -- and Michael, good points here. But I also want to talk about Afghanistan, because we have seen the fighting there build up. So if more allied troops are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq, why aren't we hearing more about Afghanistan, Michael?

WARE: Well, Afghanistan, in terms of the war, is the redheaded stepchild. I mean, it's the one that has been long forgotten. But I mean, I lived in Afghanistan for a year after September 11th. I spent most of my time in Kandahar, at one point being one of the only westerners living in the city. That's the home of the Taliban.

Now, in 2002, the Taliban would take me across the Pakistani border into Pakistan, to their training camps, their madrasas, their schools. It was clear and evident then that the Taliban were resurgent. We're now, what, six years later and people are suddenly waking up as though it's a shock.

Now, the next president -- both are promising, we'll deal with al-Qaeda, we'll deal with the Taliban. Well, sending more troops there ain't going to do it, because that border, that terrain, mountains, it's the end of the Himalayas, swallows infantry divisions whole.

The real key, and no one's talking about this, is the Pakistani intelligence agency, Islamabad's version of the CIA. They're the ones who have been helping al Qaeda, helping the Taliban, certainly elements of them, and that's the key to defeating them. And no candidate has even mentioned their name.

LEMON: CNN's Michael Ware has been on the front lines in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Michael, you're very passionate about it. And we appreciate you coming in here.

WARE: Yeah.

LEMON: On a Saturday night.

WARE: Yeah. I'd say I'd love being here on a Saturday night, but I don't lie.

LEMON: Okay. Michael Ware, thank you. Again, we appreciate it, sir.

"Back From the Battle" is an AC360 special with two components: a series of reports about veterans' struggles as they return from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a concert put on for veterans by MTV & CNN at the Nokia Theater in New York City on October 23.

In the first clip, Michael does a follow-up with Staff Sergeant David Bellavia, who served in Iraq and whom Michael met when he was embedded with Alpha Company's 3rd Platoon during the second battle for Fallujah in November of 2004. Michael wrote a cover story for Time magazine, "Into the Hot Zone," and David wrote a book about the battle, House to House. The footage of the battle itself was filmed by Michael himself; the single still photo shown would be the work of Time magazine's Yuri Kozyrev, who was teamed with Michael in those days.

For the second clip, Anderson talks to Michael at the concert about David's story and the emotional toll of the war.


ANDERSON COOPER: We begin with one vet CNN's Michael Ware first met on the frontlines during the fight in Fallujah, one of the deadliest battles of the war. His name is David Bellavia, a former staff sergeant. He won the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq, now an author and a veterans' activist. David is trying to help other vets as they come home. Take a look. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After surviving this, it can be hard to come home again. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here's what we are going to do. 

WARE: Staff Sergeant David Bellavia -- raising his rifle -- knows how that feels. 

STAFF SGT. DAVID BELLAVIA, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Get back! Get back! Get back to flank. 

I know when I walk down a street, I'm constantly thinking like I'm -- you know, what's going to happen when that window opens up. Once you know what the hardships of war are, you're hyper-vigilant, you're hyper-alert. And a man can't do that forever. 

WARE: Bellavia fought in this, the battle of Fallujah in 2004, in intense house to house combat. He has a slew of medals for bravery, plus a nomination for America's highest award, the Medal of Honor. But after what he says was the hell of combat, his innocence is gone. 

BELLAVIA: If you've been shot at before, you've heard the crack, you've heard the whine, you realize that no matter what happens, there are far better soldiers than I am, that got hit, that lost their lives. It is a crap shoot. It is total luck. 

WARE: Out of the army now, he carries the survivor's guilt and seeks to return to his life. 

BELLAVIA: You can never really enjoy it again. What's tranquility after you've been, you know, seen a rocket whizz by and you lost 37 guys, you know. I mean, it -- yeah, it's with you every day. 

WARE: He's trying to make his experiences and those of his fighting generation mean something. For him, that meant writing a book and creating a group, Veterans for Freedom, to help other soldiers transition home again. 

BELLAVIA: We have guys that legitimately need help -- traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress, college money, whatever. We appreciate all the help, but the reality of the matter is our legacy and the fact that the way we are perceived as a veteran is far more important than any sort of care package you can give us. 

WARE: The best thing America can do to help its troops, he says, is stop victimizing them. 

BELLAVIA: I coach my son's soccer team and I had parents come up to me saying, you know, we're really uncomfortable, you know, with you around kids because, you know -- you know, you use language or you might be prone to rage or you might be -- I'm, like, whoa. You know, what is this all about? I'm good to go. 

WARE: He also says soldiers need much better care when they come home, beyond the veterans' affairs system. 

BELLAVIA: We can get these guys every -- literally, set up a coordination center when they come home and help them in every aspect, instead of them going to the VA, feeling like a number, feeling like a cog in a machine. 

WARE: And if Washington or the community aren't helping these kids transition home enough, says Bellavia, then it's up to the veterans themselves. 

BELLAVIA: We need to come to reality, grow up and realize that, you know what, there are things that we can do right now that can literally change the world, change our country, and we can take these horrible experiences to make sure that our kids don't go through it, you know, and we can actually make a difference. 

WARE: And that, he says, is the veteran's ultimate fight. 

BELLAVIA: Our generation is going to be judged by how -- not only how we fought but how we conduct ourselves when we come home. 



Length: 3:16 

LARGE (38.0 MB) ----- SMALL (3.9 MB)


ANDERSON COOPER: And Michael Ware joins us now. It's rare that you're able to actually follow someone from the battlefield and then hook up with them again. I mean, as a reporter that's a great thing to be able to follow up that long. 

MICHAEL WARE: It is, like you say, it's something unique. And after what some of us went through in that battle, like many others, there's a bond that is established. 

COOPER: That battle was an extraordinary battle. I mean, it was unlike any the U.S. has seen in many, many, many years. 

WARE: In so many ways, it's the defining battle of the Iraq war. Now, the Iraq war is many conflicts, many firefights. I mean, soldiers getting shot at all the time. But in terms of two forces, opposing each other, street-to-street -- and, I mean, not just house-to-house, but room-to-room, the battle of Fallujah was it. Otherwise, it's hit-and-run guerilla combat. And in that battle is where David and I met and we are still friends today. 

COOPER: What did David do? 

WARE: In that battle, something that David did to save the lives of the 20-odd men he was with earned him a nomination for America's highest award, the Medal of Honor. When al-Qaeda fighters lured his platoon into the house -- and we were with them -- they ambushed his men six feet away. And eventually, the platoon was pushed outside. It was David who went back inside and singlehandedly killed six al-Qaeda fighters, sometimes hand-to-hand. 

COOPER: Does he seem different now than when you met him in -- obviously, it's a different situation. 

WARE: Anderson, everybody is different. I mean, that's the thing. Whether you are nominated for the Medal of Honor, or whether you never leave the wire of your forward operating base, once you've been in that stuff, it stays with you forever. And I mean, I remember one vet wrote when he came home that once certain dark chambers of the heart are opened, they can never be closed again. So, David is not the same man he was when he went to war. None of us ever will be. 

COOPER: I mean, everybody has their own war, everybody sees their own slice of the war, one soldier once said to me. But there is a commonality of experience. I mean, the bond that people share. 

WARE: I mean, there really is a brotherhood, a fraternity. Now, you know, that can be overplayed and that can be devalued, the way people throw that word around. But in combat, that's what these kids are fighting for. There's a nobler cause, they're wearing the flag on their sleeve but at the end of the day, Anderson, it's you fighting for me and me fighting for you. I want to make sure you get home and I'm watching your back, and I know you, my brother, are doing the exact same thing. 

COOPER: And that's what a lot of the vets here tonight are saying they want to see for the vets who are returning home, that same sense of us looking out for them and them looking out for us, and people looking out for each other. 

WARE: And it's a very hard thing, because no matter how much people try back home, unless they've been there, there's going to be a distance. People cannot understand. And in fact, many of these veterans hope that their loved ones never do understand. They don't want their loved ones going through what they've been through. 

So, whilst that's a thing that protects their loved ones, it's also the thing that forever will keep a certain distance. So, it's just about hoping that people can come to understand and find a way for these guys to eventually make their way home, because home is never the same again, Anderson. 

COOPER: It's nice to have you back home as well, Michael Ware, you've been in Iraq a long, long time. 

WARE: My pleasure. Thank you. 

COOPER: Thanks for staying with it. Appreciate it.

Michael (still in New York) talks with Fionnuala Sweeney about the latest version of the proposed extension to the Status of Forces Agreement. Sounds like there is still a long way to go...

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Another excellent follow-up to the debate, John King hosted "The Next President." One segment has Michael talking about Iraq, the other focuses on Iran.

TRANSCRIPT COMING SOON

Length: 2:53

LARGE (33.8 MB) ----- SMALL (3.6 MB)

TRANSCRIPT COMING SOON

Roland Martin's weekend special this week was "What They Didn't Say in the Debate" and in one segment, Michael (and Fran Townsend) discussed the Iran/Iraq situation as well as Afghanistan and how we need to proceed there. A lot of terrific points were made in this segment... and this stuff definitely should have been addressed in the debate and in the post-debate discussion. Kudos to Roland Martin for finally giving the people who know what they are talking about on these subjects time enough to actually explain what we-the-people need to know.

ROLAND MARTIN: During the debate John McCain said the lesson of Iraq is very clear: you can't have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict. Okay, that was clear?

Now, Barack Obama said the lesson of Iraq is we have to use our military wisely and we didn't use it wisely in Iraq. What they didn't say is when will our troops come home. With me for a reality check is CNN Correspondent Michael Ware, who is based in Baghdad, and has covered the entire course of the war. Also, Francis Townsend, who was President Bush's Homeland Security Advisor and is now a CNN national security contributor.

And Francis, I want to start with you.

FRANCIS TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Sure.

MARTIN: Lot of conversation about Afghanistan. What we need to do: more troops, more troops. How do we accomplish that when we have so many troops in Iraq. Something has to give on that issue.

TOWNSEND: Sure, Roland, but we already have some troops drawing down and President Bush has talked about that. And so you can begin to see and we have already begun to build up troops in Afghanistan.

What I thought was most interesting and most important about the discussion about Afghanistan is, you can't solve it just if you are looking at Afghanistan. You've got to deal with the tribal areas, you've got to deal with Pakistan. This is a region that is very closely integrated and you've got to deal with it as a single problem set. And that's what they talked about.

MARTIN: Now, Michael, we kept hearing the talking about, again, the troops. McCain saying I've been there and you should have been at the hearings.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: (SIGH)

MARTIN: I take it you weren't quite impressed by their conversation.

WARE: Yes, when he says he's been to Waziristan, I'm not sure it's the same part that I've been to, but anyway.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, in all of this, Fran is right. Afghanistan can't be looked at in isolation. But there's two things: 'troops, troops, troops' is not going to fix it. I mean, if you have ever been in that terrain, that border swallows infantry divisions whole.

And correct me if I'm wrong, I think the Russians in the '80s tried to flood it with troops and we saw how that ended up. You want to tackle the problem of Afghanistan, of a resurgent Taliban and nesting Al Qaeda? There is one thing that I've yet to hear the candidates talk about that strikes right at the heart of this: the ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Agency that was part of creating the Taliban and continues, within rogue elements or hard line elements of that intelligence service -- though an ally, technically, of Washington -- they're supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda.

MARTIN: I also have to confront the reality, and we talked about it before Michael, in terms of - even with the surge, we focus on the military aspect. But look, we paid a lot of folks off to put their weapons down. Let's be just honest. And McCain even mentioned, he did not vote to support the building of Afghanistan after the Russians left. This is not a military issue, Fran, it is also a matter of humanitarian, building schools and businesses, besides just frankly, killing folks.

TOWNSEND: No, that is absolutely right Roland. And like Michael, I have been to Khost and I've been to Jalalabad. These are the cities in Afghanistan right on the border. And what you realize is, you do need people to come in. You need the NGOs to be secure and comfortable to come in to build health clinics, to build schools. We built roads. We need more. But you have to build an economy. It's not just holding and clearing. It is actually building and helping the Afghans. One of John McCain's right complaints about Afghanistan is the Karzai government has not been very effective in extending their rule outside Kabul. And that has to change.

MARTIN: Lots of conversation about Iran, but is Pakistan a more critical issue; making sure we are straight with that. They have nuclear weapons, al Qaeda, a new president. I mean, that is not a stable situation for the United States.

WARE: No it's not. And obviously, Pakistan, theoretically, should be a key U.S. ally. And certainly the civil government there in Islamabad, I firmly believe, as a newly democratic government, clearly does side with the U.S. It's interests much more closely align with Washington's. But as President Bush, himself, asked the Pakistani prime minister just a few months ago, who is controlling your intelligence service? This is in military and intelligence circles that dark nether world. The civilian government in Pakistan is very weak and the intelligence services and the military are very strong.

TOWNSEND: We have a lot of confidence in Kayani, who is the army chief of staff. Very impressive guy. He did control the intelligence service before his promotion. The problem is how deep does that control go? It's not -- you know, we do continue to have concerns, I think, the U.S. government intelligence services, about penetration of the ISI by extremists.

WARE: But what can you do? There is very little you can do.

MARTIN: Which, frankly, brings up this whole point that came out yesterday, though, that how do you take action if you have intelligence? The bottom line is -- at one point, they're saying, well, they are our partners and we're depending upon them. But they are kind of not our partners, we have concerns. So what do we do? Just sit here and do nothing?

TOWNSEND: Roland, one of the most stunning moments last night, to me, was when Barack Obama sounded like George Bush. Literally, Barack Obama said if we have intelligence against al Qaeda senior leadership, we're gonna will action it, militarily. The interesting thing is President Bush has been saying if we had information on where bin Laden is, no options are off the table. I thought it was stunning, there was this moment where all of a sudden Barack Obama sounded like George W. Bush.

MARTIN: But actually, though, remember though, when he initially said at the Democratic primary, Michael, he was criticized for it.

WARE: Yeah.

MARTIN: But then, later, people said well, actually it really wasn't a bad idea. It was sort of like a reverse. I mean, that was surprising as well. Because McCain also criticized that, but as you said, President Bush had done the same thing. Dealing with terrorism, I want to bring up the economy as well. No discussion about how terrorism, globally, could still impact the American economy.

TOWNSEND: Look at 9/11 and we weren't -- we had a budget surplus. We were not in conflicts in two places around the world. If you had a terrorist attack now with the fragility of our economy, imagine the recession. Imagine the size and impact on our economy and not a word when they are asked about the potential of a 9/11 here in this country. And the biggest issue before us today is the economy. Neither candidate makes the connection to the potential impact on our fragile economy, if there were a terrorist attack. Stunning.

MARTIN: Michael?

WARE: Yeah, and as you well know, Fran. Al Qaeda and some of the other hard-line Islamic militant groups, you don't think they're paying attention to these things?

MARTIN: No, they weren't watching, no.

WARE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blind as bats.

I mean, they are constantly seeking for, looking for the weak points. They are very savvy at staying on message, and getting, pardon the expression, as much bang for their buck. Don't forget terrorism is about capturing hearts and minds, instilling fear, and they have proven to be very adept at that. So, we have seen them do it before. Target something like the economy. So, yeah there is a vulnerability there and you do need to be aware of it.

MARTIN: Again, so much that they could have talked about, they didn't talk about and that's a shame. That's a shame.

WARE: No.

MARTIN: Francis, Michael, I certainly appreciate it. Thanks a bunch.

Now that we have discussed some of the most important issues McCain and Obama didn't talk about in their debate. I have a question left: What are you prepared to do?

PRE-debate
Length: 10:16 ----- LARGE (118.9 MB) ----- SMALL (12.5 MB)
Length: 7:20 ----- LARGE (85.0 MB) ----- SMALL (9.1 MB)

POST-debate
Length: 6:02 ----- LARGE (70.0 MB) ----- SMALL (7.4 MB)
Length: 8:31 ----- LARGE (98.7 MB) ----- SMALL (10.6 MB)
Length: 6:03 ----- LARGE (70.1 MB) ----- SMALL (7.5 MB)
Length: 9:57 ----- LARGE (115.1 MB) ----- SMALL (12.2 MB)

Following the debate... well, Michael barely got a word in. Who would ever have guessed that the Iraq war would not be THE topic of this election; in fact, not even THE topic at the debate slated to focus on foreign policy?

ANDERSON COOPER: Michael Ware.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT BAGHDAD: And Tehran will be surprised to learn that their elite forces are the Republican Guards as opposed to the Revolutionary Guards. And both candidates -- first Senator McCain and then Senator Obama followed -- calling them the Republican Guard. 'Know thy enemy' obviously doesn't apply in presidential debates.

Length: 0:23

LARGE (4.5 MB) ----- SMALL (500 KB)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And John's right, you have something like 200,000 sons and daughters of America in combat situations right now -- 200,000 sweating, bleeding, dying -- and then their families. Sure, you know, you're right, the economy is at the forefront, but you can't take --

Prior to the debate, Campbell Brown moderated a panel with Michael, Christiane Amanpour, John King, Anderson Cooper, Jeffrey Toobin, David Gergen, and Gloria Borger.

As is to be expected with the cast-of-thousands coverage, each reporter/pundit got very little time to discuss the issues -- Michael was asked only two questions during the hour. These are those individual clips, but I will be archiving complete coverage of the panel later.

CAMPBELL BROWN: Welcome back, everybody.

We are about 45 minutes away from the start of the debate at Ole Miss down in Oxford, Mississippi, everybody looking forward to this moment that we have been waiting for, riding the roller-coaster ride of today, wondering whether it was going to happen or not. But it is on. John McCain will be there. And we are back with the best political team on television, or, as Jeffrey Toobin pointed out, the best political team in the world, because we have Michael Ware and Christiane Amanpour with us tonight. And we're taking full advantage of it.

And, Michael, let me pick up where we left off with you and talk a little bit about Iraq. You have spent so much time there. This was very much considered to be a strength for John McCain...

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

BROWN: ... especially with the success of the surge, how he would be able to highlight that. But if you look at the polling now, where Iraq falls in terms of people's priorities, I think it is number four in our latest CNN poll, health care ahead of it, and certainly the economy ahead of it, terrorism more generally ahead of it.

Is, in a way, John McCain a victim of his own success? Americans aren't paying attention to Iraq. They don't want to talk about it. They want to talk about the Iraq, so he doesn't get to highlight where he was on many of those issues.

WARE: Well, it cuts both ways, really. I mean, obviously, for people back home, these day-to-day issues are much more salient. They're front and center. That's what people are living, you know, dawn to dusk. So, that's what people care about.

And Iraq... Iraq is a double-edged sword for Senator McCain. Yes, it's been one of the center points of his credibility as a potential leader in international affairs, but he has got so much wrong on Iraq as well. And the more and more he and even Senator Obama stick to these -- this trite sort of sound-biting of "the surge, the surge, the surge," it's evident that they're dumbing it down, the complexities of the war in Iraq.

And the more they hammer that point, success or failure, the more they're revealing or they're telling us that they're not looking at the real issues, like, what is the surge? It goes far beyond 30,000 extra combat troops. I mean, we are talking about a whole host of factors. And, at the end of the day, the success we are seeing in Iraq comes with a heavy price tag.

And to just keep rabbiting on about the surge ignores the real issues that will face the next president.

Length: 1:03

LARGE (12.3 MB) ----- SMALL (1.3 MB)

CAMPBELL BROWN: And able to get into, Michael Ware, I think some of the nuance that we talked about especially on issues like Iraq, which is very difficult to ask these candidates to do when they're asked to give two or three-minute answers.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And surely we are at the point where we're beyond sound bites. I mean, the American public unless I'm reading them wrong --

JEFFREY TOOBIN: Michael, you've really been gone from America for a long time.

(LAUGHTER)

WARE: Yes. It's just one too many bullets, there, Jeff. Nothing like a front line to make it real. But, you know, I think America's hungry for something real.

I mean, aren't we tired of this pastiche, I mean, this veneer? I mean, people want a real conversation. We want to know what we're really getting.

BROWN: Well, we'll see.

WARE: So let's actually -- let's actually hear from these people.

BROWN: Well, we might tonight. Who thinks we will? Gloria?

BORGER: I do, I do. I mean, look, we've had how many debates during the primaries where you had candidates really going at each other in some of those debates including ours.

COOPER: I also think given what's gone on in the last week, people -- I mean, people -- it's down to brass tacks and people, you know, their livelihood is at stake and they want to hear answers.

BROWN: Such an important point.

Michael talks to Wolf about tonight's presidential debate and the topics he hopes will be covered substantively, including (of course) Iraq, Iran, and Russia.

WOLF BLITZER: Tonight's formal topic: foreign policy. And that's certainly going to include the war in Iraq.

Let's bring in CNN's Michael Ware, who's covered this war now for almost, what, six years in Baghdad.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

BLITZER: You're here in New York, Michael, right now.

What do these candidates, from your perspective, need to say tonight?

WARE: Well, I'd like to see if they take this opportunity in Mississippi and make it worthwhile.

Will they go beyond the glib responses about Iraq and beyond and actually say something substantive?

First and foremost, what will they as president do to protect America's interests in the future of Iraq?

And that is essentially the Sunni allies that are now on the U.S. government payroll. America is handing them back to the Shia-dominated government, who hates these American allies.

BLITZER: So do you fear there could be yet a bloodbath if the U.S. were to pull out?

WARE: Well, I don't think it will be an overt bloodbath. But we already see these American-paid allies under assault from the Iraqi government.

Now, this is an Iraqi government more closely aligned with Iran than it is America. Already, the government's chipping away at these American allies.

And let's talk about Iran. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran is bigger, stronger and more emboldened than ever. Let's hear the candidates acknowledge that and let's hear how they intend to deal with Iran as a regional superpower.

BLITZER: What about the so-called war on terror, the hunt for bin Laden, for example?

WARE: Well, hey, you want to defeat al Qaeda, you want to beat these Islamic militants?

Let's hear the candidates answer how on earth do they intend to counter the rogue elements of Pakistan's intelligence agency, which are continuing to support al Qaeda. Until they address that, you're not going to be able touch al Qaeda.

Let's hear something real.

BLITZER: And there's so many other world crises underway.

WARE: Oh.

BLITZER: You were just in Georgia -- the Republic of Georgia...

WARE: Right.

BLITZER: ...where there was a Russian invasion.

WARE: Right. And we now have a resurgent Russia. Now, they have America over a barrel in some ways. America needs Russia's support in the U.N. Security Council and elsewhere on key issues, such as Syria and Iran's nuclear development, just to name a few.

What -- what leverage does America have, if any, to get Russia to play ball? I'd like to hear some inventive out-of-the-box thinking. And let's get something real rather than some pastiche sort of thrown-together answers that say nothing -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And you know what, you're going to be with us after the debate and we're going to pick your brain. You're going to be taking notes and we'll get your sense of what you thought was good, what worked, what didn't work and all that.

Michael, thanks very much.

WARE: My pleasure, mate.

BLITZER: Michael Ware is going to be with us throughout the night.

Michael fact-checks Senators McCain and Obama on Iraq. Not surprisingly, neither one gets an A on this test... but how much honesty can the American public take?

CAMPBELL BROWN: Important news today about one of the biggest issues in this campaign, the war in Iraq. And we are showing you the numbers right now. The U.S. now has 146,000 troops in Iraq. Today, though, President Bush announced that, by early next year, some 8,000 troops will leave without being replaced.

The president also announced he's shifting about 4,500 U.S. troops into Afghanistan to beef up the fight there against the Taliban and al Qaeda. He says conditions in Iraq are improving.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Reduced levels of violence in Iraq have been sustained for several months. While the progress in Iraq is still fragile and reversible, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that there now appears to be a degree of durability to the gains we have made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, even before today's announcement, it was clear that either President McCain or President Obama will have to decide the future of U.S. forces in Iraq.

So, we're going to listen to what both candidates are saying about Iraq today, put it to our "no bias, no bull" test.

Who better to do that than CNN correspondent Michael Ware.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, yeah.

BROWN: He has been stationed in Baghdad for years, and just happens to be stateside and here in the ELECTION CENTER tonight.

Welcome to you.

WARE: Yeah, glad to be here.

BROWN: We're going to do this. We're going to hear from both candidates. So, let's first listen to what John McCain said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We have succeeded in Iraq. And we are winning. And our troops will come home with victory and honor. They will come home with victory and honor.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: If Senator Obama had had his way, we would have suffered defeat, Iranian influence would have increased, and we would face greater chaos in the region.

Senator Obama has refused to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge. He said it wouldn't succeed. Thanks to General David Petraeus and these brave young Americans, we are winning in Iraq.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: And we will come home with honor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Okay. So, reality check on McCain. Are we really winning in Iraq, and is the surge the reason?

WARE: Well, first, let me say, the troops will come home with honor regardless. I mean, the way they have comported themselves in this war, they have earned that honor.

Winning, however, is a matter of definition. Now, if by winning, you mean strengthening a member of what President Bush called the axis of evil, Iran, the very thing Senator McCain says that they prevented: Iran is stronger because of this war.

If you mean by dividing a community with blast barriers, if you mean by having to build an American militia, if you mean by destabilizing the entire region, then, sure, that's winning, that's victory. But I'm not sure that's why people went in there.

BROWN: It doesn't sound like you think that's winning.

WARE: Well, at this point, a win may just be getting out while minimizing the damage.

Now, to what degree has the surge played into this? Again, that's a matter of definition. What exactly is the surge? I would love to hear Senator McCain explain that -- 30,000 troops...

BROWN: The increase in troops, the 30,000 troops. That's what he means, though, when he says it, right?

WARE: Yeah, well, if that's what he means, then he has no idea what is going on in Iraq, because what has delivered the successes we're seeing now, as drops of 80 to 90 percent in violence, and who doesn't welcome that, began two years ago or more, when the U.S. began engaging with its enemy, the Sunni insurgency, when it started bringing in al Qaeda, and putting them on the U.S. government payroll, setting them loose on hard-core al Qaeda elements, and setting them loose on Shia militias.

BROWN: So, strategy, rather than the 30,000 troops?

WARE: Yeah, the 30,000 troops was sort of like the icing on the cake.

BROWN: Right.

WARE: But the success that you're seeing right now has been building for two years. And it also includes accommodating someone who was one of your number-one enemies, which was Muqtada al-Sadr, and turning him into a legitimate political figure.

BROWN: Okay, hold on, because we want to hear from Barack Obama. He's also talking about Iraq today. But, instead of hitting back at John McCain, he called in reporters. He went after President Bush. And here's part of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Today President Bush announced a very modest troop redeployment from Iraq. Meanwhile, we will continue to keep nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq while our military is overstretched, which is still at or even above pre-surge levels. We will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus. In the absence of a timetable to remove our combat brigades, we will continue to give Iraq's leaders a blank check, instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right, so timetable is what he keeps hammering away at.

WARE: Yes.

BROWN: Is it -- would that really help? And if we don't set a timetable, are we in fact giving them a blank check?

WARE: Well, who doesn't want to see the men and women in uniform coming home? That's a domestic issue, though.

But it's so disheartening to think that people honestly believe that a timetable of American withdrawal in any way terrifies or pressures the Iraqi government. I mean, while the U.S. troops are there, sure, they are fine. They are happy to have the troops there for a certain period. It allows them to consolidate their power. It allows them to build upon the militias that they have already developed, to enhance the Iranian influence that they had when they went in there, and to get ready for what comes.

But, if the U.S. troops left tomorrow, they would be just as happy to set the dogs loose. So the real test for America is not timetables. It's, how are you going to manage the dynamics of horror and tension that you're going to leave behind. That's the real issue.

BROWN: Well beyond the timetable. Michael Ware for us tonight. Michael, as always, thanks.

WARE: Great pleasure, Campbell.

BROWN: Good to have you here in person, too.

WARE: Nice to be here.

BROWN: All right. Stay with us. A lot more in the ELECTION CENTER. We'll be right back.

Michael spells out what today's announced withdrawals really add up to and again has to go through the explanation of why the Iraqi government isn't embracing the "Sons of Iraq."

WOLF BLITZER: Let's get some more now on the shifting U.S. troops, what's going on. We'll bring in Michael Ware. He's been on the ground for most of this time, since the war, back in 2003.

Michael, what's the impact? This year no more troops are coming out of Iraq. But January and February, they're going to remove about 8,000 or so troops from the 145,000 who are there right now.

What's the bottom line impact of this troop withdrawal?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Symbolically, okay, it makes a statement. Practically, Wolf, to be honest, it means nothing. Even when you take out that extra combat brigade, which is due mid-January to February next year, that will make a total of 8,000 troops from now until then. You're still going to have the same or even more number of U.S. boots on Iraqi soil as you did pre-surge.

But what's changed is the nature of the battle. Essentially, America has put on the government payroll the bulk of the Sunni insurgency and some of the elements of al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, it's put the bulk of the pro-Iranian militias and their political wings into government.

So what we're seeing is that, yes, a phenomenal downturn in violence by any of the metrics used by the military -- between 40 and 80 percent -- violence has plummeted.

BLITZER: Well, Michael, let me ask you...

WARE: Deaths are down. Who doesn't welcome that, Wolf?

BLITZER: Let me interrupt you. It's one thing to say that former Sunni insurgents in the al-Anbar Province, for example, maybe 100,000 or so, are on the U.S. government payroll -- about $300 per man right now. But when you say that former al Qaeda terrorists are on the U.S. government payroll right now, is there hard evidence that we -- American taxpayers -- are paying al Qaeda terrorists to be quiet and stay on the sidelines?

WARE: Well, you're not paying them to be quiet and stay on the sidelines. You know, you've brought them over to the other side. And now correct me if I'm wrong -- and I stand here to be corrected -- but I remember a statement from President Bush himself that those who were fighting with al Qaeda against us are now fighting against al Qaeda with us.

And regardless, Wolf, you know, I've crossed that line. I've been to al Qaeda training camps. I've seen how they work. I've been to their safe houses. I know individuals -- not just foot soldiers, not just mid-ranking commanders, but emirs who are now on the U.S. government payroll.

And why is that a bad thing? Because the Sunni insurgents in Iraq were driven to al Qaeda by American policies. The Sunni insurgency was created because America wasn't talking to them. Right from the beginning, in 2003, the hierarchy of the Sunni insurgency said to me, why are we on opposite sides here? We were allies in the '80s. We have nothing against America. And, finally, the deal was cut. And now you see the downturn in violence. It's not a difficult calculation -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Michael Ware, what I don't understand and a lot of other people don't understand, put them on the payroll of somebody, but put them on the Iraqi government's payroll. They have billions and billions of dollars in surplus.

WARE: Forget about it.

BLITZER: Why do the U.S. taxpayers still have to pay these people?

WARE: Forget about it. Forget about it. They're not working for the Iraqi government, Wolf. They're America's insurance policy. The Iraqi government hates these guys. They resent their existence. They are essentially a U.S. militia that not only went out and assassinated al Qaeda -- because they knew where al Qaeda slept and they're not bound by the rules of war like the U.S. Army. But also, they are a counterbalance for America and America's Sunni allies -- like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt -- against the Iranian-backed militia.

So essentially, the Sunni Awakening Councils, these former insurgents, former al Qaeda, are your insurance policy. You take that away, you give that to the Iraqis -- look what's happening. Already the U.S. military is trying to hand these fellows over to the Iraqi government. And already, the Iraqi government has started killing them and putting out arrest warrants for them.

So there's no love lost between either side. I've been with these U.S. militia. And they say we've dealt with al Qaeda, the next enemy is this Iranian-backed government.

So now the real test for the next president is how do they manage this situation and keep a lid on the conflict.

BLITZER: Michael Ware with his analysis of what's going on.

Michael, thank you.

WARE: Thanks, mate.

Michael talks with Fionnuala Sweeney about the "drawdown" and what happens next.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Hala Gorani talks to Michael about the troop drawdown, whether the surge worked, and what all of it means for the future.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael talks to John Roberts about revelations in Bob Woodward's new book.

JOHN ROBERTS: A secret U.S. program to kill terrorists. Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward says that is the reason violence in Iraq has dropped so dramatically, not because of the so-called troop surge. The claim is in Woodward's new book, "The War Within." Here he is on "LARRY KING LIVE" last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB WOODWARD, AUTHOR, "THE WAR WITHIN": You can somewhat compare it to the Manhattan Project in World War II. If you look at the chart, it's a ski slope right down in a matter of months cutting the violence in half.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: CNN's Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware has been living the past six years in the middle of that war, and joins us now with his perspective. So what do you think of what he's saying?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, I mean, let's say that these "fusion" teams as they're called have come into effect. The first thing to say is, well, about time.

I mean, on the ground you've seen the lack of coordination, as the left hand of one agency has not worked with the right hand of another agency within the American effort. But by and large to suggest that anything like this being done now has been the major reason for the decline in violence is a bit rich.

I mean, the U.S. subcontracted out an assassination program against al Qaeda way back in early 2006. And this was conceded by the then chief of military intelligence in Baghdad and by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad himself. That's what broke the back of al Qaeda.

Then, when America put 100,000-plus insurgents on the U.S. government payroll, including members of al Qaeda, that not only took them out of the field, but it also let them run their own assassination programs against the Iranian-backed militias.

ROBERTS: So it sounds like assassination was the real part of the program here. But was that the only thing that worked? What about the addition of these troops, these neighborhood stations that were set up -- did it all kind of work together?

WARE: Yeah, it does work together. But, I mean, the key to the downturn in violence that we're seeing now is not so much the surge of 30,000 troops in itself. What it's been is the segregation of Baghdad into these enclaves. It's been cutting a deal with Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Iranian-back militias, and primarily it's been putting your enemy on your payroll: the Sunni insurgents and many members of al Qaeda, that's what's brought down the violence. And this is your American militia, the counterbalance to the Iranian militias. So if there's new teams are out there with new technology, great, but they're riding the wave of previous success.

ROBERTS: Interesting. Michael Ware, thanks so much for that. Appreciate the inside perspective.

Michael is still in NY and speaks with Kiran Chetry about the troop draw-down to be announced today.

KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: And now, here to offer his perspective on this drawdown plan is CNN's Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware. Thanks for being with us. So we heard what Barbara Starr is telling us about this drawdown of troops. Partially political?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think so. I mean, the tone certainly suits. Is it coincidence or is it by design? It's difficult to say.

One thing is clear, though. The conditions on the ground, which was always to be the prerequisite for a drawdown, do justify some pulling out of U.S. troops. I mean, let's look at it.

But all the measures that the U.S. military uses, violence is down by between 40 to 80 percent. Civilians who are dying at 4,000 a month 18 months ago are now dying at 500 a month. U.S. troops in the last May, 126 were killed. This May, 19.

So, the violence has come down. So, there is an argument that, yes, you can start freeing up troops. But as we keep saying, what no one is looking at is what's the price for that success.

CHETRY: And what you've talked about every time you're here...

WARE: Yes.

CHETRY: ... is the growing Iranian influence and that once the U.S. troops leave, somebody is going to fill that vacuum and void. Who will it be? Chances are possibly Iran.

Is there any way to head that off? Meaning that, are we just delaying the inevitable by not having -- by keeping U.S. troops there?

WARE: In a sense, yes, it is delaying of the inevitable. Although, however, I believe with the ongoing presence of the U.S. troops will increasingly become, it's not so much a force to keep violence down, a force to strike al-Qaeda. It's going to be a force to try and consolidate the Sunni's position, to protect that Sunni interest, which is so important to America's Arab allies.

Listen, by this point, Pentagon strategists, the White House, the mission on the ground from the embassy have all conceded in one way or another that Iran has the upper hand, politically and certainly in terms of their militias and paramilitaries. So it's like given that people have come to that realization, now it's making the best of a worse situation.

CHETRY: That's one of the things that Bob Woodward talks about in his new book that he wrote, revising what winning means and what success is in Iraq, and something we'll be talking about with you over the coming days.

Thanks for being with us, Michael.

WARE: Great pleasure.

Michael discusses Joe Biden's speech from last night, and what Biden offers in the line of foreign policy experience. He's still looking for specifics, although it's not likely that the American people really want to hear the unpleasant side of bringing the troops home -- and what politician in their right mind (an oxymoron if ever there was one) would be so blunt during a campaign. Well, at least we know Michael will never run for office -- he's too insistent on telling the truth!

(Oh, and I agree with Mr. Night Owl -- they are doing these interviews WAY too early in the morning!)

KIRAN CHETRY: Well, last night it was his number two, Senator Joe Biden, accepting the vice presidential nomination in front of a cheering convention. Biden used his speech to talk up the party platform and to tear down rival John McCain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Barack Obama knows that any country that out-teaches us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That's why he'll invest in the next generation of teachers, and why he'll make college more affordable. That's the change we need.

Barack Obama will bring down health care costs by $2,500 for the average family, and, at long last, deliver affordable, accessible health care for every American.

Now, after six long years, the administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home. John McCain was wrong. And Barack Obama was right.

Again -- again, and again, on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama has been proven right.

These are extraordinary times. This is an extraordinary election. The American people are ready. I am ready. Barack is ready. This is his time. This is our time. This is America's time.

God bless America and may God protect our troops. Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHETRY: And after his speech Barack Obama came out on stage to greet the delegates. And this was his first appearance at the convention. People were very excited about that.

You know, we just saw Joe Biden hitting his rival hard on national security issues. But what did Biden offer last night in terms of foreign policy? Here to help us take a critical look is CNN's Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware. He just got back as well from the Republic of Georgia and gives us his perspective.

Thanks for being with us. You know, it's interesting because there are things that just sort of become a roll off the tongue as you're covering the conventions and the debates and really the race in itself. And a lot of people have said these foreign policy credentials of Joe Biden. How is that playing though with some of the foreign leaders that you've talk to in terms of whether or not he has the right ideas for big things like Iran and Iraq?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, ideas or not, the relative value of his policies or not, there is at least one thing that I know that assuages foreign leaders and foreign governments. They know Joe Biden. He's a known quantity to them. So agree, disagree whether American policy is assisting, say, a particular nation: it doesn't matter. At least they know what they're getting. They know that they can engage in discourse.

CHETRY: They don't want any surprises.

WARE: Well, I'm sure Senator Biden -- or Vice President Biden, should that happen -- will always have a surprise or two up his sleeve. But nonetheless, he's a known player, he's been around the block, and he's someone that people can confidently feel they can engage with. And, like, I bumped into him in Pakistan, in Baghdad --

CHETRY: He's been around.

WARE: -- and in Georgia, so he's been around almost as much as we have.

CHETRY: Two interesting things, though. He loudly criticized Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. He was against the surge.

WARE: Yup.

CHETRY: And he also was for -- he put forth this plan of partitioning Iraq. Those are two things that haven't really turned out to be something that Iraq was into, either partitioning or drawing down troops at a time when they felt they needed more.

WARE: Right, that's right. So he's always had his view of what should happen in Iraq. Now, some of his policies, you could eagerly debate. And like last night in his speech, I guess a political convention is not the place where you expect to hear detail, but I was struck by the fact that there was nothing with regard to the foreign policy issues that was new or gave us any more sense of where this ticket will be going. I mean, to say that, yes, Senator Obama was right and McCain was wrong, Obama was right and McCain was wrong. But then not to say, well, here is something new.

For example, saying, I would love to hear, right, we're going to draw down our troops but we know that that has made Iran stronger, that we know that we have terrified our Arab allies and we know that we left the Sunnis vulnerable in Iraq, who we've built into a militia and now, once we leave, we'll make them more vulnerable again to al Qaeda. But this is how we'll manage that. That's what we didn't hear.

CHETRY: You want to hear more answers, more details about what happens after the withdrawal takes place.

WARE: Absolutely. Right. The focus is on getting the boys home. And look, who can blame anyone. But no one is talking about the consequences and no one is talking about how we'll fix that. So there's a price tag to bringing the boys home. Let's hear them talk about how we're going to pay that.

CHETRY: All right. Michael Ware, great to see you, as always. Thanks.

WARE: So early. Thank you, Kiran.

CHETRY: It's not early. It's 8:30 East Coast.

WARE: It doesn't feel like it

CHETRY: We're more than two and a half hours. Michael, thanks.

WARE: Thanks, Kiran.

CHETRY: He's a night owl. What can you do?

Michael speaks with Kiran Chetry again, about the politics of war -- in Iraq and in Georgia. And Iran is a factor in both.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And we know that President Obama will end the war in Iraq responsibly, bring our troops home, and begin to repair our alliances around the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KIRAN CHETRY: That's Hillary Clinton on stage last night. There's a new CNN Opinion Research Poll, though, that suggests Americans actually think John McCain is the better man for the job in Iraq. 53 percent of voters saying McCain would better handle the situation in Iraq compared to 44 percent for Obama.

So, whether it's Barack Obama or John McCain in the White House come January, the war in Iraq and another potential Cold War with Russia will be at the top of America's foreign policy agenda. And CNN's Michael Ware spent a lot of time in Iraq. He joins us here in studio.

It is interesting when you look at those polls because the majority of Americans do think, you know, it's time to get out. Yet, when you ask who's going to handle it better, it's John McCain. What are you hearing from some of the military leaders behind closed doors about, you know, what their dream plan would be?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, obviously, senior American commanders play their cards close to their chest when it comes to politics because they know they do not operate in a vacuum. Even in a war, politics is very much a part of it. Now, what I can tell you is that from a military man's point of view, it's more of a McCain tendency in the sense of "we stay, we consolidate, and we let conditions on the ground tell us when we go, when we add on, when we subtract."

However, I can tell you that the military itself, though, is much more broad-minded on issues like engagement with some of the countries in the region or other groups. For example, it's the military who started talking to the Ba'athist insurgency. It's the military who's got the Ba'athist insurgency now on the payroll -- 110,000 plus insurgents on the U.S. government payroll. So, it's a little bit of both.

CHETRY: Which is a big reason for the sectarian violence drop.

WARE: Absolutely. And it's also done a whole number of things, doing that. Basically, it's an American militia to counter the Iranian militias and also keeps your very troubled Arab allies much happier because they now feel that they have a stake in Iraq.

CHETRY: So what happens when we leave? Do those Ba'athists still continue to be able to be that countermeasure?

WARE: That is a huge question. Now, you get lip service from the government in Baghdad about maintaining the program, developing it, this, that and the other. But from day one, the Shia-dominated Iranian-backed central government hated this program, came out and openly attacked it. Now, American commanders say that, well, they've matured in their attitude, they're more embracing.

What do we see just a few days ago? The government hunting down some of these U.S.-paid security people who were former insurgents and arresting or killing them. I mean, these guys are not hiding their true intention in the government. They're gonna come for these blokes.

CHETRY: That, of course, as we know, is a huge challenge that either of these two men will inherit as president. Another one, though, is the Russia situation. And what we saw between Russian and Georgia and some of the comments by Russia's president about a Cold War.

Are we facing the real distinct possibility of entering into another Cold War with this very powerful and it seems a little bit aggressive country?

WARE: Yes. Well, I think -- you know, it's very easy for people to bandy around the rhetoric at the moment, from Moscow to Washington to Tbilisi. And, Cold War in the sense that we all grew up knowing it? I suspect not. But a new kind of international dynamic with an opposing force from Russia, expansive, aggressive, wanting to send -- absolutely.

And we're going to see it across all sorts of fronts. For example, what happened in Georgia is not unrelated to the fact that Russia is helping Iran with its nuclear program. And that America needs Russia's help in the Security Council for sanctions or other measures against Tehran. And the Russians know that. So, they knew that when they went into Georgia there was only so much America could do because: Georgia, here, but they know that America needs Russia over here.

CHETRY: Very interesting there. A delicate diplomatic dance as well on that front. A lot of problems.

WARE: Oh, yeah.

CHETRY: That's why we're glad we have you with the insight. Thanks, Michael Ware. Good to see you as always.

WARE: Great pleasure.

Michael talks some more about the Biden plan, as well as the new timetable agreement and Iran's advantage in Iraq.

KIRAN CHETRY: There is a live look right now at Pepsi Center. And tonight it's 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, 3:00 p.m. Mountain time that that place is going to be rocking as the beginning of the Democratic National Convention kicks off with a laundry list of speakers. And they're going to be talking about Barack Obama and of course his VP choice, Joe Biden.

Well, if Joe Biden brings anything to the democratic ticket, certainly a wealth of experience especially in foreign affairs. And Barack Obama will need that if elected as he addresses some critical foreign policy questions.

CNN's Michael Ware knows the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, all too well, maybe we should say.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, sadly, yeah.

CHETRY: He's back from the conflict as well in Georgia. Michael joins us now. Thanks for being with us, by the way.

I'd like to get your insight about the talk about Iraq and what to do with Iraq. Now, Joe Biden, when he was running for president back in 2006, he talked a lot about his plan, which was partitioning Iraq into three separate and autonomous regions. Would that work?

WARE: No. It doesn't have a snowflake's chance, that kind of a solution. I mean, for a start, that just plays directly into Tehran's hands. I mean, one of the big issues that's being fought out now in Iraq politically is that the hard-core Iranian-backed Shia parties are trying to create a self-ruling zone in the south. That would basically become a Little Iran.

Now, in the north, you already have a self-governing state. The Kurds own Kurdistan, and they don't listen to the central government. They've got their own defense force. They've got their own foreign ministry. That's enough of a drama.

So to try and partition it off is just going to destabilize, not just the country but will further destabilize the region. And no one supports it. It ain't going anywhere.

CHETRY: Now, you know, the McCain campaign has actually hammered Barack Obama a lot for calling for this timetable. Now we have the Bush administration, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice there last week hammering out what essentially is a timetable.

WARE: Yeah.

CHETRY: From the Bush administration. Has the thinking changed or is it almost a matter of sort of throwing the towel in trying to fight that issue?

WARE: Well, I think they're trying to dress it up. I mean, whether you want to call it failure, defeat, stalled -- whatever, the mission. Basically what they're doing is saying, well, look, the number of deaths are down. U.S. troops, you know, are faring much, much better. The sectarian violence is way, way down. So that all looks hunky-dory. So, okay, we're able to go, start winding back and call it a win. But that's smoke and mirrors.

Underlying all this of this is the fact that Iran has a much greater influence in that country and thereby increasing its influence in the region, anti-American influence, than they did before the American invasion. There's enormous implications for this kind of withdrawal. You can do it, but just accept what it's going to cost you. And then tell us, what are you going to do about it?

CHETRY: Well, you talk about that in the last hour as well, that there has to be some sort of acknowledgment about Iranian influence. Is that a diplomatic -- is that a window for a diplomatic solution or is that something that needs to have military might behind it and who might be better at trying to juggle that?

WARE: Well, there is no diplomacy without military might, at the end of the day. You know, very Clausewitzian: "War is just politics by another means." I mean, the problem is Iran has all the cards in its favor. I mean, there's very little stick with which to beat Tehran. And, for example, for the last -- since the end of last year, those American troops who have died in Iraq, most of them died at the hands of Iranian-backed militias, not al Qaeda, not the Sunni insurgency. And what's this all about? Not only is it to destabilize Iraq, not only is it to bog U.S. troops down; the bigger picture is they're looking for advantage to press on the nuclear issue. That's the big gain here for the Iranians. So, really, yes, you need a diplomatic answer, you've got to engage with Iran; but somehow, America has got to find a big stick.

CHETRY: All right. Michael Ware, thanks so much for being with us.

WARE: It's a great pleasure. Thank you, Kiran.

Michael is back in New York just in time for the Democratic Convention, and talks to Kiran Chetry about Joe Biden's plan to partition Iraq into three separate countries.

KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: Well, the next president will face a number of critical decisions concerning America's foreign policy. They include withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. When will that happen? How will it happen?

Plus, how to confront the growing threat from insurgents fighting in Afghanistan and also, should the U.S. directly engage Iran? Joe Biden's foreign policy experience is expected to be a big boost to Barack Obama.

CNN's Michael Ware is just back from Georgia, spent a ton of time in Iraq as well, and he's with us now in the studio.

Good to see you.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kiran. It's glad to be here.

CHETRY: Yes. I want to ask you about your thoughts on Joe Biden and the fact that he's been a long-time supporter of partitioning Iraq into three separate autonomous regions.

WARE: Yes.

CHETRY: Is that something that could and would work?

WARE: Well, madness, really, to be honest. I mean, as you see, when Senator Biden was -- his nomination was announced, you found out that opposition to Senator Biden's partition policy is one thing that unites the three ethnic groups in Iraq. No one is for partition unless, of course, you're an Iranian-backed political party, because they'd love to have a self-governing zone in the south that effectively would become an extension of Iran. So really that would play into the hands of Tehran. So, no, that's not an effective strategy.

CHETRY: That's very interesting. When we talk about this troop plan, Barack Obama is talking about a withdrawal, saying we're talking about one to two brigades, and that perhaps by 16 months we could be out. Whereas John McCain is saying we do need to still have a distinctive troop presence to fight al-Qaeda, to train Iraqis, and to protect our interests there. Which one would work better?

WARE: Well, I think only time will tell. And right now, the agreement is being thrashed out in Baghdad and Washington at the moment, settles on what is it, 2011, as a full withdrawal, with U.S. troops back in their bases by June next year. So we're sort of standing in the middle of those two policies at the moment.

The real issue here that no one is facing -- and I would love to hear from Senator Obama's team about this -- you can withdraw. You can withdraw tomorrow. You can withdraw in 16 months, whatever you want, as long as you're ready to pay the price.

I want to hear people acknowledge, yes, we know what the price of withdrawal is. Yes, we're willing to pay for it, and this is how we're going to deal with the long-term implications, because at the end of the day what you're doing is giving Iraq to Iran.

And you're emboldening what President Bush called, remember, the axis of evil. And don't forget, Iran sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon, who defeated the Israeli Defense Force. They're now back -- after helping America defeat the Taliban, intel reports say they're now helping the Taliban.

So Iran is very much in the middle of everything and that's the key foreign policy issue I want to hear from the candidates. Here's the price tag for Iraq. Are you ready to pay it?

CHETRY: Very interesting. It's always great to get your perspective. Michael Ware, thanks for being with us. We'll check in with you a little bit later as well.

WARE: Thanks, Kiran.

An update on the Russian troop withdrawal, recorded earlier this morning.

WOLF BLITZER: More news from overseas. Russian troops on the move once again in the Republic of Georgia. This time they're supposedly pulling back. But it's not clear where they'll stop or how many will be left behind.

CNN's Michael Ware is on the -- in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi -- Michael.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, despite a complicated picture, the general trend here in Georgia, to quote the Georgian national security adviser, is that on the front lines we are seeing a Russian pullback. However, the question remains just how far those troops are withdrawing, how many shall remain, in what role and what will be their numbers?

We know that some checkpoints are already being dismantled. However, others are not. Some Russian forces are on the move in armored columns accompanied by vehicles, troops leaving. Yet in some positions, they are remaining firm.

Indeed, we have the Georgian Ministry of Interior telling us that in some positions, the Russian soldiers are merely taking off their uniforms and donning those of peacekeepers or attaching white arm bands or symbols to designate themselves as peacekeepers.

Now, under the peace accord as it stands, as written, the wording is so broad that you can drive a Russian armored column through it. And that is, indeed, what we're seeing Moscow doing.

Whilst their troops shall be pulling back into the disputed pro-Russian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian forces are insisting on the right to maintain a security or buffer zone to protect those peacekeepers.

The question remains how far into undisputed Georgia territory will those zones extend. Some are saying seven kilometers, some are saying 10, some suspect perhaps even more.

And there's nothing to say how many peacekeepers or forces the Russians may keep. Regardless, their deployment will be such that it would allow them to maintain pressure not just on the Georgian military, but on Georgia's core economic infrastructure -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Lots of questions remain to be answered. All right, Michael. Michael Ware is in Tbilisi, Georgia for us.

As dusk settles in Tbilisi, Michael talks to Jim Clancy about the day's events and some further information about the rumored internment camps.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

More details about the move out of the undisputed territory and the claims that the Russian troops are simply changing uniforms and becoming 'peacekeeper' forces.

HEIDI COLLINS: Russian forces on the move in neighboring Georgia now. They're apparently keeping a promise to start pulling out.

Want to go live now to CNN's Michael Ware in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. So, Michael, is this the real deal?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, as real as I suspect it's going to get, Heidi. I mean, let's not kid ourselves. The Russians are still playing hardball, as they had done since the beginning of this conflict, and they're going to continue to press the advantage militarily, and perhaps politically, that they perceive that they have gained.

Now, here in Georgia itself, on the front lines, to quote the Georgian national security adviser, "We are seeing a pullback of Russian troops." However, the picture does remain complicated and hazy.

Some checkpoints have been dismantled, others have not. Some troops and armor are on the move out of undisputed Georgian territory. Others remain. Some troops, according to the Georgia Ministry of Interior, have simply been donning peacekeeper uniforms or putting white markers on their uniforms to identify themselves as peacekeepers.

Now, under the cease-fire agreement, as it's written with its current wording, much of this is allowable or within the wiggle room that the Russians have within that agreement. Indeed, the wording is such, it's so broad, that it's literally wide enough to drive a Russian armored column through it. And that's what they're doing.

So, whilst the Russians are pulling back, they're going to stay in the disputed pro-Russian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and they're maintaining a buffer zone around their so-called peacekeepers inside Georgia itself. The questions are, how far are those zones going to extend? How many troops are going to be in these territories? And just what are they going to be able to do -- Heidi?

COLLINS: Yes, it still sounds like there needs to be a lot of clarification as to what this agreement really means. I have a feeling we'll be following the story for a while.

CNN's Michael Ware joining us from the capital of Tbilisi.

Michael confirms that the Russian forces are moving out of the greater Georgian areas but as expected, only into the so-called breakaway territories, and they intend to maintain a "buffer zone" as well.

HEIDI COLLINS: Russian forces on the move in neighboring Georgia. They are apparently keeping a promise to start pulling out.

Want to go live now to CNN's Michael Ware in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.

So, Michael, how is all of this looking to you, where you stand?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, to quote Georgia's national security adviser, Heidi, we are seeing the pullout of Russian troops.

Now, obviously it's still a complicated picture and there's some conflicting reports of checkpoints remaining, checkpoints being removed. Still some signs of digging in in places. Signs of Russian troops simply donning peacekeepers uniforms so-called, rather than actually shifting.

However, the general trend is indeed that Russian forces are making significant moves out of undisputed Georgian territory. Now, obviously as stated and as they were before the conflict that began on August 7th, the Russians have made it eminently clear that they will remain in the largely pro-Russian enclaves on Russia's border of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

What remains in question is, how much control will those Russian forces -- be it as peacekeepers or else -- will continue to have over the core of Georgia's infrastructure, such as the highway that it's cut, or the all-important seaport on the Black Sea coast that ships oil to Europe and beyond?

And it's also a great question is, what will be their range of movement? Now, whilst there has been an agreement to pull back to these pro-Russian enclaves, the Russian forces are insisting that they will maintain security or buffer zones to maintain their protection. Now, it's anyone's guess just how broad and far-reaching those buffer zones will have to be. They're going to be to at least seven kilometers inside Georgia.

So there's going to be a question of what the troops there are going to be able to do. But the headline certainly is that we are seeing the first signs of a Russian withdrawal from some of the major conflict zones -- Heidi.

COLLINS: All right. CNN's Michael Ware, giving us the picture there in the Georgia area. We sure do appreciate that.

Michael, thank you.

A second appearance, with Ralitsa showing live footage from the Gori checkpoint. As Michael is discussing the presumed plans of the Russian troops, the signal is lost.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael talks to Ralitsa Vassileva about the plans for Russian troop withdrawals, scheduled to start today but when will they finish, and where will the troops be then?

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

A piece updating the repair work on the rail bridge outside of Gori that was destroyed by Russian troops last week, as well as an overview as to how key incidents have effectively crippled the Georgian economy.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Russia says its forces will pull back to a buffer zone in the Republic of Georgia by tomorrow evening. But those troops are still seen on the roads outside of key cities. They've also dug in near Georgia's main port. And they can control the flow of oil -- giving Russia a potential stranglehold over the country.

And given a $5 jump in the price of oil only today, that helps Russia put the squeeze on the West.

CNN's Michael Ware is outside the Georgian city of Gori.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Like this mess of iron and concrete on a rail bridge that regularly bore millions of barrels of oil headed to port, Georgia and its economy have been crippled by Moscow's occupation.

Whilst Russian units dominate just a third of the country, says Georgia's president, and mostly in pro-Russian enclaves the Kremlin says it invaded to protect from Georgian military assault, the Russian soldiers' deployment inside undisputed Georgian territory has given them command of the core of the country's infrastructure, rendering Tbilisi's pro-American government unable to function as it wants -- its police and army units like these no match for Moscow's might; its financial lifeline damaged -- reducing a country the size of America's South Carolina to a nation divided, which Georgia's national security adviser alleges was orchestrated for strategic economic effect.

ALEXANDER LOMAIA, GEORGIAN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: They're trying to gain control of alternative pipelines and energy routes delivering central Asian and Azerbaijani gas and oil to the European markets through Georgia.

WARE: It's a claim Moscow would surely deny, asserting, as it has done since the conflict's beginning, that its military invaded for humanitarian reasons in defense of Russian civilians under Georgian assault in small northern enclaves. But what cannot be denied is that Russian checkpoints and armor beyond those enclaves has Russian commanders in control of Georgia's principal highway and able to disrupt the Georgian seaport of Poti on the Black Sea coast and threatens Georgia's transit of oil.

(on camera): And key to that transit is this oil pumping station just west of the capital -- a facility essential to the Georgian economy. From here, the crude oil courses through underground pipelines that skirt South Ossetia and the heart of the conflict zone. Just a short distance up this valley sit Russian tanks and what is currently the front line of the Russian occupation.

(voice-over): Further south from that front line, far from the combat, this line of craters marches across pipelines buried in the soil beneath. And while the bombings have stopped, the impact of the invasion persists -- with promised withdrawal yet to eventuate.

(on camera): The Russian military's occupation maintains its stranglehold on Georgia's economic infrastructure. Those checkpoints keep the road severed and the oil pipelines are still not operating at full capacity. But the Georgians are fighting back.

When this rail line carrying oil to the ports was blown less than a week ago, these workers moved in, laboring feverishly to lay new lines on an old bridge. But with all the work being carried out under the gaze of Russian armor on the ridge behind us, there's no suggestion that any of this is going to change any time soon.

Michael Ware, CNN, on the outskirts of Gori.

Another recorded update, similar to the earlier one but with some slightly updated information.

WOLF BLITZER: Let's get back to Russia's show of force in the Republic of Georgia right now. The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is joining with her NATO allies in calling for a quick withdrawal of Russian troops. And in a joint statement following talks in Brussels, NATO is warning that regular contacts with Moscow will be impossible, impossible, until there's a full pullout.

CNN's Michael Ware is in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi with an update on the military situation -- Michael.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Russia's high-stakes military brinkmanship continues here on the ground in the war in Georgia, with all indications that the Russian troops and their armor are staying put.

On the western front, on the Black Sea coast, Georgian officials say that the Russian troops reentered the all-important seaport town of Poti. There, according to the Georgian officials, the Russians took 21 Georgian military police officers prisoner, and transported them back to the Russian strongpoint just outside the town of Senaki, 30 kilometers from the coast.

On the eastern front, the Georgian officials report a standoff between Russian troops and Georgian police at a Georgian military barracks. According to the officials, the Russian troops tried to enter the barracks, but were prevented. When they left, they vowed to return with more forces, according to government officials.

Meanwhile, in the Georgian city of Gori, currently under Russian occupation, there's still no sign of the Russian troops pulling back. Indeed, a Georgian vice prime minister has told CNN that a Russian general there on the ground informed him that his troops may establish four permanent checkpoints in the city in undisputed Georgian territory, none of which bodes well for a rapid resolution to this conflict -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Michael Ware is on the scene for us in Tbilisi. It looks like this crisis will continue.

[The same clip was also posted on CNN.com with less-intrusive graphics:
Length: 1:31 LARGE (12.4 MB) ----- SMALL (21.6 MB)]

A recorded update of the overnight events, with more details from the Georgian government: 21 Georgian MPs were taken away by Russian troops in the town of Poti, and similar attempts were also made elsewhere. Also, the Russians are now talking about setting up permanent checkpoints in Gori.

WOLF BLITZER: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is joining with her NATO counterparts in calling for a quick withdrawal of Russian troops from the Republic of Georgia. In a joint statement following talks in Brussels, NATO warns that regular contacts with Moscow will be impossible until there's a full pullout.

CNN's Michael Ware is in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi with an update on the military situation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Russia's high-stakes military brinksmanship continues here in the war in Georgia, with all indications showing that the Russian troops are staying put in most of their positions.

On the western front, on the Black Sea coast, Georgian government officials say that Russian troops re-entered the all-important seaport city of Poti. There the Georgian government says Russian troops took 21 Georgian military police officers prisoners and took them back to a strong point 30 kilometers from the coast.

Meanwhile, on the eastern front, there were reports from the Georgian government of Russian troops attempting to enter a Georgian military barracks and prevented by Georgian police, with a threat, according to the Georgian government, that the Russian troops would return.

Meanwhile, in the city of Gori, an undisputed Georgian territory, again, there's absolutely no hint of Russian troops leaving. Indeed, a Georgian vice prime minister has told CNN that a Russian general informed him that Russian troops may, in fact, set up more permanent checkpoints in the city despite increasing calls from the international community now led by the NATO secretary-general for the Russians to pull back to their positions before this conflict began on August 6th.

Michael Ware, CNN, Tbilisi.

Michael phones in a report about another non-pullback day by the Russians, as well as reports that the troops have moved back into Poti, where they took several Georgian soldiers into custody.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael sums up the day's events for Wolf. No evidence of a pullout, and in fact he adds that the incident with the tanks plowing through the police cars was actually an advancing of the Russian lines.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Let's go to Michael Ware. He's our man on the scene right now. He's watching what is happening on the ground.

Michael, the Pentagon is suggesting they see absolutely no evidence that the Russians are withdrawing their combat forces from Georgia. In fact, they see a digging-in of these Russian troops in Georgia, despite the cease-fire agreement. You're on the scene for us. What are you seeing and hearing?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I spent all day today running around the eastern front of this wall here in Georgia. So, that's essentially the area of Georgia proper, just below South Ossetia.

Now, I will tell you what I saw. In the town of Gori, when I got in there, it's all but vacant of the local population, except for the old and the infirm and a few scant families. Now, what those people were telling me was that, whilst the city remains under Russian domination, there appeared to be less Russian troops than the day before.

However, in other positions around the city that I have personally witnessed, I saw Russian troops digging in literally, either gouging trenches into the hillsides, sandbagging positions, cutting fresh foliage to camouflage armor. And, indeed, the incident that the Georgian president referred to, where Russian armor bashed through a roadblock of Georgian police vehicles, I was there, and I witnessed that.

At the same time, I also had a Russian soldier tell me that he and his men were tired. They didn't want war. They just wanted to go home. Yet, at the same time, oddly, given what the Georgian president says about internment camps, I can't speak to that. I have no evidence of that. But I can tell you, on the front line today, all day, there was discussions of a hostage exchange of some ill-defined nature.

So, it's a very complicated, very foggy picture out there. But I can tell you that, as of dusk, when we left this evening, despite Russian soldiers on the checkpoints saying they had orders that they would be pulling back when the sun went down, as we were leaving the front line, those forces remained in place.

Indeed, the incident involving the police cars was in fact a Russian advance of several kilometers and that the Russians in certain positions had, indeed, been digging in throughout the day -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And we are showing our viewers those pictures, amazing pictures, of a Russian tank simply crushing these Georgian police vehicles, smaller vehicles, as they're going through, as if they're nothing. That's what you were referring to.

But, Michael, the charge -- and it's a very serious charge -- made by President Saakashvili that the Russians are engaged in -- quote -- "ethnic cleansing," have you seen any evidence to back that up?

WARE: No, I haven't yet, Wolf. And I'm not sure that any has yet emerged.

I can tell you, though, that the entire area is virtually evacuated of Georgians. Now, obviously, tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of ethnic Georgians fled the region in the face of not only the advance of the Russian army, but in the face of the activities of South Ossetian irregulars or paramilitaries. Now, they're the ones that the locals fear most. They're the ones that the locals claim have been the most brutal. Now, so we do know that there's definitely a pall of fear hanging over what remains of the Georgian population in that area, that, as I said, the area has been evacuated through flight or some other means or reason, and that the Russian troops remain there, and that there's a lot of questions yet to be answered -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Michael Ware, be careful over there. Good to have you on the scene for all of us here at CNN.

Michael Ware is in Georgia.

Let's go to Jack. He's got "The Cafferty File."

I don't know about you, Jack, but I think I and all of our viewers are happy that Michael Ware -- I don't know if he's happy, but we're happy that he's watching this story for us.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, he's pretty good at that stuff.

Just after midnight and Michael's back in Tbilisi and introduces the earlier prepared piece. He also answers some questions afterwards. There is no stick to beat the Russians into following through on their agreements... a definite reminder of the bad old days.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael spends the day in Gori, looking for evidence of a troop pullout, and finds none. In fact, tanks smash through a barrier of Georgian police cars with clear disdain for any peace agreement that may have been signed in Moscow.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Russia says that today it's begun a withdrawal from Georgia, but hours later there's no indication that Moscow is keeping its word.

CNN's Michael Ware is among the Russian troops and the desperate Georgian civilians, actually, in the occupied town of Gori.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's already Monday afternoon on Georgia's eastern front. And the nominated deadline for Russia's troop withdrawal has passed. Yet there's no sign here on the eastern front of the Russian soldiers pulling back.

Indeed, this checkpoint is the furthest line of Russian advance, 15 kilometers east of the Georgian city of Gori. Indeed, in some of the Russian positions in the surrounding hills, there are signs of the soldiers digging trenches and camouflaging their tanks and armor with fresh-cut foliage.

Russian withdrawal from Georgia or not, according to the cease-fire, standing here as dusk approaches in the Georgian city of Gori, still under Russian occupation, hundreds and Russian vehicles and their armors vehicles surround me. In this town square, the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, a statue looms high above. At the town hall, desperate Georgians are registering for food rations as the Russian troops still maintain patrols and checkpoints around this city.

While most of the city appears to remain intact, the destruction wrought by this war can still be seen in buildings brought down like this one, that, according to locals, was destroyed by a Russian rocket. The scars of the war are also seen in the eyes and the jittery hands of the few Georgians who still remain.

Gori is an almost vacant city, shops, homes and apartments all shuttered. It is a town of the old and the infirm and but a few sparse families. Russian checkpoints still man the streets, like this one over here, the troopers telling us that they have orders to withdraw at dusk. Everyone now waits until nightfall to see whether those orders are carried through.

Russian armor still firmly inside Georgia as the last light begins to fade, an act of defiance or a precursor to departure? Either way, both sides to this conflict are reluctant to give ground.

Michael Ware, CNN, on the road to Tbilisi.

A pre-recorded piece highlighting the hoped-for pullout. (NOTE: The audio feed is slightly out of sync on the broadband feed.)

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Midnight in the Georgian capital, as everyone awaits the coming pullout of Russian troops, some of whom remain merely 40 kilometers outside the city.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

A short recorded piece about what was supposed to happen Monday.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Michael is back in Tbilisi and appears on GPS. He sums up the events of the past few days by saying that not only did the Russians easily sweep aside the Georgian Army, but the invasion served to send a message from Moscow to the world... and no one has any intention or ability to answer back in any meaningful way.

JILL DOUGHERTY, HOST, GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE: And now we want to turn to Michael Ware.

Michael, you know, you are in Tbilisi, and initially there were a lot of fears, apparently, among the Georgians that the Russians would actually try to go all the way to Tbilisi.

Now that we're in this situation, what is the level of fear among the people? And also, what is this, do you think, doing politically or any other way to President Saakashvili?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, TBILISI, GEORGIA: Well, obviously, Jill, there is some degree of unease amongst the Georgian population. I think -- however, I think that they themselves can see that the situation is beginning to calibrate itself here on the ground.

I mean, to be honest, whilst it's well within the Russians' military capability to take the capital -- where I'm standing right now -- should they so desire, I don't believe that, at the end of the day, the Russians would assess that that would be to their advantage. I think that they would believe -- and, I think, rightly so -- that that would be overplaying their hand. And they don't want to blow the gains that they've made.

I mean, just being purely pragmatic, in the geopolitical scenario that encases this conflict, the Russian military and political operation that's taken place here has been a stunning success. Militarily, on the ground, they swept the Georgian military away, as though they were batting a fly, all but. That Georgia military has tried to rally, but it still offers no real resistance to the Russians.

And of course, no one from Europe, the West or the United States, indeed, can or will come to their aid militarily. And politically, there's very little stick with which to beat the Russians, so, to provide incentives or sanctions to force them to follow the letter of the cease-fire as it stands right now.

But the Russian mission, from Moscow's point of view, you would have to say has been breathtakingly successful. Military, on the ground, as we said, but politically they've sent the message to Georgia, to the region and to Washington that I suspect they fully intended to do from the beginning -- Jill.

DOUGHERTY: And Michael, just quickly, the people that you're speaking to, the Georgians that you're speaking to, are they -- they obviously would be concerned about the Russian side. But are they blaming anyone? Is it all the Russians? Or is there any, let's say, political blame for the president of Georgia?

WARE: Well, right now, I think it's too sensitive of a time for us to begin analyzing that in fine detail.

However, I will say that there is a mood, or there is a question mark over whether this Georgian government, led by its president, did provide any provocation to the Russians.

I mean, there's some talk that there's been goading of the Russian position for several years now, for quite some time, and that maybe some do, indeed, question the wisdom of the military operation launched by the Georgians just over a week ago.

However, the dominant feeling right now, for this moment, is one of nationalism, one of holding together, holding the line. I mean, this country has been invaded by a foreign force. Now is not the time to start pulling apart the leadership.

So, this is a rallying moment for the Georgians.

I'm sure, however, that there will be questions asked in the aftermath, both looking internally inside this country and, of course, externally at Georgia's foreign sponsors, particularly the United States -- Jill.

DOUGHERTY: Okay. Thank you very much, Michael -- Michael Ware, Matthew Chance and Frederik Pleitgen.

Michael's prepared piece on the destruction of the railway bridge. He finds the firing cable that was used to connect to the detonator device and follows it to the protected site where Russian soldiers sheltered from the blast. Georgians are already working to clear the bridge debris.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Russia has signed the truce with Georgia today, but at last report Russian tanks are still patrolling, not pulling out. Russian's foreign minister says there will be no full withdrawal without new security measures. Well, today Georgia is blaming the Russians for setting fires in a national park as well. That's the source of Georgian spring water exports. And as Michael Ware shows us, the Russians have bombed an important bridge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Despite the signing of a cease-fire agreement between Georgia and Russia, it appears clear that the Russian military here in Georgian territory continues to flex its muscle. Not only have we been witnessing the ongoing presence of Russian armored elements just outside the Georgian city of Gori, but where I'm standing now is on a destroyed railway bridge that the Russian military brought down.

So this is an electric firing cable that leads from the blast site somewhere over in this direction. And if we follow it, we'll find where the Russians were positioned when they detonated the explosion. And when we follow the cord, we found that it ends here, behind this culvert not far from the bridge. This is clearly where the Russian soldiers were with their detonating device as they set off the explosion. And, indeed, what do we find? But a Russian cigarette butt.

As workers above me are feverishly trying to clear the tangled wreckage of the train line, the Georgian government says the destruction of this rail line that carries oil to the key port city of Poti on the Black Sea coast have broken that agreement.

GIORGI BARAMIDZE, GEORGIAN VICE PRIME MINISTER: By doing this, Russians make not only Georgia suffer but Armenia, Azerbaijan, even companies like BP and others that are transporting oil using this particular railway.

WARE: And even though there are few, if any, real military responses that can be made either by the west or by Georgia itself, the Georgian vice prime minister said that his country was ready and willing to fight again against the Russians if it proves necessary.

Michael Ware, CNN, on the outskirts of Gori.

A short pre-recorded piece that played first on International and recaps the current Russian troop movements and the destruction of the rail bridge that links Tbilisi with the port city of Poti. One of the things it is used for is to transport oil for companies such as BP.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: Well, Mr. Bush referred to the cease-fire agreement as a hopeful step, but as CNN's Michael Ware tells us from Georgia, Russia's intentions still are not clear.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Russia is already in breach of the newly signed cease-fire agreement according to the Georgia government. Today, just hours after the agreement was signed, we've been witnessing Russian mechanized infantry units still moving around the town of Gori, well inside undisputed Georgian territory. And according to locals, it was in the middle of the day when Russian troops destroyed this key railway bridge behind me, a railway line that links the capital Tbilisi with the vital port city of Poti. A railway line important militarily, politically and economically, carrying oil even for foreign companies like BP to the port city and beyond.

The Russian troops by their mere presence, says the Georgian vice prime minister, Giorgi Baramidze, are in defiance and have broken the cease-fire agreement. The troops are making no signs of withdrawal, and indeed continue to flex their muscle, making their presence felt. The vice prime minister said that even though it may not be a realistic notion that the Russians can be beaten militarily, his country having been already defeated, he said, nonetheless if actions and provocation such this by the Russians continue, the vice prime minister says, his country and its people are ready and willing to take up arms and to renew the conflict.

Michael Ware, CNN, on the outskirts of Gori.

Our first look at the destroyed bridge. Michael has also spoken with local residents, who told him that the bridge was destroyed seven hours earlier. The Georgian Vice-Prime Minister says that his people are ready to take up arms against the Russians again if they do not start adhering to the cease-fire. The Russians claim that they need time to collect arms and remove booby-traps set by the Georgians. Mmm-hmm.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Now the latest on the situation on the ground in Georgia. CNN's Michael Ware is near the city of Gori. Michael, what are you seeing there?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Randi, what I'm seeing here is the destruction, which is ongoing by Russian troops in what the Georgian government says it not only defines of the newly signed cease-fire agreement but in fact the Georgian government says the Russians have already broken the cease-fire agreement. Now just a couple of hours ago I personally witnessed Russian mechanized infantry not far from where I'm standing right now about six miles out of the Georgian city of Gori. That's in Georgia proper.

But more than that, according to locals, only about seven hours ago that the Russian military destroyed this key railway bridge right behind me. That's clearly another act in breech of the agreement according to Georgia's vice prime minister, Giorgi Baramidze. Now, he says that there's absolutely no point in the Georgian capital Tbilisi making complaints to Moscow about this or about the ongoing presence or as he called it the barbarism of the Russian military here in Georgia because he says there's no point. He's calling for firmer action from the United States, the European community, and the international community at large.

But what I can tell you is that despite whatever agreements have been signed in the diplomatic levels, here on the ground the military standoff continues. The Russian military still flexes its muscles. Not just by its mere presence but by destroying a key railway line that links the capital to the black sea port of Porti and a railway line that carries oil even for foreign companies like BP. And more foreboding than that is that despite the fact that there is few if any real military options left to the Georgians, the Georgian vice prime minister said that if this continues, then his country and his people are prepared to take up the fight again and reignite this conflict if the Russians do not adhere to the cease-fire. Randi?

KAYE: Michael, I'm curious. Given what's going on there, are you seeing any sign at all of the Russian troops pulling out because as we just heard there seems to be some confusion. French President Sarkozy, who helped negotiate this, thinking that once the cease-fire was signed that Russian troops would be moving out immediately but the Russian troops apparently think that they need some time to collect ammunition, weapons, booby traps which they say were put out there by Georgia's troops. Have you seen any sign of withdrawal at all?

WARE: Absolutely not. Quite the opposite, Randi. In fact, we've seen some consolidation of the Russian military position. Now remember there are two fronts for this war. When Russia invaded Georgia just over a week ago they attacked along two axis, one two the west and here in the east. Having been on the western front yesterday, I'm returning again to the eastern front today. As this evidence behind me shows, the destruction of this bridge, the Russians not only continue to operate and maintain their presence but they're exerting their domination. In fact, to some degree they're consolidating. Yesterday on the western front I saw them digging in, which is quite the opposite to withdrawal.

Now, as for clearing mines or ordnance left by the Georgians, I'm sure the Georgian government would argue that that's their responsibility. What it's all now turning upon is the varying definitions under the terms of the agreement of immediate withdrawal. Now, Georgia would like to see that happening today, now. They want Russian troops out but clearly the Russians are in no hurry to go anywhere, Randi, and I'm afraid there's no one or nothing that can really force them to do otherwise.

KAYE: All right. Our Michael Ware for us on the ground there in Gori, Georgia. Thank you, Michael.

Michael calls in from Gori, reporting that despite the signing of a cease-fire agreement, the Russians are still very much dug in there, which is undisputed Georgian territory. In fact, he is at the location of a key railway bridge that has been destroyed by the Russian troops. Whether the bridge was blown up before or after the signing of the peace deal, it is a clear violation of the spirit of the agreement, and will disrupt Georgian transportation and trade for months.

TJ HOLMES: We want to turn back to the situation happening in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia where fighting has been going on the past week between Georgian and Russian forces.

Cease-fire in place now has been really signed by all sides -- all leaders of all sides here. But we have our Michael Ware on the phone from Gori, Georgia.

Michael, we have the cease-fire that is officially in place but you have noticed that in the real world and there on the ground, the fighting has not ended.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, T.J., what I can tell you is that despite the signing of the cease-fire agreements by Moscow, Russian troops not only remain here in Georgia proper and in around the city of Gori, but I'm standing on what is left of a railway bridge crossing a key river here in Georgia that was destroyed overnight or early this morning by the Russian military.

I'm still observing Russian armored elements here in the region but the destruction of this bridge is a major message to the Georgian government. It severs a key east-west artery that links the capital Tbilisi with the Black Sea port of Poti.

It's also a symbol from the Russians that they intend to destroy Georgian infrastructure be it for economic or military purposes. Obviously this rail line could move troops and equipment quite rapidly. Obviously Georgian officials feel that this is not within the terms of the cease-fire agreement and the agreement stipulates the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops.

That has not happened. I am still observing Russian armored elements, and the destruction of this bridge, whether it occurred before or after the signing of that agreement, clearly is not within the spirit of the cease-fire.

So this is a key development here in the eastern front in the war in Georgia and it shows that the Russians are still intent on pressing their advantage be it on the eve of their withdrawal or as they intend to remain for a time yet to be determined -- T.J.?

HOLMES: And, again, I guess it was important -- I'm glad you pointed it out there. I was about to ask, when exactly the bridge was destroyed. Well, like you said, if it was right before or right after the signing, it's still not in the spirit of that agreement. Are there any other signs, any other signals like destroying that bridge? Any other aggression, if you will -- we know there hasn't been, I guess, just a quick pullback or pullout by these troops but are they still making any aggressive moves? Are they still showing signs of getting in position to attack or are they attacking?

WARE: Well, there is no combat or exchanges of fire. Certainly there's no bombings or artillery barrages. It's the mere presence of these Russian armored elements that says it all, T.J. And the fact that they are here means that they continue to dominate the terrain and the people and the political environment here.

The Russian military simply has no answer -- I'm sorry, the Georgian military simply has no answer to these Russian troops. So the mere fact of their presence means that this standoff continues and the Russians are obviously bent on pressing whatever claims and whatever gains they have made and they're proving that they are very slow to withdraw and keep to these strict terms of the agreement -- T.J.

HOLMES: All right. Our Michael Ware there on the ground there for us in Gori where he has witnessed some disturbing developments in the light of the cease-fire that is now in place.

Michael Ware, we appreciate you this morning.

A longer version of the piece from Poti, followed by a live discussion with Lou Dobbs about the political and military realities from the front lines.

LOU DOBBS: The Russian military tonight appears to be carrying out a strategy to divide Georgia. Russian troops control now key intersections on the main East/West highway. Russian military units are also in Poti, a key Georgian port on the Caspian Sea. Michael Ware who went to Western Georgia now has our report from the capital of Tbilisi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even as cease-fire negotiations continued in Georgia's capital, Moscow's tanks were still prowling the western front. At first their target was this, the vital Georgian sea port of Poti outside the pro-Russian breakaway region of Abkhazia. Though thought to be under Russian occupation, Poti's docks have remained open and the Russian soldiers seem to have left the city largely untouched.

(on camera): However, they have sunk five Georgian Navy and Coast Guard vessels, and as we speak, just behind this wall, a small element of Russian troops and armored vehicles is in control of this part of this part of the harbor loading inflatable boats onto trucks.

(voice-over): Locals say the troops arrived early in the conflict. Their presence quickly followed by bombing, which led to a number of civilian and Georgian military deaths and casualties. Life appears to be returning to normal here in Poti. However, residents say the Russians are conducting occasional patrols in their armored vehicles. But as quickly as they began those patrols have ended. Georgian officials claiming the Russians have just pulled out of the city. But the Russians haven't gone far. The troops at the port were in fact just one small element of a much larger force, which is now digging in 30 kilometers from the Black Sea coast, outside of the town of Senaki deep within undisputed Georgian territory.

Vehicles line the area's roadways. And in this field what appears to be bushes is actually Russian artillery, masked by fresh-cut foliage. From those positions, these oil tanks in nearby Poti and the railways that carry the oil remain at the Russians' mercy and they will stay that way until Moscow brings these troops home.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: So what you can see, Lou, is that the Russians are very much pressing their advantage. In fact, there's absolutely no reason or sanction to prevent them from doing so. This has been a stunning coup for the Russian military and they know that.

And they are simply ignoring, in fact, defying the U.S. calls for them to withdraw, and there's nothing to force them to do so. They are going to milk this for every, every inch of advantage that they can get -- Lou.

DOBBS: Concerning their interests, Michael, the Russians, is it in their apparent interest to dig in there? You said that they are digging in, so there's no indication whatsoever of any plan to withdraw these troops. Rather, they are consolidating positions?

WARE: Absolutely, and I mean on both fronts in this war. Remember, when Russia invaded Georgia just over a week ago, they did so on two axis, one to the east just north of the capital where I am now and the one to the west that you have seen in our story.

Now here in the east, as you pointed out, the Russians, rather than pulling back during Secretary Rice's visit and the signing by the Georgian president of a peace deal, they have advanced to within 29 kilometers of the capital, where we are right now. That's the furthest line of advance that they have had during the entire conflict.

And meantime, as you have seen the pictures, in the west, they are digging in, in significant numbers. Now, this does a number of things. It can be a grand negotiating tactic. It's very simple for them to maintain their positions, in fact pressing this advantage as part of a negotiating technique that will allow them to offer a so-called compromise as they withdraw, but only to the disputed territories within Georgia.

Because remember, where they are now is in undisputed Georgian territory. This is Georgia proper. So it could just be a negotiating maneuver. But it's also a continuing act of defiance. Let's not forget, this war at the end of the day is really about U.S. versus Russian interests.

This is Russia sending a message that's meant to reverberate throughout the region and the longer they delay, the longer they defy, the more stunning that message is. And as I said, there's no one that can force them to withdraw and there's no reason right now for them to do so -- Lou.

DOBBS: Well, aside from the fact that this, the threats against Poland by the Russian second general in command suggesting even nuclear response to Poland for signing that missile defense situation, this is now adventurism on an extreme scale, is it not?

WARE: Well, it is and it isn't. I mean that's pretty bold rhetoric, but in another sense, it's blatantly obvious. I mean it's stating the obvious, to be honest. I mean it's...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Michael, I know we've got a delay the deal with here...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: But let's talk about what is obvious. What is obvious, that Russia has invaded the nation of Georgia. That the European nations, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, NATO, the European Union, G-8 have been absolutely unwilling to respond in any way to this Russian adventurism. And that puts the entire region, that is Eastern Europe and Central Asia, in great jeopardy.

WARE: Absolutely. But what we're talking about here is not right and wrong. We're not talking about legal issues here. We're talking realpolitik, Lou.

DOBBS: Yeah, I didn't mention...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: By the way, Michael...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Michael, I didn't mention right or wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I didn't mention right or wrong.

WARE: Yeah.

DOBBS: I mentioned very specifically a threat to two regions. Eastern Europe and Central Asia from Azerbaijan to the Balkans. Those countries right now are squarely in jeopardy as a result of Russia's apparent now new intentions.

WARE: And that's the entire point. Now, Russia itself, from its self-interests, feels that it's been under threat for several years. It's seen American's sphere of influence continually expand through former Soviet Union states or allied countries. One by one, they have been integrated into NATO or they formed alliances with NATO or the U.S. and Georgia is a prime case.

It is a key U.S. ally in this region. And that's the whole point of this invasion. It's Russia responding or counter-punching to what it sees as expanding U.S. influence. And the key thing is that Moscow's decided to do this at a moment when it thinks it can strike and get away with it. And I'm afraid to say that their judgment is proving correct. Look at the limp response, Lou.

DOBBS: Absolutely. Michael, thank you very much. Michael Ware there in Tbilisi. Thank you.

Another recap of what the Russians are doing -- or in the case of the withdrawal, not doing -- in the various areas from Tbilisi to the Black Sea.

TOM FOREMAN: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. The United States is delivering a stern new warning to Russia to get its troops out of Georgia immediately. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says a cease-fire signed by the former Soviet republic today clearly has not been honored by Moscow.

Georgia's president signed the cease-fire plan after five hours of talks with Rice in Tbilisi. We're standing by to speak with the president live. Russia's president says he will sign the agreement, too, but, so far, there is no commitment from Moscow about when it will withdraw its forces.

The anger and suffering in Georgia, of course, growing by the day. The U.N. says almost 120,000 people have been uprooted, most of them Georgians, a week after Russia intervened in a dispute over breakaway provinces.

CNN's Michael Ware is in Georgia.

Michael, what's the latest?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tom, the latest is that the Russians are not taking their foot off the accelerator. They're simply not listening to Washington. They're not listening to the sharpened rhetoric. And to be honest, there is no incentive for them to do so.

What we know is that, you know, from the beginning, Russia attacked. They invaded Georgia across two fronts. And on both of those fronts, they're actually defying the international community and America's wishes for them to withdraw.

On the eastern front, they have done anything but pull back. Indeed, they have advanced closer to the capital, Tbilisi, where Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited this afternoon, than they have ever been in this conflict. They're barely 29 miles from where I'm standing right now.

Meanwhile, on the western front, where we visited today, we found that, although the key seaport of Poti was not under Russian occupation, as many had thought, there was a Russian presence. They sank a number of Georgian navy and coast guard vessels. And they had been conducting armored patrols through that city.

By and large, they had not disrupted the population, nor attacked the infrastructure. And, indeed, this evening, Georgian officials have announced that they believe those Russian forces, as small as they were, have left that city.

On the other hand, much more disturbing is that, as we explored the western front line this afternoon, we found a significant Russian force not withdrawing, but, in fact, digging in deep within undisputed Georgian territory.

So, despite the calls from Washington, we found Russian artillery in entrenched positions with fresh-cut foliage as camouflage. We saw numerous tanks and armored vehicles from the Russian army, and literally hundreds of soldiers who appear to have all but taken up residence at a makeshift barracks. This is in a key position that allows them to dominate much of western Georgia. So, we can see that the Russians are not backing off at all, Tom.

FOREMAN: Do you have any sign of where the Georgian military is in the middle of all of this? You're talking about where all the Russians are.

WARE: Well, the Georgian military barely has been in this fight from the beginning, I'm afraid to say, Tom.

Despite several years of U.S. sponsorship and aid, the presence of more than 100 U.S. advisers, and, indeed, their participation in the coalition in Iraq, the Georgian military is barely able to defend itself.

In the initial attack, the Georgian military went into one of the disputed territory, where there are pro-Russian separatists, to try and quell an artillery barrage and ongoing attacks. That was precisely the provocation that Russia needed, to not only invade that part of Georgia, but another disputed territory which contains pro- Russian separatists.

And in neither of these areas were the Georgian military able to stop the Russians. Indeed, they had to retreat. And, to this day, Russia controls the areas that it's in without any challenge whatsoever from the Georgians or indeed from the U.S. -- Tom.

FOREMAN: Michael, I'm afraid we're going to have to move on. Thanks so much for your report.

Michael lays out the locations of the Russian army troops and what vital arteries they are controlling.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Tom Foreman asks Michael for an update. The Russian troops are now only 29 miles east of Tbilisi. They are now controlling not only the two breakaway regions, but the land between. Michael believes that they will go to the bargaining table that way, and then 'negotiate' down to only keeping the two disputed regions. Pretty damned slick.

TOM FOREMAN: The anger and suffering in Georgia is growing by the day. The U.N. says almost 120,000 people have been uprooted, most of them Georgians, a week after Russia intervened in a dispute over breakaway provinces.

CNN's Michael Ware is on the ground in Georgia.

Michael, what have you seen today?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tom, what I can tell you is that America's demand for a Russian troop withdrawal is not only going unheeded, it's actually being defied. As I stand here speaking to you from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, Russian forces are closer than they've ever been, about 29 miles away from the city.

Now, also, that's on the eastern front of this war. Remember, the Russians attacked across two fronts. Today we went and visited the western front, which has received very little attention.

Now, at stake over there, on the Black Sea coast, is the all-important seaport of Poti. Now, whilst that was thought to be under Russian occupation, when we got there, we found that indeed, yes, the Russians were there, but only in a very small presence.

They had sunk a number of Georgian vessels, coast guard and navy vessels. They were conducting armored patrols of the city. But they were not controlling the city as such.

Now, we've since heard from Georgian officials that that small element has just pulled out of the seaport. However, there's a much greater concern, Tom.

What we discovered as we continued to explore the western front is that in fact a much larger Russian force is in presence in the west of the country. And in fact, they are digging in.

We saw Russian artillery dug into fields and covered by camouflage. We saw numerous tanks and armored vehicles and hundreds of troops that seem to have taken up barracks on a key intersection that cuts the country, commands the rail lines, and still holds the seaport's oil tankers at their mercy.

So the Russians are doing quite the opposite of what America wants, and they seem to be pressing their advantage -- Tom.

FOREMAN: Michael, I want to bring the map up here and talk about what you just said and ask you a very important question in all of this.

The location you're in right now, if you went north, you would wind up in the Ossetia region that we talked about, where the Russians first seemed to be hitting hard. The area you're talking about over here on the Black Sea near the oil ports is the other part, Abkhazia. And what you're describing is a situation where the Russians have a substantial presence in the entire upper western quadrant of this country right now.

With that in mind, can this cease-fire work?

WARE: Well, it can, but I suspect that it's going to work much more on Russia's terms than certainly the Georgian government or Washington would like. Very much, the cards remain in Russia's favor.

And as we see on the western front, when the flash point started in South Ossetia, here in the east, Russia used that as an invitation to also invade in the west, into another breakaway enclave, as you say, Abkhazia. But they didn't stop there. As they did here, near the capital, they pressed further south into Georgia proper. And as we say, we witnessed near the western town of Senaki, they dug in, in force. Now, that's going to have major implications to any cease-fire. And it's certainly going to be an extremely effective bargaining tool.

With the Russian presence on the eastern and western fronts, deeper inside Georgia, that allows the Russians room to maneuver at the negotiating table. They can hold out, they can keep their troops here, and use it as a so-called compromise to merely pull their troops back to the breakaway enclaves.

It's going to be a very effective negotiating technique -- Tom.

FOREMAN: And that close to Tbilisi, certainly something to watch.

Thanks so much, Michael.

2 a.m. During a live special on the crisis in Georgia, Michael tells Jim Clancy about the trip to Poti (including the prepared clip) but then updates that the Russian army is moving out of the port city; however, about 30km outside Poti, he and his team passed through a location where the Russians have dug in with heavy artillery.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

A prepared piece showing Russian troops in the port city of Poti, although says that they are not in control of the entire city.

HEIDI COLLINS: Now let's go from Georgia's capital to another strategic point, you just heard Frederik talking about it, that port city of Poti.

CNN's Michael Ware has this exclusive report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): Despite conflicting reports, Russian troops are not in control of the Georgian seaport city of Poti. However, they have sunk five Georgian Navy and Coast Guard vessels. And as we speak, just behind this wall, a small element of Russian troops and armored vehicles is in control of this part of the harbor, loading Zodiac inflatable boats onto trucks. Locals say the troops arrived early in the conflict, their presence quickly followed by bombing, which led to a number of civilian and Georgian military deaths and casualties.

Life appears to be returning to normal here in Poti. However, residents say the Russians are conducting occasional patrols in their armored vehicles. Nonetheless, the question remains what are these troops doing here and when are they going to leave?

Michael Ware, CNN, Poti.

6 a.m. in Tbilisi. Anderson Cooper speaks with Michael and with Jill Dougherty in Moscow. Michael updates the Russian troop movements; Jill explains the thinking of the Russian leadership.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We begin with breaking news, Russian forces keeping their grip on parts of Georgia, America walking a very fine line, talking tough, but also sending a clear message today: We're not spilling American blood over the crisis.

Though details are still in dispute, Pentagon sources say hundreds of Russian troops either are or were in two Georgian cities, Gori and the port city of Poti. Georgia claims that Russian forces now control a third of the country. Russia says they are mainly limited to the breakaway territories in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Secretary of State Rice is in Paris, bound for Tbilisi. Defense Secretary Gates today sounding a clear warning. If Russia doesn't pull back, he said -- quote -- "The U.S.-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come." He also ruled out any American use of force.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Russia. I see no reason to change that approach today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER: Well, that's the big picture.

For details, let's go now to 360's Michael Ware in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, and Jill Dougherty in Moscow.

Michael, the president of Georgia estimated Russian soldiers control about a third of the country. Russia's ambassador said that is -- quote -- "disinformation of spectacular proportions."

Do we actually know what the situation is on the ground in terms of where the Russian troops are?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson, we do have a fairly good idea.

Now, what we do know is that the Russians attacked across two fronts. This is a two-pronged attack. First, they went into both the pro-Russian enclaves here in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Now, once they secured those areas, what they did is, they actually went further. It wasn't enough. They pushed into undisputed Georgian territory. And they seized one, if not two, Georgian towns themselves. In fact, I saw one of these towns under Russian control myself. That's the town of Gori. Now, there, mingling with the Russian troops on the front line, the thing that struck me most was just how comfortable they were, so relaxed.

Why? Because they know that there's no real threat against them. The Georgian troops I have seen have rallied from the original onslaught from the Russians, but they pose no real threat, nor does an overstretched America. And the Russians know that.

Meanwhile, on the second front to the West, they most likely, it seems, almost certainly, seized the key port town of Poti. And, then, last night, we heard that a column of about 100 Russian armored vehicles were heading south through Georgian territory towards that harbor town, quite possibly to reinforce the troops already there.

The Russians are in the box seat, Anderson, and it looks like they're consolidating their position.

COOPER: Jill, Russian officials said today that Georgia would help the two breakaway provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia secede. What has been their reaction? I mean, how do they see it?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN INTERNATIONAL U.S. AFFAIRS EDITOR: Well, Anderson, actually, they're not quite going that far.

The Russians, it sounds as if that's what they are saying, but what they're saying is, those two breakaway regions, they're -- it will have to be defined what is going to happen to them. So, the Russians are saying, you do what you want. Whatever it is, whether it's seceding, joining Russia, whatever they want to do. We will support it, as long as it is in, let's say, compliance with international law.

But what they're making very clear is, they believe that, on the ground, de facto right now, there is no way, especially that South Ossetia is going to reunify with Georgia or anything of the kind. The people there don't want it. So, the Russians are saying, this is a situation on the ground. It will have to be defined legally. But, essentially, there's no way they're going back.

COOPER: You know, Michael, I was in Abkhazia with Georgian forces in the mid-'90s. They were trying to prevent Abkhazia from breaking away. They failed. They couldn't do it. Are Georgian forces any match for Russia's military now?

WARE: Well, no, absolutely not. And that's been made evidently clear now.

And, remember, this is a Georgian force that's heavily backed by the U.S. There's more than 100-odd trainers or advisers here in the country. There's been lots of military aid, in terms of materiel. And, in that area you're talking about, Anderson, over the last decade or so, the major administrative center has changed hands three times, the third time being just in the last few days, as the Russians retook that center from the Georgians.

And that's the whole point. As the Russian foreign minister said, Georgia is an American protege. And it's two things. One, look what happened to its forces. But, most importantly, look what's happened to an American military force already straining at the seams with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are they? Where are they to back up their guarantees, their alliances, their NATO friends, or their -- their countries in NATO alliances like Georgia?

And that's the whole point, to send a message to the rest of the region. Bottom line, the Georgians are incapable of doing anything. It's now up to the Russians -- Anderson.

COOPER: Jill, I want to play our viewers something that Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, said just a short time ago on Larry King's program.

Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE")

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER PRESIDENT OF SOVIET UNION (through translator): I have been saying that we have not been able to establish a sound relationship between Russia and the United States after the end of the Cold War. I believe that the United States has made mistakes, for which the people have to pay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Clearly, this is a show of force. This is a flexing of muscles by Russia, sending a message to the United States and the world.

How is America seen in Russia these days? I mean, is it viewed as being weak?

DOUGHERTY: Well, you can say that some people who watch it closely do believe that the United States is overstretched and can't really do a lot.

But there's also the -- the feeling in Russia among the people, basically, would be a feeling, actually, of being surrounded. You know, the West has the idea of Russia is the aggressor. But the Russians really feel that they're surrounded, that, for instance, if you had Georgia as part of NATO, it's right there on the southern border. They feel absolutely surrounded.

And this decision now by Poland, with the United States, to agree on the missile shield in Poland is another slap for the Russians. They're really not going to like that either.

COOPER: Jill Dougherty, Michael Ware, thanks.

Michael speaks with Campbell Brown about the message Russia is sending to America and to countries in the region of Georgia -- especially former territories of the Soviet Union -- that have allied with America.

CAMPBELL BROWN: Now we want to turn to the crisis in Georgia, where the president says one-third of his country is occupied by the Russians tonight. There are some fast-moving developments.

CNN's Michael Ware was with some of the Russian troops earlier today and joins us from Georgia's capital, Tbilisi.

Michael, I know you've been to the front lines. Tell us what you're seeing.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Campbell, what I'm seeing essentially is the Russian army sitting pretty exploiting a current American vulnerability, while the U.S. military is overstretched with its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, what's happened here in the small state of Georgia is that the Georgian government, a pro-American regime, launched an offensive against pro-Russian rebels, most likely with the knowledge of the U.S. military. In response, Russia counter-attacked with a move that was almost likely -- just as likely prepared in advance.

The Russian offensive was mounted on two fronts. Now, the Russians seized two pro-Russian enclaves. But they weren't happy with that. They then pushed into Georgia itself. Now, the U.S. military can't make a move here and Russia's exploiting that, Campbell.

BROWN: Michael, there is a message here for the U.S. Russia's being very clear about it.

WARE: Well, what Russia is doing is trying to send a message not just to this very pro-American regime in Georgia, but to other states here in the region, many of them former elements of the Soviet Union.

We've seen the expansion of NATO. We've seen America supporting more and more of these states and that has troubled Russia. Russia has bided its time and this is the moment it's believed is best to strike. When America is overstretched. They waited for the provocation from the Georgian military, so-called, in response to pro- Russian rebels and they struck decisively.

So, as Secretary Rice is due to arrive tomorrow at some time, that's the situation that confronts her. A Russia that believes it's got all the cards in its favor and is going to be very hard to deal with -- Campbell.

BROWN: Michael Ware for us tonight. Michael, thanks.

WARE: Thank you.

3 a.m. -- Michael speaks with Lou Dobbs and explains the Russian advances within Georgia.

LOU DOBBS: Good evening everybody. The Republic of Georgia tonight saying Russia now controls a third of its territory. Earlier, the Russian foreign minister said Georgia can, quote, "forget about its territorial integrity", end quote. Russia is ignoring new demands by President Bush for Moscow to respect Georgia's sovereignty.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, saying the United States will not use military force to end Russia's aggression. We have extensive coverage tonight and we begin with Michael Ware in the Georgia capital of Tbilisi. He went to the front lines today.

Michael, what is the latest on the Russian troop movements within Georgia?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the first thing to say is that quite frankly, for America, there simply is no military option. And that's precisely what the Russians are trying to show not just to the pro-American regime here in Georgia, but to other states here in this region.

They're trying send a strong message that Russia is back and America can nott protect you. What we know is that in this offensive here in Georgia, Russia attacked on two fronts. First, securing two pro-Russian enclaves. But they were not satisfied with that and they then advanced further into Georgia proper. Now this afternoon, we're at one of the front lines. At the furthest line of Russian advance. This is on the outskirts of the Georgian city of Gori. There I mixed with the Russian troops themselves and not only are they firmly in control, but they appeared comfortable and relaxed.

Why? Because they know that the Georgian forces -- sponsored, trained and to some degree equipped by the U.S. -- have no response. We saw the Georgian forces lining the highway leading to the city of Gori and protecting the capital Tbilisi. They're a rag tag bunch who have rallied together as best they can after the initial Russian onslaught.

But to be frank, they are no match for the Russians and the Russians know it. Now, despite promises to leave the city of Gori by the end of today, Thursday, when I left shortly before dusk the Russians were making no signs of movement. Meanwhile, on the western front, the Russians, despite previous denials, it appears certain now that they occupy the important port city of Poti.

Now what we've learned is that earlier this evening, about 100 Russian armored vehicles were seen pushing south from one of the other pro-Russian enclaves towards that port city, perhaps to reinforce the troops already there. Bottom line is the Russians are here, they're consolidating their positions even within Georgia itself beyond the enclaves. And they know and the Georgians know that there's nothing that anyone, including America, can do about it -- Lou.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. Michael Ware reporting from Tbilisi, Georgia.

2 a.m. in Tbilisi. Michael explains that the Russians are sending a clear message not only to the US but also to our allies -- because our military is already stretched so thin, we are in no position to come to the aid of anyone, regardless of our committments.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: A desperate new appeal by the president of Georgia to stop what he calls barbarian behavior by Russia. He estimates Russian soldiers control about one-third of his country.

Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world.

Georgian officials say Russian troops pushed deeper into the former Soviet republic today, even as Moscow was promising to retreat from the city of Gori by day's end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeated her call for Russia to honor its cease-fire pledge. She spoke in France before she heads to the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. The United Nations now says almost 115,000 people have been uprooted by the fighting in Georgia.

We are getting reports of utter devastation in some areas.

CNN's Michael Ware is on the ground in Georgia.

And, Michael, what are you seeing from your vantage point?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Suzanne, to put it simply, what I'm seeing, having visited at least one of the front lines this afternoon, is that Russia is firmly in the box seat.

This conflict here in Georgia has a lot more to do with the United States than folks back home actually realize. This is very much Russia flexing its muscle here in this region, sending a signal, not just to Georgia, which was a former satellite state within the Soviet Union, now firmly pro-American, that it cannot rely upon its American sponsor, as a message to be sent throughout this area to other countries. We're looking at the expansion of NATO, Americans sponsoring and aiding states within this region who were once aligned with the former Soviet Union, and Russia now using this opportunity, taking its moment when it sees the U.S. unable to respond, with its military already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, this is the time when Russia is pressing its advantage. It launched a two-pronged offensive across two fronts here in Georgia, moving in to secure two pro-Russian enclaves, which it did quite rapidly. But they did not stop there.

They have pushed deeper into truly sovereign Georgian territory. And I can tell you that, where I was this afternoon, on the outskirts of the Georgian city of Gori, the Russian troops were firmly and comfortably in control, under no threat from the ragtag columns of Georgian troops who are desperately rallying after the original offensive along the highway that's now open to the Russians towards the capital Tbilisi.

Also, the Russians having secured the other pro-Russian enclave in the West have now secured the Georgian port town of Poti. And we heard earlier this evening of a column of perhaps 100 Russian armored vehicles moving south to help troops already in that port town.

MALVEAUX: Now, Michael...

WARE: So, the Russians have made their push. They have gone deeper into Georgian territory. And they're consolidating it. And there's nothing America can do to stop them -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: Michael, I just spoke with the president of Georgia. And he said that he thought that perhaps not all of this was done by the Russian military themselves, but that this was creating an opening for kind of these rogue players or hoodlums to come by and loot and destroy property.

Can you make any distinction between whether or not this is the Russian military or whether or not there are some other elements now that are causing havoc?

WARE: Well, this is a very complicated issue.

And Russia's playing a very delicate hand here. What you need to understand is some of the history here, that this is not the beginning of this conflict. This conflict's been going on for more than a decade. In these two pro-Russian enclaves, there's been pro-Russian separatist guerrillas who have been in an on-again/off-again slow-burn conflict with the Georgian government here.

Now, last week, the Georgian government pushed into one of these enclaves after a particularly fierce artillery barrage from one of the pro-Russian guerrilla groups. So, what we see here is that the Russian military itself is here, the conventional regular forces. But there's also separatist, paramilitary militias.

And who is doing the damage? No one can tell at this stage. But the paramilitaries certainly give the Russian military plausible deniability -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: All right, Michael Ware, thank you so much for updating us on the situation on the ground there.

Moments after the first TSR clip aired, Michael was on World News Europe to describe how the Russians are in control of the Georgian cities of Gori and Poti.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

It's now midnight Friday in Georgia, and Michael has moved to the capital city of Tbilisi. In this clip, he describes how the Russian army has moved further into Georgia.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's Michael Ware is on the ground in Georgia.

Michael, we are hearing that a convoy, up to about 100 vehicles, are heading into the second largest city. What do you know? What are you seeing on the ground?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we've heard in the last hour and a half or so, Suzanne, is that approximately 100 Russian armored vehicles are indeed moving deeper into Georgian territory. Now, what we need to understand here is that in the country of Georgia, there's key disputed enclaves of pro-Russian communities. So what Russia has done has launched a key front attack into Georgia: first, to secure both of those enclaves, one in the east, one in the west; however, what Russia has since done is advance into Georgia proper, deep into sovereign Georgian territory. And indeed, we now know that the Russians are comfortably in control of at least one Georgian city, and it now appears that they're in control of a second key port city as well.

We visited one of those front lines this afternoon around the city of Gori. Now, that's a Georgian city. But we saw that the Russian troops were firmly in control. So they are very much taking the upper hand here.

At the same time, on the road leading from Gori to the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi, we saw ragtag columns of the Georgian military, rallying as best they can. But to be honest, from what I witnessed, they pose very little threat to any Russian advance, if in fact that's what the Russians intend. Now, on the second front to the west, we see this armored column moving, and perhaps the Russians are consolidating further into Georgian territory.

And right now I have to say there's absolutely no incentive for the Russians to back off, and I'm afraid to say that having seen this on the ground today, I have to tell you that America is much more involved in this war. This war was much more about U.S. interests than I think folks back home realize -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: And Michael, what do you think is actually happening there? Do you think that this is a threatening posture from Russia when you see the vehicles there? Or do you think they're just kind of showing off, if you will, kind of the manpower, the fact that they can be there on the ground and move without impunity?

WARE: I think it's very much the latter, Suzanne. The Russians militarily, I believe, have achieved their primary goals.

Now, from what I saw today, they were sitting, as I said, comfortably, relaxed. They didn't seem to perceive any kind of direct threat from the Georgian military. And from my personal assessment, there is no direct threat from the Georgia military.

But more importantly, Suzanne, what's the bigger picture here is that the Russians know, as Washington knows, is that there's no direct threat from the U.S. either. With its combat divisions already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians know there's nothing America can do to help its ally here on the ground -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: Michael Ware, on the ground in Georgia.

Thank you so much for those observations.

Newsroom replays a stand-up originally done for International. Michael describes the Russian army troops who have just left the road outside Gori.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: CNN has deployed its vast international resources to bring you all of the angles on this developing story. CNN's Barbara Starr is covering the humanitarian efforts, Michael Ware is outside the Georgian city of Gori, and Jim Bittermann is following diplomatic efforts.

Let's begin with Jim in Paris.


HARRIS: Let's go inside Georgia now and the city of Gori. It has been a nerve center of rising tensions, and to some degree remains in limbo even today.

CNN's Michael Ware is there and spoke to our colleagues at CNN International just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm literally standing on, for what it's worth, the front line in this conflict. Where I am at this moment is virtually on the city limits of that flash point city that you referred to: Gori.

Now, just moments ago Russian special forces troops were right here and they've only just moved back into the city. So we can confirm that despite confusing and contradictory reports coming from all sides, that Russian forces, as of this moment, remain in control of the city of Gori.

Now, there's untold number of reports of what's going on in the city and within its outskirts, none of which are able to be confirmed. However, there had been a number of carjackings of journalists and others who have attempted to enter the city. And for now, the Russians have put a firm roadblock and are preventing any entry into the city of Gori.

Now, this by and large cuts Georgia's main artery from its capital Tbilisi to its port town. Now, if you recall President Bush has stated categorically that the U.S. expects Russia to maintain the lines of communication for humanitarian assistance, including the seaports.

Now, cutting this major artery certainly inhibits that access. Whilst there are other routes, this very much is the main artery that humanitarian aid would most likely use running in to the capital Tbilisi.

But what we can tell you, as I repeat, is that the Russian forces are firmly in control of the Georgian city of Gori, which is just outside one of the two disputed enclaves, this one being South Ossetia -- Andrew?

ANDREW STEVENS, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well, that's right. But just to clarify, Michael, Gori is actually in Georgian country proper, if you like. It's not in that break away province of South Ossetia.

Now, we've been hearing reports over the last two or three hours of explosions rocking the city of Gori. I don't know whether you are in an area where you could hear or whether you've been able to confirm anything that's been happening as far as those explosions are concerned.

WARE: Well, I can tell you that there's a number of dark smoke plumes that are rising in and around the area of the city. I cannot account for what they are. But what we're hearing from both sides most recently is that those explosions are controlled detonations of munitions. It's impossible to confirm that.

However, on the approach leading to this city, you can see, for what it's worth, a rag tag series of columns of Georgian military. Now, it's a mix of infantry, some very light armor, some artillery pacers, and amounts to no more than perhaps a brigade against what's amassed from the Russian army, which is far superior.

So by and large, the route to the capital Tbilisi is well and truly open to the Russians. And the forces that we've seen are in no position to defend either this road nor the capital itself.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: Okay, that was CNN's Michael Ware.

Michael returns from break by way of Gori, Georgia, where he shows that the Russian army is still in control of the city despite the cease-fire and supposed drawdown of troops.

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

Lou Dobbs has a clip about Staff Sergeant Scott Lawson, one of the soldiers who entered the infamous house in Fallujah with David Bellavia (and a certain reporter from Time magazine...)

Michael speaks briefly about what happened when the soldiers got inside. It looks like the clip was filmed shortly before he left Baghdad a few weeks ago. (The additional footage of Michael comes from the "Inside the Surge" B-roll.)

LOU DOBBS: And now "Heroes," out tribute to the men and women who serve us all in this nation's uniform. Tonight, we introduce you to former Army Staff Sergeant Scott Lawson. Four years ago he led a weapons squad into the Iraqi city of Fallujah to root out al Qaeda terrorists. Philippa Holland has his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHILIPPA HOLLAND, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice over): In his work boots and hard hat, Scott Lawson blends right in with his fellow construction workers. He's part of a team with a goal to accomplish, yet what happened on a house-to-house search for members of al Qaeda will make him stand out forever.

Lawson was in charge of an Army weapons squad in Fallujah with orders to enter a maze of darkened houses to kill or capture insurgents. CNN Baghdad correspondent, Michael Ware, then writing for "Time" magazine, embedded with Lawson's platoon on the mission.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: When Lawson and the others of the platoon went into that house, al Qaeda lay in wait. They'd set an ambush under the stairs, drawing the young soldiers into the house, and waiting until they were just six feet away in a narrow corridor before they opened up with machine guns from behind a fortified bunkered position.

HOLLAND: Driven out by heavy gunfire, the soldiers reground. Lawson's squad leader asked for volunteers to join him and root out the enemy. Lawson, armed only with a pistol and 30 rounds, stepped forward.

STAFF SGT SCOTT LAWSON, U.S. ARMY (RET): It was just me and him. And he was going to go in and I said, I can't let you go in by yourself. I wasn't going to let him go in there by himself and die. Because that's what we thought was going to happen. So much is running through your head, it's like, am I going to come back out of this house? What's going to happen?

That night it was hectic, crazy. You lose your mind a little bit. You try to keep yourself sane. But there's not much you can do when you got bullets whizzing all around.

HOLLAND: As Lawson provided cover, the squad leader killed two al Qaeda terrorists and then moved to a second floor. By the time the fight was over, there were as many as six al Qaeda terrorists dead.

Today, Lawson works for a contractor in suburban Detroit. Soon he will marry his fiancee. Four years after Lawson left Fallujah, he's still modest about his bravery.

LAWSON: The owner of the company, he calls me a hero every time he sees me. It's kind of funny. A lot of the guys I worked with never really knew. I felt like I did my job over there. That's what I went over there for.

HOLLAND: Philippa Holland, CNN.

Fareed's show this week focused on Iran. He started with an interview with the Iranian Foreign Minister. Following that was a panel discussion, with Christiane Amanpour via video from London, while Vali Nasr and Michael were in the studio.

The first section of the panel discussion dealt with how to deal with Iran diplomatically -- the recent EU proposal, the Iraqi SoFA, etc.

The second part focused more on Iran's threat against Israel and the possibility that Israel is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE: I've called in some experts and colleagues to help me understand what Foreign Minister Mottaki had to say, and we'll talk about other important international developments, as well.

Joining me now, the scholar Vali Nasr of Tufts University; CNN's chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour; and CNN's Baghdad correspondent, Michael Ware.

Welcome to all of you.

Vali, what was the bottom line from that interview you took with Mottaki?

VALI NASR, TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Well, some of it was standard Iranian response to various things, but some of it was new.

It was clearly a very new tone, an interest in reopening at least talking about talking, which seemed to have stopped, sending clear signals that perhaps Iran is not interested in attacking Israel imminently, although it is not backing away from its position regarding comments it's made about Israel's right to exist, et cetera.

And that it also would like to maybe engage the U.S. on Afghanistan, engage the United States on Iraq. And it would like to back away the United States from contemplating military action, and create some more room for Iran to continue to follow the diplomatic line that it has.

So, I would say a lot of it was a charm offensive. But within it, it had strains that the U.S. or the Europeans could pick on, in order to see how serious Iran is actually about talking.

ZAKARIA: Christiane, I was struck by how many times he praised Solana and the E.U. proposal as constructive, new in its modalities, new in its substance.

What did you make of it?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I've just learned from Western diplomats here in Europe connected with this -- he wouldn't say publicly the proposal -- but I've just learned that it contains the following: that the E.U., Javier Solana, in an undisclosed proposal so far, has agreed to allow Iran what it wants to do, which is to continue its enrichment at the current level. In other words, it's somewhere around 3,000 centrifuges -- not to add to the 3,000 centrifuges, but to still allow it to continue enriching at that level for the next six weeks, or for a period of six weeks.

In return for that, the E.U. will promise not to engage in, or request from the U.N., any further, any new sanctions for the period of six weeks. And this will enable what you heard him say, which was talks about talks.

So, that is the news of what's going on with this new proposal.

Of course, what it does is allow Iran to continue at this level of enrichment. And as you know, if you've been picking up all the signals from Iran over the last several years, their raison d'etre in this nuclear program has been to win the international right to actually enrich. And that is what they think that they have now secured.

ZAKARIA: But the proposal I thought was published, because certainly the one I saw did not mention this twist that...

AMANPOUR: Correct.

ZAKARIA: ... that you have mentioned. So, there was a secret part to it.

AMANPOUR: Well, this is what I'm told.

You heard Mottaki talk about a letter, and you heard him not talk about the actual proposals. So, this is what a Western diplomat is saying.

But of course, this is between the E.U. and Iran. This is what was presented, according to this Western diplomat. It is not between the United States and Iran, although I'm told that the U.S. has given tacit agreement to this.

This is not negotiations. This is not about the full resolution of the nuclear program. This is about the talks before the formal negotiations.

And those formal negotiations, according to both the United States and the E.U., require a suspension of their enrichment. And that as yet -- well, we haven't got to that point yet.

ZAKARIA: Michael Ware, I was struck by the fact that he repeated his public opposition to the Status of Forces Agreement. That seems as though it was a very clear, public Iranian position. They could be saying this privately. They have been saying it.

What's going on here? Why is this so important to them?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, in many ways, this agreement, should it be struck, is going to be a very useful barometer to guide us as to the success or failure of the U.S. mission.

I mean, look, let's face it. From the moment the first American tank crossed the Kuwaiti border and the Saudi border to march on Saddam's Baghdad, America was, by default, at war with Iran.

Now, the only problem is, Iran knew that, but America did not. America didn't start waking up to this until 2006, when it started to create its amendment to the campaign plan, countering Iranian influence.

So, Iran's gains had already been secured. It's in a position of strength.

ZAKARIA: But I heard, Michael, that Iran has been having some trouble with the government recently, which is one of the reasons...

WARE: Of course they will.

ZAKARIA: ... they've been supporting Sadr for a while.

WARE: Oh, of course they will.

ZAKARIA: The visit with -- Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq did not go well.

So, clearly, they're also searching for some degree of control, which is maybe why they're publicly saying, "Guys, don't sign this."

If they sign the Status of Forces Agreement, will that be a defeat for Iran?

WARE: No, it won't be. It'll depend on two things. One is the terms themselves.

And there's a couple of key issues to look at there, to gauge the level of Iranian influence. And I would point primarily to the fate of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service.

Right now, technically, it's not even on the table. This is Iraq's CIA. But it's owned, funded, operated by America's CIA. It doesn't answer to Maliki.

In the meantime, Iran has helped the Iraqis set up their own competing intelligence agency. Under SOFA, whatever happens to the INIS is going to be a key indicator of who has the real influence.

ZAKARIA: Vali, I was also struck by his comments on Israel. Without renouncing what Ahmadinejad has said, without negating it, he seemed to be signaling, look, we have no intention of attacking Israel.

Would that be a fair interpretation?

NASR: Yes. I thought that what he was saying very clearly is that Iran would not attack Israel unless it is attacked first. But he also did not want to distance himself from what has already been said.

I think domestically, it is not possible for the Iranians to easily or brazenly move away from the rhetoric. And also, on the Arab street, Iran has made some gains by its very strong, anti-Israeli position, which I thought he still was playing to.

You clearly see the dilemma of the Iranian regime in Mottaki's comments, that when they want to come to the middle in order to engage the West, how do they move away from their own revolutionary rhetoric without losing the political capital that goes with it?

So, it's a balancing act.

ZAKARIA: Christiane, there is this kind of internal balancing act you sometimes feel when you're listening to Iranian diplomats, where they're positioning themselves in part to address domestic criticism or comments.

Did you pick up any of that listening to him?

AMANPOUR: Well, yes, I mean, clearly, in the comments about Israel. But I'd slightly disagree.

I mean, you have -- I've interviewed Ahmadinejad. Other people have interviewed Iranian officials. They've never actually said they're going to go out and launch an attack. I mean, they've always sort of couched it in this, you know, this is an illegitimate regime. They've always sort of said that.

In view of the current nuclear negotiations, what's really interesting is that it has been now discussed quite a lot, according to reports from inside, on Iranian state television. It's been discussed more openly perhaps than it has been before, less belligerently than it has been before.

And if you remember -- and he mentioned Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. A couple of years ago, maybe more than a couple of years ago, this kind of proposal was on the table. And at that time, it was just 20 centrifuges. It was, Iran just wanted an R&D, a slight experimental, let's have strict verification, and let's proceed. But, of course, the United States said forget it, nothing unless they suspend uranium enrichment.

And now it appears we're at more than 3,000 centrifuges, and perhaps they're going to go back to this formulation that Mr. ElBaradei had more than two years ago.

ZAKARIA: Michael, you see them up close in Iraq. One of the things people are trying to figure out: Fundamentally, are they trying to destabilize the region, or are they just trying to be an important player in it?

WARE: They want to have influence over the region.

Now, they'll use instability when it suits. They'll use support when that benefits them.

I mean, the Iranians have proved to have a very savvy, strategic mind. They're not of one ilk. They know how to use the carrot and the stick.

I mean, let's just take Iraq as a microcosm. These Iraqi militias that are trained and armed and equipped in Iran, supported by Iran, their attacks go up and down, as though someone is turning on and off a faucet for the attacks.

And this is their form of dialogue, not just with the Americans, but with the region.

And there's nothing anyone can do to stop them on this issue or on the nuclear issue. America has no military alternative, and Iran knows that.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back to talk about all this and more in just a moment.

Length: 9:23

LARGE (108.9 MB) ----- SMALL (11.5 MB)

ZAKARIA: And we are back with our panel.

Vali, what do you make of the recent reports about Israel, Israel planning to strike? I mean there's a scenario you could concoct, which is, you know, Israel is striking a deal with Hamas, exchanging prisoners with Hezbollah, talking to Syria, talking to Egypt -- and then makes these military maneuvers.

It almost seems as though there's a kind of diplomatic clearing of the decks, establishing some goodwill with its other neighbors, and perhaps preparing for an air strike against Iran.

NASR: No doubt. I mean, there's been a strategy on the table for a while, of trying to build an Arab alliance against Iran, that would support military action or very tough diplomacy against Iran. Iranians, on the other hand, have been trying to both bully the Arabs away from such a position, but also to get their goodwill.

So, there has been a charm offensive with the Arab world. At the same time, Iranians have threatened some smaller Arab governments, in case if they support military action. Or as Michael suggested, Iraq is obviously a very clear playing ground here. And therefore, what we're seeing is sort of Israel now taking this strategy much more seriously, trying to mend fences, not only with its neighbors -- Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria -- but also more seriously taking care of the Palestinian problem at a level that would pacify the Arab street, in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. That then, those regimes could come out, more forcefully defend tougher action against Iran.

So, now the ball is in the Iranian court. Can the Iranians do anything to offset this Israeli initiative?

And one of the ways in which they do it is this tough rhetoric against Israel. So, you have a rhetorical war for the Arab hearts and minds going on.

ZAKARIA: But what I've always thought is you have to think of the rhetoric the Iranians use on Palestine as part of a political strategy to gain credibility on the Arab street.

If you go to the Arab world, I'm struck by the fact that Ahmadinejad is something of a folk hero in, you know, Cairo, in Amman. And this is strange -- he's a Shiite, he's a Persian.

And the reason is, he is seen as a defender of the Palestinian people in a way that the Arab regimes can't be, because they are worried about Washington.

NASR: Exactly. And that deficit, Israel is trying to help with.

In other words, by being more forthcoming on Hamas, on Hezbollah, and on engaging Syria, they're hoping to help pacify the Arab street. And that would allow the Arab governments to come out much more.

And Iran, on the other hand, is trying to both bully them, as well as try to buy their support as well.

ZAKARIA: Christiane, what do you make of the Israeli strategy?

AMANPOUR: Well, there are several things here. One, Ahmadinejad is also a folk hero, if you like, on the Arab street, because of his opposition to the United States. And that has played extremely well over the last several years, of course, with the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East and in the Arab and Muslim world.

But I think what's interesting is what Mr. Velayati has been saying publicly now -- former foreign minister, very close adviser to the leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

President Ahmadinejad has been quite quiet over these latest proposals, and Velayati has come out and said, "Look. We need to show the world that we want to address this diplomatically, because the world -- the U.S. and its agents," he said, "is trying to say that we want war. And we need to show the world that we don't want it, and we need to address this diplomatically."

Now, in terms of Israel, there were the reports of its massive military maneuvers over the last several weeks or so, but also the very real issue of last September, when Israel went and struck the Syrian, apparently nuclear, power plant under construction.

And that was termed at that point, and deemed, not just to take out that plant -- although we'll never really know what was in that plant, because it's been bombed -- but also as a message to Iran. And I think that has been exceptionally clear.

But I think what's really interesting right now is the different tone that's coming out of Iran.

And look at the tone coming out of the highest levels of the American military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has just said that it would be a high-risk operation that would destabilize the Middle East. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for any attack.

ZAKARIA: Michael, does General Petraeus worry that if there were to be an Israel or an American strike on Iran, that what would happen would be Shiite militias in Iraq would start ramping up the killing of American soldiers?

WARE: Well, that's clearly one of many ways that Tehran could respond to a strike.

But let's just think about it. What's the point of a strike? Do you think Iran doesn't expect it? Do you think this in any way would actually cripple their programs or their military?

ZAKARIA: It would delay...

WARE: It does not...

ZAKARIA: Yes, it would delay. It would not destroy...

WARE: Oh, you know, and it would -- it would consolidate, to some degree, internal support and external support on the Arab street.

ZAKARIA: Christiane?

AMANPOUR: What's really interesting is an article that actually a former Israeli foreign minister has just published, Shlomo Ben-Ami. And he has, basically in a nutshell, talked about how often the U.S. and Israel tends to downplay the risks and the repercussions associated with military action -- as they did in the case with Iraq in 2003 and subsequent years -- and they exaggerate the challenges faced with negotiation and diplomacy.

Look what the U.S. has achieved in North Korea recently by diplomatic negotiations.

ZAKARIA: Vali?

NASR: I was going to say that, you know, Iran also has a unique advantage compared to many other countries in its situation, that it can deflect an attack by responding not on its own territory or its own turf, but somewhere else. And in a way have proxies -- in Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan -- bog down the U.S., at least in terms of subsequent, follow-up attacks.

And there's also all sorts of questions about, you know, it might be possible for Israel to carry out the first attack on Iran. But then, what about next attacks? How is it going to get over Jordan, Egypt, you know, Turkey, to get to Iranian territory, if Iran is able to mobilize the Arab street in those countries?

So, what the attack would do is, more than anything it's going to change the tenor of relations. In other words, we have sort of the two countries right now being aggressive with one another, but within certain red lines and within certain bounds.

Once you attack Iran, the gloves come off.

And I think the point that Christiane was saying about Ali Velayati is very important, because Velayati is now part of a troika, including Iran's speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani, who are going to take Ahmadinejad on in the presidential elections in June.

And it's not only the U.S. that's going to have a change of leadership. Iran may well have a change of leadership.

And people like Velayati do not want a radical change in context as they go into elections, for the Iranians to rally to the flag behind Ahmadinejad, behind the incumbent.

They'd much rather follow the line that Mottaki was giving today -- let's talk about talking. Let's find a way to keep the ball rolling, and let's not end up in a military conflict that then is going to change the nature of this relationship.

ZAKARIA: So, tensions in Iran will cause rallying around the flag, which might benefit Ahmadinejad. So, these guys, for purely domestic reasons, also are trying to diffuse the tensions.

NASR: Absolutely. I mean, everybody -- they also would like to be the ones to talk to the United States. They think Ahmadinejad is toxic. They would like to have the opportunity to deal with the next administration.

And there is no doubt, Iranians probably will react like any other people would, in the middle of a war, issues of economy, democratic rights, Ahmadinejad's management style will all fall by the wayside. And they may rally behind an incumbent, and that would basically favor him in a presidential election.

ZAKARIA: Michael, bottom line, do you think the Status of Forces Agreement will go through? Will there be some deal between the United States and Iraq?

There has to be. Otherwise, U.S. forces can't stay.

WARE: No, that's not entirely true. I believe, if I was a betting man, that, yes, there will be some kind of an agreement. Will it be on terms that America is entirely happy with? That's the real question, because there are other routes.

Indeed, the American ambassadors, who are sitting at the negotiating table, clearly acknowledge the legal validity of another route. And that's using hangover legislation from the Coalition Provisional Authority of Paul Bremer, that allows for the Iraqi government to go to its own parliament, create its own legislation, that dictates the terms under which any foreign force can be present in its country, as any other nation on the earth can do.

So in essence, they have the choice, or at least to use as a stick in the negotiations, to jam down the throat of the next president the conditions in which he can conduct his war.

ZAKARIA: And we will all be watching this. Thank you all. Christiane from London, Vali and Michael Ware, thank you.

We'll be back.

Michael appeared again on Election Center, tonight hosted by Erica Hill. The first two segments focus on Senator Obama's stance on the Iraq war and also how that war impacts on the war in Afghanistan. The third segment shifts the focus to Afghanistan, and although Michael is only in one brief clip I include it for the overall theme. (Peter Bergen is interviewed in this segment.) The fourth segment focuses more on Afghanistan itself, although Michael again points out that Iran is a major player on both fronts.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Barack Obama on the defensive over Iraq. He now says he may refine his plan to pull out most U.S. forces within 16 months. And he tried several times today to explain what that means. As always, we will give you the real story here, no bias, no bull.

Iraq is not the deadliest front in the war on terror anymore, though. Afghanistan, the war everybody seemingly forget, now the war we can't afford to ignore.

And now that John McCain has shaken up his campaign, insiders tell us you can expect to see more big changes as soon as next week.

But we begin tonight with Barack Obama's scramble to put out a firestorm over his signature issue: his pledge to get out of Iraq and to get out fast.

Jessica Yellin has been watching. She joins us tonight live from Washington.

Jessica, really pressed on this today. And it took him more than one news conference to clarify, which is not exactly the norm for a candidate.

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, it's not, Erica.

It really was unusual, a do-over press conference from Barack Obama. He held it to back down mounting questions about whether he is backing away from his pledge to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

Now, earlier in the day, he had told reporters that he might -- quote -- "refine his policies" after he visits Iraq this summer. And that brought about a deluge of inquires about whether he was doing an about-face on the central promise of his campaign. The pressure clearly became so intense that he decided to face reporters for a second time this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month, and, at that pace, we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YELLIN: Now, Erica, I will tell you that, for the last two days, his campaign staff has been calling me and other reporters, insisting that he is not changing his position.

And this is really crucial for Obama, not just because Iraq policy is central to his campaign but because he's supposed to be the candidate of real integrity. And he cannot be seen as changing positions on such a big issue -- Erica.

HILL: So, then he is pledging, just to clarify, Jessica, that he is going to stick to that timetable of getting troops out of Iraq within 16 months?

YELLIN: Right, good question.

Well, the one area he showed some wiggle room was when he was asked point-blank whether he would commit to keeping that 16-month timetable. He said any good commander in chief listens to their generals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: As commander in chief, I would always reserve the right to do what's best in America's national interests.

And if it turned out, for example, that we had to, in certain months, slow the pace because of the safety of American troops, in terms of getting combat troops out, of course we would take that into account. I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YELLIN: But, Erica, time and again, he made it clear that his mission is to get those troops out.

HILL: Jessica, though, Republicans, of course, are not going to let this one go, quickly retaliating today, calling him a flip- flopper. Were today's press conferences enough to put out those fires, those claims?

YELLIN: Well, not in the view of the McCain campaign.

I will tell you, they issued a statement saying today that Barack Obama is -- quote -- "reversing the position, proving once again that his words do not matter."

They say, "Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain's principled stand." Clearly, they're not going to let this one go -- Erica.

HILL: All right, that's for sure. And we know you will stay on top of it.

Jessica, thanks.

So, is Barack Obama at this point being consistent? Or are his messages about Iraq suddenly mixed messages?

Well, let's see how they sound to the finely tuned ears of tonight's first panel.

Joining us here in the studio, CNN correspondent Michael Ware, who, of course, is usually stationed in Baghdad, but making one of his rare trips stateside. In Washington tonight, Cliff May, a former communications director for the Republican National Committee. He is now president of the Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies, which was founded shortly after 9/11 to fight the ideologies that lead to terrorism. And nationally syndicated radio talk show host Ed Schultz joining us from Fargo, North Dakota.

He is also an Obama supporter and interviewed the senator today.

Cliff, I want to start with you.

Barack Obama insisting he hasn't changed his position here. He is still going pull troops out within 16 months. He is simply refining his position, basically saying, hey, look, you know what? I have learned more.

Isn't that what you want in a leader?

CLIFF MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Yes, exactly, I do.

The facts have changed in Iraq. And if he recognizes that and is adjusting his position, I think he deserves not criticism, but praise. An inflexible timetable for leaving would be disastrous. It is very important that we not be defeated in Iraq by al Qaeda or by the Iranian-backed militias.

And if Obama is saying, I'm going listen to my generals, I'm going to sustain the progress that we have achieved there, I'm going to see that when we leave Iraq, we do so in a way that the Iraqi government, the defense forces can defend themselves against our common enemies, I think he should only be praised for that.

HILL: Ed, as an Obama supporter, this is really a point of contention for a lot of Obama supporters. This is why they are backing the candidate, because they want out of Iraq.

If, all of a sudden, he decides, you know what, we can't do it the way I initially thought we could -- you spoke to him today -- how would you look at him? Would you still support him? Would you say, you know what, he is being pragmatic; he is looking at the intelligence, or is he, in your mind, a flip-flopper who you can't get behind anymore?

ED SCHULTZ, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I thought he was very clear today, Erica, on his position.

It's interesting how the media is having a hard time figuring out what he really means on Iraq. Today, when he spoke to the veterans in Fargo, North Dakota, he was very clear that he's going to change policy in Iraq. He's going to draw down immediately. And it's going to continue with a complete assessment of the situation. He's going to withdraw very responsibly.

Now, none of the people in Fargo today had problem understanding. When I interviewed Barack Obama, I told him, I said, look, they're trying to mix up your position on this. Then he comes out and calls another press conference. And I sensed a real air of frustration on the part of the senator today. He thinks this is some what manufactured by the McCain camp.

HILL: Cliff, is this manufactured, real quickly?

MAY: Look, there are those who are going be angry on the left if he has actually moved his position and now is saying, I'm not going to have an inflexible timetable. I'm going to make sure we sustain the achievements that the Petraeus mission and the so-called surge has managed to accomplish.

I think it's sort of frivolous to talk about it in terms of flip- flopping. This is a war. It is a real war. And what's more, this is the most consequential front in the global war we're fighting. Al Qaeda says that. Ayman al-Zawahari and Osama bin Laden say that. We shouldn't use this as a political football.

It is very important that what we have spent in blood and treasure not be wasted because somebody has an ideological or dogmatic view that we have to get out in so many months.

To the extent he has moved, I think that's praise-worthy. And it means he is understanding what has been accomplished over the past year.

HILL: Okay. He's understanding that.

But do we all understand what is really happening on the ground?

Michael Ware, you're there. You're in Iraq. Would a 16-month timetable be based in reality? Is it even possible?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, just to comment on the first part of your question, no, you guys have no idea what's going on.

And pundits sitting in the beltway haven't got a clue. Now, anyone who says that America is avoiding defeat has, like, missed the point. Defeat is already on the cusp. Iran already has the momentum in this war.

And, on the flip side, if the Democrats want to say that you can pull out without America paying an enormous price strategically, then they're deluding themselves.

Both sides in this argument are operating under misconceptions, if not absolute delusion.

HILL: So, will they be able to come back from those delusions, the question.

We're going to continue to discuss this in just a second. We have to take a quick break.

Barack Obama, though, as we know, as we just heard, blaming the McCain campaign for starting these Iraq problems. So, is that the case, or is it perhaps self-inflicted? Do both candidates need to better understand the situation there?

Then, later, the front line in the war on terror may not be where you think. And just who is winning that war anyway? Find out here in the ELECTION CENTER.

Length: 4:26

LARGE (51.6 MB) ----- SMALL (5.3 MB)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I think what's happened is that the McCain campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest that we somehow we were changing our policy, when we hadn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: You heard it there, Barack Obama blaming the McCain camp today for his perception problems with Iraq. But is any of that going to help him with the voters?

Back now to talk about it with us, Michael Ware, Cliff May, and Ed Schultz.

And, Michael, I want to go back to you, because we were talking about the situation on the ground in Iraq. You say neither one of them gets it. As we know, Barack Obama is planning a trip in the very near future to Iraq. When he's there on the ground there, what will he see?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He will see a very sanitized, very skewed version of the reality on the ground. And that's just a fact of life.

I mean, even General Petraeus -- General Petraeus is a great commander. And I have known him for several years now. I have nothing but respect for him. But from the American grunt on the street to his platoon commander, company commander, battalion commander, all the way up the chain, they're all divorced from the reality of Iraq.

HILL: Is that because of the safety issue, though?

WARE: Well, when a man in uniform enters your house with a tank behind him, do you think you are going express your real feelings?

Now, it's much different when, say, someone with the luxury of a journalist can slip in there. We get to hear people speak much more freely when the foreign forces are not around. So, often, it's very hard for them to get a true gauge of the Iraqi feeling. I remember when al Qaeda first arrived in Iraq, and the military was months and months and months behind. So, he can only learn what the military knows.

HILL: So, he can learn -- but that would still be something. One would say, especially from the other side, hey, it's good to get him there.

WARE: Right. Full credit to him. He has to go. Politically and militarily, he has to go. Now, the value...

HILL: And, Cliff, this is going to be -- obviously, he's not your guy, Cliff, but John McCain has been there a few times, the first time for Obama going. Is that going to add a little credibility to him?

MAY: I think it will if he goes over there and asks questions.

Michael is right. As a candidate, he's going be a bit in a bubble. But he can talk to a lot of the troops. He can talk to Iraqis. He can learn something. He hasn't served in uniform himself. It will help. Certainly, to have not been there in as long as he has and to say, I'm going to take command of all the armed fores and not to know the battlefields at all on which they are fighting would be difficult for him.

So, he should go. I think he will go. He will talk to Petraeus. And I think he will adjust his position. Will that hurt him on the far left? To some extent, yes. But it probably will bring him some credibility from people in the middle who would like us to leave Iraq, but do not want us to leave with our tail between our legs or in disgrace or in defeat, ceding a principal battlefield like Iraq in the heart of the Arab Middle East to either al Qaeda or to Iran.

HILL: But, Ed, you even said today, in terms of losing voters, that a lot of your listeners in Fargo were okay with what he has been saying now. So, is he going lose that many people from that far left base if he decides to maybe change that timetable a little?

SCHULTZ: Well, let me point out that people on the far left want to win the war on terror as well. We want to fight terrorism, but we want to fight it where it is.

And that's why I asked directly Barack Obama today, are you in favor of sending more troops into Afghanistan? He said unequivocally, yes. Barack Obama told me today face to face that he will send more troops and he's in favor of more troops going into Afghanistan.

It's not a question of whether you want to fight terrorists and rub out those who hit us on 9/11. It's where we're doing it. What we're doing in Iraq is depleting our resources. Barack Obama was very clear about that today. I don't know where this miscommunication is coming from. I think it's the McCain camp. So does the Obama camp. I think it's this Schmidt guy, his first day on the job, doing a pretty good job for McCain.

(LAUGHTER)

HILL: I guess they chose the right guy, then, huh, if you're McCain.

Ed, Cliff, Michael, stay right there, because, Ed, you brought it up, Afghanistan. While everyone is arguing what about to do in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan sliding out of control. Is it time to shift now America's focus to Afghanistan? We will take a look at that.

Also, just how important is it now to find Osama bin Laden in this equation? -- all that and more when we come back -- right here in THE ELECTION CENTER.

Length: 7:27

LARGE (86.4 MB) ----- SMALL (9.0 MB)

HILL: We kn