[Wolf Blitzer, Cnn Anchor:] Happening now, explosives and explanations. Top Pentagon officials are grilled about Iran's role in arming Iraqi insurgents. Is this the last word on why the Bush administration had trouble getting its facts straight? Also this hour, a slow-bleed strategy, that's what Republicans are accusing Democrats of plotting in the Iraq debate. I'll ask Senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden about the feud over funds for the troops. Plus, the presidential campaign trail and the money trail, is Hillary Clinton in effect paying for a campaign endorsement? And does Rudy Giuliani's well-paid stint on the speaker's circuit cause a conflict? I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. A major new development on the war in Iraq tonight, potentially, at least, and it involves a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. That country's interior ministry telling CNN Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been wounded in a firefight and his top aide killed. Iraqi police not commenting on al-Masri's whereabouts right now. And the U.S. military saying it has no information. All of that comes as top Pentagon officials are trying to clarify reports that top Iranian leaders are directly involved in arming Iraq's Shiite militias. Our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre is joining us now live with the latest Jamie.
[Jamie Mcintyre, Cnn Senior Pentagon Correspondent:] Well, Wolf, the U.S. defense secretary said tonight that he's sensitive to the skepticism about U.S. intelligence and that's why he wanted the presentation against Iran to be factual and substantiated by hard evidence.
[Mcintyre:] Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear that what he was expecting from last week's Baghdad briefing was facts, not conjecture.
[Robert Gates, Defense Secretary:] And to the degree I had any involvement, it was to say I want factual statements. I don't want adjectives. I don't want adverbs. I want the clarity of sentences and make it exactly clear what we know and what we don't know.
[Mcintyre:] But an anonymous U.S. intelligence analyst crossed the line, offering his assessment that deadly Iranian-made bombs were being sent to Iraq under the orders of the highest levels of Iranian government. That forced everyone in the chain of command, from the president on down to the Joint Chiefs chairman to disavow the charge and tried to explain what went wrong.
[Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs Of Staff:] I wasn't there, so I don't know. But either those who are speaking didn't make a clear enough break between fact and assessment or those listening didn't hear the break between fact and assessment.
[Mcintyre:] General Pace insisted the Pentagon had worked hard on the briefing to ensure the data that was going to be put out was accurate. But while professing the need for precision, Gates and Pace were at a loss to explain why such an important presentation was conducted by low-level officials under a cloak of anonymity. [on camera]: Why use anonymous officials and then not allow a taped transcript to be made so that everyone knows exactly what was said?
[Gates:] I don't know what the circumstances were. Why it was anonymous. Why it wasn't allowed to be taped. I don't know.
[Mcintyre:] Gates says he believes the evidence against Iran speaks for itself. And he hopes that the way it was presented won't harm the case that the U.S. was trying to make Wolf.
[Blitzer:] All right. Jamie, thanks for that. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. Meanwhile, weeks after Iraq's once iron-fisted dictator is dead, who is pulling the strings in Iraq right now? And joining us now in Baghdad, our correspondent Michael Ware. Lots of focus on Iran right now. Some analysts here in Washington, Michael, believe Iran, over these past four years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, Iran has emerged as a big strategic winner in the region. What's the perspective from where you are?
[Michael Ware, Cnn Correspondent:] Oh, that's correct, without a shadow of a doubt, Wolf. I mean, we've been saying this for years now, that among the big winners of the American invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam is not just al Qaeda, which is stronger, bolder and much more gnarly than it was before the invasion, but Tehran is a massive winner. Where once its influence stopped at Saddam's border, now they are not only in most of southern Iraq and much of central Iraq, but they've also got enormous influence in the central government. Indeed, one could argue easily that they have far more sway here in Baghdad than does the American government. So, yes, it's true to say Iran is a huge victor of the invasion of Iraq.
[Blitzer:] It sort of reinforces the notion of the law of unintended consequences. Because when the U.S. overthrew Saddam, the hope was that democracy would remerge and that Iran would get the message, the people there would rise up against their own regime, and the spillover from Iraq would prove to be beneficial for U.S. throughout the region. Hasn't exactly happened that way.
[Ware:] No, not at all. And in fact, I think it's entrenched the power of the regime in Tehran. Arguably, they've never been safer than they are right now in terms of American activity. I mean, the U.S. military is so strained right now, in terms of both men and machine that it's simply too much of an ask to be considering any kind of a strategic strike against Iran. And indeed, Wolf, should America be readying to go to war against Iran or launch any major offensive, you'll know it because they'll have to introduce a draft.
[Blitzer:] This notion of an accidental war emerging between the U.S. and Iran, is that a realistic scenario?
[Ware:] Well, we're certainly not seeing that right now here on the ground. Tensions are acute. But we're not at sort of guns drawn. I mean, remember, this is, from the Iranian point of view, still a proxy war, much like the CIA fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Iran, like the CIA then, is using middlemen. It's not getting its hands dirty. I mean, it still maintains, as an American intelligence analyst put it, plausible deniability. Indeed, said this analyst, they invented it.
[Blitzer:] Michael Ware reporting for us from Baghdad. Michael, thanks.
[Ware:] Thanks, Wolf.
[Blitzer:] The gloves are off and the emotions are running very high in the House debate over a troop buildup in Iraq. Republicans are accusing a leading Democrat of plotting to choke off funding for the troops. And they're sharing war stories to press their points. Let's go to our congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel Andrea.
[Andrea Koppel, Cnn Congressional Correspondent:] Wolf, just as Democrats did earlier this week, Republicans today gave war veterans center stage.
[Koppel:] Texas Republican Sam Johnson led the debate. Johnson endured almost seven years of torture as a POW in Vietnam and returned home 34 years ago this week.
[Rep. Sam Johnson , Texas:] There were many times I would pray to God that I would pass out and slip into unconsciousness, just to escape the pain.
[Koppel:] Johnson was one of a group of Republican vets who shared personal experiences to remind colleagues what happens when congressional support for a war falters.
[Johnson:] The same holds true today. The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think that their Congress doesn't care about them. That they're going to cut the funding and abandon them and their mission.
[Koppel:] Ohio Republican Paul Gillmor, an Air Force veteran, said the Democrats' non-binding resolution puts Congress at a dangerous crossroads.
[Rep. Paul Gillmor , Ohio:] It begins this Congress down a path which ends with cutting off funding for our troops and abandoning our foreign policy.
[Koppel:] Democrats deny they plan to cut funding for combat troops.
[Rep. Steny Hoyer , Majority Leader:] Obviously, if we send troops to Iraq, they're going to be serving in Iraq. We're going to protect them.
[Koppel:] But in a Web cast interview with an anti-war advocacy group, Democrat John Murtha, who oversees defense spending repeated a promise to tie future funding for Iraq to troop readiness.
[Rep. John Murtha , Pennsylvania:] That stops the surge for all intents and purposes.
[Koppel:] The Republican Campaign Committee jumped on Murtha's comments, circulating a statement calling it the Democrats' "slow bleed: strategy to choke off funding for troops in harm's way. Look for Republicans to continue to hammer way at this theme during the remaining hours of debate. A vote is expected some time tomorrow, and both sides expect it will pass Wolf.
[Blitzer:] Andrea, thank you for that. Andrea Koppel reporting from the Hill. Let's go up to New York and Jack Cafferty for "The Cafferty File." Hi, Jack.
[Jack Cafferty, Cnn Anchor:] Hi, Wolf. Well, it's no secret the United States pre-war Iraq planning left a few things to be desired. Now comes more proof of that from a private research group called the National Security Archive which obtained its material under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2002 U.S. officials thought that four years after Saddam Hussein was gone, the situation in Iraq would be quite different than it is today. They expected, among other things, a representative Iraqi government to be in place. The Iraqi army to be working to keep things calm. And as few as 5,000 U.S. troops remaining in-country. A pretty far cry from President Bush sending an additional 21,500 troops to join the 132,000 U.S troops already in Iraq. The executive director of the National Security Archive calls the assumptions in these reports, quote, "delusions," unquote. So here's the question: Why was the pre-war planning for Iraq so far off the mark? E-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@cnn.com, or go to cnn.comcaffertyfile Wolf.
[Blitzer:] They were pretty off the mark, Jack. Thanks very much for that. Coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM, a top State Department official on the defensive. I'll confront Chris Hill with some tough criticism coming in from his own former colleagues about a new nuclear deal with North Korea. Also, are presidential endorsements for sale? News questions about a new backer for Senator Hillary Clinton. Also, big bucks and big perks, Rudy Giuliani's gig as a high-paid speaker is now under the microscope because he's a White House hopeful. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.