Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

War in Iraq: New Round of Bombing in Baghdad

Aired March 25, 2003 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again, everyone. We begin tonight with a new round of bombing in Baghdad. It happened just a few moments ago. As you can see, the city is filled with smoke.
These attacks, daylight attacks at 6:00 in the morning in Baghdad now, we believe that Iraqi television has been hit because Iraqi TV has gone off the air. It then came on intermittently. So how much damage has been done to Iraqi TV is not precisely clear.

Nic Robertson is with us. Nic is in Amman. He's been following developments and is extraordinarily familiar, as I'm sure you know, with the lay of the land around Iraqi TV and the city generally. Nic, Iraqi TV is a series of buildings, two or three buildings, isn't it?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. They're quite low buildings over an area of about a mile square in total. What we were looking at before on Abu Dhabi Television, I am not able to see their broadcast from where I stand. But on the right- hand side, when they gave us the wide picture, there was a very tall, large building, the Mansomilia (ph) Hotel.

Across the street from that is a low squat building, a department store. Behind that there was a larger block building, perhaps 12, 13 stories high. That's the ministry of information. And it is behind the ministry of information where the fire and the smoke were coming from a little earlier. That's where Iraqi television station is.

Immediately behind the ministry of information there's a small Christian church. Then there's a theater. Then there's that area of Iraqi television studios.

Of course, to take out Iraqi television is not just a matter of hitting the studios but also the transmitters as well. And Iraqi television's satellite channel has its satellite located just behind the ministry of information. And I did hear earlier that was still broadcasting it on the air -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, there is more than one TV network in Iraq, isn't there -- or TV channel?

ROBERTSON: Absolutely. There's the state-run main station that perhaps most people would watch. There's also the station run by President Saddam Hussein's elder son, Uday Saddam Hussein. That's called Al-Shabab TV, or Youth (ph) TV. That's a station you may have seen pictures aired on today. It has quite a sort of funny-colored logo in the bottom right-hand corner. That was the station we saw today with the soldiers -- with the pictures of the soldiers in those defensive trenches wearing the strange black helmets with the shoulder-launched rocket-propelled grenades. So there is two ways of getting the domestic television picture out in Iraq. And not only is there the television stations, but there's also the radio broadcasts we've heard a lot about.

Of course, many Iraqis will tune into the radio rather than television to pick up messages from the leadership. But perhaps if Iraqi television has been taken off the air here, Aaron, and this is them going black now, that will take away a very important tool from the Iraqi leadership. That of showing their face, getting their message out to the Iraqi people, and really telling them that they are still in control -- Aaron.

BROWN: And, in fact, a lot of people wondered why Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did. I suppose it had some value also to the coalition in that it allowed the coalition to see the Iraqi leadership who was there, who was not there. But apparently, that value ran out today.

ROBERTSON: Apparently. It was very interesting on the first day of the bombing campaign to watch how quickly President Saddam Hussein came out on television. So there are very quick sort of checks, if you will, as you say, for the coalition to see what was going on.

Perhaps it did have another use. And I only say perhaps at this stage because no coalition officials have told me this. But there perhaps would be a degree of bomb damage assessment value in having Iraqi television on the air, because perhaps they would go to sites and film sites that had been bombed, those pictures getting out on Iraqi television, giving the coalition valuable ground-level information that just cannot be gained from satellite imagery. So perhaps there may have been some value or some use there as well, Aaron.

BROWN: One other thing. In this day and age, with the Al- Jazeeras and the rest that are out there is, for the people of Iraq, is Iraqi TV -- either of the two networks to a certain extent -- it's a distinction without difference because they are essentially under the same control. Are there other ways to get TV signals in?

ROBERTSON: Not really. I mean, the Arab broadcasters broadcast into the region, but their satellite dishes and receivers are banned. So ordinary Iraqis just don't have access to them. So they won't be able to pick up these other broadcasts. So really, their television sets at this time will go dark, Aaron, if the station is truly knocked off the air.

BROWN: Nic, thank you. Nic Robertson, who's in Jordan tonight, having been expelled by the Iraqi government a couple of days ago. We see him pushing back towards the story, as it were, towards the war.

This attack on the Iraqi television networks, or Iraqi TV was part of a broader attack that took place early this morning in Baghdad. We do have some images of that that have come in from Abu Dhabi TV, I believe, and perhaps others. And we'll get those.

There we go. These coming from Al-Jazeera, apparently. This is how it looked.

It was just before the sun came up in the Persian Gulf. It's now about six minutes after 6:00 out there, when the strike occurred. You'll see a large explosion. That is not the hit, we do not believe, the hit on Iraqi TV. But it was part of a larger attack that -- some of which was in camera range and some of which was not.

And that's the scene right now in Baghdad. Lots of smoke filtering across the horizon line after this coalition air strike. And we'll keep an eye on that.

Overall, as we start tonight a mix, I think you could say, of progress and obstacles today, and as you can see even looking at these pictures and looking at Nic a few moments ago, the weather played a huge role in what was able to be accomplished by the coalition side. They are drawing closer to Baghdad all the time, but there is still much to be done behind them.

The headline tonight, therefore, is really a night of many headlines, no single one, and we'll get through them as we go. But we begin with a quick overview of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): Whether it was a blinding sandstorm in the central part of the country or a downpour in the south near Basra, weather was the dominant factor in the war against Iraq today.

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's like being in a blizzard, except unfortunately the sand doesn't melt as the snow does.

BROWN: Overall, here's what the landscape looks like tonight. Coalition ground units continue to make a broad sweep towards Baghdad. Elements of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division are 50 miles to the south and west of the Iraqi capital. And late today were engaged in a major battle with Iraqi units south of the city of Karbala. The British, meantime, are encircling Iraq's second largest city, Basra.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: In the five days since military action began, a huge amount has already been achieved.

BROWN: Inside Basra, there were the smallest of hints that an uprising may have begun against Saddam Hussein. These pictures of a single gunman firing into the air and destroying a picture of Saddam are certainly not definitive proof. They are a hint, that's all. But British officials say at least it is a positive sign.

Meantime, Iraqi television broadcast these pictures of a coalition drone aircraft shot down and then paraded through the streets of Basra. No firm proof of chemical weapons was found today, but as far as the coalition was concerned there were hints. Marines seized a hospital in the battered city of Nasiriya and said they seized thousands of chemical weapons suits as well as conventional weapons.

And finally, the southernmost Iraqi city of Umm Qasr was declared under coalition control finally. And the Navy actually brought in dolphins to help detect underwater mines.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A quick overview of where the day has gone and a quick update on where the day is now. All of the reporting we've been able to do now confirms that Iraqi state TV is off the air, that the coalition strike a little bit ago, an hour or so ago, has taken Iraqi TV off the air.

There were other targets hit. But as you look at Baghdad now, you see the smoke. You saw a fire engine going by.

Here's another shot from another location. This is the Lebanese broadcasting company, I believe. And the smoke there is quite dense.

I'm not honestly sure if what is behind that building is the Iraqi state TV complex of buildings, as Nic Robertson described, or whether that's one of the other sites that was hit. But in any case, you can see that in the daylight lots of smoke in Baghdad today. And among things that we can be certain of, despite all of the weather problems -- and you're about to get a very good taste of the kind of weather they had there today -- despite all the weather problems the coalition was still able to move in from the sky and do the business that it intends to do in the Iraqi capital and very likely in other places too. And we'll be keeping an eye on that as well.

The ground battle form was joined today. There have been a lot of skirmishes going on over the last few days, but there was what is at least described today as the first significant ground battle. The unit involved in this, we believe, is of particular interest to those of you who have been with us over the past week. The 3-7th cavalry, we have pretty much followed them from the time they crossed the border to earlier today, when we got some filing out of Walt Rodgers as they made their way to where we believe this major ground battle was.

We'll talk with Jamie McIntyre in a moment. But first Walt Rodgers' description of the cavalry's march toward Baghdad.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

RODGERS: What we're showing you is the convoy in which we're riding, heading north again, in the general direction of north in a very strong sandstorm. It's like being in a blizzard, except unfortunately the sand doesn't melt as the snow does.

Now, this gives some temporary military advantage to both sides, although the greater military advantage falls to the Iraqis. We have been under heavy fire for the past couple miles. Mostly small arms fire, but the sandstorm has enabled the Iraqis to come very close to the road. And if I sound a little nervous, it's because we're in a soft-skinned vehicle and everybody else is in armor.

The 7th Cavalry literally had to run something of a night ambush on both sides of the road last night, crossing one of the canal bridges that preceded the Euphrates River. And that fight was, as I say, more than significant. There were machine gun tracer bullets going out on either side of the road. Every Bradley, every tank was firing.

Imagine looking out into total darkness in an agricultural area. You can't see, oh, more than 40 or 50 meters without night vision goggles. And you know there are people out there. We had no idea how many people were out there, but it turned out to be several hundred, 300, 400 Iraqi dismounts.

The U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry has just taken three Iraqi prisoners of war. Actually, they're very close. That is to say, no more than 40 yards away. But the dust and sand are blowing so badly you're getting these vague images.

They were captured by the U.S. Army up the road, not very far ahead of us. They were driving a truckload of weapons. And that's when the Army apprehended them.

They've had their arms tied. They're lying in the sand now. No evidence of any hostility on their part now. But the only mistreatment is that which we all suffer, which is to say an abuse of mother nature by a sandstorm.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

BROWN: CNN's Walt Rodgers reporting on the road to what turned into a significant ground fight. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. I think we have two things to talk to you about right at the top. What we know about this ground fight, or battle, however we want to frame it, and the attack today, this evening, on Iraqi state TV. Good evening to you.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, good evening. Well, let's start with the ground battle. First of all, the first reports we got from the Pentagon turned out to be a little inflated. Initially, we'd heard perhaps even as many as 300 or to 500 Iraqis had been killed by U.S. soldiers. By the time the subsequent reports came in we were being told maybe it was more like 150 to 200.

Still a significant engagement, though, on the ground. And the U.S. suffered no combat deaths or casualties, any significant casualties. Apparently, this group of Iraqi fighters -- and we're not clear if they were Republican Guard or these Fedayeen Saddam fighters or some other irregulars -- were -- fired rocket-propelled grenades at some of these U.S. Army troops. The vastly superior U.S. firepower was brought to bear, and the result was a total U.S. victory in this battle. Again, killing between 150 and 200 Iraqis, suffering no casualties on the U.S. side.

BROWN: And just before you move on from that, and the significance of what the war is, a battle where 150 to 200 enemy soldiers are killed is what? Big, medium, little?

MCINTYRE: Militarily, it's not very significant. It's a very small battle. But psychologically, especially coming after a day when the U.S. had suffered some casualties, it's a big boost for morale.

BROWN: And again, just -- we've got the big box up showing the smoke moving across the city of Baghdad. How much of the city looks like that, obviously we can't tell. But from this location, it is very dense, really as dense as anything we've seen. It is much closer in to the city than anything we've seen before.

Now, Jamie, on state TV, this is no surprise to you, is it?

MCINTYRE: Well, Pentagon sources are not confirming that this is actually Iraqi television that was hit. Except what they have told me is Iraqi television was on the list of targets to be hit very soon, sort of like right about this time. So it's very likely that that's what's happening here.

And the other thing that I would stress is that they may have in fact hit the tower, or the transmitter, and not the ministry of information itself. It's not clear.

What the U.S. is operating under these days is something they call effects-based warfare, where they try to create the maximum effect with the minimum amount of munitions. In this case, the effect is to take the television off the air, and you don't need to level the whole building or complex to do that. So they'll probably just check to see whether it's on the air and decide whether they need to take any more action.

BROWN: Well, we can tell from our reporters there that it's not on the air. So they know at least that much for now.

Now, on to the secretary's day, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld woke up to see front-page headlines that were roundly critical of the war plan.

MCINTYRE: And here's what Secretary Rumsfeld would say about that. He'd say, first of all, it's hard to criticize a war plan if you don't know what the war plan is. And he assures us that we don't know the war plan and nobody's reported the war plan.

And it's, they claim, a very methodically thought out plan. They went over it; it went through at least 20 different versions. They've been over it for months. And the key, he says, is for people to understand that it may take days or weeks and to have patience.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): The blinding sandstorms that blanketed southern Iraq clearly hampered some U.S. ground and air operations.

MAJ. GEN. VICTOR RENUART, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COMMAND OPERATIONS: It's a little bit ugly out there today. MCINTYRE: But the military was quick to argue the bad weather was having little effect on the overall war plan.

RENUART: It's been not a terribly comfortable day on the battlefield. However, that hasn't stopped us.

MCINTYRE: In fact, according to CNN's Walter Rodgers, elements of the 7th Cavalry used the cover of sand to outflank Iraqi troops, securing a key bridge across the Euphrates while continuing toward Baghdad. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military adviser fended off criticism that five days in the U.S. war plan was suffering from lack of forces and foresight.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: I think the plan is finely formulated. And as put together by General Franks, with some help and some advice, but by General Franks and his commanders, is a brilliant plan. And we've been at it now for less than a week. We're just about to Baghdad.

MCINTYRE: The Pentagon took particular exception to criticism from some analysts and retired generals that the rapid advancement of U.S. forces has left a vulnerable supply line that stretches about 300 miles to Baghdad.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... believe them too lightly defended as critics charge?

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: No. In my view, no. We've got total dominance of the air.

It is not air superiority. It's dominance. They've not put an airplane up.

QUESTION: But the Fedayeen are chipping away, it seems at...

RUMSFELD: And these are ones and twos. And that you're going to live with, like we lived with in Afghanistan. We lived with in some major cities in the United States.

MYERS: There are plans in place to deal with those onesies and twosies.

MCINTYRE: Even with the bad weather, the U.S. continued to use satellite-guided bombs to soften up Republican Guard positions. Here, a U.S. Air force F-15 takes out a Medina Division tank south of Baghdad. And over the last two days, U.S. warplanes trumped Iraq's six GPS jammers by taking them out with the very satellite-guided bombs they're designed to thwart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm also pleased to say they had no effect on us. In fact, we destroyed one of the GPS jammers with a GPS weapon. Ironic.

MCINTYRE: U.S. satellite photographs show that Iraqi troops have set large oil trenches afire around Baghdad in what the U.S. says is another futile gesture.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would say that those oil fires burning are more a hazard to the people living in Baghdad than they are an impediment for us to conduct operations.

MCINTYRE: In Basra, Iraqi tactics have forced a change in the U.S. strategy to avoid cities. Members of Saddam Hussein's shock troops, the Fedayeen Saddam, are terrorizing the Shia population, preventing anyone from leaving or welcoming coalition troops. So now British forces are moving to take out the regime loyalists and liberate the strategic port city.

COL. CHRIS VERNON, BRITISH ARMY SPOKESMAN: Part of the strategy, clearly, is to delink the regular army, probably the softer of the targets, the irregular forces, and the Ba'ath Party regime, and drive a wedge between that and the people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: So what's going to happen next, Aaron? Well, I want to stress, we don't have the war plan, but the way it's unfolding it looks something like this. It looks like the U.S. will continue to mass troops around Baghdad, moving more forces into the country and up around Baghdad, while at the same time continuing air strikes for, as I said, days or even weeks to degrade those Republican Guard divisions both from the ground and from the air, putting tremendous pressure on them. All the time continuing to knock out air defenses, communications, putting more and more pressure with the hope that there'll finally be a collapse of the regime.

Or, if not, by the time U.S. forces go in they'll have a lot of armor, a lot of firepower, and an overwhelming advantage, and that the Iraqi forces will be demoralized and fairly easy to take out. That's the way it looks at this point.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.

We're joined for an hour or so tonight -- we're glad to have him -- by retired General Don Shepperd, who's with us. Just quickly on the point that Jamie just made, any substantive disagreement on what he just laid out?

MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): No, not at all. This is going to be tough slugging from here on. The real question is, are the forces too thin? All those forces coming up, Secretary Rumsfeld saying these armchair generals don't know what they're talking about. This is one armchair general that has not criticized the plan.

BROWN: Well, it does seem five days, six days, seven days into it is probably a little early in the game. Nevertheless, that stuff is out there today, and the plan itself was audacious in some respects.

SHEPPERD: YES. Very clear the plan was to race towards Baghdad, to bypass the cities in the rear, to accept the small skirmishes that go with that. The supply lines are vulnerable. To be able to clean those small skirmishes up with British forces, Marines, and following elements of the forces and secure it later on, I think it's a solid plan.

BROWN: And on this question of supply lines, which sometimes I seem to fixate on, it's a relatively long supply line, 350 miles. As we've all seen, one of the great advantages of the way the war has been reported is we've seen in great detail how complicated the supply effort is. Has anything that's gone on so far, Basra, any of the rest of it, forced the military to alter the basic plan?

SHEPPERD: Not the basic plan, but I think we have been surprised at the fierceness of the fighting that's taken place in Nasiriya and also Basra. We've also been very surprised at the chemical stuff that showed up in Nasiriya, that far south.

BROWN: Good to have you with us for however long we hang on to you. We enjoy our conversations with you.

We have much more ahead. We'll take you literally to the front lines and much more. Our coverage continues after a short break here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We just got word that the Iraqi information minister, who is becoming the familiar voice now of the Iraqi government, is expected to hold a news conference at some point reasonably soon. And we've also come to know that if they say 10 minutes, it doesn't necessarily mean 10 minutes. It could be an hour.

In any case, we're monitoring all of our feeds out of Baghdad now. And we he steps to the podium, we will carry some or all of that, depending on what we hear.

On we go in the meantime. Again, today, there were disturbing hints, and we underscore hints here, that coalition forces may soon face an attack using chemical weapons. Yesterday the story centered on intelligence regarding enemy intentions. Today the evidence is somewhat more tangible. Reporting for us, CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The evidence is accumulating that Iraq may be planning to use chemical weapons. Gas masks turning up in abandoned trenches. In Nasiriya, in a building marked as a hospital, U.S. Marines found weapons, atropine antidote kits, and that was not all.

MAJ. DAVE ANDERSON, U.S. MARINES SPOKESMAN: They found over 3,000 chemical suits and gas masks, as well as a number of Iraqi military uniforms.

ENSOR: The findings are heightening concerns among coalition forces approaching Baghdad since, as the Iraqis should know, U.S. and British forces do not use chemical weapons. U.S. officials say some intelligence indicates a red line may have been drawn around the capital, with Republican Guard units ordered to use chemical weapons once U.S. and allied troops cross it. There is also intelligence, officials say, suggesting Republican Guard units have been issued artillery shells containing chemical agents.

RUMSFELD: There has been intelligence scraps -- who knows how accurate they are -- chatter in the system, that suggests that the closer that coalition forces get to Baghdad and Tikrit, the greater the likelihood. And that some command and control arrangements have been put in place.

ENSOR: In Baghdad, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz repeated his government's stand: it does not have any kind of weapons of mass destruction.

TARIQ AZIZ, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, IRAQ (through translator): When they started to talk about the weapons of mass destruction, we know and we always knew that that was fabrication and lies.

ENSOR: Experts say Saddam Hussein's forces will likely try to hold out in Baghdad for as long as possible without using the weapons his government insists it does not have, hoping to build international pressure on the U.S. and Britain to back down.

KENNETH POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: In that sense, any use of chemical weapons would be counterproductive to Saddam, because it would only galvanize international opinion around the United States.

ENSOR: But if the coalition forces cannot be deterred that way, then, says Ken Pollack, all bets may be off.

POLLACK: And he will use chemical warfare to prevent the United States from taking Baghdad and to inflict as many casualties as he can on U.S. forces in hope that that will convince the United States to stop the war.

ENSOR: But U.S. and allied forces are well equipped and trained against chemical weapons.

(on camera): Without offering details, joint chiefs chairman General Myers says the U.S. does have a plan for a response to chemical weapons attacks if they should come. David Ensor, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We'll talk more about this question of chemical weapons, the hunt for them, the evidence that is building, how strong it is, with retired Special Forces Major Kelly McCann in a minute.

We'll take a break, update the day's headlines. And our coverage continues here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT) BROWN: Kelly McCann joins us. He has been with us before. He does security -- he analyzes security matters for us. He's a former special forces major. And we're glad to have him.

In and of itself, Kelly, I guess, if I were the Iraqi government, I could make the argument that, simply because they found a bunch of chemical weapons suits hardly says that we are hiding chemical weapons, because they could be as much defensive as anything.

KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Undoubtedly their ploy, Aaron. I mean, faced with that, they're going to obviously say that, right up until the time, if they do use them, they do. They're going to say that it was for defensive purposes, despite the fact that we know that it's against the law of land warfare.

BROWN: Well, it's not against the law of land warfare to have chemical weapons suits.

MCCANN: No, to have the weapons.

BROWN: Right.

MCCANN: And use them.

BROWN: I understand that.

So what becomes conclusive evidence? At what point is it a sort of game, set, match point thing?

MCCANN: It's kind of a quantitative answer, isn't it? I mean, what if we saw some shells, but not anything that rose to the level that people have stated there undoubtedly is? What if we find some stores, but no production facility? You know, this is really an unanswered question. And I think there's a lot riding on it. It will be looked at in different senses depending on the region and the world you're from.

BROWN: In fact, early in the inspections process, I recall, they came up with a number of warheads that were capable of holding chemical weapons, but, in and of itself, that doesn't answer the question. Do you suspect that there are some of your old guys, special forces guys, prowling around inside Iraq tonight as we talk looking for stores of chemical weapons?

MCCANN: Yes, there are.

About a decade ago or more, it really became another mission area, which was counter weapons of mass destruction proliferation teams. And, basically, they're highly trained. They worked with some of the domestic agencies to get up to speed and have really accelerated that kind of learning curve over the last decade, and tremendous equipment. Plus, they are special operators. So they have a direct-action capability, which is a limited raid capability to take matters in their own hands, should that target of opportunity present itself. So, there is undoubtedly people looking in places like Kirkuk, where it could be concealed in an oil-separation platform or plant very easily. I mean, these are the kinds of crafty methods that would be used by Saddam's regime.

BROWN: In a perfect world -- and I assume war rarely presents itself in a perfect world -- would these special-ops guys try and destroy that store of chemical weapons on their own or would they call someone else in to do it?

MCCANN: I think initially, Aaron, that the primary concern is going to be to present it to the court of world opinion. So I think the destruction would be counterproductive to what's trying to be shown here.

So I think that what they'd try to do is isolate it, contain it, then ramp up enough security troops in the area so that we could control it without fear of a counterattack or any kind of intrusion, and then basically show that to the world.

BROWN: So the idea, then, is to isolate it, make sure they can't use it, but get the pictures and the -- excuse the expression -- public-relations value out of it when the time comes?

MCCANN: Exactly right, because, without that, we're going to be holding a big bag.

BROWN: It is yet -- thank you, Kelly -- another example of how media, it seems to me, is playing an odd role in all of this. Kelly McCann, once again, we enjoy very much having you with us tonight.

MCCANN: Thanks so much, Aaron.

BROWN: We'll keep an eye on the chemical weapons aspect of the story.

There's been no one who's been a better ally of President Bush in all of this for many, many months now than the British prime minister, Tony Blair. Mr. Blair spoke out about the war today. Later in the week, he'll come to Washington and meet with the president. But there are hints of a divide opening up between the two men, not on how to fight the war, but on how to win the peace.

Here's CNN's Robin Oakley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tony Blair had a clear message Tuesday for the Iraqi people, whom he said had been failed after the Gulf War in 1991.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: They've been let down before, when they thought coalition forces were going to remove Saddam. And my message to them today is that, this time, we will not let you down. Saddam and his regime will be removed. OAKLEY: On Wednesday, when he flies to see George Bush at Camp David to discuss their progress towards that aim, they'll have plenty to agree on about the war. But Blair wants to focus, too, on what happens afterwards. And there, there could be snags.

All along in their association, Blair has been pushing the president to take the U.N. route that proved such an embarrassment for both before the war. In the Azores 10 days ago, Mr. Bush seemed to have been won over again.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we use military force in the post-Saddam Iraq, the U.N. will definitely need to have a role. And that way, it can begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back. And it's important for the U.N. to be able to function well.

OAKLEY: But since then, Pentagon officials have indicated they want the U.N.'s role strictly limited to humanitarian aid. Challenged on that by reporters, Mr. Blair made clear he wasn't having it.

BLAIR: But there is no question of the U.N. role being reserved simply for the humanitarian situation. It is important that whatever administration takes over in Iraq, that that has the authority of the U.N. behind it. I mean, that is going to be important, as I say, for the coalition forces, for the Iraqi people, for the international community.

OAKLEY: It's an opinion shared by European Union leaders. They don't agree on much else over Iraq. But at their summit last Friday, their joint statement insisted, "The U.N. must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis." And to underline the point, Mr. Blair is calling not only on Mr. Bush, but on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, too.

(on camera): There's not a whisker between president and prime minister over how they fight the war, but there are tensions between London and Washington over what happens afterwards. On the post-war role of the U.N., Mr. Blair, who needs to patch up some friendships on his side of the Atlantic, is siding with the still-idealistic Europeans, not with a doubting U.S.

Robin Oakley, CNN, Downing Street, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: So this question of how to manage post-war Iraq is one thing on the table when the president meets with Mr. Blair.

The president has lots of things on the table these days. His tax bill was up in the Senate today, his tax-cut bill. There's a supplemental budget to pay for the war that needs to be considered, plenty of work for the president and plenty of work for the reporters who cover the White House.

Suzanne Malveaux has the duty tonight. And she joins us from there -- good evening to you. SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Aaron.

The president's encouraging Congress to pass that emergency spending bill for the war in three weeks. That's before the Easter recess. A couple of things to keep in mind with this supplemental: First of all, it only covers the costs of activities for six months. And the second aspect is that the full costs will be paid 100 percent by American taxpayers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): President Bush unveiled his much-awaited cost estimate of the U.S. war with Iraq, nearly $75 billion over a six-month period.

BUSH: The wartime supplemental is directly related to winning this war and to securing the peace that will follow this war. I ask Congress to act quickly and responsibly.

MALVEAUX: The total emergency spending bill is $74.7 billion, $63 billion of that for the prosecution of the war, $8 billion for international operations, relief and short-term reconstruction, including aid for U.S. allies, and $4 billion for homeland security. But the Pentagon cautions, this figure could dramatically change.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The budget figure the president announced up there is not the cost of the war. The budget figure he announced up there is the cost -- that's the money the state needs, the money the CIA needs, the money that homeland security needs. If you can't tell how long it's going to last, you sure can't tell what it's going to cost.

MALVEAUX: Unlike the Persian Gulf War, which was paid almost exclusively by U.S. allies, 100 percent of the cost of this war will be picked up by U.S. taxpayers.

But in a clear message to the Bush administration, some in Congress are concerned about how the U.S. will pay for this war. The Senate voted to slash of the president's $726 billion tax-cut package by more than half.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: The House passed Mr. Bush's version. Probably, when it goes into conference, it will somewhere in between the figure of $350 billion and $700-plus billion. When it comes to the supplemental, Democrats want more money for homeland security. Both sides want more money for their pet projects.

So, in all likelihood, it will be passed in that three-week period, probably more than $75 billion. And, Aaron, when it comes to the long-term costs of reconstruction, well, Iraqi oil is going to pay for that, as well as those frozen funds from Iraq, the Iraqi regime -- Aaron.

BROWN: Suzanne, 20 seconds on the tax-cut bill. The House passed the big one. The Senate looks more inclined to slash it in half. Will we end up somewhere in the middle?

MALVEAUX: Somewhere in the middle is likely, between $350 billion, $700-plus billion. There are quite a bit of critics who say you cannot afford to conduct this war, to carry out this war, and have such a big tax cut. But you'll probably see the president doesn't expect to get everything he wants out of this, certainly hoping for a figure that's closer to $720 billion, but probably somewhere in the middle. Cut the difference.

BROWN: Thank you very much, Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.

We've talked a lot about how the war has been covered over the last week or so. We'll be looking at that after a break. General Wes Clark is with us again. So we have a long way to go here tonight.

We'll take a break first. And our coverage continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We said General Wes Clark is with us tonight. Every time, I say "general," who sits to my left here, he flinches. He thinks we're going to him. And this time, in fact we are.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: It's good to have you with us.

We started this hour by saying, General, that it appears the Americans have hit Iraqi TV, taken it off the air. All the reporting we're getting out of there is that Iraqi TV is off the air. You can see the smoke that is moving. People have been asking us what is that building, by the way. It's a bank. It's a small bank building in Baghdad -- anyway, lots of smoke.

If you were commanding this war -- well, let me ask it differently, because I don't like to just -- I don't like to put you in the position of second-guessing. It's a nice thing at some point to have the other side's communications system taken out, because?

RET. GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, this is an integral part of his command-and-control system.

We went through the same problem with Slobodan Milosevic. And you may remember, after agonizing debate, we finally took out Serb television. Now, of course, they had a way of getting it back on the air. Maybe the Iraqis will, too. But this is an important blow at Saddam Hussein's prestige, not only at home, and in the Arab world. And this is not only a military campaign. It's a psychological campaign. It's a media campaign.

And just as you were saying, Aaron, the media's an important weapon of war here. Those pictures of those Americans that were displayed around the Arab world, they made a lot of people in many different countries over there happy. BROWN: But the mere fact that you've taken Iraqi TV off the air doesn't mean that you have eliminated the ability of the Iraqis to get those pictures out, because there is -- the BBC is there and Al- Jazeera's there and Lebanon TV and all the rest. It's really how he communicates to his own people that's been damaged.

CLARK: Well, that's right. I mean, this is one more impediment to him. This is one element in the friction of war that we're imposing on Saddam.

BROWN: And you mentioned, in the war in the Balkans, where, it seemed to me, every decision seemed to be a difficult decision and in conflict, did it change the playing field when you were able to take out TV?

CLARK: It did in that war, because it was a huge step for NATO to have the resolve to act in a united way against what people consider a dual-purpose target. It had a civilian connotation. And it dealt with freedom of the press and other hallowed Western values. And, suddenly, we'd struck at it. So it was a major psychological blow to Milosevic.

This is not quite the same, because this is the United States' decision. And the United States is always prepared to make tough decisions like that. So we did not have the same agonizing decision process. But it is a blow to Saddam Hussein.

BROWN: Now, that's Baghdad.

David, if we can put up the Kuwait picture.

When you talk about the other, one of the other major storylines of the day -- go ahead and take it full if you want for a second -- this is Kuwait City this morning, now coming up on 7:00 in the morning. Obviously, the weather, General, has been a huge part of the story today. We've seen some dramatic, honestly, pictures from the battlefield. And this is a pretty dramatic picture, too. We've looked out on this scene for days and days and days and seen off into the distance.

As a practical matter, it is not without implications.

CLARK: Well, it's made it hard for to us continue our activities in the planned way. I mean, it does slow down the tempo of the strategic move toward -- to get the grip on the Republican Guards.

And it gives the Republican Guards, if this is the same -- in the area around where the Medina Division is -- a certain amount of cover from air observation. It makes it difficult for us to use our unmanned aerial vehicles against them. Target acquisition is more difficult. Maybe they've got more of a chance to dig in and conceal themselves. But this will be over and then they'll be on their own again.

BROWN: It grounded helicopters in Iraq today and, in fact, grounded them in place, increasing the risk. Is this -- I don't know enough about the weather here, honestly. Is this part of the reason why they wanted to fight the war a little -- or start the war perhaps a little earlier, because you get this sort of unpredictable weather, besides the heat that starts to come? Or is this just another day in the region?

CLARK: I'd say just take it as another day in the region. I mean, you have violent weather in this region, especially during these three or four months here. We live with it. It's the ups and downs of battle.

BROWN: God, it is nice to have you back with us. I didn't want people to think that you ran and fled, that you couldn't take a full week with me. Thank you, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARK: Thanks.

BROWN: General Clark will be spending the night with us.

We talked -- in every war, I suppose, images matter. In this particular war, it's being played out so literally around the world on TV. We're watching it. Some of it we watch live. We see a battle as a guy in a tank is seeing it, in many respects. It's been stunning to watch. And how it will shape public opinion at this point certainly is one of the great mysteries of the war.

For us, reporting is CNN's Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's your name?

SPC. SHOSHANA JOHNSON, 507TH MAINTENANCE COMPANY: Shoshana.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): Today, the images that appall us come by satellite, transmitted instantly halfway around the world.

But they are, in a sense, only the newest chapters in a very old story; 140 years ago, photographer Mathew Brady's exhibit of photographs of the Civil War dead at Antietam, shown in New York months after the battle, brought home to civilians the real picture of real war; 100 years ago, American newspapers helped lead the country into war with Spain with these illustrations of the battleship Maine exploding, almost surely an accident, but one that was painted as a hostile attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is what the war in Vietnam is all about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: A generation ago, uncensored reporting from Vietnam threw doubt on the official story of the war, with images of burning villages and a street corner execution of an enemy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you'll be able to count each bomb. One, two.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: A dozen years ago, the first Gulf War appeared on our TV screens as something like a bloodless video game, with reporters tightly controlled by a Pentagon determined not to repeat the Vietnam experience.

This time, the administration made a deliberate decision to bring the astonishing new technology of the press right up to the front lines to show America and the world that this was a war of liberation, not of conquest. In doing that they...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Heavy machine gun fire.

GREENFIELD: ... and the press have provided striking evidence of the power and the limitations...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And time is very critical here.

GREENFIELD: ... of instant media.

More than a century ago, futurists imagined a time when people would watch a war live from the comfort of their living rooms. Today, that future has arrived. But this flood of instant information has come with a price. It means that separate images from each day, from each hour, can alter the whole impression of the war. The easy optimism of one moment becomes the pessimism of the next. And the death or capture of a single soldier can become the overwhelming story, because we can see their faces, hear their voices.

KAYE YOUNG, MOTHER OF CAPTURED U.S. PILOT: I was afraid he was dead.

GREENFIELD: Witness the suffering of families.

And if the U.S. government wants the press there to record images that reaffirm the U.S. role as liberators, it will also be there to witness resistance and the inevitable death of innocents. Moreover, in an age when images are recorded and transmitted internationally, there is no way for authorities in a free nation to block such images, even if they wanted to.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: Now, there's also one effect of this flood of information we can't yet measure. It compresses time drastically. In World War II, the first photo of a dead American did not appear until nearly two years after Pearl Harbor. And that was a war where the news of the first six months was almost all bad: Germans sinking American ships at will, the Japanese sweeping through Asia. This war with Iraq has gone on for six days and has already produced a striking mood swing. What will it mean if the country finds itself swinging between emotional highs and lows, as every day brings us compelling images that may or may not reflect the wider scope of this effort? -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jeff, this is the absolute truth. I've wanted to call you about four times over the last several days to talk about this, because I'm just curious. As you've watched the reporting, the embedded reporting, has it surprised you how the process has worked at all?

GREENFIELD: I have to be honest with you and tell you that, to some extent, with all of the new amazing technology, it is an old story about what television does, the overwhelming impact of the image over broader issues.

Back during the Iran hostage crisis, almost 25 years ago, the focus on the hostages, in effect, held American foreign policy hostage. And you're already beginning to see second-guessing six days into a war, because we've seen stories of a handful of POWs. But we know them so well. We've already met their families. We know where they went to school. And it's the kind of thing that television has been doing from its inception.

So what I think we're seeing, Aaron, is an even greater example of a story that we've been living and struggling with for the better part of three or four decades.

BROWN: Jeff, thank you. We've been doing some media panels so far this week. If we have half-a-brain, we'll make you join one of them. I hope you will.

GREENFIELD: Be delighted.

BROWN: Thank you, Jeff Greenfield, who is in New York.

We'll talk with Howard Kurtz, who writes media criticism for "The Washington Post," in a minute.

We need to take a break first. Our coverage continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Many of you know Howard Kurtz as the host of "RELIABLE SOURCES" here on CNN, which has never stopped him from throwing a punch at us or anybody else that seems to get on his nerves in the world of media criticism. He writes it for "The Washington Post" as well. And he's someone we respect a lot and glad to have with us again tonight.

Welcome.

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Thank you. BROWN: There's a million questions I suppose we could ask. Do you see a significant difference in the way -- in the tone between the way television is reporting this and the way newspapers are reporting this?

KURTZ: Not so much, Aaron, except for the obvious speed that television brings to it. I just want to say at the outset, the embedded reporters on all the networks and for all the major papers are doing a terrific job under very difficult circumstances. It's so vivid, you can practically feel the sand in your hair.

But, with the power of TV, when their military unit comes under attack, when you can hear the shells exploding over their heads, when their units suffer casualties or get involved in friendly-fire incidents, that becomes the story. And so I think that, both in the morning papers this morning and all over TV the last couple of days, there has been a pessimistic tone because certain units with certain embedded reporters have suffered setbacks or encountered fierce resistance. That may be, in the larger scheme of things, something of a blip.

BROWN: Well, at the risk of really causing myself trouble, let me beg to differ, gently. I was looking at the way "The New York Times," a competitor of yours, reported the story. It seems to me that their "Times" reporters are feeding a lot of information into one reporter to write the story and give a broad overview of the day, and then breaking it into individual pieces, which, I assume, is the way "The Post" is doing it too, isn't it?

KURTZ: Sure, with 30 other stories from reporters around the world.

But here's the thing. You began to see in this morning's papers stories that said -- the second-guessing. Is this really going according to plan? How come we're encountering all this fierce resistance? Part of the reason, I think, for that -- and you're hearing that tone on television as well -- part of the reason is that, in the run-up to this war, the media played a big role here.

And Pentagon officials were more than happy to feed the perception that this was an awesome military machine that was going to roll on to Baghdad and all the Iraqis were going to throw flowers. Well, guess what? War is messy. War is difficult. Mistakes are made. And there is a lot of resistance that these troops are running into.

So I think, just like in a political campaign, the media kind of jacked expectations up. People thought the war would be over in maybe 2 1/2 hours or 2 1/2 days. And now that it's turning out not to be the case -- which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone -- the press is kind of pulling back and trying to correct or balance some of those earlier, more optimistic predictions.

BROWN: Let's talk about television for a few minutes and see if you throw a punch or not. Do you think that we, as a business, or CNN, specifically, if you want, but I think -- I mean the question more broadly -- have sanitized too much the pictures coming back, particularly on the coalition side?

KURTZ: I don't think so. I saw bodies of dead Iraqis when I watched Ted Koppel at ABC. I think that, when there has been violent -- without putting on extraordinarily gruesome pictures of people who have been killed, I think we're getting a real feel in our living rooms for what combat is like.

Jeff made the analogy. Jeff Greenfield made the analogy to Vietnam. But those pictures, that film had to be flown by helicopter and often showed up a couple of days later. We're seeing -- I've seen a reporter stick a microphone in the face of a soldier who had just been wounded and was talking to his family back home. So I don't think they're overly sanitizing. I know there's a debate about, should we have shown more or less of the POW photos released by Iraqi TV? I don't see a lot of sanitation at this point.

BROWN: The other night, we sat here for three hours or so and literally watched and commented on a battle, a small battle -- battle's probably not the right word -- take place. There was a British reporter there. He would interview the sergeant. And I said several times, for better or for ill, we're able to do this.

This is your job. Is it for better or for ill?

KURTZ: I don't think there's any question that it's for better, although that's obviously a mixed bag.

Compared to what? Compared to the Gulf War, when we got most of our information from Pentagon briefings, a lot of which turned out to be too optimistic? Compared to Afghanistan, where the press was largely shut out from the battlefield? I think that the military has benefited because reporters have been there to humanize the story, to bring us the narrative of the fighting men and women.

BROWN: But, Howie -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

KURTZ: And, at the same time, the bad news has come through the screen very vividly.

BROWN: Just focus on the live component of it for a second, because that's what -- I'll tell you the truth. That scares the dickens out of me, that we're going to cover one of these things live and the kind of picture you would never allow on TV, simply because you don't need to to make the point, is going to happen before our eyes on live TV and we have no editorial control over it.

KURTZ: I think that's inevitably true, that somebody is going to get their head blown off, and the camera's going to be there, and there's not going to be anybody in the control room to say, well no, don't put that on the air.

But, at the same time, I think that it's hard for people to sort out, even today in Basra. Was there an uprising? Was the uprising against Saddam? Was the uprising against the British troops who were trying to control the city? So we're really seeing the journalistic sausage being made. I think, over time -- people have become sophisticated viewers -- they will sort this out. But it does create this kind of roller-coaster effect, where, one day, everything seems to be going great. And the next day, it seems like the coalition is suffering all kinds of setbacks.

BROWN: It sure does. Boy, you should sit up here. It sure does.

Mr. Kurtz, it's always terrific to talk to you. Thank you very much.

KURTZ: Thanks.

BROWN: Howard Kurtz, who writes media criticism for "The Washington Post."

Are we going to a break or we going to the update? OK, we'll go to the update. Heidi Collins has that.

And our coverage will continue in a minute or so -- Heidi.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired March 25, 2003 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again, everyone. We begin tonight with a new round of bombing in Baghdad. It happened just a few moments ago. As you can see, the city is filled with smoke.
These attacks, daylight attacks at 6:00 in the morning in Baghdad now, we believe that Iraqi television has been hit because Iraqi TV has gone off the air. It then came on intermittently. So how much damage has been done to Iraqi TV is not precisely clear.

Nic Robertson is with us. Nic is in Amman. He's been following developments and is extraordinarily familiar, as I'm sure you know, with the lay of the land around Iraqi TV and the city generally. Nic, Iraqi TV is a series of buildings, two or three buildings, isn't it?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. They're quite low buildings over an area of about a mile square in total. What we were looking at before on Abu Dhabi Television, I am not able to see their broadcast from where I stand. But on the right- hand side, when they gave us the wide picture, there was a very tall, large building, the Mansomilia (ph) Hotel.

Across the street from that is a low squat building, a department store. Behind that there was a larger block building, perhaps 12, 13 stories high. That's the ministry of information. And it is behind the ministry of information where the fire and the smoke were coming from a little earlier. That's where Iraqi television station is.

Immediately behind the ministry of information there's a small Christian church. Then there's a theater. Then there's that area of Iraqi television studios.

Of course, to take out Iraqi television is not just a matter of hitting the studios but also the transmitters as well. And Iraqi television's satellite channel has its satellite located just behind the ministry of information. And I did hear earlier that was still broadcasting it on the air -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, there is more than one TV network in Iraq, isn't there -- or TV channel?

ROBERTSON: Absolutely. There's the state-run main station that perhaps most people would watch. There's also the station run by President Saddam Hussein's elder son, Uday Saddam Hussein. That's called Al-Shabab TV, or Youth (ph) TV. That's a station you may have seen pictures aired on today. It has quite a sort of funny-colored logo in the bottom right-hand corner. That was the station we saw today with the soldiers -- with the pictures of the soldiers in those defensive trenches wearing the strange black helmets with the shoulder-launched rocket-propelled grenades. So there is two ways of getting the domestic television picture out in Iraq. And not only is there the television stations, but there's also the radio broadcasts we've heard a lot about.

Of course, many Iraqis will tune into the radio rather than television to pick up messages from the leadership. But perhaps if Iraqi television has been taken off the air here, Aaron, and this is them going black now, that will take away a very important tool from the Iraqi leadership. That of showing their face, getting their message out to the Iraqi people, and really telling them that they are still in control -- Aaron.

BROWN: And, in fact, a lot of people wondered why Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did. I suppose it had some value also to the coalition in that it allowed the coalition to see the Iraqi leadership who was there, who was not there. But apparently, that value ran out today.

ROBERTSON: Apparently. It was very interesting on the first day of the bombing campaign to watch how quickly President Saddam Hussein came out on television. So there are very quick sort of checks, if you will, as you say, for the coalition to see what was going on.

Perhaps it did have another use. And I only say perhaps at this stage because no coalition officials have told me this. But there perhaps would be a degree of bomb damage assessment value in having Iraqi television on the air, because perhaps they would go to sites and film sites that had been bombed, those pictures getting out on Iraqi television, giving the coalition valuable ground-level information that just cannot be gained from satellite imagery. So perhaps there may have been some value or some use there as well, Aaron.

BROWN: One other thing. In this day and age, with the Al- Jazeeras and the rest that are out there is, for the people of Iraq, is Iraqi TV -- either of the two networks to a certain extent -- it's a distinction without difference because they are essentially under the same control. Are there other ways to get TV signals in?

ROBERTSON: Not really. I mean, the Arab broadcasters broadcast into the region, but their satellite dishes and receivers are banned. So ordinary Iraqis just don't have access to them. So they won't be able to pick up these other broadcasts. So really, their television sets at this time will go dark, Aaron, if the station is truly knocked off the air.

BROWN: Nic, thank you. Nic Robertson, who's in Jordan tonight, having been expelled by the Iraqi government a couple of days ago. We see him pushing back towards the story, as it were, towards the war.

This attack on the Iraqi television networks, or Iraqi TV was part of a broader attack that took place early this morning in Baghdad. We do have some images of that that have come in from Abu Dhabi TV, I believe, and perhaps others. And we'll get those.

There we go. These coming from Al-Jazeera, apparently. This is how it looked.

It was just before the sun came up in the Persian Gulf. It's now about six minutes after 6:00 out there, when the strike occurred. You'll see a large explosion. That is not the hit, we do not believe, the hit on Iraqi TV. But it was part of a larger attack that -- some of which was in camera range and some of which was not.

And that's the scene right now in Baghdad. Lots of smoke filtering across the horizon line after this coalition air strike. And we'll keep an eye on that.

Overall, as we start tonight a mix, I think you could say, of progress and obstacles today, and as you can see even looking at these pictures and looking at Nic a few moments ago, the weather played a huge role in what was able to be accomplished by the coalition side. They are drawing closer to Baghdad all the time, but there is still much to be done behind them.

The headline tonight, therefore, is really a night of many headlines, no single one, and we'll get through them as we go. But we begin with a quick overview of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): Whether it was a blinding sandstorm in the central part of the country or a downpour in the south near Basra, weather was the dominant factor in the war against Iraq today.

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's like being in a blizzard, except unfortunately the sand doesn't melt as the snow does.

BROWN: Overall, here's what the landscape looks like tonight. Coalition ground units continue to make a broad sweep towards Baghdad. Elements of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division are 50 miles to the south and west of the Iraqi capital. And late today were engaged in a major battle with Iraqi units south of the city of Karbala. The British, meantime, are encircling Iraq's second largest city, Basra.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: In the five days since military action began, a huge amount has already been achieved.

BROWN: Inside Basra, there were the smallest of hints that an uprising may have begun against Saddam Hussein. These pictures of a single gunman firing into the air and destroying a picture of Saddam are certainly not definitive proof. They are a hint, that's all. But British officials say at least it is a positive sign.

Meantime, Iraqi television broadcast these pictures of a coalition drone aircraft shot down and then paraded through the streets of Basra. No firm proof of chemical weapons was found today, but as far as the coalition was concerned there were hints. Marines seized a hospital in the battered city of Nasiriya and said they seized thousands of chemical weapons suits as well as conventional weapons.

And finally, the southernmost Iraqi city of Umm Qasr was declared under coalition control finally. And the Navy actually brought in dolphins to help detect underwater mines.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A quick overview of where the day has gone and a quick update on where the day is now. All of the reporting we've been able to do now confirms that Iraqi state TV is off the air, that the coalition strike a little bit ago, an hour or so ago, has taken Iraqi TV off the air.

There were other targets hit. But as you look at Baghdad now, you see the smoke. You saw a fire engine going by.

Here's another shot from another location. This is the Lebanese broadcasting company, I believe. And the smoke there is quite dense.

I'm not honestly sure if what is behind that building is the Iraqi state TV complex of buildings, as Nic Robertson described, or whether that's one of the other sites that was hit. But in any case, you can see that in the daylight lots of smoke in Baghdad today. And among things that we can be certain of, despite all of the weather problems -- and you're about to get a very good taste of the kind of weather they had there today -- despite all the weather problems the coalition was still able to move in from the sky and do the business that it intends to do in the Iraqi capital and very likely in other places too. And we'll be keeping an eye on that as well.

The ground battle form was joined today. There have been a lot of skirmishes going on over the last few days, but there was what is at least described today as the first significant ground battle. The unit involved in this, we believe, is of particular interest to those of you who have been with us over the past week. The 3-7th cavalry, we have pretty much followed them from the time they crossed the border to earlier today, when we got some filing out of Walt Rodgers as they made their way to where we believe this major ground battle was.

We'll talk with Jamie McIntyre in a moment. But first Walt Rodgers' description of the cavalry's march toward Baghdad.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

RODGERS: What we're showing you is the convoy in which we're riding, heading north again, in the general direction of north in a very strong sandstorm. It's like being in a blizzard, except unfortunately the sand doesn't melt as the snow does.

Now, this gives some temporary military advantage to both sides, although the greater military advantage falls to the Iraqis. We have been under heavy fire for the past couple miles. Mostly small arms fire, but the sandstorm has enabled the Iraqis to come very close to the road. And if I sound a little nervous, it's because we're in a soft-skinned vehicle and everybody else is in armor.

The 7th Cavalry literally had to run something of a night ambush on both sides of the road last night, crossing one of the canal bridges that preceded the Euphrates River. And that fight was, as I say, more than significant. There were machine gun tracer bullets going out on either side of the road. Every Bradley, every tank was firing.

Imagine looking out into total darkness in an agricultural area. You can't see, oh, more than 40 or 50 meters without night vision goggles. And you know there are people out there. We had no idea how many people were out there, but it turned out to be several hundred, 300, 400 Iraqi dismounts.

The U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry has just taken three Iraqi prisoners of war. Actually, they're very close. That is to say, no more than 40 yards away. But the dust and sand are blowing so badly you're getting these vague images.

They were captured by the U.S. Army up the road, not very far ahead of us. They were driving a truckload of weapons. And that's when the Army apprehended them.

They've had their arms tied. They're lying in the sand now. No evidence of any hostility on their part now. But the only mistreatment is that which we all suffer, which is to say an abuse of mother nature by a sandstorm.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

BROWN: CNN's Walt Rodgers reporting on the road to what turned into a significant ground fight. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. I think we have two things to talk to you about right at the top. What we know about this ground fight, or battle, however we want to frame it, and the attack today, this evening, on Iraqi state TV. Good evening to you.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, good evening. Well, let's start with the ground battle. First of all, the first reports we got from the Pentagon turned out to be a little inflated. Initially, we'd heard perhaps even as many as 300 or to 500 Iraqis had been killed by U.S. soldiers. By the time the subsequent reports came in we were being told maybe it was more like 150 to 200.

Still a significant engagement, though, on the ground. And the U.S. suffered no combat deaths or casualties, any significant casualties. Apparently, this group of Iraqi fighters -- and we're not clear if they were Republican Guard or these Fedayeen Saddam fighters or some other irregulars -- were -- fired rocket-propelled grenades at some of these U.S. Army troops. The vastly superior U.S. firepower was brought to bear, and the result was a total U.S. victory in this battle. Again, killing between 150 and 200 Iraqis, suffering no casualties on the U.S. side.

BROWN: And just before you move on from that, and the significance of what the war is, a battle where 150 to 200 enemy soldiers are killed is what? Big, medium, little?

MCINTYRE: Militarily, it's not very significant. It's a very small battle. But psychologically, especially coming after a day when the U.S. had suffered some casualties, it's a big boost for morale.

BROWN: And again, just -- we've got the big box up showing the smoke moving across the city of Baghdad. How much of the city looks like that, obviously we can't tell. But from this location, it is very dense, really as dense as anything we've seen. It is much closer in to the city than anything we've seen before.

Now, Jamie, on state TV, this is no surprise to you, is it?

MCINTYRE: Well, Pentagon sources are not confirming that this is actually Iraqi television that was hit. Except what they have told me is Iraqi television was on the list of targets to be hit very soon, sort of like right about this time. So it's very likely that that's what's happening here.

And the other thing that I would stress is that they may have in fact hit the tower, or the transmitter, and not the ministry of information itself. It's not clear.

What the U.S. is operating under these days is something they call effects-based warfare, where they try to create the maximum effect with the minimum amount of munitions. In this case, the effect is to take the television off the air, and you don't need to level the whole building or complex to do that. So they'll probably just check to see whether it's on the air and decide whether they need to take any more action.

BROWN: Well, we can tell from our reporters there that it's not on the air. So they know at least that much for now.

Now, on to the secretary's day, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld woke up to see front-page headlines that were roundly critical of the war plan.

MCINTYRE: And here's what Secretary Rumsfeld would say about that. He'd say, first of all, it's hard to criticize a war plan if you don't know what the war plan is. And he assures us that we don't know the war plan and nobody's reported the war plan.

And it's, they claim, a very methodically thought out plan. They went over it; it went through at least 20 different versions. They've been over it for months. And the key, he says, is for people to understand that it may take days or weeks and to have patience.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): The blinding sandstorms that blanketed southern Iraq clearly hampered some U.S. ground and air operations.

MAJ. GEN. VICTOR RENUART, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COMMAND OPERATIONS: It's a little bit ugly out there today. MCINTYRE: But the military was quick to argue the bad weather was having little effect on the overall war plan.

RENUART: It's been not a terribly comfortable day on the battlefield. However, that hasn't stopped us.

MCINTYRE: In fact, according to CNN's Walter Rodgers, elements of the 7th Cavalry used the cover of sand to outflank Iraqi troops, securing a key bridge across the Euphrates while continuing toward Baghdad. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military adviser fended off criticism that five days in the U.S. war plan was suffering from lack of forces and foresight.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: I think the plan is finely formulated. And as put together by General Franks, with some help and some advice, but by General Franks and his commanders, is a brilliant plan. And we've been at it now for less than a week. We're just about to Baghdad.

MCINTYRE: The Pentagon took particular exception to criticism from some analysts and retired generals that the rapid advancement of U.S. forces has left a vulnerable supply line that stretches about 300 miles to Baghdad.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... believe them too lightly defended as critics charge?

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: No. In my view, no. We've got total dominance of the air.

It is not air superiority. It's dominance. They've not put an airplane up.

QUESTION: But the Fedayeen are chipping away, it seems at...

RUMSFELD: And these are ones and twos. And that you're going to live with, like we lived with in Afghanistan. We lived with in some major cities in the United States.

MYERS: There are plans in place to deal with those onesies and twosies.

MCINTYRE: Even with the bad weather, the U.S. continued to use satellite-guided bombs to soften up Republican Guard positions. Here, a U.S. Air force F-15 takes out a Medina Division tank south of Baghdad. And over the last two days, U.S. warplanes trumped Iraq's six GPS jammers by taking them out with the very satellite-guided bombs they're designed to thwart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm also pleased to say they had no effect on us. In fact, we destroyed one of the GPS jammers with a GPS weapon. Ironic.

MCINTYRE: U.S. satellite photographs show that Iraqi troops have set large oil trenches afire around Baghdad in what the U.S. says is another futile gesture.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would say that those oil fires burning are more a hazard to the people living in Baghdad than they are an impediment for us to conduct operations.

MCINTYRE: In Basra, Iraqi tactics have forced a change in the U.S. strategy to avoid cities. Members of Saddam Hussein's shock troops, the Fedayeen Saddam, are terrorizing the Shia population, preventing anyone from leaving or welcoming coalition troops. So now British forces are moving to take out the regime loyalists and liberate the strategic port city.

COL. CHRIS VERNON, BRITISH ARMY SPOKESMAN: Part of the strategy, clearly, is to delink the regular army, probably the softer of the targets, the irregular forces, and the Ba'ath Party regime, and drive a wedge between that and the people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: So what's going to happen next, Aaron? Well, I want to stress, we don't have the war plan, but the way it's unfolding it looks something like this. It looks like the U.S. will continue to mass troops around Baghdad, moving more forces into the country and up around Baghdad, while at the same time continuing air strikes for, as I said, days or even weeks to degrade those Republican Guard divisions both from the ground and from the air, putting tremendous pressure on them. All the time continuing to knock out air defenses, communications, putting more and more pressure with the hope that there'll finally be a collapse of the regime.

Or, if not, by the time U.S. forces go in they'll have a lot of armor, a lot of firepower, and an overwhelming advantage, and that the Iraqi forces will be demoralized and fairly easy to take out. That's the way it looks at this point.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.

We're joined for an hour or so tonight -- we're glad to have him -- by retired General Don Shepperd, who's with us. Just quickly on the point that Jamie just made, any substantive disagreement on what he just laid out?

MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): No, not at all. This is going to be tough slugging from here on. The real question is, are the forces too thin? All those forces coming up, Secretary Rumsfeld saying these armchair generals don't know what they're talking about. This is one armchair general that has not criticized the plan.

BROWN: Well, it does seem five days, six days, seven days into it is probably a little early in the game. Nevertheless, that stuff is out there today, and the plan itself was audacious in some respects.

SHEPPERD: YES. Very clear the plan was to race towards Baghdad, to bypass the cities in the rear, to accept the small skirmishes that go with that. The supply lines are vulnerable. To be able to clean those small skirmishes up with British forces, Marines, and following elements of the forces and secure it later on, I think it's a solid plan.

BROWN: And on this question of supply lines, which sometimes I seem to fixate on, it's a relatively long supply line, 350 miles. As we've all seen, one of the great advantages of the way the war has been reported is we've seen in great detail how complicated the supply effort is. Has anything that's gone on so far, Basra, any of the rest of it, forced the military to alter the basic plan?

SHEPPERD: Not the basic plan, but I think we have been surprised at the fierceness of the fighting that's taken place in Nasiriya and also Basra. We've also been very surprised at the chemical stuff that showed up in Nasiriya, that far south.

BROWN: Good to have you with us for however long we hang on to you. We enjoy our conversations with you.

We have much more ahead. We'll take you literally to the front lines and much more. Our coverage continues after a short break here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We just got word that the Iraqi information minister, who is becoming the familiar voice now of the Iraqi government, is expected to hold a news conference at some point reasonably soon. And we've also come to know that if they say 10 minutes, it doesn't necessarily mean 10 minutes. It could be an hour.

In any case, we're monitoring all of our feeds out of Baghdad now. And we he steps to the podium, we will carry some or all of that, depending on what we hear.

On we go in the meantime. Again, today, there were disturbing hints, and we underscore hints here, that coalition forces may soon face an attack using chemical weapons. Yesterday the story centered on intelligence regarding enemy intentions. Today the evidence is somewhat more tangible. Reporting for us, CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The evidence is accumulating that Iraq may be planning to use chemical weapons. Gas masks turning up in abandoned trenches. In Nasiriya, in a building marked as a hospital, U.S. Marines found weapons, atropine antidote kits, and that was not all.

MAJ. DAVE ANDERSON, U.S. MARINES SPOKESMAN: They found over 3,000 chemical suits and gas masks, as well as a number of Iraqi military uniforms.

ENSOR: The findings are heightening concerns among coalition forces approaching Baghdad since, as the Iraqis should know, U.S. and British forces do not use chemical weapons. U.S. officials say some intelligence indicates a red line may have been drawn around the capital, with Republican Guard units ordered to use chemical weapons once U.S. and allied troops cross it. There is also intelligence, officials say, suggesting Republican Guard units have been issued artillery shells containing chemical agents.

RUMSFELD: There has been intelligence scraps -- who knows how accurate they are -- chatter in the system, that suggests that the closer that coalition forces get to Baghdad and Tikrit, the greater the likelihood. And that some command and control arrangements have been put in place.

ENSOR: In Baghdad, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz repeated his government's stand: it does not have any kind of weapons of mass destruction.

TARIQ AZIZ, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, IRAQ (through translator): When they started to talk about the weapons of mass destruction, we know and we always knew that that was fabrication and lies.

ENSOR: Experts say Saddam Hussein's forces will likely try to hold out in Baghdad for as long as possible without using the weapons his government insists it does not have, hoping to build international pressure on the U.S. and Britain to back down.

KENNETH POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: In that sense, any use of chemical weapons would be counterproductive to Saddam, because it would only galvanize international opinion around the United States.

ENSOR: But if the coalition forces cannot be deterred that way, then, says Ken Pollack, all bets may be off.

POLLACK: And he will use chemical warfare to prevent the United States from taking Baghdad and to inflict as many casualties as he can on U.S. forces in hope that that will convince the United States to stop the war.

ENSOR: But U.S. and allied forces are well equipped and trained against chemical weapons.

(on camera): Without offering details, joint chiefs chairman General Myers says the U.S. does have a plan for a response to chemical weapons attacks if they should come. David Ensor, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We'll talk more about this question of chemical weapons, the hunt for them, the evidence that is building, how strong it is, with retired Special Forces Major Kelly McCann in a minute.

We'll take a break, update the day's headlines. And our coverage continues here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT) BROWN: Kelly McCann joins us. He has been with us before. He does security -- he analyzes security matters for us. He's a former special forces major. And we're glad to have him.

In and of itself, Kelly, I guess, if I were the Iraqi government, I could make the argument that, simply because they found a bunch of chemical weapons suits hardly says that we are hiding chemical weapons, because they could be as much defensive as anything.

KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Undoubtedly their ploy, Aaron. I mean, faced with that, they're going to obviously say that, right up until the time, if they do use them, they do. They're going to say that it was for defensive purposes, despite the fact that we know that it's against the law of land warfare.

BROWN: Well, it's not against the law of land warfare to have chemical weapons suits.

MCCANN: No, to have the weapons.

BROWN: Right.

MCCANN: And use them.

BROWN: I understand that.

So what becomes conclusive evidence? At what point is it a sort of game, set, match point thing?

MCCANN: It's kind of a quantitative answer, isn't it? I mean, what if we saw some shells, but not anything that rose to the level that people have stated there undoubtedly is? What if we find some stores, but no production facility? You know, this is really an unanswered question. And I think there's a lot riding on it. It will be looked at in different senses depending on the region and the world you're from.

BROWN: In fact, early in the inspections process, I recall, they came up with a number of warheads that were capable of holding chemical weapons, but, in and of itself, that doesn't answer the question. Do you suspect that there are some of your old guys, special forces guys, prowling around inside Iraq tonight as we talk looking for stores of chemical weapons?

MCCANN: Yes, there are.

About a decade ago or more, it really became another mission area, which was counter weapons of mass destruction proliferation teams. And, basically, they're highly trained. They worked with some of the domestic agencies to get up to speed and have really accelerated that kind of learning curve over the last decade, and tremendous equipment. Plus, they are special operators. So they have a direct-action capability, which is a limited raid capability to take matters in their own hands, should that target of opportunity present itself. So, there is undoubtedly people looking in places like Kirkuk, where it could be concealed in an oil-separation platform or plant very easily. I mean, these are the kinds of crafty methods that would be used by Saddam's regime.

BROWN: In a perfect world -- and I assume war rarely presents itself in a perfect world -- would these special-ops guys try and destroy that store of chemical weapons on their own or would they call someone else in to do it?

MCCANN: I think initially, Aaron, that the primary concern is going to be to present it to the court of world opinion. So I think the destruction would be counterproductive to what's trying to be shown here.

So I think that what they'd try to do is isolate it, contain it, then ramp up enough security troops in the area so that we could control it without fear of a counterattack or any kind of intrusion, and then basically show that to the world.

BROWN: So the idea, then, is to isolate it, make sure they can't use it, but get the pictures and the -- excuse the expression -- public-relations value out of it when the time comes?

MCCANN: Exactly right, because, without that, we're going to be holding a big bag.

BROWN: It is yet -- thank you, Kelly -- another example of how media, it seems to me, is playing an odd role in all of this. Kelly McCann, once again, we enjoy very much having you with us tonight.

MCCANN: Thanks so much, Aaron.

BROWN: We'll keep an eye on the chemical weapons aspect of the story.

There's been no one who's been a better ally of President Bush in all of this for many, many months now than the British prime minister, Tony Blair. Mr. Blair spoke out about the war today. Later in the week, he'll come to Washington and meet with the president. But there are hints of a divide opening up between the two men, not on how to fight the war, but on how to win the peace.

Here's CNN's Robin Oakley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tony Blair had a clear message Tuesday for the Iraqi people, whom he said had been failed after the Gulf War in 1991.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: They've been let down before, when they thought coalition forces were going to remove Saddam. And my message to them today is that, this time, we will not let you down. Saddam and his regime will be removed. OAKLEY: On Wednesday, when he flies to see George Bush at Camp David to discuss their progress towards that aim, they'll have plenty to agree on about the war. But Blair wants to focus, too, on what happens afterwards. And there, there could be snags.

All along in their association, Blair has been pushing the president to take the U.N. route that proved such an embarrassment for both before the war. In the Azores 10 days ago, Mr. Bush seemed to have been won over again.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we use military force in the post-Saddam Iraq, the U.N. will definitely need to have a role. And that way, it can begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back. And it's important for the U.N. to be able to function well.

OAKLEY: But since then, Pentagon officials have indicated they want the U.N.'s role strictly limited to humanitarian aid. Challenged on that by reporters, Mr. Blair made clear he wasn't having it.

BLAIR: But there is no question of the U.N. role being reserved simply for the humanitarian situation. It is important that whatever administration takes over in Iraq, that that has the authority of the U.N. behind it. I mean, that is going to be important, as I say, for the coalition forces, for the Iraqi people, for the international community.

OAKLEY: It's an opinion shared by European Union leaders. They don't agree on much else over Iraq. But at their summit last Friday, their joint statement insisted, "The U.N. must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis." And to underline the point, Mr. Blair is calling not only on Mr. Bush, but on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, too.

(on camera): There's not a whisker between president and prime minister over how they fight the war, but there are tensions between London and Washington over what happens afterwards. On the post-war role of the U.N., Mr. Blair, who needs to patch up some friendships on his side of the Atlantic, is siding with the still-idealistic Europeans, not with a doubting U.S.

Robin Oakley, CNN, Downing Street, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: So this question of how to manage post-war Iraq is one thing on the table when the president meets with Mr. Blair.

The president has lots of things on the table these days. His tax bill was up in the Senate today, his tax-cut bill. There's a supplemental budget to pay for the war that needs to be considered, plenty of work for the president and plenty of work for the reporters who cover the White House.

Suzanne Malveaux has the duty tonight. And she joins us from there -- good evening to you. SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Aaron.

The president's encouraging Congress to pass that emergency spending bill for the war in three weeks. That's before the Easter recess. A couple of things to keep in mind with this supplemental: First of all, it only covers the costs of activities for six months. And the second aspect is that the full costs will be paid 100 percent by American taxpayers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): President Bush unveiled his much-awaited cost estimate of the U.S. war with Iraq, nearly $75 billion over a six-month period.

BUSH: The wartime supplemental is directly related to winning this war and to securing the peace that will follow this war. I ask Congress to act quickly and responsibly.

MALVEAUX: The total emergency spending bill is $74.7 billion, $63 billion of that for the prosecution of the war, $8 billion for international operations, relief and short-term reconstruction, including aid for U.S. allies, and $4 billion for homeland security. But the Pentagon cautions, this figure could dramatically change.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The budget figure the president announced up there is not the cost of the war. The budget figure he announced up there is the cost -- that's the money the state needs, the money the CIA needs, the money that homeland security needs. If you can't tell how long it's going to last, you sure can't tell what it's going to cost.

MALVEAUX: Unlike the Persian Gulf War, which was paid almost exclusively by U.S. allies, 100 percent of the cost of this war will be picked up by U.S. taxpayers.

But in a clear message to the Bush administration, some in Congress are concerned about how the U.S. will pay for this war. The Senate voted to slash of the president's $726 billion tax-cut package by more than half.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: The House passed Mr. Bush's version. Probably, when it goes into conference, it will somewhere in between the figure of $350 billion and $700-plus billion. When it comes to the supplemental, Democrats want more money for homeland security. Both sides want more money for their pet projects.

So, in all likelihood, it will be passed in that three-week period, probably more than $75 billion. And, Aaron, when it comes to the long-term costs of reconstruction, well, Iraqi oil is going to pay for that, as well as those frozen funds from Iraq, the Iraqi regime -- Aaron.

BROWN: Suzanne, 20 seconds on the tax-cut bill. The House passed the big one. The Senate looks more inclined to slash it in half. Will we end up somewhere in the middle?

MALVEAUX: Somewhere in the middle is likely, between $350 billion, $700-plus billion. There are quite a bit of critics who say you cannot afford to conduct this war, to carry out this war, and have such a big tax cut. But you'll probably see the president doesn't expect to get everything he wants out of this, certainly hoping for a figure that's closer to $720 billion, but probably somewhere in the middle. Cut the difference.

BROWN: Thank you very much, Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.

We've talked a lot about how the war has been covered over the last week or so. We'll be looking at that after a break. General Wes Clark is with us again. So we have a long way to go here tonight.

We'll take a break first. And our coverage continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We said General Wes Clark is with us tonight. Every time, I say "general," who sits to my left here, he flinches. He thinks we're going to him. And this time, in fact we are.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: It's good to have you with us.

We started this hour by saying, General, that it appears the Americans have hit Iraqi TV, taken it off the air. All the reporting we're getting out of there is that Iraqi TV is off the air. You can see the smoke that is moving. People have been asking us what is that building, by the way. It's a bank. It's a small bank building in Baghdad -- anyway, lots of smoke.

If you were commanding this war -- well, let me ask it differently, because I don't like to just -- I don't like to put you in the position of second-guessing. It's a nice thing at some point to have the other side's communications system taken out, because?

RET. GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, this is an integral part of his command-and-control system.

We went through the same problem with Slobodan Milosevic. And you may remember, after agonizing debate, we finally took out Serb television. Now, of course, they had a way of getting it back on the air. Maybe the Iraqis will, too. But this is an important blow at Saddam Hussein's prestige, not only at home, and in the Arab world. And this is not only a military campaign. It's a psychological campaign. It's a media campaign.

And just as you were saying, Aaron, the media's an important weapon of war here. Those pictures of those Americans that were displayed around the Arab world, they made a lot of people in many different countries over there happy. BROWN: But the mere fact that you've taken Iraqi TV off the air doesn't mean that you have eliminated the ability of the Iraqis to get those pictures out, because there is -- the BBC is there and Al- Jazeera's there and Lebanon TV and all the rest. It's really how he communicates to his own people that's been damaged.

CLARK: Well, that's right. I mean, this is one more impediment to him. This is one element in the friction of war that we're imposing on Saddam.

BROWN: And you mentioned, in the war in the Balkans, where, it seemed to me, every decision seemed to be a difficult decision and in conflict, did it change the playing field when you were able to take out TV?

CLARK: It did in that war, because it was a huge step for NATO to have the resolve to act in a united way against what people consider a dual-purpose target. It had a civilian connotation. And it dealt with freedom of the press and other hallowed Western values. And, suddenly, we'd struck at it. So it was a major psychological blow to Milosevic.

This is not quite the same, because this is the United States' decision. And the United States is always prepared to make tough decisions like that. So we did not have the same agonizing decision process. But it is a blow to Saddam Hussein.

BROWN: Now, that's Baghdad.

David, if we can put up the Kuwait picture.

When you talk about the other, one of the other major storylines of the day -- go ahead and take it full if you want for a second -- this is Kuwait City this morning, now coming up on 7:00 in the morning. Obviously, the weather, General, has been a huge part of the story today. We've seen some dramatic, honestly, pictures from the battlefield. And this is a pretty dramatic picture, too. We've looked out on this scene for days and days and days and seen off into the distance.

As a practical matter, it is not without implications.

CLARK: Well, it's made it hard for to us continue our activities in the planned way. I mean, it does slow down the tempo of the strategic move toward -- to get the grip on the Republican Guards.

And it gives the Republican Guards, if this is the same -- in the area around where the Medina Division is -- a certain amount of cover from air observation. It makes it difficult for us to use our unmanned aerial vehicles against them. Target acquisition is more difficult. Maybe they've got more of a chance to dig in and conceal themselves. But this will be over and then they'll be on their own again.

BROWN: It grounded helicopters in Iraq today and, in fact, grounded them in place, increasing the risk. Is this -- I don't know enough about the weather here, honestly. Is this part of the reason why they wanted to fight the war a little -- or start the war perhaps a little earlier, because you get this sort of unpredictable weather, besides the heat that starts to come? Or is this just another day in the region?

CLARK: I'd say just take it as another day in the region. I mean, you have violent weather in this region, especially during these three or four months here. We live with it. It's the ups and downs of battle.

BROWN: God, it is nice to have you back with us. I didn't want people to think that you ran and fled, that you couldn't take a full week with me. Thank you, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARK: Thanks.

BROWN: General Clark will be spending the night with us.

We talked -- in every war, I suppose, images matter. In this particular war, it's being played out so literally around the world on TV. We're watching it. Some of it we watch live. We see a battle as a guy in a tank is seeing it, in many respects. It's been stunning to watch. And how it will shape public opinion at this point certainly is one of the great mysteries of the war.

For us, reporting is CNN's Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's your name?

SPC. SHOSHANA JOHNSON, 507TH MAINTENANCE COMPANY: Shoshana.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): Today, the images that appall us come by satellite, transmitted instantly halfway around the world.

But they are, in a sense, only the newest chapters in a very old story; 140 years ago, photographer Mathew Brady's exhibit of photographs of the Civil War dead at Antietam, shown in New York months after the battle, brought home to civilians the real picture of real war; 100 years ago, American newspapers helped lead the country into war with Spain with these illustrations of the battleship Maine exploding, almost surely an accident, but one that was painted as a hostile attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is what the war in Vietnam is all about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: A generation ago, uncensored reporting from Vietnam threw doubt on the official story of the war, with images of burning villages and a street corner execution of an enemy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you'll be able to count each bomb. One, two.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: A dozen years ago, the first Gulf War appeared on our TV screens as something like a bloodless video game, with reporters tightly controlled by a Pentagon determined not to repeat the Vietnam experience.

This time, the administration made a deliberate decision to bring the astonishing new technology of the press right up to the front lines to show America and the world that this was a war of liberation, not of conquest. In doing that they...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Heavy machine gun fire.

GREENFIELD: ... and the press have provided striking evidence of the power and the limitations...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And time is very critical here.

GREENFIELD: ... of instant media.

More than a century ago, futurists imagined a time when people would watch a war live from the comfort of their living rooms. Today, that future has arrived. But this flood of instant information has come with a price. It means that separate images from each day, from each hour, can alter the whole impression of the war. The easy optimism of one moment becomes the pessimism of the next. And the death or capture of a single soldier can become the overwhelming story, because we can see their faces, hear their voices.

KAYE YOUNG, MOTHER OF CAPTURED U.S. PILOT: I was afraid he was dead.

GREENFIELD: Witness the suffering of families.

And if the U.S. government wants the press there to record images that reaffirm the U.S. role as liberators, it will also be there to witness resistance and the inevitable death of innocents. Moreover, in an age when images are recorded and transmitted internationally, there is no way for authorities in a free nation to block such images, even if they wanted to.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: Now, there's also one effect of this flood of information we can't yet measure. It compresses time drastically. In World War II, the first photo of a dead American did not appear until nearly two years after Pearl Harbor. And that was a war where the news of the first six months was almost all bad: Germans sinking American ships at will, the Japanese sweeping through Asia. This war with Iraq has gone on for six days and has already produced a striking mood swing. What will it mean if the country finds itself swinging between emotional highs and lows, as every day brings us compelling images that may or may not reflect the wider scope of this effort? -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jeff, this is the absolute truth. I've wanted to call you about four times over the last several days to talk about this, because I'm just curious. As you've watched the reporting, the embedded reporting, has it surprised you how the process has worked at all?

GREENFIELD: I have to be honest with you and tell you that, to some extent, with all of the new amazing technology, it is an old story about what television does, the overwhelming impact of the image over broader issues.

Back during the Iran hostage crisis, almost 25 years ago, the focus on the hostages, in effect, held American foreign policy hostage. And you're already beginning to see second-guessing six days into a war, because we've seen stories of a handful of POWs. But we know them so well. We've already met their families. We know where they went to school. And it's the kind of thing that television has been doing from its inception.

So what I think we're seeing, Aaron, is an even greater example of a story that we've been living and struggling with for the better part of three or four decades.

BROWN: Jeff, thank you. We've been doing some media panels so far this week. If we have half-a-brain, we'll make you join one of them. I hope you will.

GREENFIELD: Be delighted.

BROWN: Thank you, Jeff Greenfield, who is in New York.

We'll talk with Howard Kurtz, who writes media criticism for "The Washington Post," in a minute.

We need to take a break first. Our coverage continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Many of you know Howard Kurtz as the host of "RELIABLE SOURCES" here on CNN, which has never stopped him from throwing a punch at us or anybody else that seems to get on his nerves in the world of media criticism. He writes it for "The Washington Post" as well. And he's someone we respect a lot and glad to have with us again tonight.

Welcome.

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Thank you. BROWN: There's a million questions I suppose we could ask. Do you see a significant difference in the way -- in the tone between the way television is reporting this and the way newspapers are reporting this?

KURTZ: Not so much, Aaron, except for the obvious speed that television brings to it. I just want to say at the outset, the embedded reporters on all the networks and for all the major papers are doing a terrific job under very difficult circumstances. It's so vivid, you can practically feel the sand in your hair.

But, with the power of TV, when their military unit comes under attack, when you can hear the shells exploding over their heads, when their units suffer casualties or get involved in friendly-fire incidents, that becomes the story. And so I think that, both in the morning papers this morning and all over TV the last couple of days, there has been a pessimistic tone because certain units with certain embedded reporters have suffered setbacks or encountered fierce resistance. That may be, in the larger scheme of things, something of a blip.

BROWN: Well, at the risk of really causing myself trouble, let me beg to differ, gently. I was looking at the way "The New York Times," a competitor of yours, reported the story. It seems to me that their "Times" reporters are feeding a lot of information into one reporter to write the story and give a broad overview of the day, and then breaking it into individual pieces, which, I assume, is the way "The Post" is doing it too, isn't it?

KURTZ: Sure, with 30 other stories from reporters around the world.

But here's the thing. You began to see in this morning's papers stories that said -- the second-guessing. Is this really going according to plan? How come we're encountering all this fierce resistance? Part of the reason, I think, for that -- and you're hearing that tone on television as well -- part of the reason is that, in the run-up to this war, the media played a big role here.

And Pentagon officials were more than happy to feed the perception that this was an awesome military machine that was going to roll on to Baghdad and all the Iraqis were going to throw flowers. Well, guess what? War is messy. War is difficult. Mistakes are made. And there is a lot of resistance that these troops are running into.

So I think, just like in a political campaign, the media kind of jacked expectations up. People thought the war would be over in maybe 2 1/2 hours or 2 1/2 days. And now that it's turning out not to be the case -- which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone -- the press is kind of pulling back and trying to correct or balance some of those earlier, more optimistic predictions.

BROWN: Let's talk about television for a few minutes and see if you throw a punch or not. Do you think that we, as a business, or CNN, specifically, if you want, but I think -- I mean the question more broadly -- have sanitized too much the pictures coming back, particularly on the coalition side?

KURTZ: I don't think so. I saw bodies of dead Iraqis when I watched Ted Koppel at ABC. I think that, when there has been violent -- without putting on extraordinarily gruesome pictures of people who have been killed, I think we're getting a real feel in our living rooms for what combat is like.

Jeff made the analogy. Jeff Greenfield made the analogy to Vietnam. But those pictures, that film had to be flown by helicopter and often showed up a couple of days later. We're seeing -- I've seen a reporter stick a microphone in the face of a soldier who had just been wounded and was talking to his family back home. So I don't think they're overly sanitizing. I know there's a debate about, should we have shown more or less of the POW photos released by Iraqi TV? I don't see a lot of sanitation at this point.

BROWN: The other night, we sat here for three hours or so and literally watched and commented on a battle, a small battle -- battle's probably not the right word -- take place. There was a British reporter there. He would interview the sergeant. And I said several times, for better or for ill, we're able to do this.

This is your job. Is it for better or for ill?

KURTZ: I don't think there's any question that it's for better, although that's obviously a mixed bag.

Compared to what? Compared to the Gulf War, when we got most of our information from Pentagon briefings, a lot of which turned out to be too optimistic? Compared to Afghanistan, where the press was largely shut out from the battlefield? I think that the military has benefited because reporters have been there to humanize the story, to bring us the narrative of the fighting men and women.

BROWN: But, Howie -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

KURTZ: And, at the same time, the bad news has come through the screen very vividly.

BROWN: Just focus on the live component of it for a second, because that's what -- I'll tell you the truth. That scares the dickens out of me, that we're going to cover one of these things live and the kind of picture you would never allow on TV, simply because you don't need to to make the point, is going to happen before our eyes on live TV and we have no editorial control over it.

KURTZ: I think that's inevitably true, that somebody is going to get their head blown off, and the camera's going to be there, and there's not going to be anybody in the control room to say, well no, don't put that on the air.

But, at the same time, I think that it's hard for people to sort out, even today in Basra. Was there an uprising? Was the uprising against Saddam? Was the uprising against the British troops who were trying to control the city? So we're really seeing the journalistic sausage being made. I think, over time -- people have become sophisticated viewers -- they will sort this out. But it does create this kind of roller-coaster effect, where, one day, everything seems to be going great. And the next day, it seems like the coalition is suffering all kinds of setbacks.

BROWN: It sure does. Boy, you should sit up here. It sure does.

Mr. Kurtz, it's always terrific to talk to you. Thank you very much.

KURTZ: Thanks.

BROWN: Howard Kurtz, who writes media criticism for "The Washington Post."

Are we going to a break or we going to the update? OK, we'll go to the update. Heidi Collins has that.

And our coverage will continue in a minute or so -- Heidi.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com