A very funny moment occurred during Tuesday’s White House press briefing between Press Secretary Tony Snow and CNN’s Ed Henry. As the latter tried to back the former into a corner over claims that Iran is arming Shia in Iraq with weapons, Snow comically admonished the CNN correspondent for getting a bit excited during his questioning.
After Kyra Phillips introduced Henry during the 1PM EST installment of “CNN Newsroom,” Henry went right into Democrat talking points concerning the allegations of Iranian weaponry in Iraq (video available here):
You know, this past weekend, U.S. military officials in Baghdad laid out what they claim to be evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq, specifically providing bomb making materials to insurgents in Iraq who were, in turn, using those materials to kill U.S. soldiers and Marines. These claims being met with a hefty bit of skepticism, in part because so many of the claims that the U.S. government made in advance of the Iraq war turned out to be false.
Henry then played a videotape of his questions to Snow. During the exchange, as it got more and more contentious, Snow said, “I think a lot of people are trying to whomp up a fight here that doesn't exist.” As the battle continued, Snow finally admonished Henry:
Ed, calm down. I know you’re excited. Your voice is rising, your pace is increasing.
What follows is a full transcript of this exchange. Please be aware that this is a compilation of CNN’s report at IPM EST and more complete video of the gaggle supplied by the Associated Press. For some reason, CNN chose not to show its viewers the part of the exchange when Snow told Henry to calm down.
Kyra Phillips: We want to go straight to White House correspondent Ed Henry who just came out of a briefing with Tony Snow. Ed, it was pretty interesting. You and Tony Snow, it got a little contentious between the two of you.
Ed Henry: That's right, Kyra. You know, this past weekend, US Military officials in Baghdad laid out what they claim to be evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq. Specifically, providing bomb-making materials to insurgents in Iraq who were, in turn, using those materials to kill US soldiers and Marines. These claims being met with skepticism in part because so many claims the Bush administration made in advance of the Iraq war turned out to be false. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, is now saying, in fact, while these explosive projectiles are, in fact, manufactured in Iran, 'I would not say but that I know, that the Iranian Government clearly knows or is complicit.' It sounded to some, including me, that perhaps the US government is not on the same page here. So I put that question to Tony Snow..."
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Henry: Tony, on Iran. General Peter Pace is now saying that he was not aware that this briefing was going ahead in Baghdad where military officers were talking about Iran's influence in Iraq, this past weekend. How could the chairman of the Joint Chiefs not know that military officers would be briefing in Baghdad?
Tony Snow: Well, I'll refer that back to General Pace, frankly. But I'll tell you, what General Pace --
Henry: Didn't you loop him in? Did you -- did the White House loop in the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
Snow: I believe that this was a Pentagon briefing. So again, it typically is something that when the Pentagon's doing it, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs knows about it.
Let me tell you what -- I think a lot of people are trying to whomp up a fight here that doesn't exist. I spoke with General Pace a bit this morning as well.
And there is a core of information that everybody agrees upon. Number one, there's weaponry that is of Iranian manufacture that's in Iraq killing Americans. There are Iranians involved. There are Iranians on the ground. Our intelligence indicates that the explosively formed penetrators, the EFPs, in fact are directly associated with Qods forces, which are part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which are part of the government.
The Qods force is, in fact, an official arm of the Iranian government, and as such, the government bears responsibility and accountability for its actions, as you would expect of any sovereign government. And I think that's pretty clear. I mean, General Pace, again, if you go through his --
Henry: (Off mike.) That's where -- you said people are trying to whomp up a fight. With all due respect, it's General Pace's comments, not anyone's else's.
Snow: No, if you go back to --
Henry: Well, he said -- let me just say he said, quote, "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Are you saying that you from this podium know more than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Snow: I am telling you that -- I am telling you what the intelligence indicates.
Henry: Is he not in the loop? I'm just trying to understand why there's a contradiction --
Snow: I'll tell you what --
Henry: -- where the chairman of the Joint Chiefs --
Snow: I just know that there's -- Ed, calm down. I know you're excited. Your voice is rising, your pace is increasing --
Henry: I'm telling you that -- I'm telling he is saying this, I'm not.
Snow: Well, I'm telling you I talked with him. Okay? And I talked with him since he said --
Henry: Well, we'll follow up with him as well.
Snow: You better, because I think you will find out that the intelligence does indicate, as he said, this stuff was in -- let me pose you with two possibilities. First, the intelligence indicates that the Qods forces, which are part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, are associated with this.
Now, let me ask a second question to you. I don't know what's more frightening, the fact that the Qods forces would be operating with the knowledge of senior officials or without the knowledge of senior officials.
What is beyond dispute and what is of primary importance here -- and General Pace hasn't disagreed with it, we don't disagree. And frankly, again, I think you'll find upon further conversation -- he's going to be in the air for about 23 hours, so give him a day -- that in fact you're going to find that we generally agree on -- we agree on the basics of the situation here, which is there are armaments that have made their way from Iran into Iraq; there are Iranian forces in Iraq; these weapons are being used to kill Americans; and we'll do everything we can to protect our people.
Henry: On the substance of it, the briefers over the weekend said that these parts are sent to Iraq with the approval of senior Iranian officials, and the bottom line, he seems to be contradicting that.
Snow: Well, I think what General Pace may have been saying -- in fact, I know he -- he -- and this is where we get to the rhetorical question I was asking you before. Do we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khamenei or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. But are the Qods Forces part of the army -- part of the government? The answer is yes. So the question is, I think this ends up being a semantic dispute about senior levels of the government or the government, and the fact is, the government knows about it.
Henry: But isn't it really a question about whether or not you have strong evidence? When the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed to be saying something different than the White House, does that raise questions about how solid this evidence is?
Snow: No, because you've got -- you have explosively formed penetrators. He says they exist; correct?
Henry: I didn't see that in this particular quote. But I --
Snow: Well, no, no. He said that there are weapons that are coming from Iran.
Henry: He said that there are projectiles manufactured in Iran, yes.
Snow: Okay. All right. So okay, so there's no doubt about that, correct?
Henry: Right.
Snow: There are Iranians in Iraq. There's no question about that; correct?
Henry: Sure.
Snow: All right, so where's the credibility problem in terms of -- are you saying --
Henry: In terms of the Iranian government being behind it. That's not --
Snow: That's --
Henry: -- no one is disputing whether they're manufactured in Iran. That's what you keep changing what my question is.
Snow: No, no. I'm trying to clarify your question because I think this is --
Henry: Well, I don't need it clarified. I'm trying to tell you -- I know what my question is. And basically, he's saying that he doesn't see evidence that the Iranian government is clearly behind it.
Snow: I think --
Henry: That's why -- I've asked that three our four times. You haven't answered that. You're saying the Iranian government is behind it.
Snow: Okay, let me put it this way. I'll say it one more time. The Qods Force is part of the Iranian government. The Qods Force is behind it, is associated with it.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Henry: Another curious aspect of this is how the information was delivered this past weekend. It was delivered by US officials on "background", meaning they would not have their names used. It was also done off-camera. That's raising questions about whether or not those US officials wanted to be on camera, whether they were concerned about this evidence being shaky. I put that to Tony Snow as well. He insisted that is not the case. It's not because he felt the evidence was shaky. And, finally, Tony Snow also said in this briefing that he had just recently, in the last hour or so, gotten off the phone with General Pace and insisted that General Pace is saying privately that they're on the same page. There's really not a difference here. The problem, though, is that General Pace is now, apparently, on an airplane coming back from Australia or Indonesia and -- bottom line -- we're not going to be able to get to him for another day to get his side of the story.
Phillips: Tony Snow was saying that the Quds are behind this, because there's three parts to the Iranian government: the president, the radicals, the Qods, and the Clergy, which is the Ayatollah. So he's saying it's that part of the Iranian government that he believes is behind these weapons?
Henry: He's saying that directly. One of the questions that's out there is these briefers over the weekend in Baghdad, these US Military officials were saying that it went to the highest level of the Iranian government. There's some question about exactly what that means. Are they on the same page there as well? Does this really go to the highest levels of Iranian government or not?
*******************************************************
For those interested, the following is the transcript from CNN’s 1PM EST report. Please notice that some of Snow’s comments were not included:
KYRA PHILLIPS: We want to get straight to White House correspondent Ed Henry, who just came out of a briefing with Tony Snow.
And Ed, it was pretty interesting. You and Tony Snow got a little contentious between the two of you.
ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Kyra. You know, this past weekend, U.S. military officials in Baghdad laid out what they claim to be evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq, specifically providing bomb making materials to insurgents in Iraq who were, in turn, using those materials to kill U.S. soldiers and Marines.
These claims being met with a hefty bit of skepticism, in part because so many of the claims that the U.S. government made in advance of the Iraq war turned out to be false.
But even more skepticism today, in fact, in the wake of the fact that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Peter Pace, is now saying, in fact, that while these explosive projectiles are, in fact, manufactured in Iran, quote, "I would not say but what I know, that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
It sounded to some, including me, that perhaps the U.S. government is not on the same page here. So I put that question to Tony Snow.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Is it really a question about whether or not you have strong evidence? When the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff seemed to be saying something different than the White House, does that raise questions about how solid this evidence is?
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No. Because you've got -- you've got -- you have explosively formed penetrators. He says they exist, correct?
HENRY: I didn't see that in this particular quote but...
SNOW: No, no, no, he said that there are weapons...
HENRY: He says that there are projectiles manufactured in Iran, yes, yes.
SNOW: OK, so there's no doubt about that, correct? There are Iranians in Iraq. There's no question about that, correct?
HENRY: Sure.
SNOW: So what is the credibility problem in terms of...
HENRY: ... the Iranian government being behind it, that's not...
SNOW: That's not --
HENRY: Nobody's disputing whether it's manufactured in Iran. That's what you keep changing what my question is.
SNOW: No, no. I'm trying to clarify your question, because I think this is...
HENRY: I'm trying to tell you -- I know what my question is, and basically, he's saying that he doesn't see evidence that the Iranian government clearly is behind it. That's why I've asked that three or four times. You haven't answered that. You're saying the Iranian government is behind it.
SNOW: Let me put it this way. I'll say it one more time. The Qods force is part of the Iranian government. The Qods force is behind it, is associated with it. All right? Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Now another curious aspect of this is how the information was delivered this past weekend. It was delivered by U.S. officials on background, meaning they would not have their names used. It was also done off-camera.
That's raising questions about whether or not those U.S. officials wanted to be on camera, whether they were concerned about this evidence being shaky. I put that to Tony Snow, as well. He insisted that is not the case. It's not because they felt the evidence was shaky.
And finally, Tony Snow also said in the briefing that he had just recently in the last hour or so gotten off the phone with General Pace and insisted that General Pace is saying privately that they are on the same page. There's really not a difference here.
The problem, though, is that General Pace is now, apparently, on an airplane coming back from Australia or Indonesia and, bottom line, we're not going to be able to get to him for about another day to get his side of the story, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Just real quickly, and I want to just -- Tony Snow was saying that the Qods are behind this, because there's three parts to the Iranian government. You've got the president. You've got the radicals, the Qods. You've also got the clergy, which is the ayatollah.
So he is saying it's that part of the Iranian government that he believes is behind these weapons?
HENRY: He is saying that directly. And one of the questions that's out there is these briefers over the weekend in Baghdad, these U.S. military officials, were saying that it went to the highest level of the Iranian government. There's some question about exactly what that means. Are they on the same page there, as well? Does this really go to the highest levels of Iranian government or not -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. Ed Henry, live from the White House. Appreciate it.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Useful Idiots are entirel
February 14, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Chicago RepublicanThe Useful Idiots are entirely out of their League dealing with Tony Snow. I'll say it again, the man's a god.
Defense Secretary Robert Gate
February 14, 2007 - 11:03 ET by Trouble2KDefense Secretary Robert Gates 2/9 -- I'm just frankly not specifically certain myself of the details"
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace 2/12 - "It's clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
Top commander for the Persian Gulf region, Adm. William Fallon 2/13 -
"I have no idea who may be actually with hands-on in this stuff."
...well we can see this all s
February 14, 2007 - 11:16 ET by TruthMonger...well we can see this all shaping up in the usual fashion - the press laying their atypical delusions-of-grandeur "peacenik" groundwork again - in face of the evil warmongering neocons buried deep somewhere in Rove's secret bunker - who keep the generals out of the "real zionist loop" of course....
And so once more it's up to conservatives to do the world's dirty work - this time on Iran...
Can wait to be called a haliburton stooge and corporate whore terrorist by my local moonbat buds, yet again : ) . . .
Is this what Democrats really want?
February 14, 2007 - 11:08 ET by exLibDo Dems really want to neuter the US Military?
It appears so.
What the media and Dems seem to be saying is that due to the "Issues" with "intelligence" the US Military henceforth cannot go to war unless the US itself has been physically attacked, and we have the DNA evidence to go after "Exactly" who did it, and we know "Exactly" where they are and "No one else" gets killed. And of course a guarantee from the President that no Amercian Lives are lost.
...exactly!
February 14, 2007 - 11:28 ET by TruthMonger...exactly!
Exactly what?
February 14, 2007 - 20:59 ET by saurusCan we then assume this was the dems justification for not immediately retaliating in a meaningful way for the attacks on the US embassies in Africa? Or the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon? Or the attack on the USS Cole?
Or was is simply a case of "no stones."
Yeah - I thought so.
If I were George Bush I would
February 14, 2007 - 11:11 ET by BruzillaIf I were George Bush I would have General Pace's pelt nailed to a White House wall. The comments that he made were indicative if a sleezy defense lawyer or used car salesman, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. When you're capturing $15,000 rifles that were sold to the Iranian government, that can be easily identified and tracked using serial numbers, that are being used to kill U.S. and British soldiers in Iraq, I'm sure even the newest Marine private can see that the Iranian government is arming insurgents. The fact that General Pace is afraid to admit that blatant fact shows he's more worried about politicla ramifications than his troops, so I would fire his butt in a second.
Peter Pace and his comments
February 14, 2007 - 11:57 ET by Eric TurnerBeing a former intel guy who actually had the privilege to work for Peter Pace at SOUTHCOM it sounds more likely that he asked the question of his intel guys to show a definitive link between the weapons and absolute knowledge by the Iranian government of their transfer to subversive elements in Iraq. Now, as a commander once told me in Kuwait, you're only going to be right so often and the rest is just your best analysis of the information you have. Sometimes you have to go out on a limb.
I can't blame Pace for being vague in his answer as he knows many lives are on the line if he just conjectures the Iranian government is officially complicit in these actions. Let me give you an example. In Colombia there once was many assumptions that the Colombian Army and the Colombian military in general was in collusion with the "right-wing paramilitaries" (which is incorrectly labeled btw). After investigation and analysis it was determined that there was no official support of the "paramilitaries" by the Colombian military but individual support by low ranking officers and such. Hence, it would have been irresponsible of the US Gov't to stop support of the Colombian military. Take this and compare it to the Iranian situation.
Peter Pace needs to know if this is official collusion or just individual (anecdotal) support by low-ranking officers and other elements within the government or military.
Now, admittedly, we'd all like to think that it is official state sponsorship but it must be confirmed by intelligence - if possible (and indeed it is probably state sponsored). But Pace has to be as certain as possible before he can tell the President this.
Others (politicians) can be more liberal with their statements.
Good points Eric, but I think
February 14, 2007 - 14:11 ET by BruzillaGood points Eric, but I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Columbia is an internal disaster area, always has been, where the government control over anything is shaky at best. Iran is not. The political structure in Tehran maintains extremely tight control over everything that happens in that country... which makes it much different from Columbia.
But since you cited an example, I would like to cite one as well. Back in the early 1980s, I was a young aircrewman flying aboard Navy P-3C surveillance aircraft out of Jacksonville, FL. One mission that I flew was to go and take pictures of a cargo ship and a cruise ship that were travelling from the Soviet Union to Nicaragua. According to the Soviets, who adamently denied providing troops and equipment to Nicaragua at the time, the cargo ship was loaded with farm equipment, and the cruise ship was just a pleasure cruise for tourists.
We found the cargo ship first, and discovered it wasn't covered with tractors and balers, but basic Soviet Army troop trucks that had been painted John Deere green and Caterpiller yellow to look like farm equipment. We then located the "cruise"ship, and it was indeed a cruise ship. But as we started flying around it we didn't see hundreds of tourists coming out on deck to take pictures of us or wave, we saw that every passenger visible was a young man with a crew cut. Now there was no markings on the trucks that said "Soviet Army", and the troops were in civilian clothes and not wearing Soviet uniforms, but it didn't take a genius to conclude that we were looking at an effort to get troops and their support equipment into Nicaragua. We took lots of pictures that were sent to The White House as soon as we landed, and later that day President Reagan began outing what the Soviets were up to and the Soviets had to turn the ships around.
So when you have the DoD presenting over 100 pricey sniper rifles, that were purchased by the Iranian government under a special contract with Steyr and that can be positively tracked and identified by serial number, that were found in the hands of insurgents in Iraq, you shouldn't have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs talking to the press and saying "well, there's really no proof that Iran, or the Iranian government, is supplying arms." That guy should leave the equivicating to the politicians, or shut the Hell up and not talk to the press.
General Pace, in his effort to emphasize his sense of self importance by talking to the press, did nothing but give the idiots on the left a gleaming way to challenge the credibility of the valid evidence that the DoD presented. Thanks to General Pace's remarks, the DoD could capture Achma-iminajihad's brother with signed orders from the president himself in Iraq, and all the neysayers will do is say "well... you heard what General Pace said." All Pace did was cover his own ass, and put himself ahead of the DoD in the process, and I would fire him in a second for doing that.
Eric:I concur with your asses
February 14, 2007 - 17:28 ET by BDEric:
I concur with your assessment that you have to have better information before you can act at the highest levels such as the CJCS.
However, as I used to teach young analysts, sometimes you have to take what sketchy information you get and "Bet your Bars" on what you believe is going on.
To do any less as an analyst is to surrender the initiative.
Just my thoughts...
I absolutely agree on "b
February 14, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Eric TurnerI absolutely agree on "betting your bars" if needed. The problem with many analysts today is they are scared to do just that. Often, it's their job to do that though. I constantly tried to force my analysts to make that call and not be influenced by higher ranking officers or by indecision.
I just don't see anything wrong with what he's doing. I think politically he knows even if it is the Iranian government who is officially involved in this there is little that will be done. I could be wrong (and probably am). But the American government (Congress) and apparently the American people don't want to go to war with Iran. The MSM and the left will make sure this appears to be Bush's attempt to divert attention away from any perceived failure in Iraq.
Keep it CNN!
February 14, 2007 - 11:13 ET by blackrain4xmasThe more that nimrod asks, the better, and the harder it is to deny the Iranian involvement.
...and it's also great to TEL
February 14, 2007 - 11:31 ET by TruthMonger...and it's also great to TELL IRAN EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE HERE IN OUR MILITARY KNOWS ABOUT THEM IN HGHLY COMPRIMISING DETAIL : ) !
Another fine terrorist-and-dictator-supporting service of our beloved MSM...
Strongly suggest all on sit
February 14, 2007 - 11:21 ET by JDWStrongly suggest all on site dems read Henry's comments at least 7 times.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Sympathies for President Bush
February 14, 2007 - 11:28 ET by ucSympathies for President Bush: Just now having watched him square off against the White House Press I was left remembering tales of Galileo sharing views of the likes of Eratosthenes and his own ideas about the universe revolving around the sun with the Church.
For the record, I had to search to find Eratosthenes contributions to modern common sense.
What a cluster F**k!!! I sw
February 14, 2007 - 12:13 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWhat a cluster F**k!!! I swear, when did generals and secretaries of defense get to make public statements... they need to be filtered throught the White House and only durring statements to Congress should they ever give their open opinion. The reason these guys are so cagey is that this Administration has allowed previous subordinates to be flayed and skewered in the public arena... so they're naturally gun shy (pardon the pun).
Everyone knows Iran is the culprit... and it's high time we bomb those bastards back to the stone age.... a little past the 7th century AD, but ah well, thems the breaks.
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
I don't see the problem
February 14, 2007 - 13:05 ET by SportPoliticsI don't see the problem. Why play into the insane left party game ?
What do I care, or does anyone care what a single general or joint chief of staff said ?
Frankly I'm amazed at this whole charade. It is a charade, you know.
" Now the question is, does it go all the way to the top, in Iran ? "
Yeah, well, it always goes all the way to the top here, so what's the issue again ?
Oh the media is really fright
February 14, 2007 - 12:15 ET by sembyIn watching the liberal MSM
February 14, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Dave RIn watching the liberal MSM's coverage of all this, I am now convinced that they are not going to acknowledge Iran's involvement in Iraq even if they had video of Ahmedinijihad himself passing out Iranian made weapons from the back of an Iranian truck and handing them to Iranian's who are actually in Iraq.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Speaking of Bizzaro World
February 14, 2007 - 13:15 ET by acumenJust when you think the mediacrats could not possibly become more anal.......
Obviously, the mediacrats consider parsing the limited possibilities of the definition of 'is' to be more benificial to our troops/country than acknowledging the purchaser of questionable weapons be held responsible for their whereabouts.
Speaking of bizzaro world - This framework of administration interrogating is almost as bizarre as the the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality postponing their scheduled "warming of the planet" hearing today due to an ice storm.