recovery and the dramatic new message she has for her constituents. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzerment you're in "the situation room." first the battle for the white house. the issue is national security on cnn. i'll be moderating a debate tuesday night right here in washington with the republican presidential contenders. and with the spotlight getting brighter on those at the front of the pack, they could have the potential to -- the potential to be a game changer. joining us now for a preview, danielle pletka. she is with the american enterprise institute. james carafano, director for foreign policy at the heritage foundation and norm orenstein. he also writes a weekly column for "roll call." i want to point out the debate will be co-sponsored by the american enterprise institute and heritage foundation. thanks to both of your organizations for helping us with that as well. let's get to what you're looking for, danielle. first to you. what is the single most important national security foreign policy issue you want clarified tuesday night? >> there are two things that are really important. what is the next president or the next wanna be president going to do about iran? and what is the next president going to do about afghanistan? those are two huge challenges. >> those are big challenges. are those on the top of your list? >> it s it's all about character. every president faces a challenge nobody thought of before they get elected. and the policy positions they have now may not be relevant for a year from now. what you're really concerned about is what kind of commander in chief is this person going to be? that's the big issue. >> how big is national security and foreign plcy? i know the economy is issue number one. but voters out there want clarification on who's going to be a good commander in chief. >> well, this is really important for the country. voters right now, it hasn't been as important. but i think james has a very good point which is we do in the end look at candidates through that prism, commander in chief. remember that ad in 2008, the 3:00 a.m. phone call. if you have a candidate who woken up at 3:00 a.m. and says i don't knee anything about that, go back to the national security adviser, you're going to have some misgivings even if in every other particular the voters like him. >> so it's a big deal. want to play this report. barbara starr prepared it. she's taking a look at this very subject. watch this and then we'll discuss. >> the mystery continues. u.s. intelligence now believes iran was mixing highly will have tile rocket fuel when it exploded killing this powerful iranian general and more than a dozen others. two u.s. officials tell cnn the fuel was for a large ballistic missile, the kind of missile that iran could eventually use to carry a nuclear warhead. the facility is part of iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. many sites are deep underground. if president obama were to order a strike, the air force has a new weapon. these 30,000 pound bombs. carried by b-2 or b-52 bombers with more than 5,000 pounds of explosives, kit penetrate 200 feet underground before detonating. >> it gives us a far greater capability to reach and destroy an enemy's weapons of mass destruction. >> reporter: the pentagon doesn't want to say publicly it's all about iran. >> the system is not aimed at any one country. >> reporter: while the administration plays the not so subtle message, republican candidates have been talking tough as well. some wonder if they're going too far. >> maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the iranian program including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems. >> and working a covert basis to encourage the dissidents. >> i hope we've been doing everything we can covertly. >> reporter: retired army intelligence generals james mark says it's a bad idea to talk openly about secret actions. >> we don't have to talk about that, nor should anyone who wants to go into public office. so what we see with current debates and discussions about covert operations specifically against iran or other potential nations or entities should be eliminated. that needs to stop. >> reporter: expert say one of the reasons candidates should stop talking about all of this, they might inadvertently ruin an on going covert operation against iran if there was one under way. barbara starr, cnn, the pentagon. >> let's bring back our panel. too much discussion of covert operations potential by these republican candidates as far as iran is concerned? >> i don't think there is too much discussion of anything. i think the american people need to know. i think we also need to recognize, we don't live in a vacuum. the iranians are listening. our allies are listening. a lot of people are worried about a country that's going to have a nuclear weapon very soon. >> with the exception of ron paul, the other republican candidates basically, correct me if i'm wrong, james, seem to be on the same page as far as iran is concerned including the potential option if necessary of military force. >> i think that's a fair assessment. of course, what makes it tough for these guys is when the next guy puts his hand on the bible, things can be dra mat matically different. >> like what? >> we could have an israeli military strike. quo have a breakout from iran. we could have the iranian government, have another green revolution. so a lot of things can happen between now and then. so it's very, very hard to say this is what i'm going to do. boy, it could be a very different part of the world. >> it is true the republicans -- at least the republican candidates with the exception of ron paul, maybe john huntsman but the others are hawkish than president obama is right now when it comes to iran and its nuclear program? >> there certainly much more hawkish in rhetoric right now. but what we do see, of course, is inevitably you're going to have political demands. waunt to sh you want to show that your tough. but you got to be a little bit careful for just the reasons that we've been talking about. not only now, mine, you know, we've had snucks net and assassinations of scientistses. we had an explosion last week. the definition of covert is secret and concealed. and you don't want to start talking about things that put the blame back on us. i don't know who is responsible for those things. i don't want to know. so there is a little bit of a danger here that really is the clash between domestic politics and the real realities of foreign policy. >> you may not want to know, but i'd like to know. i'm a curious guy. i'm sure all of would you say like to know. these are classified operations, whoever is responsible for them. at that last republican debate, danielle, michelle bachmann, the congresswoman from minnesota, she is running for president, she said this. >> the table is being set for worldwide nuclear war against israel. if there's anything that we know, president obama has been more than willing to stand with occupy wall street. he hasn't been willing to stand with israel. >> worldwide nuclear war against israel. sort of jumped out at me. what did you think of that? >> i think what she's eluding to is once the fact iran gets a weapon if, they get a weapon, and many of us believe they will, then other countries in the regions have suggested they're going to be next. the saudis have said it blankly. the egyptians said brit mu bbar was overthrown. what about the turks? then there is the syrians. we don't even know who is going to be in power in syria. but what there is the potential for a real nuclear cascade in the region. once we see that, all bets are off. >> you think that there's no daut that these sanctions are not going to work and then in the end iran will have a nuclear weapons program? >> i spent the last quarter century looking at iran's sanctions. they haven't worked up until now. the eiranians are closing to a sanction. why would the next nail in the coffin actually persuade them when they're this close? >> how close do you think iran is right now to actually having that nuclear weapons capability? >> anybody that gives you the answer to that question, don't trust them. i think we're living inside the margin of error. i don't think we're going to know when the breakout occurs. and what people forget is north korea and iran who routinely share information between the two of them, they can speed up the program in ways we can't imagine. >> herman cain, he is one of the frontrunners. there are sexual allegations and blunders he made on national security and foreign policy. let me play this clip four. i want to talk about the republican brand and national security. listen to this. >> i do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason -- that's a different line. i got to go back. i have all this stuff twirling around in my head glchlt he is ready to be commander in chief? >> it was interesting that michelle bachmann actually has attacked him frontally saying you got to be ready on day one to be commander in chief. i think, you know, what his campaign said afterwards is well he was operating on less than four hours of sleep. that takes us back to the 3:00 a.m. phone call. you are going to say i only had four hours of sleep? call me again in four hours? i think it's something that he is going to have to deal with in a fashion much better than he has. and this debate is going to be a challenge for him. i think maybe an opportunity. >> you know, danielle, over the years national security, that's been a strength of the republican party over the years. is he hurting the republican brand? >> i don't think any of these candidates are hurting the brand. i think what we're providing, all of us, is an opportunity for these candidates to talk more and more and more. it's really up to the public to decide exactly who has the medal to be the next candidate to face president obama. i hate the idea that we're going to spend all of our time fixating on little snip its where people make mistakes. it is about character as jim said. it isn't about knowing what the capital is at a particular moment. >> this was not just the capital of a particular moment. this was basically a simple question about libya. >> but tuesday night is really different. this is an open book test. it's 90 minutes on foreign policy. they have had plenty of time to get ready. i don't think anybody is going to have an excuse that they're getting caught blindsided on this one. all u.s. troops will be out of iraq by the end of this year, by the end of december. this was a deal that president bush made before he left office. and now that president obama is being criticized because residual force of a few thousand is not able to remain in iraq. i want you to listen to what the secretary of state hillary clinton told our reporter on the road this week. >> that agreement dating to 2008 has been implemented. the only way we can defend our people, protect them, is through private contractors. >> thousands of american diplomats, aid workers, others remaining in iraq. they're not going to have the u.s. military to protect them. they may have iraqi military to protect them. they're ready to accept all that iraqi forces. >> we have this debate between the republicans and democrats. >> there is a little delicacy here. there was an agreement made by president bush, of course, we know that the troops are coming out because the u.s. couldn't reach a deal with the maliki government about whether we would have protection for those. >> immunity. >> immunity. frankly, the reality is that the impact of this on the election is going to come on the ground. what's going to happen after those troops are gone. that will redoundn in president obama. it's event driven, i think, more than anything else. >> all three of you will be with me at that debate. constitution hall, tuesday night, 8:00 p.m. eastern only here on cnn. thanks very much for coming in. >> thanks, wolf. >> a surge in the polls has newt gingrich in the spotlight right now. now he's facing serious questions about his very profitable ties with the backdrop mortgage giant freddie mac. and gab rielle giffords rod to roofrry. this is the relief i've been looking for. salonpas has 2 powerful pain fighting ingredients that work for up to 12 hours. and my pharmacist told me it's the only otc pain patch approved for sale using the same rigorous clinical testing that's required for prescription pain medications. proven. powerful. safe. salonpas. it's good. honey, i love you... oh my gosh, oh my gosh.. look at these big pieces of potato. ♪ what's that? big piece of potato. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. [ whooping ] ♪ it was the best day ♪ it was the best day ♪ ♪ it was the best day ♪ 'cause of you we make a great pair. huh? progressive and the great outdoors! we make a great pair. right, totally. that's what i was thinking. all kinds of vehicles, all kinds of savings. multi-policy discounts from progressive. call or click today. the political hot water for republican presidential hopeful gingrich after making a jump to the top of the polls is face being serious questions about his ties to a number of big companies. there are new reports this think-tank collected tens of millions of dollars from the health care industry. we also learned this week he was paid more than a million dollars by the troubled mortgage giant freddie mac. let's bring in our own brian todd who is investigating this part of the story for us. what you are learning? >> this new information about gingrich's compensation at freddie mac and what he did for them presents tough new questions for the candidate, especially considering his campaign rhetoric in recent days. listen to his comments at a "washington post" bloomberg news debate. >> if you want to put people in jail, i want to second what michelle said. you have to start with barney frank and chris dodd and look at the politician that's created the environment. and the politicians who put this country in trouble. >> clearly not saying they should go to jail. >> and chris dodd's case, go back and look at the countryside deals. barney frank's case, look at the lobbyist who is close to that freddie mac. >> but there are new questions about gingrich's own connections to freddie mac. cnn confirmed from sources in position to know, information first reported by bloomberg news that gingrich was paid between $1.6 million and $1.8 million for two separate stints at freddie mac. from 1999 when he left congress to 2002, and from 2006 to 2008. asked if the money figure is accurate? >> i don't know. >> reporter: what did he do for freddie mac? gingrich said he offered advice as a historian, telling freddie mac officials that lending to people with no credit history was a mistake. elater said strategic adviser, contacted at cnn, four people worked for freddie mac while gingrich was there, disagreed with his role as historian. one said his role is strategic. bloomberg cites officials saying the former house speaker was asked to build bridges to capitol hill republicans. i spoke with bob edgar of the liberal group common cause which advocates for more trans pair eni government. >> what does that seem like to you? when you're paying over a million dollars to build bridges with capitol hill, you're buying a lobbyist, you're buying somebody with your money that can connect with you members of congress. you don't hire a historian to do that. you don't hire someone just to give you polite advice. you hire somebody who makes those relationships work. and that's lobbying whether you are registered or not. that is hard core lobbying. >> reporter: a characterization that gingrich further denies. >> i did no lobbying at all. that's all i got to say about it. >> now it would not have been illegal for him to have lobbied for freddie mac unless he it that fist year he was employed by them right after he left congress. we checked federal records and found nothing indicating he was a registered lobbyist. freddie mac would only say that gingrich was a consultant but did not lobby for them. >> we're getting other details on what he did exactly for freddie mac. >> that's right. a former official at freddie mac told us that gingrich was consulted about freddie mac's efforts to become more transparent about risk and capital management and how the efforts would be received by republicans in congress. this person said gingrich was also consulted at one point about the company's efforts to bond with the bush administration, bringing more minorities into homeownership, this at a time when republicans overall were really against the whole idea of having a fannie and freddie there. again, important work and important work as far as the political implications with republicans. technically, not physically lobbying for them. >> who els was freddie mac paying? fannie mae paying for that matter even as both of those operations are in serious financial trouble? lisa sylvester is here with that part of the story giving us a little bit more perspective. >> that's right, wolf. newt gingrich has spoken out blaming fannie mae and freddie mac for contributing to the housing crisis. he has received more than $1.5 million from freddie mac. it turns out he was not the only congressional lawmaker who went through the revolving door and ended up with big checks from freddie mac. this restaurant? washington, d.c., was one of freddie mac's chief lobbyist mitchell dealt's favorite spots to wine and dine politicians. records show freddie mac held 85 fundraisers for federal candidates between 2000 and 2003, raising more than $1.5 million for them. many of the lawmakers being honored sat on the house financial services committee, a congressional panel charged with overseeing freddie mac and fannie mae. the federal election commission found this to be a blatant violation of federal law and fined freddie mac $3.8 million, the largest fec fine ever. but this was only part of freddie mac's strategy to curry favor among federal lawmakers. freddie mac at the time was trying to fend off calls for new oversight and regulation. lobbying records show the federally backed mortgage lender spent more than $50 million between 2003 and 2006 just on lobbying. >> both fannie mae and freddie mac were major political players. they were spending millions of dollars each year on lobbying, if not tens of millions of dollars and they were incredibly well connected organizations. >> reporter: among those paid to advise freddie mac was former house speaker neutrnewt gingric. he was paid more than $1.5 million by freddie mac. he denies he ever lobbied for them and insisted he tried to warn them they were headed to financial disaster. >> i said to them at the time this is a bubble. this is insane. this is impossible. >> reporter: freddie mac and fannie mae ended up having to be bailed out by federal taxpayers and was put in a conservatorship in 2007. up until then it had a roster of lobbyists that read luke a who's who in washington? former congressman vin webber, susan mull nari, alfonse d'amato, susan hershman among them. howard marlot with the american league of lob yists says often the line between adviser consultant and registered lobbyist can be blurry. >> i can't speak to mr. gingrich or anybody else. i have no idea what they were doing. we do know that in terms of people who are actually doing lobbying or evolved with lobbyists in planning lobbying that there is a lot that is not registered. >> i called freddie mac for a response and told "we're not discussing past practices that we are no longer engaged in." in 2008 they folded up the lobbying operations. >> what a storey. and it's not going away. almost a year after -- almost being assassinated, cong